kbarnstein@alumni.depaul.edu

My background: I'm currently serving as the head coach at Maine East, after many years of serving as an assistant. For much of the past 7 years, I judge an average of 15-20 rounds on the topic. I debated at Maine East HS back in the late 90s & early 00s for four seasons under the tutelage of Wayne Tang. As such, I tend to lean towards a policy making approach that seeks the best policy option. I tend to view topicaliy/theory through a prism of fairness and education. I don't mind listening to debates about what debate should be. I default to viewing the plan as the focus of the debate.

If you are running a K, I like the links to be as specific to the affirmative's advocacy as possible. If your alternative doesn't make sense, that means that the affirmative must be worse than the status quo for you to win your K.

I strongly dislike reading your evidence after the round- I expect the debaters to do that work in the round. If I call for a card, it will typically be to verify that it says what you say it says. I will not give you the benefit of warrants you did not explain, however I may give the other team the benefit of the card not saying what you said it did.

she/her

please add kaitlyndebate@gmail.com to the email chain

water topic:

I have judged very few rounds on the water topic. please be thorough in your explanations of arguments/concepts, especially more technical ones like topicality

top level

I debated at gbn for four years as a 2a/1n

don't call me "judge," kaitlyn is just fine

please be respectful to your opponents - racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc will obviously not be tolerated

the most enjoyable debates to watch are ones in which both teams have a good grasp of the bigger picture, especially in the final rebuttals. tell me what is most important to my decision and win that, otherwise I will have to make decisions on my own that might not always go in your favor. impact calc is essential to any good 2nr/2ar

I will try to have my camera on during online debates, and I prefer that all debaters do as well. if there are outstanding tech issues, exceptions can be made

all of my notes below are lists of my general biases, but I think everything is up for debate in a round. I will attempt to be as open as possible when deciding

disads

I love them, there's not much that can go wrong here. case-specific disads are the best, obviously. turns case, when carded and used well, is very strategic

politics debates can be very fun when done well, and the most important part is often the overall "story" of the disad. make sure your story is present throughout the debate

aff teams should have a "counter-story" of the disad - how does your aff interact with the disad? also, straight turning politics is really fun

counterplans

I have gone for my fair share of "cheaty" counterplans, and thus will probably understand your consult cp. however, the more complex/cheaty your cp gets, the easier it is for an aff team to come up with a good perm that resolves all of the internal links

solvency deficits must have an impact that outweighs the impact to the disad - the more impact calculus, the better

theory

most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, not the team - condo is the one exception. Don't be afraid to go for condo, but if there's a way you can win on substance I will be much happier as theory debates are often difficult to resolve

judge kick is an extension of conditionality that is not always justified. debate it

re: theory that's in the 1nc but isn't in the doc/is hidden in some way - it's probably stupid, and the aff probably gets new answers

topicality

I read what most people consider to be untopical policy affs, so I appreciate an aff that is able to stretch the topic in an interesting way. that said, you need to have a good defense of legal precision/predictability to hedge back on the neg's (most likely very persuasive) limits impacts. these debates, if well-researched, can be very fun

legal precision > contextual precision > limits > ground > education

impact turns

they're a fun time. go wild

kritiks

ks I am familiar with - security, set col, neolib (all the basic policy ks). anything else and I will need much more explanation. however, if a neg team is thorough in their explanation of their theory and how it impacts the round, I could see myself voting for them

on the aff - affs that either have an extinction outweighs and framework push or can interact with the k in an interesting way are the most persuasive to me

I generally feel that the aff should be able to weigh the impacts of the plan

perfcon is a viable argument that the aff gets to sever their reps

framing contentions

Not the biggest fan. if you do read one, you need to debate down the disad or I will be very hesitant to do that work for you just because you mentioned the conjunctive fallacy. counterplans are a very good way to obviate the framing contention

k affs

I'm probably not the judge for you. I tend to think t-usfg is true and there is usually a topical version of the aff. however, if you have an impact turn or disad you can read on the neg, that's a much more fun debate

aff teams probably need a good (read: predictable and limiting) counter-interp and a persuasive disad to the neg's model to win

clipping

L & 25 if caught clipping, but the other team should have recorded evidence (as I will not be listening for it) and be willing to stake the round on it. if you get caught clipping, you get an L and 25s. if you stake the round on it and no clipping took place/you have no evidence, you get an L and 25s

Debated at Missouri State and graduated in 2004

Executive Director of DEBATE-Kansas City until 2017

Assistant Coach and then Head Coach at Barstow starting in 2018

Online update - I have done little online judging, so I don't know how it may alter my ability to understand top-end speed. Based on the other judges, it seems going a touch slower and focusing on clarity helps judges get more on the flow.

Yes, I want to be on the chain, and please be as efficient as possible with the emailing. Email: gabe.cook@barstowschool.org.

I am open to almost any argument, but I defer policy. I like a compelling narrative, especially in the link debate. I value both technical skills and argumentative truth. Clarity and flowability will increase speaker points and chances of winning.

T - I defer to reasonability on T and I do not mind larger topics. That doesn’t mean I won’t vote on T if you win the argument. Limits can be the cleanest standard for the neg to win but I also find ground loss important to provide context. I want both sides to explain the model of debate your interp creates and impact why it’s comparatively better.

K-AFF/Framework - I am fine with kritik affs, but I will also vote neg on framework. TVAs can be persuasive for the neg, and both sides should focus on what their model means for debate. I believe k affs need a topic link and a clear method for the negative engage. I lean towards believing you do not get a perm in a method vs. method debate.

Case - Here is where I copy and paste from every judge paradigm and say I want more case debate. I dislike AFFs with lousy internal links, and I will reward NEGs that take the time to point out flaws in AFF ev.

K - You need a specific link, and I appreciate it when debaters use lines from the 1AC to get a link. I am open to voting on presumption/turns case. But you need to explain how the K actually eliminates solvency and/or turns the case, and contextual examples help. I am most familiar with core kritiks like neolib or security, comfortbale with settler colonialism, anti-blakcness, and most pomo stuff. High theory Ks like Baudrillard are my least favorite, and I am the least familiar with them. This means you should define key terms from your literature.

By default, I evaluate ontology, epistemology, discourse, and AFF consequences through the lens of link and impact rather than as something resolved or excluded by debate theory.

NEG FLEX - I generally believe the negative should have the flexibility to run a K and disads as long as they don't try to create and go for double turns.

DA - The starting place is to be on the right side uniqueness. Then I need a compelling link story contextualized to the AFF. Impact comparison is obviously essential. I will vote on effective AFF criticism and/or takeouts of low probability disads.

When I debated I went for politics often, and I still cut a lot of politics cards. For me, uniqueness research determines the viability of any politics DA. I don’t like forcing a story because of the links or impacts. I appreciate nuanced and clever link stories, and I will reward NEG teams that have a compelling link story.

CP - I like core of the topic CPs and smart PICs. I dislike process CPs with little topic literature that compete only at a textual level. I also dislike consultation CPs. This doesn't mean I refuse to vote for them, but that I am receptive to theoretical objections and solvency arguments.

Condo/Advocacy Theory - I believe the fairest standard is to give the NEG one conditional CP and one conditional K. Or I think you can have unlimited dispositional advocacies. The more advocacies the neg runs, the more grounds the aff has for a condo argument.

Points

29.6 – 30 – Approaching perfection to perfect.

29.1-29.5 – Excellent

28.5 – 29 – Above average to very good.

28.4 – Average

28.3– 27.7 – Slightly below average to below average

27.6 – 27 – Below average to well below average.

26.9 and below – Bad to potentially offensive.

Pronouns - him/he\they
Email - abraham.corrigan@gmail.com, acorrigan1@glenbrook225.org

Hello!

Thank you for considering me for your debate adjudication needs. I aspire to be the judge I wanted when I debated, namely one who was flexible and would judge the debate based purely on arguments made by debaters. To do that, I seek to be familiar with all common debate arguments and literature bases <i.e. everything which has historically been read in debates past or on this particular topic, I am the nerd who when I got to GBS the first thing I did was sit down and read through every backfile> such that my own ignorance will not be a barrier to judging the arguments you want to go for. This is an ongoing process and aspiration for me rather than an end point, but in general I would <somewhat unfortunately> say I have above average knowledge related to NATO & US policy regarding it.

<*Judging Quirks*>

- I have absolutely zero poker face and will make a lot of non verbals. Please do not interpret these as concrete/100% definitive opinions of mine but rather as an expression of my initial attempts to place your argument within the particular context of the other arguments advanced in a debate.

- All arguments are evaluated within their particular context - Especially on the negative, as a debater in high school and college I went for and won a lot of debates on arguments which would be described, in a vacuum, as 'bad.' Sometimes, all you have to say is a turd and your rebuttal speeches will largely be what some of my judges described as 'turd-shinning.' This means (unless something extreme is happening which is unethical or triggering my mandatory reporter status as a public school employee) I generally prefer to let the arguments advanced in the debate dictate my view of what is and what isn't a 'good' argument.

- I am not a 'k' or 'policy' judge. I am a 'story' judge. If you look at my record, the thing which most unites the teams which have success in front of me is not their ability to repeat the arguments I ran or coach teams ro run, instead it is the ability to tell a complete story that resolves the points of tension identified in the debate.

<*My Debate History*>

I am a 2a. This means, if left to my own devices and not instructed not to look for this, the thing that I will implicitly try to do is identify a way to leave stuff better than we found it.

High School

- I debated at H-F HS, in Illinois, for my first two years of debate where I was coached by creeps.

- My junior & senior year in HS I transfered to Glenbrook South where I was coached most by Tara Tate (now retired from debate), Calum Matheson (now at Pitt), & Ravi Shankar (former NU debater).

My partner and I largely went for agenda politics da & process cps or impact turns. We were a bit k curious, but mostly read what would be described as 'policy' arguments.

College

- I debated in college for 4 years at Gonzaga where I was coached by Glen Frappier (still DoF at GU), Steve Pointer (now [mostly] retired from debate), Jeff Buntin (current DoD at NU), Iz-ak Dunn (currently at ASU), & Charles Olney (now [mostly] retired from debate).

My partner and I largely went for what is now be described as 'soft left' arguments on the affirmative and impact turns and unusual counterplans when we were negative.

Coaching

- After graduating, I coached at Northwestern University for a year. My assignments were largely 2ac answers & stuff related to translating high theory arguments made by other teams into things our less k debaters could understand.

- I then moved to Lexington, Kentucky and coached at the University of Kentucky for two years. My assignments were largely aff & all things 2a & answering k stuff on the negative.

- I then coached/did comm graduate work at Wake Forest for two years.

- I then took a break from debate and worked as a paralegal at a law firm which was focused on civil lawsuits against police, prisons, whistleblower protections as well as doing FOIA requests for Buzzfeed.

- I then came back to debate, did some logistics for UK, then Mrs. Corrigan got the GBS job & the rest is history!

I debated for Iowa City West High for 4 years graduating in 2016. I was a policy/Cap debater for all four of those years. I am going to be a good judge for policy and a bad one for kritikal arguments.

Put me on the email chain:daleev01@luther.edu

T – I’m fine with this. Please explain why your interp better than your opponents and what the impacts are on the flow.

DA’s – These are also cool. Links need to be specific to the aff, I don’t really know the technical terms for this topic so you probably need to talk in a little more layman’s terms for me.

K’s – I have very little knowledge of Identity and Postmodern K’s. You will need to do allot of explanation on these to win, and to explain it without jargon. I would like to see specific links to the aff, and aff specific answers to the K. I tend to dislike K Affs, and tend to buy common framework arguments made against them, I feel that you should read a plan text/advocacy statement/ect. that is topical. The long and short is that I am not going to be a good K judge

CP’s – This are fine as well. A well executed counterplan is one of my favorite debates.

Case – a good case debate is the best debate that can be had. In-depth work with cards on both side and good analytics were, and remain my favorite part of debate.

# of years debated in HS 4 

# of years debated in College 4 What College/University University of Central Missouri

Currently a (check all that apply)  X Head HS Coach

____College Coach    X College Debater

____Debate Fan who regularly judges HS debate

# of rounds on this year’s HS Topic 12

What paradigm best describes your approach to debate?

_____Policy Maker   X Stock Issues _____Tabula Rasa

_____Games Player _____Hypothesis Tester _____Other (Explain)

What do you think the Aff burdens should be?

 The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution

What do you think the Neg burdens should be?

 The Negative has presumption, but they should argue both on and off case.

How I feel about delivery (slow vs. fast)?

 This is a communication event.

How I feel about generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks?

 I will listen to DA, CP, and K. However, I am not interested in perfomance debate--please adapt.

How I feel about case debates?

 the Affirmative MUST win case.

Other Comments/Suggestions:

gbn '21

she/her

add me to the email chain - 210338@glenbrook225.org

general:

-be nice!!

-yes, tag team cx is ok, but don't take over your partner's cx

-clarity > speed (also please signpost)

-tech > truth, but impact it out. a dropped argument doesn't matter unless you tell me why it matters.

-I will NOT tolerate any racist, homophobic, sexist, ableist, or otherwise harmful rhetoric. debate needs to be a safe environment for everyone.

kritiks:

love em (probably more than the average gbn debater). however, this doesn't mean you get to plow through some obscure postmodern literature with minimal explanation. specific links (more than just generic state links please) and contextualization to the aff will make me happy.

please be able to articulate your framework beyond prewritten blocks - this goes for aff v. k as well.

disads:

specific links, impact calc, and turns case analysis please!

counterplans:

yes, cheaty process cps are fine - I go to gbn, remember?

topicality:

I didn't go to camp, so I don't really have any preconceived notions of what is topical this year. as a result, I'll be paying close attention to how you impact out the t debate.

k affs:

if this is your thing, go for it. tbh, I'd prefer if novices read a plan text or at least some actionable statement, but I'm open to be challenged on that.

Brice Hansen

PGPs: he/him, they/them (no preference)

Email: bricedhansen@gmail.com

as of 10/28/21
About me:
-I debated for 4 years at La Crosse Central High school in Wisconsin being bounced back and forth between PF and Policy. I am now on my 8th year of judging/assistant coaching. I graduated from UW-La Crosse in 2020 with a major in political science focusing on political theory and ideology and a minor in math education. Currently I am a Graduate student at the University of Minnesota Twin Cities in a Social Studies Master's Degree and Teacher Licensure program.

Paradigm as a Judge:
-As a debater who was thrown around between PF and Policy, I enter a round open to being told how I should judge the round. However if neither side argues the role of the judge/ballot/framing beyond the round, I will likely default to a role as a policy maker. Either way I still expect a full debate. I really enjoy K's (on aff or neg) just make sure you have and can explain the link. Framework is first priority in evaluating the round. If framework isn't read, then for most intents and purposes you can consider me a "policy judge," though I don't hold any strict views as to how a round should go or be evaluated.


Specifics:

Open CX- if it's your turn to ask questions and your partner asks the majority of them you'll probably both lose speaker points

Please include me in the email chain: bricedhansen@gmail.com

Arguments: I love framework. I don’t hold any "strict" views on the role of the ballot or of the judge so I leave it to the debaters to shape that. I love K’s, they're good and fair-ground.
There are arguments/authors I will not validate or listen to, a few are listed here (please don't make me add more):

*

low Speed = bad / faster speed = better

any card from Jordan Peterson, Ben Shapiro, or any other author that makes claims of "race blindness" or uses biology pseudoscience to justify racist social/political theory.

cards and authors that actively support the oppression of peoples

Timecube
*

Delivery: In novice debates I never really expect speed. In a round I'll give everyone 1 warning. If the speaker doesn't slow down or clear up their speech I may stop flowing parts that aren't understandable or only record what I can keep up with, as well I will give leeway to the other team missing arguments or cards because they couldn't catch it. In other words, if you read like 14 one-sentence CP's and perms back to back I might only get down 7 of them, I might actively refuse to acknowledge any of them because I think it's malpractice and absolutely and laughably ridiculous. So just like don't do that, you're better than that.

Different Cases: I’ll listen to non-traditional affs, performance affs, and kritikal affs. In fact, I'd encourage you to test one out or run one. Just be ready for a Topicality/framework. I will not vote neg on T/FW on my own just to intervene against a non-traditional, performance, or K-Aff. If you want to win on T, framework, or a call of abuse it has to be the focus of your last rebuttal and evident, otherwise I won't give it much weight in what the round came down to.

Theory & Framework: I like good theory debates, but I need to know how it is relevant for me to care about it. If your fighting to win/view the round in a framework, you should be consistent with that and not just treat as a "hail-mary" argument from your first speech; pull yours through and weigh in your framework throughout the round.

Honestly, framework is huge in round and plays a huge role in how I evaluate the round. If you want to go for FW you can't drop it in any speech. If framework isn't contested, then isn't brought up until the 2nr/2ar I will not weigh it. FW doesn't get just to be opportunistically used, it must be used consistently to be considered valid praxis.

Topicality: T is important, but I won't just default a neg vote on T without it being the focus of the 2nr. I've voted for untopical plans before because T and abuse wasn't the focus of the rebuttals, and I will do so again. Right now I'd say T is best used as an argument when a plan text hinders the ability of a team to have a functional debate on the terms the 1ac sets, and/or is well beyond the span of the topic/resolution. If abuse isn't evident in the negative block and isn't the focus of the 2nr, I will not intervene for the neg and they will probably not win T.

In round let's be reasonable on T, not oblivious. If a team uses a common acronym such as USFG, and you're not sure what they mean just ask. Unless the team is using them to intentionally mislead, don't try to make some abstract T argument on it and claim they stand for something completely unrelated to the resolution like "United States Faceters Guild." Be reasonable about things, don't try to just strictly rulemonger in a nonconstructive way. If you want to go for an executive or courts CP that's fine, I don't make an assumption on what branch of the USFG the aff's actor is so there's merit to those CP's, just ask in CX what branch(es) the actor is. I don't like presumption on A-Spec when CX after the 1ac can resolve it. The aff gets to reserve clarification of the acting branch(es) for CX after the 1ac should it become a question, if you don't ask them about it then go for a-spec you are actively wasting everyone's time and it's clear as glass. 

DAs: If the disad’s uniqueness, link, and/or impact has been defeated or torn apart I’m not likely to weigh any of the DA other than evidence and arguments that apply to other areas in my decision. On DA's I look heavily at the risk of impact and the minimum impact it may have in a situation if it has any. Cross-applying DA's to other flows is fair game and more teams should remember that it's a thing they can do.

CPs: I will still flow through and apply any evidence and arguments you made if you kick a CP, I won't let you remove arguments from a round only your advocacy for the CP. Fiat and competitiveness are fair-ground arguments for me and I will listen to them. Really I'll listen to pretty much any argument you make on CP's but will not strike the evidence and arguments you presented from the round.

Kritiks: K's are good, I enjoy them. I've voted for and against all kinds of K's so don't expect any K to immediately win or lose you the round, I can personally agree with your K and vote against it based on the round or disagree with aspects of your K but vote for it. I don't have a preference to whichever K you run; you won't lose a round for running a K I'm not as personally experienced with, just run a K whose link makes sense for the plan. On alt; the alt can be an advocacy, but you should be able to explain what your advocacy/alt is and be able to point out where you made the argument for it in your cards. Be consistent with your 'alt,' redefining what your advocating in rebuttals is analogous to changing your CP so try to avoid doing that. If you wanna run clash of the K's between a K-aff and a K on the neg, I'm up for it, make it constructive though and remember not every K is exclusive to others.

Role of the aff and neg: I tend to view the role of the aff to present a plan and/or defend the resolution, and the role of the neg is to negate that. I may be the judge but I don't set the rules of debate, I just have a say over what is fair. If you feel that the resolution is insufficient for the moment as the aff then go beyond and make the case why the resolution isn't enough, the debate space is a space for advocacy and the discussion of ideas so it's vital to have that discussion here. Just don't mistake settling for the resolution and presenting a plan as the end of one's advocacy, dual power is an important praxis and there may be many other plans a team may wish to advocate for but only can pick one for this space.

Other Things to consider:
My favorite techniques and practices in a round are explaining arguments and weighing the round in common terms so that there is no confusion. It makes my job easier and lets everyone do a better job in round of both learning the topic and arguing on it.

When deciding on a winner I look at what points were emphasized in the rebuttals and then the net impacts on the flow. I’ll look at it through whatever frames I’m asked to look at it through otherwise I’ll decide on which side presents the best policy in the round. I am a really big fan of world-by-world comparisons in the 2r's.

Framework is HUGE. If the 1ac reads framework and it isn't contested in the 1nc, and then is extended in the 2ac, then that is probably how I will be evaluating the round if it's pulled through in every speech. If FW is not argued in the 1nc and not mentioned in the 2ac, just consider the framework dead and weightless if/when used in the rebuttals, and me really disappointed.

I have a tendency to see the 2NR and 2AR as speeches that narrow down each side to their final arguments. It's not that 1R's are less important they're like the staging grounds for the final arguments, but if you intend to win on something then bring it up in the 2R. I don't want to vote on something you aren't convinced you won on, and if you are convinced you won an argument and are convinced that it should win you the round, it better be in the 2R.

Hot takes:

If climate change/warming bad is your impact, you don't need to read an impact card. Anyone who doesn't understand the scope of warming impacts, needs/wants it explained to them, or questions the validity warming impacts really shouldn't be judging in 2019. Just say it as an analytic. You should probably still read your link chain unless it's absolutely obvious.

Assume I watch the news regularly, obsessively even.

Saying Cap is as good as it gets is gonna take some work for me

impacts that don't lead or focus on extinction are more reasonable and more likely. People suffering is an impact by itself, any impact chain that extends from there is usually indefinite speculation or hyperbole that detracts from actual suffering that is more likely to happen and is ongoing. That's not to say worse impacts don't spiral from chains of events, but that most of the time there is a minimum definite impact of suffering.

Emory University '24

Dowling HS '20

*add me to the chain --- catahaus@gmail.com

General

I am a first year at Emory and am debating in college. Most of my high school career I spent reading policy arguments if that matters to you. I attempt to remove all ideological predispositions from how I evaluate argumentation, but some level of preference is inevitable. I will do my best to outline my preferences below.

Evidence comparison should be made a priority throughout the debate --- asserting "their evidence is awful" or merely explaining why your evidence is "good" is not the same thing as comparing 2 cards (their warrants, author qualifications, etc.).

I am not persuaded by personal callouts or issues external to what occurs within the debate round I am judging.

I will boost your speaker points if you re-highlight evidence.

K affs

- I default to interpreting the ballot as a stasis point that delineates which team did the better debating but can be persuaded to evaluate the ballot otherwise.

- FW --- procedural fairness is the most convincing impact.

- Not persuaded by counter-interpretations to framework such as "x group of debaters do not have to be topical"

- Counter-interp comparison and case lists are very important for both sides in FW debates

Ks

- Don't like long overviews at the top --- include it throughout the flow.

- Affirmative/alternative comparisons are undervalued --- most K debates tend to hyper-focus on/devolve into large impacts rather than solvency comparison. I like Ks that are debated like CPs

- I default to weighing the affirmative but can be persuaded by other interpretations.

- Against PIKs, proposing alternative theories of language is far more persuasive to me than reading cards that say "language is less relevant than materiality."

Topicality

- I prefer limits over ground arguments

- Predictability is a pre-requisite to debatability.

- Case lists are important but should not include random arbitrary affirmatives --- include affirmatives that are related to the topic genre but are clearly untopical. I strongly dislike when teams include absurd affirmatives in their case list that no team would ever cut or, rather, read.

CPs and Theory

- I am likely to be persuaded by process CPs bad & intelligent permutations against such CPs

- I will default to judge kicking the CP unless instructed otherwise

- Persuasive arguments against PICs are internal link turns or impact turns that are offense against the net benefit.

Competed

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-22– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-Present - Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO).

Contact Info

Always add: phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add - College NDT/CEDA: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly. *Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debater slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. To me, CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

Kritiks on the Negative

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typical because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of last season: .
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that its not what you do, its what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing teams’ job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text before the round.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above. That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high stress/high level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponents email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

mark kivimaki- he/him pronouns - umnakdebate[at]gmail[dot]com

silliness and cowardice are voting issues

all formats:

1--i have an auditory processing disability and i need you to be very clear - you need to go at most 70% of what you think your top speed is. i won't flow off the doc. i will only evaluate the words that i hear come out of your mouth. i will clear you twice and then i'll close my flow and do my homework. speaks are capped at 27 if your spreading is unclear and you don't respond to clearing. speed has never been a problem for me, but clarity very much has -when choosing between the two, always choose clarity. speakers who slow down and use inflection will receive exceptional speaker points. i want to listen to communicators, not doc bots.

especially for LD, i wish that the debates I saw were happening at about 60% the speed that they do now. this is a win the debate thing. if you are explaining your arguments better than your opponent in a way that I can understand in a high level debate you almost certainly win.

2--i've been profoundly unimpressed and unpersuaded by most debates lately. too many teams shotgun blocks, stare at their computer for the entire speech, etc. monotone spreading and reading blocks is unpersuasive. make it interesting. debate with style.

3--marked doc = a document that shows where any marked cards were marked. if you want to ask which cards or analytics were read, you need to use cx for that - or better yet, flow!

4--i care very little about the content of the arguments you read. i like impact calculus and judge instruction. articulate and justify your vision of how i should evaluate the debate and execute on the line by line and i will do my best to follow. for transparency's sake: i read a performance aff and pretty much exclusively go for ks on the neg. i am far more comfortable evaluating a kvk or kvpolicy round than a policy throwdown. that being said, i've done policy-style argumentation in the past and i spend a lot of time doing policy-oriented research for my students.

5--don't want to hear content warning theory except in the most egregious cases where the material is objectively upsetting (i.e. SA, suicide, graphic depictions of violence). i understand that this might be an arbitrary brightline, but i think the direction that content warnings in debate are taking is incredibly concerning. “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” do not need content warnings, and to suggest so is trivializing.

6--evidence ethics and clipping violations stop the round - they are not issues that get to be debated out. clipping accusations need recorded proof. i will go by tournament rules for assessing evidence ethics violations.

7--cx is an important speech. i flow it.

8--these are some paradigms i generally agree with: katya ehresman, jayanne forrest, lily guizatoullina, spencer anderson-mcelligott

policy:

1--i'm a k guy - less of an ideological thing and more about my research interests. i haven't been in a policy v policy throwdown since high school so there's probably a better judge for you to have in the back for these. if somehow i find myself in the back of one of these rounds i'd recommend slowing it a bit down and making it simple for me. <3 judge instruction.

2--good for negative terrorism - i think negs should be less afraid to go for egregiously ridiculous negative strategies BUT you need to be able to defend what you did. i will default to kicking the counterplan / alternative for the negative if nobody instructs me on this issue. the 2ar is too late to start.

3--k aff v policy neg - fairness is probably an impact, but it might not be the most important one. impact calc is paramount in these debates and should start as early as possible. affs should pick a lane between impact turning and counter interps - i tend to think that impact turns are more strategic and make more sense to me. negs should answer case.

4--policy aff v k neg - the k needs to generate uniqueness for impacts somehow whether it be a framework or alternative. i won't arbitrarily use a middle ground interp that neither team instructed me to use. i also like ks that turn into impact turns by the 2nr. soft left affs are bad and more k teams should just take them up on the cp/da debate.

5--k v k debates - my fave. many teams neglect framework - it should be leveraged to implicate how i evaluate competition, links, and solvency. these debates provide teams a lot of leeway for explaining what my ballot does or what our research does and i think that answering these questions will behoove you.

6--policy aff v topicality - again because i am a k person i probably don't have the greatest pulse on the policy side of the topic and what affs are considered "core of the topic", so just be super clear with your explanation here. i care about intent to define / exclude.

lincoln douglas:

1--phil is cool. i probably understood your stuff in high school but every year i grow more removed from this type of debate so just do explanation and don't assume i know anything.

2--frivolous theory - i don't care about it. if you read "shoes bad" or something of the sort i will not flow it.

3--tricks - this is a terrible and unspecific categorization of arguments and i wish it would die. arguments like skep that substantively answer the proposition of the resolution are fair game. shotgunning 10 definitions or unwarranted paradoxes will make me stop flowing. finally, be aware of your positionality in these debates - i.e. skep against a performance aff will probably be an L.

I coached policy debate at Niles West High School for three years. Prior to that, I competed in Policy debate for four years at Niles West and have also competed in NPDA-Parliamentary and NFA-Lincoln/Douglass debate for four years at the University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. I served as the Debate Captain for UIUC during my junior year, teaching and coaching new members and running our team's practices. My background is in political science and public policy as well as studying some critical theory so I like to think I am generally well versed in issues usually being discussed during competitive debates.

I highly encourage flowing, clarity, in depth analysis, and argument comparison. (like impact calculus).

I'm very flexible as I have debated very policy as well as critical positions throughout my debate career. I am a flow judge above all else, so if the right arguments are made and extended, I will vote on that. While I have some minor argument preferences, I will generally remove my biases from the round and judge each debater's arguments on its merits.

If you still have questions, ask me before the round or email me.

You can contact me at: Walter.lindwall@gmail.com

whats up novices!?

if there is an email chain I would love to be on it please!!: kathleenp20513@isd273.org

I go by Katie

pronouns she/her

a bit about me:

I have debated for edina high school in Minnesota for 3 years now and am a captain on my team. I went to SDI 3 week for camp in 2018 and attended DDI 6 week, summer 2019. most of the arguments I prefer reading are k related but I still understand policy related arguments. if you want to win, explain to me why you win.

**take my facial expressions with a grain of salt, I just look wacky sometimes when I'm focused.

p.s. it irritates me when you talk while im trying to make my decision. dont expect a good rfd typed out if you choose to not be quiet! :)

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

just do your thing. treat others with kindness. do your best! you got this!

leave the toxic masculinity at the door (▰˘◡˘▰)

Put me on the chain: jppiazza3@gmail.com

Topicality

I like good T debates, but they can get messy pretty easily, so clean line by line here is important. Competing interps are probably good. I am most persuaded by predictable limits in that it shapes prep and probably is the best internal link to clash filled debates and education.

Counterplans

CPs specific to the aff are always preferred. Condo is probably good, but if there is in round abuse story, theory can be convincing. Otherwise, I'm fine with cheating process counterplans, but they should probably have solvency advocates/a lit base.

Disads

Read them! I love politics disads, but anything case specific is probably better. I think each part of the disad can be reduced to zero percent. Smart analytics can beat cards. Do impact calc.

Kritiks

I'm familiar with most of the basic Ks (cap, security, fem...). I'm fine with high theory stuff, as long as you make it clear what you are critiquing and the impact to that. Weighing the aff is probably good, so I err aff on framework, but I'll try to stay as unbiased as possible. Good/specific link analysis is a must ! I will defualt to plan focus.

Planless Affirmatives

If you don't read a plan, make your method or advocacy clear in how it functions and what a world post aff looks like. You can weigh the aff against framework. I will be more persuaded to vote for you if the aff is in the direction of the topic, in the case of immigration you advocate less restrictions on immigration, however if you go the other way that's fine as well.

email: picklara4@gmail.com

- she/her

Glenbrook North '20

Northwestern University '24 (not debating)

- name chain logically (pls include name round and turney)

- I'm pretty much chill with everything as long as its impacted out

- no hateful language, don't clip, don't steal prep, death is not good, etc

- tech>truth (within moderation) 

- FLOW

- please slow down and prioritize clarity especially when online 

-- if I don't understand any part of what you said, that means you did not sufficiently explain your arguments

-- I am NOT an expert in policy debate so proceed accordingly ... 

Glenbrook North- he/him

Important update- I expect debaters I am judging to wear a mask the entire time I'm in the room, including while speaking. If you aren't okay with that, feel free to preclude or strike me. I promise I won't be offended.

T-Article 5 is the worst popular T argument I have ever seen. It is unwinnable. Don't even read it in the 1NC. The 2AC can entirely ignore it, I don't care it, I'm not voting on it.

Kritiks: Probably a bad idea in front of me

Non topical affs: You definitely want to strike me

Odds and ends:

This is not all inclusive of my thoughts. I have been in debate for a long time. Flow and respond to what the other team has said.

"Can you send a marked copy" is a reasonable pre-cx request. "Marked copy" means any cards they started reading but didn't finish should be marked. "Marked copy" doesn't mean the team sends a version of the doc that omits cards they skipped entirely. If you ask for the latter, I'm taking 30 seconds of prep away from you.

Everything needs to be in one speech doc. Getting everything together in one speech doc is prep. I stop prep when you've sent the doc.

No inserting anything into the debate besides like charts or graphics (things that can't be read aloud). If you won't take the time to say it, I won't take the time to read it. This includes rehighlightings, perm texts, etc.

I generally flow cross-x but won't guarantee I'll pay attention to questions after cross-x time is up.

Hi, I'm Daniel.

Don't be dumb. Be clear and understand your own arguments.

I am ok with Ks but make sure I understand all aspects of k. Alternative world should be something that I understand by the end of debate.

T is something that I will vote for in only 2 situations. First if they drop T. Second if they are blatantly untopical.

Good luck!

I am Freshman at UC Berkeley. I debated for 4 years at Dowling Catholic in Iowa.

please add me to the email chain my email is marykscholz@gmail.com

Pronouns; she, her

General

My biggest rule is just to be nice to each other, theres no reason not to be we are all just here to debate and have fun

don't say anything blatantly racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/etc. I will tank your speaks or vote you down if the other team makes it a voting issue

I will evaluate pretty much anything, I have run ks and k aff but also the base da.

I will listen and vote on anything just make sure you are able to contextualize and have clash and you will be good

everything after this boils down to make args that are well explained and we will be good. Specifics below

tdlr

not super important to read everything- I will listen to everything, I'm not the best for high theory, I tend to side with aff for crowding out fw, and theory needs to have in round abuse

cx

open crossex is fine just answer a majority of your own questions, dont let a partner take over your answers it reflects poorly on both of you

T

make sure the impacts are clear, i find that often t debates are a wash if the impacts aren't contextualized. I do find myself leaning more affirmative because of unclear argumentation. Ie when both teams have their own arguments and don't address their opponents I tend to favor the last speaker. Just make sure the line- by line is clear and t is actually impacted out. But I don't love t.

ks and k affs

i am good with them, I am not super familiar with all the lit bases but i have encountered alot. Just make sure that you are able to explain the alt and alt solvency with more than just buzz words.

I lean aff on fw when its a k aff. I often find fw comes off as complaining by the neg.

Holden Sisco

Bid Count: 0

Wins Against Lexington MC: 0

Tricks Dropped: Less Than Aden Barton

yes chain - holdenthomasisco@gmail.com

yes please include me on email chain- warrensprouse@gmail.com

Please turn on your cameras when you are speaking if at all possible.

Remember to weigh claims and warrants within your evidence; I am much more likely to vote on well-explained arguments than taglines, even if those arguments do not necessarily have evidence to back them up. If you can do both- awesome.

Do not be rude or disrespectful to your opponents or your partner.

Tell me in the last rebuttals how to weigh your arguments and how to compare your impacts with the other team’s.

If you read cards that are not in the novice packet and were given to you by your varsity debaters, that is cheating and I will yell at you.

They/Them

please try to sign post clearly. i'll get everything written down, but attn difficulties make it difficult to evaluate a flow/round if there aren't clean flows of arguments.

Competitive Debate Participation: Millard North 2014-2017 (PF), University Nebraska-Lincoln 2017-2021 (NFA-LD, 1 v. 1 policy)

Coaching: Assistant Debate Coach, Lincoln High School 2017-2018. Assistant Debate Coach, Marian High School 2018-2021

Email: addissonstugart@gmail.com (Will I give everyone 30's if we use speechdrop instead though? Idk, let's try it.)

My current view on debate has been the most influenced by the following people: Justin Kirk and Nadia Steck

TL/DR:

Content warnings: If you are running something sensitive, you need to have a trigger warning. This means things such as suicide, human trafficking, domestic violence, etc. NEED to have a disclaimer before you say them. Furthermore, you NEED to have a back-up plan if reading it puts the safety of someone in the room in jeopardy. And, for both of our sakes, please don't use something sensitive solely as a means to win a round. Commodification of trauma isn't something that I will listen to.

I will vote on content warning procedurals.

Tech > Truth (what does that mean?)

I will always disclose first and will always give a detailed rfd. Not doing so is bad for education (@ other judges who don’t disclose or refuse to explain decisions).

Speed is a wonderful thing in all events unless it's used as an exclusionary tactic

You can probably tell if I’m buying an argument based on my facial expressions.

Judge intervention will only ever happen if the safety (physical/mental) of a student in the round is at jeopardy.

Presume/default neg in all circumstances UNLESS the alt/cp does more than the aff. Then presumption flips aff.

Flex prep is a-okay in all events.

Evidence

I will call for evidence after round in 3 circumstances:

1. I have read the evidence beforehand in some context and believe that how you are construing it is wrong and unethical

2. The opposing team has asked me to

3. The round is decided on this evidence

Speaks:

Should be primarily based off of skill of debate, not eloquence of speaking.

While I believe speaks are arbitrary, I will generally determine speaks through this loose model:

28-29: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

27.5-28: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

For public forum debate:

I've judged more LD lately due to a judge shortage in NE, and I do college policy, but I debated PF all throughout high school. Moral is: I'm probably one of the most techy and progressive judges that you can get in PF.

Observations: I will listen to anything. I LOVE strategic observations. I LOVE observations that narrow the topic based on grammar/interpretations of the resolution.

On the flow: Don't drop turns. Extend terminal offense. Ghost extensions of terminal defense from rebuttal--> final focus are the only extensions I allow to not be in summary. Other than that, if you want it weighed in final focus, have it in summary.

Rebuttal: It is preferred, but not required, for the second rebuttal to cover both sides. I used to card dump in my rebuttals, so I understand how it can get you ahead on the flow, though. I'm not strategically against it, but pedagogically I am.

Summaries: This is the MOST important speech in the round. This should set up the framing for the final focus, and should have all of the offense you want to go for in it. All previous opposing offense needs to be addressed in this speech (for example, if team a drops team b's turns in summary, strategic strat is for team b to sit on them in final focus. It's too late for team a to come back on that part of the flow.)

Final focus: The same framing should be given as was given in summary. But overviews or underviews are the best. I flow summaries and final focuses in columns next to each other. The final focus' main job is impact analysis. Explain to me why your impacts o/w because, as an owner of four dogs, if left to my own fruition, I could vote for 10 dog lives over nuclear war.

For Lincoln Douglas/CX Debate:

Inherency: I THINK THIS IS ACTUALLY A VERY VALID ARGUMENT TO GO FOR. Ya got me, I am a stock issues judge (and competitor).

"status quo acts as a delay counterplan" = *chefs kiss*

Value/criterion: I will typically default util~ especially in muddied v/c debates.

PLEASE, for the love of all that is good and holy, COLLAPSE V/C DEBATES IF IT DOESN'T MATTER (if I have to see another util vs consequentialism debate ???? I might SCREAM)

Also, please explain how the substance of the ac or nc actually relates to your v/c, or better yet, how it could *also* relate to your opponents.

Theory: After being in the activity for a while I have come to the conclusion that proven abuse is a silly metric to win theory debate. I do not believe that in order to win theory you should have to skew yourself out of your own time.

I am unlikely to vote for RVI's on theory in regards to things like "the theory is just a time suck".

I find “Drop the argument, not the team” to be fairly persuasive for general theory arguments (excluding t).

I probably won't vote for condo bad when there's one conditional advocacy.

Topicality: (I will never vote on "they have to prove abuse") I default competing interpretations on t but will listen to reasonability arguments. I believe effects t/extra t can be independent voters with independent standards. I think a dropped violation will *almost* always win a t debate. But because t is try or die, consider the following:

1. If you win the "we meet", reasonability explanations are easier.

2. T is something the neg has to win, not that the aff has to prove opposite. What does that mean? I am not doing the work for the neg to find the aff untopical. Extend and EXPLAIN your standards. (utilize clash, don't just rely on blocks) Tell me why the neg's definition is better than the aff's. Tell me why things like competitive reciprocity is key to eduaction, etc. I know all of these things but will judge *only* based on your explanations.

3. T is just like any other debate. The interp is the claim. The violation is the warrant, the standards are the internal link to>>> the voters being the impacts. So, just like any other debate, I expect you to win on all parts of the flow *especially because topicality is try or die for the aff*.

5. HOWEVER, I will always prioritize being tech over truth. That means that *even if* I don't agree with one's sides strats, or find that they are bad at performing the t strat (or responding) if the opposite side drops something of importance (a violation, concedes a voter, or even a standard that is sat on as the key internal link) I am probably voting there. Concessions are the easiest way for me to pick a winner on T debates.

Tricks: Take like 15 seconds to crystallize it after you do it to make sure I got it, and if you don't do this, don't be mad at me if I don't catch on.

Kritiks: I am open to all kritiks, but I am not familiar with all of the literature. Don't expect me to know the argument off the top of my head, but expect me to flow it and (hopefully) understand it the way that you communicate it to me. Debate is inherently a communication activity, and k debaters can lose sight of this. If it helps you to understand my experience with k's better, when I compete, I always go for framework.

I say K aff's have a higher burden of proof for solvency/explanations than standard policy affs. But here I am, never having voted against a k aff.

Disclosure: Well first off, everyone should disclose. Debate is for education, not just the wins. But also, don't run the theory.

Da's: disads with specific links are probably for the best. I am all about the net bens to counterplans. I am open to any type of argument here.

Counterplans: "Yes. The more strategic, the better. Should be textually and functionally competitive. Texts should be written out fully and provided to the other team before cross examination begins. The negative should have a solvency card or net benefit to generate competition. PICs, conditional, topical counterplans, international fiat, states counterplans are all acceptable forms of counterplans." -Dr. Justin Kirk, the legend.

If you're still reading this, I applaud you. But also, if you can manage to make 3 puns in round, I'll give you a 30. Speaks are arbitrary anyway.

Debated at GBS

PSA: I have not looked that deeply into CJR, so keep that in mind with your usage of lingo/abbreviations during round.

Top Level-I prefer DAs and CPs over any kind of K, but I am willing to vote on anything if it is explained properly. I will only vote for a dropped argument if it's pointed out by the opposite team, but it still has to be explained to me why they should lose on it. It is up to you to convince me why I should vote for you, and I should not have to do any work for any of your arguments after the last speech.

Affirmatives: I am a policy-oriented judge, and I prefer affs that are centered around USFG action and that is grounded in the topic. K Affs are not my thing, but I would still vote for them. I am more likely to vote for Policy Affs than K Affs.

Disads- I love a good Disad/Case debate, but you have to properly impact out your DA for me to vote on it.

Counterplans- Love Counterplans, but you have to provide adequate solvency advocates, as solvency deficits can hurt your chances to win on the CP.

Kritiks- I understand the generics of Ks, but I am not that well versed in the specifics of a lot of Kritiks, so it is really up to you to explain that to me during the round.

Theory- It is a hit or miss for me, Limit on condo is kinda wonky and I'm pretty open to interpretation on that. Otherwise, it is really up to you to prove to me why I should reject the team.

Topicality- Topicality I think is a great negative strategy if done right. It is up to you to prove to me why your interpretation is the best for debate, and properly extend your impacts throughout the entire debate for me to vote for you.

Remember to flow, time your own prep, and DO NOT STEAL PREP

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, and my email is k.subadedebate@gmail.com, I will add some speaker points if you add me to the chain without asking.

Dowling Catholic 2020

University of Kentucky 2024

Do what you do best.

I care about responsiveness more than anything else. Don't just shotgun warrants/restate arguments, listen to what your opponent says, apply your warrants to what they are saying, and explain why your arguments subsume theirs.

Line by line is the most important part of debate for me.

I try to be more deterministic than probabilistic when evaluating arguments. Strong comparative analysis and argument resolution can turn 'risks' of things into decisive yes/no questions for one team.

Add me to the chain (weinhardtdash@gmail.com) however I try to look at speech docs as little as possible. I think the increasing card-docification of debate is an unhealthy trend. The value of cutting really good cards should be that you can explain and apply them advantageously and access a higher standard for ev comparison, as such, the purpose of me having access to the doc should be to verify if what you're saying your ev says is true in the event the other team disputes it, not to assess the quality of the cards in the abstract. This is also why slowing down and being clear helps since If I flow your arguments from hearing them first I feel less interventionist when granting you their weight.

Slow down for arguments that have a really dense concept-to-word ratio like T and theory.

I'm cool with inserting rehighlightings as long as you actually explain in depth what the rehighlighting says/why it matters rather than just exploiting it as a method to read cards faster - if this turns into a moral hazard for one team the other should call it out.

CP competition admittedly isn't my strong suit.

lesser stylistic things -

Pick your battles, especially in CX. Chances are, not every word that comes out of your opponents mouth is an F tier trash argument. I get that having conviction and passion is important, but sometimes knowing when to give certain opposing arguments a respectful level of credence can convey nuance and demonstrate to me that you're smart enough to be cognizant of the substantive difference between certain arguments in the round.

numbering arguments is always a plus.

I like when tags have the card's warrants in them.

PF - in all honesty I will probably judge this like a policy round, so most of the stuff above applies. if you're responsive and focus on developing less arguments more in depth and with more warrants you should be good.

LD - tricks suck. please don't pref me if this is your style.