I flow on my laptop generally so if i am not making eye contact, i do apologize. If you would like me to look at your evidence specifically, my email is daniel.armbrust1337@gmail.com or you can use speechdrop.net to make a room specifically for the round.

COWARDICE IS A VOTING ISSUE.

TL;DR- I don't care what you read, just give me a reason to vote for you.

DISCLAIMER- AN important note before you keep reading, discussion of mental health is important, but I have discovered that in the past few years I cannot really handle those discussions very well in debate. Please avoid those arguments as much as possible for my sake. IF the topic asks you to run arguments discussing mental health, that cannot be avoided and is fine. I appreciate a warning in advance if you plan on running arguments discussing mental health. Thank you!

Section 1: General Info

I debated for the University of Nevada from 2012-2017. My final year I was 8th speaker at the NPDA and 2nd seed out of prelims. As a debater I ran anything from spec to high theory criticisms. The only argument I refused to read because I think it is cheating unless you can use cards is Delay Counterplans. That being said I have voted for a disgusting number of Delay counterplans. Run what you want, I don't really care as long as you give me a reason to vote for you.

Section 2: Specific Questions

SPEED ADDENDUM: I understand speed very well and often used it personally as a very efficient tool. That being said, I am continuously swayed by arguments about equity from teams that have difficulty with accessing the round due to speed. While I am often influenced, I still evaluate those arguments through the lens that the debater gives me. 

1. Speaker points

As of right now I range from approximately 26-30. I think speaker points are arbitrary and often tend to be higher if you know the people in the room so I usually trend higher in order to off balance my inherent bias.

2. How do you approach critically framed arguments? can affs run critical arguments? Can critical arguments be "contradictory" with other neg positions?
Let me put it like this, in the last two years of debate, I ran a K every neg round I could. In the 2015-16 season I only had 3 rounds the entire year that did not involve a criticism. I think critically framed arguments are not only good but on occasion necessary. For affs, its a bit of a different story, Framework I think is a convincing argument in some situations but leaves a bad taste in others. FOR ALL CRITICISMS AFF OR NEG, all i really need is a thesis of some kind (I haven't read a bunch of different authors so I need something to like understand) and a reason to vote for you.

3. Performance arguments

Some of the best affs I have ever seen were performance based. Shout out to Quintin Brown (from Washburn if you don't know him) for reading some of the best and most persuasive performance arguments I have ever seen. Just be prepared to answer Framework.

4. Topicality- For the aff, to avoid T, all you have to do is be topical. I prefer nuanced and educational T debates, not just throw away debates that are really there as a time suck. I am almost never persuaded by an RVI. AND if you decide to go for an RVI, it better be the ENTIRE PMR. For T to be persuasive, it needs an interp, violation, standards, voters.

5. Counterplans- Pics good or bad? should opp identify the status of CP? perms-- text comp ok? functional comp?

uhh, PICs are good as long as they are able to be theoretically defended. Theory against CPs is something I did as an MG all the time, it just might not be a great strat if there is an easy DA against the CP. I think that most people should run CPs that functionally competitive unless you have a REALLY good reason why your text comp needs to happen in this instance (for example a word PIC that changes the word run with a reason why that specific word is bad). Just clarify the status when you read it.

6. Is it acceptable for teams to share their flowed arguments with each other during the round?

Dont care.

7. How do you weight arguments when they are not explicitly weighed by the debaters or when weighing claims are diametrically opposed how do you compare abstract impacts against concrete impacts?

If i have to do this, I will be angry with you. You do the weighing and it will not be a problem.

Philosophy:

Graduated from the University of Nevada with a major in communication studies. Debate is truly a forum that creates strong policy, world leaders that make change, eliminates narrow minded thinking, and makes a stand supported in facts. Debate is more than the rounds you win or lose, it is a culture and community.

Do's:

I am looking for good clash! The decision will be based on what is on the flow so highlight the strategies and call out the sign posting, no link, no access to impacts, turns, etc. Stay organized in the round, is key. Both teams need to prove why they win and when you develop a strategy it should flow as a presentation or story.

If you develop a unique advantage and/or disadvantage it is a more attractive winning vote. Running politics and economy all day gets old to talk about and old to listen too. Have fun with the round, debate is fun. Let's see you propose an actual solution to the resolution with real world changing solutions.

I value animal life over human life.

You and your partner need to understand what you are running, if you do not understand what you are saying it is obvious. Be comfortable with what you are running, run a strategy you understand and can articulate. Partner communication is fine, please stand when you speak, speed is a go, and time yourself.

Do not's:

Tag lines and bullet points are not facts, you need supporting evidence to what you are arguing and it needs to make sense. You cannot make leaps from economy fails leads to the Great Depression, do not just shout out dehumanization, and leads to nuclear war everyone dies... I will not vote on nuclear war.

Running a topicality where you are whining the entire time just to drop is a time suck! Unless the Aff is truly abusive and you plan to drop everything down to the topicality, you needed to have proved the abusive using the disadvantages. I will not vote on T.

Going into every round running the same K for the last four years is super annoying the theory was probably not even something you wrote and existed prior to your college career. I will not vote on the K.

This paradigm is continually evolving, so I update it frequently before tournaments. Last update was October 16, 2019.

This sheet has two sections: a short biography and my policy debate paradigm. If you have questions about any of the following, please ask.

Bio:

I have been involved with debate in various capacities since 1983.

My background is primarily in 2 person policy debate (NFL/NDT/CEDA), with 4 years coaching students competing in NFA-LD (policy). I have judged approximately 1 LD value debate, and 2 NPDA debates, all of which happened over 15 years ago.

I competed for Detroit Catholic Central (Redford, Michigan) and Butler University (Indianapolis, Indiana). I coached at Indiana University (NDT/NFA-LD) and Westminster College (NFA-LD).

My most recent experience with debate at the college level was judging for Miami University, mostly when Steve Mancuso coached there (2004-6).

From 2016-18 I was a frequent judge of Public Forum debate on the High School circuit in Michigan.

Besides debating and coaching, between 1992 and 2017 I taught Argumentation and Debate courses at Indiana University, Westminster College, and Wayne State University.

Policy Paradigm:

Left to my own devices, I tend to be a loose policy maker interested in evaluating the risk of doing/supporting the resolution against the risk of not. Any net advantage is enough to vote AFF. But that's just my default setting.

My firm position is that the paradigm I use to evaluate the round is up for debate, and I give a lot of leeway as to what it might end up being. If you want to argue for a paradigm, my preference is that you do it clearly and do it well.

If a paradigm isn't debated, I assume that means the debaters are in agreement about what's happening in the round. In that case, I try to fit with what I see as the paradigm that the debaters adopt. So, in a LD-Policy round where the debaters obviously are working with a fairly standard Stock Issues paradigm, I go with the flow. If both teams want to perform, then go ahead and perform -- I'll sit back and enjoy the show.

Please note that, despite my personal belief that I'm open to performance debates, I usually get struck by performance teams. As a result, I haven't seen a lot, but I have voted for and against performance AFFs and NEGs. I actually like a lot of what the performance turn in debate has done for the activity, although it's not the world that I competed in myself.

I've been known to vote for some pretty weird stuff (I ran some weird stuff, too -- at least what counted as weird in the late 1980s). Exotic is not a problem. Incomprehensible, not so good. I generally gag on completely internally inconsistent and contradictory positions, unless that's somehow what the agreed upon paradigm requires or allows.

There are NO inherently wrong arguments, and debate is where counter-intuitive arguments should be tried and tested. What matters to me is not whether an argument is wrong or right, but if it is made well (or not).

I can handle speed, but keep in mind that it's been a decade since I've sat in the back of the room. If I get lost, the problem isn't the speed -- it's my unfamiliarity with a position, or an acronym, or a buzzword. I'm open to being educated -- but it helps if you clarify a term the first time you use it.

As for the K, I'm fairly well versed in critical theory, having taught it at the MA and PhD level for 15 years. I'll leave it up to you to decide what that means. The chances are that I've read more Foucault, Butler, Derrida, Zizek, Burke, etc., than college debaters have.

Whether T is a voter is up for debate. I will assume that it is a voter if no one contests this.

A dropped argument is conceded, but the quality of the dropped argument is what matters most in the decision calculus. If someone on the AFF literally says "the DA is not unique," but then moves on to the next point and doesn't provide any rationale, evidence, or anything else to support that claim, then there's not a lot there if the NEG drops that "argument." Yes, it was conceded, but it was a blank assertion with no apparent meaning -- so conceding it was meaningless. And it didn't open the door for the next AFF speaker to suddenly provide the rationale or evidence and argue that since uniqueness was conceded that the NEG had no right to new arguments on the position. The addition of rationale makes it a new argument to which the NEG can respond (or can ignore if it's made in the rebuttals -- see the following paragraph).

Unless you can make a persuasive argument otherwise, I will ignore new arguments and drop them from the flow. To me, a new argument is a claim made in a later speech that is not connected to a position argued in a constructive. After the constructives are over, a connection must be made at the first opportunity to address the position. The connection is key: a line of argumentation can, and should, evolve and grow over the course of the debate. "No new arguments in rebuttals" does not mean "you have to repeat yourself in the later speeches." As long as the link is clear and does not seem abusive I will allow it to stand in a rebuttal.

Last point. If most or all of the above makes no sense to you, don't worry about it. It probably made a lot more sense 20 years ago when I developed "my paradigm." At least, I hope it did. Do what you do, and do it well. My job is to evaluate the round, not dictate it. Ask questions before the round and I'll do my best to answer.

Public Forum Paradigm:

Dexter will be the first tournament of this type that I have judged this format, but I do know a bit about the activity.

I expect the debaters to set the pace of the round at a level with which all are reasonably comfortable. If one team is speaking way too fast for the other, then that team should slow down.

I abide by the dictate that the debaters need to address a "lay judge," but the definition of this term is, in my opinion, relative. I (and the other judges present, if applicable) are your audience. You need to adapt to us. I'm not going to try to think like someone else -- whether that's someone who has less or more expertise than I. I will do my best to keep my own preferences from playing a role -- and after being involved in debate for most of the last 35 years, I'm pretty good at this. But I don't personally believe complete objectivity is possible or desirable. I have a perspective. Without that I would not be able to engage you, the ideas, the evidence, or anything else. But I can be convinced by arguments that fall outside of my perspective. If I wasn't open to that, I wouldn't be involved with debate.

Debate is a game. We generally work within certain assumptions about good and bad ideas, but these can be challenged by credible and persuasive arguments. The amount of work you need to do to make a persuasive argument varies depending on how much it goes against common assumptions about something. For example: most would say that causing an increase in nuclear proliferation is a bad idea. But you could challenge this idea with evidence -- and, in this case, there's a lot of credible research and analysis you can cite that makes this case -- and I could be persuaded by that evidence that proliferation is actually good. But since it seems that, on balance, proliferation causes an increased risk of nuclear war, you'd have to have some pretty strong support to challenge this idea. In other words, "counter-intuitive" arguments DO have a place in debate; indeed, testing such radical ideas may be one of the most important things academic debate can do.

I suppose you can advocate a paradigm if you want to, but I really don't expect you to.

I will flow the round, and do expect that the debaters will, in some fashion, do this as well. It's up to you, but if you fail to answer an argument because you didn't make a note of it, that's your problem.

As I see it, this is what argument theorists call "value debate." It asks whether a course of action is a good idea, not whether it should be adopted. That's why the resolution could argue for maintenance of the status quo (which would not be "adopting" a policy, but sticking to the present course). This brings its own "paradigmatic" assumptions, including the idea that whichever team defends the status quo will have presumption. A case needs to be made against doing what is already happening; if it "ain't broke, don't fix it." In most resolutions, the CON will be defending the status quo, as most resolutions call for a different course of action than what's happening now. But it could be the PRO who defends the S.Q. For better or worse, this is something inherent in public forum debate. (By "having presumption" I mean the team who, before the round begins, is winning -- as in "the accused is presumed innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.")

But this cannot be the case when the resolution only engages values without connecting them to a policy (as in "competing values" resolutions - like "Resolved: That justice is more important than mercy.") In that case, I'll give the presumption to the CON. That's a fairly arbitrary decision, but I believe that someone has to have presumption or there's no basis for a debate. Since I can see no good way to determine who should have presumption in such a case (and if someone can provide a good rationale for doing it otherwise, I'll happily change), then I'm going with the "AFF started this, so they've got to justify that action by making a case" logic.

The other issue that arises from being value debate: arguments that can only be justified by advocating a plan aren't within the scope of the round. I'll ignore them.

Debating the meaning of a term in the resolution (aka "topicality") only seems relevant if the term could reasonably be interpreted in multiple ways and that how it is defined relates to the focus of the resolution. To me, the AFF "right to define" only means that the AFF gets to make the initial statement about how the terms should be interpreted without spending time justifying the use of that definition -- the NEG can challenge that definition in favor of another if they provide good reasoning and/or support. If the AFF definition(s) is/are challenged, the AFF can defend with their own support, or concede the NEG definition. Note: neither the AFF nor the NEG are required (or even expected to) define any of the terms if they so choose.

If you have questions, ask!

I'm a former debater for the University of Nevada and Santa Rosa Junior College.

Important information:

-You can run any type of argument in front of me. That being said, please explain how I should evaluate the round.

-I'm hard of hearing in two different ways. If you speak a bit louder than normal and give a bit of a pause before taglines I shouldn't have any trouble following you. I'll call clear or slow as appropriate.

-I haven't been around debate much lately. If you're fast you're likely faster than I can flow these days.

That's about all I've got for you at the moment. This will probably be updated after every round as I remember things I'm particular about in debate. Please ask questions before round if you've got 'em.

I am a current UNR student volunteering to judge for BLCC. I am a Comm Studies/Spanish 2x major. I enjoy discussions that involve deconstructing class, race, sex, and gender issues. When I did debate it was my first exposure to a lot of these concepts, and my familiarity with them has only increased. It's important to talk about these issues in order to try to make the world a better place. Talk about hegemony, talk about social status, talk about privilege, talk about capitalism, talk about socialism, talk about anarchism, talk about the morality of war, or what to do about global warming. If these are important or interesting to you, use this as an opportunity to expand your knowledge of these topics.

Please be kind and courteous. If you aren't, I won't vote for you. If your opponent is rude or insulting in a round, don't be afraid to bring that up- you aren't obligated to put up with abuse in round.

If you use harmful rhetoric, whether it is toward your opponent or just in general (ex: misogyny, racism, ableism, classism) I won't want to vote for you even if you are a far superior debater.

Signposting/roadmaps are important. I always need to know where you are, and where you're going. Use clear labels (are you on-case, off-case, on DA2, Topicality, etc) so I don't get lost trying to flow. If I get too lost I stop typing, and then your fantastic points are lost because they weren't written down.

I've been out of debate for a while, so keep that in mind- I can handle jargon, but when it starts to get super technical and fast, I might be out of my depth. Don't assume I understand what you're talking about.

I don't expect perfection. I do expect that you have patience with yourself and your opponents. If you're a novice struggling with learning the ins and outs of Parli, your opponent probably is too. If their definitions, plan, advantages, links, etc. are vague or poorly constructed, by all means address that in a round, but do not make it seem like you think they are incompetent. Do not try to make them feel bad. Be understanding.

Don't forget important structural points: definitions, whether the round is fact, value, or policy, what the values/weighing mechanisms are. Don't leave any of your opponent's points untouched, even if it's just to say "this point is vague and doesn't make sense."

Don't run a T as a timesuck, run it if you really think your opponent is constructing their argument in a way that is inherently unfair to purposely put you at a disadvantage. Otherwise, don't waste your time on it, and for the love of whatever please spend enough time on a T if you think it is crucial to the round. That being said, if you want to narrow the resolution down, don't do it in a way that debilitates you.

Voters are important. In your last speeches, they should be the main thing (even the only thing) you talk about. This is a chance for you to summarize all that has been said, all the strengths of your argument and weaknesses of your opponents', all the harms/benefits, advantages/disadvantages, and tell me why these play into how you've won the round.

I love policy. in most cases, 'should' implies policy, not value (not always, but most of the time). I won't not vote if you run it as value, but I think you're missing out on an opportunity to construct plans, counterplans, advantages and disads, and discuss real world actions, harms, and implications if you run a value instead of a policy. Also- please make sure you have a clear plan (what's the action, who carries it out, how is it funded, etc).
Flush out your impacts. Use as much information as you can (ex: how many people are going to suffer in the status quo; how many lives will be saved). Also talk about ideology and values (dehumanization is bad, but what about it is harmful, what's going to happen if we don't fix it). Use a lot of sources to back up your points with PROOF- real numbers, figures, stats, information. I won't count or anything, but it's obvious when your research consists of a couple HuffPo articles and not much else.

Counterplans are an awesome way to handle being neg on a resolution you'd personally support. I expect you to give it as much attention as you would an aff plan. Don't bring it up in the last 30 seconds of your speech. Give yourself time to hammer it out. On that note, if you find supporting or opposing the resolution morally wrong, then try to find a way to make it work for you. Run a K if you need to. Don't make yourself argue from an ideology that makes you want to puke.

No spreading. I can't follow it, if I can't follow it I can't vote for you. I find it to be an ableist and privileged tactic that excludes people with certain disabilities or language barriers from participating.

Don't use points/jargon/run positions you don't understand, aspire to understand them and THEN use them. Sometimes it's incredibly obvious you don't know what you're talking about, and that sucks for both you and me.

I won't be too critical if you need to talk to your partner to help explain or clarify, but don't grow reliant on them to get you through your speech.

Overall, keep in mind that debate is just one medium of communication, and it's important that you understand why having these discussions matters. It's not just about winning. It's not just about organizing speeches, or talking pretty. It's about becoming familiar with information, ideology, actions, consequences, implications, so that you have that knowledge as you move forward in your academic and professional careers.

Pronouns: She/they

Tldr; It is important to me that you debate the way that is most suited to you, that you have fun and learn a lot. While I have preferences about debate, I will do my best to adapt to the round before me. The easiest way to win my ballot is lots of warrants, solid terminalized impacts (ie not relying on death and dehumanization as buzzwords), clear links, and a clean as possible collapse.

• For more lay/policy-oriented teams: Please sign-post, give warrants, and solid impacts. There is value in drawing attention to death and dehumanization but I would prefer that you speak beyond death & dehumanization as buzzwords -- give me warranted impacts that demonstrate why death & dehumanization are voting issues. Please make your top of case framing clear and try to stay away from half-baked theory positions. I would prefer a full shell with standards and voters, please.

• For critical, tech, and/or speed-oriented teams: I love it all -- I am open to the criticism, policy, performance, theory; whatever you want to do. Please keep in mind that my hearing is getting worse and being plugged into the matrix makes it even harder to hear online. I may ask for some tags after your speech if you spread. I probably default to competing interps more so now on theory than before but I’ll vote where you tell me to.

• For non-NorCal debaters: I recognize that debate varies by region. I’m happy to accommodate and do my best to adapt to your style. That said, I’m more likely to vote on a clear and consistent story with an impact at the end of the round.

Longer threads;

• RFDs: I’m better with oral feedback than written and I will disclose. The brainpower to write RFDs is substantially more draining than talking through my decision. I think it also opens up opportunities for debaters to ask questions and to keep myself in check as a judge. I learn just as much from you as you do from me.

• Kritiks: are important for opening up how we think about normative policy debate and a great way to challenge the performance/role-playing of policy debate. Given that many kritiks are an entry point for students to access policy-making/the debate space I am less enthused about opportunistic or abusive kritiks and arguments (which mean it's safe to assume I see debate as a pedagogical extension of the classroom not as a game). Please do your best to explain your position, especially if it’s somewhat obscure because the farther I get away from being a competitor, the less familiar I am with some of the stuff out there. For reference, I was a cap debater but don’t think I will just vote for you if you run cap. I actually find my threshold on cap ks is much higher given my own experience and I guess also the mainstream-ness of the cap k. I have a strong preference for specific links over generic ones. I think specific links demonstrate your depth of knowledge on the k and makes the debate more interesting. Please feel free to ask questions if you are planning on running a k. I think identity-based kritiks are * very * important in the debate space and I will do my best to make room for students trying to survive in this space. I’m good with aff k’s too. Again, my preference for aff k’s is that your links/harms are more specific as opposed to laundry lists of harms or generic links. It’s not a reason for me to vote you down just a preference and keeps the debate interesting.

• Theory: Please drop interps in the chat and make sure they are clear. As stated above I probably default to competing interps, but I’ll vote where you tell me to. RVIs weren't a huge thing when I was debating in college so I'm honestly not amazing at evaluating them except when there's major abuse in round and the RVI is being used to check that. So if you’re sitting on an RVI just make sure to explain why it matters in the round. I have a preference for theory shells that are warranted rather than vacuous. Please don’t read 9 standards that can be explained in like 2.

• Other items

• I do not flow after the timer. I've noticed this has become more and more abused by high school teams and I'm not into it. So finish your sentence but I won't flow your paragraph.

• Off-time roadmaps are fine.

• Very specific foreign policy debates are fun and extra speaks if you mention what a waste the F35 is.

• I will drop you or nuke your speaks for racist, transphobic, sexist, or just generally discourteous nonsense.

• POOs -- Since we're online, I don't pay attention to chats (unless reading interps) and I don't recognize raised hands. So, please just interrupt and ask your question. It's not rude, just makes things easier.

If you've read this far lol: sometimes knowing a little about my background helps debaters understand how I approach debate. I debated parli (& a little LD) at Santa Rosa Junior College for 3 years. My partner and I finished 4th in the nation for NPTE rankings and had a ridiculous amount of fun. Then we debated at San Francisco State University for our final year with the amazing Teddy Albiniak -- a formative experience and a year I treasure deeply (long live the collective! <3). Our strengths were materialism and cap, and very specific foreign policy debates.

Go gaters

Ben Krueger (he/him/his)

University of Nevada, Reno

I competed in Parli and IEs in the early 2000s at Northern Arizona University. After many years away from competitive forensics, I returned to judging in 2016. I have been the assistant director at UNR since 2019.

How To Win my Ballot

Make clearly-structured arguments that are well-supported with warrants, don't spread a million words per minute, be courteous to your opponents, and be able to defend your framework. I'm open to listening to policy arguments in rounds with fact or value resolutions as long as you can defend your framework. Additionally, I have a moderately high threshold for voting on T and tend to default to reasonability over competing standards.

What not To Do

I try to maintain an open mind about what I'll vote on. It's up to you to frame the round and to tell me how I should weigh it. I do tend to be predisposed against cases that are unclear. For example, "plan is the resolution" makes sense to me only if the wording of the resolution names a specific piece of legislation or court case. Also, I will not vote on "gut check" arguments; you need to give me more specific reasons why a particular argument is flawed or not believable.

I don't do well with speed. The faster you speak, the more likely it is that I'll miss important arguments on the flow.

Finally, don't be jerks. It is s possible to make assertive, highly competitive arguments while still recognizing the humanity of your opponents. Hostile verbal and nonverbal behavior cheapens the pedagogical value of competitive debate and drives students away from the activity. I will not hesitate to vote against teams for in-round abuse. I feel especially strongly about this point after the 2021 USUDC tournament (British Parli nationals) collapsed due to in-round racial microaggressions.

Quick Note on IPDA

I believe that IPDA should be publicly accessible as a debate format, by which I mean that speeches should be delivered at at a conversational rate and and should minimize use of technical jargon. That having been said, I will still evaluate IPDA rounds from a flow-centric perspective, which means that things like framework and dropped arguments still matter. Eloquent oratory alone will not be enough to win my ballot if you aren't winning on flow. Also be aware that I tend to be disinclined to vote on framework presses beyond the level of reasons to prefer a specific criterion or definition.

Quick Note on NFA-LD

i recognize that carded debate needs to be delivered at a high rate of speed to get through evidence. Please slow down for your taglines; that will usually be enough for me to keep up with you. If I can’t understand you, I’ll use “speed” or “clear” to slow you down (“speed”=I can’t keep up with you, “clear”=your rate is okay but I can’t understand your enunciation).

A Final Note on Recent Political Developments (6/2022)

In light of recent political developments at the national level, I am choosing to disclose that I am a gay man with who politically identifies as a liberal institutionalist. I will do my best to evaluate all arguments in a fair manner without imposing my own beliefs on them. However, it is unlikely that I will vote for any case which advocates taking legal rights away from LGBTQ+ individuals and/or women. I encourage you to use out-of-the-box policy thinking if you find yourself faced with a resolution that forces you to defend an anti-LGBT or anti-women policies. (Some ideas: 50-state counterplans, Northern Ireland-style consociationalism, constitutional convention, secession, etc.). The fiat issues will probably get weird fast, but it will be a more interesting debate than rehashing culture war issues we've all already heard 10,000 times. 

For the most part, I can keep up with speed. I try my best to make my decision off the flow.

My favorite debates are ones in which the affirmative defends a fiatted plan text defending the resolution and the negative defends the status quo or a competitive policy option. You are of course open to approach the resolution in whatever way you wish as long as you justify it but you should support/be germane to the topic. Non-topical or anti-topical affs will be hard sells in front of me.

I’m compelled by terminal defense but I am more likely to vote one way or another if I have some risk of offensive.

Speed/spreading should never be used as a tool of exclusion so while I think speed bad arguments tend to be silly if you are asked to slow down you should or I’ll be pretty open to them. I will also add a note that I have been out of the activity for 2 years now and I have not kept up listening to speed. I’m confident that I can keep up but please don’t sacrifice clarity in the name of speed.

I view topicality as a search for the best interpretation of the topic and whether or not the affirmative meets that, it’s up to the debaters to tell me which standards are the most important and why I should prefer them. That being said I don’t think that abuse is necessary for me to vote but it certainly can be a compelling reason. T is always apriori voter unless I hear a compelling reason why it shouldn’t be and RVI’s are not the way to convince me.  I’ll vote for theory arguments as long as they are justified, generally condo is probably a good thing but multiple conditional advocacies are probably bad for debate.

Impact prioritization is the most important thing to do in rebuttal speeches, tell me where you want me to vote and why it matters. I’ve seen many times where the rebuttal will tell me that they have won an argument and expect me to contextualize how it plays into the debate. You are free to roll the dice and see if I agree with you absent instruction.

If you are reading this, that means I'm judging you. The important thing to know is that you can do whatever you want as long as its cool and you are having fun. Also, I'll probably get lost in your kritik if you don't make it simple enough. That doesn't mean I won't vote for it, just that I want to be able to understand it before I vote on it. Also this is the first tournament I've judged in a year and a half


With topicality, I prefer proven abuse over potential, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on T if its far enough out there, but don't try and run "T:The" cause you aren't going to win that, and I am going to be frustrated. My threshold for T normally lies with the education voter.

With kritiks, I'm probably not the most well read judge, but I've read enough to understand the basic kritiks if you feel like that is the ground you have been given in the round (cap, imperialism, etc. Just please don't run deluze) I do my best to understand what you are telling me in round, but please break it down for me. I'm not going to be the most well read judge, so don't expect me to understand what you mean when you say the trees are fascist

Disads, go for it. Give me the weirdest most plausible story you can think of. I'm willing to vote on either probability or magnitude with probably a minor bias towards probability, however if you are both going for the same thing, time frame and reversibility are good tie breakers.

Counter plans: Condo isn't to bad, but don't run 3 counterplans with no expansion in the first neg speech and expect to win the condo debate

Memes? I fucking love memes and I fully appreciate the strategy of using memes in round

Quals: Debated for 3 years, coaching/judging for 2 years. And a year and a half of working in sales

I'm open to most stuff.
FOR BOTH ONLINE AND OFFLINE DEBATE:clarity is important. I will now more aggressively clear. If I do it 3 times, I will not vocalise the fourth and probably stop flowing. I understand and have suffered some of the issues that prevents speed, which provides a tangible competitive benefit, but I believe access prioritising the access of your opponents is more important.Theory/Framework/Topicality:

I default to competing interpretations. Spec is good. What are RVI's? "We meet" your counter-interps.

Policy:
I am most familiar with this type of debate. I almost exclusively went for extinction. I will always use judging criterion and impact framing explicated in the debate, but as a last resort, I will evaluate impacts independently - this isn't to say that I will always vote for high mag/low prob, but that I am more open to these than other judges.
Don't delay. Don't Object. Don't cheato veto. I have a low threshold.

K's:

I appreciate and think Kritikal arguments have done more good than harm for both the real world and debate; but I do believe that it can and has led to identities and peoples being weaponised, whether they wanted to or not. Beyond that, I believe that K's need to clearly explicate how the alt works, the world post alt, and good links. I'm willing to buy a K that doesn't do any of these, but if these get indicted by procedurals or arguments will be damning. I hate simple reject alt's.

I will try my best to understand your arguments, but please do not assume I know your literature base. I am probably more comfortable with pomo lit than any other lit, but you should still explain the basis of your arguments.

In the same vein, I think interps that are some version of "We can do it in this round" hold zero persuasiveness for my ballot. Not only do they not work as a good precedent for future rounds, but also they just also don't provide meaningful (to me) access to the standards debate.

General

Debate:
Condo is good. Multi-condo not so much. Don't try to understand my non-verbals, because I don't understand them. Sometimes I'm very expressive, sometimes I'm not.

I’m willing to buy terminal defence. The threshold for terminal defence In LD and policy, and other evidence-based debate is significantly lower.

It is significantly harder to win terminal defence in parli for me without independent concessions by both teams on clear brightlines.

Tech = truth

Flex time answers are binding.

I have two years of competing Parli and LD, so here’s some of my stances? Overall I am okay with whatever you choose to read in the debate, I care more about your justifications and what you as the debaters decide in round I’m okay with speed, as long as it’s not stupid fast if I need you to slow down for me I will let you know. This being said I do my best to keep up with the debate and flow every argument. However, I also will not stress if your 5 uniqueness blips don’t ALL get on my flow. I am unafraid to miss them and just say “I didn’t get that”. So please do your best to use words like “because” followed by a strong logical basis for your claim and I will do my best to follow every argument. Also, if you stress your tag I will be able to follow your warrants more too.

AFF:

If you want to run a Kaff you can just be sure to defend it and prove that it has solvency for the issues you bring up. I do not find them as persuasive as running case proper. Other than that defend yourself and prove why you’re preferable over the neg. I think that’s a fair request.

NEG:

Disads - I like to hear Disad vs. Case debate. However, I am not against any type of Disads being run in front of me.

CP - Sure, they’re a useful thing, so run it if you want. Conditional CPs are perfectly fine, I believe they do make more sense for Policy debate. Unconditional CPs make more sense for Parli Debate. So, I won’t disregard Condo-Bad theory, on the face. I will be viewing both as you characterize them.

I do not think that “We Bite Less” is a compelling argument, just do not link to your own disad. In terms of perms, if you do not, in the end, prove that the Perm is preferential to the plan or cp, then I will simply view it as an argument not used. CP perms are not advocacies- it is merely to demonstrate the ability for both plans to happen at the same time, and then the government team should offer reasons the perm would resolve the disads or be better than the CP uniquely. K perms can be advocacies, particularly if the Alt. is a floating PIC, but it needs to be explained, with a text, how the permutation solves the residual links.

T/Theory - I believe T is about definitions and not interpretations, but not everybody feels the same way. This means that all topicality is competeing definitions and a question of abuse in my book. Not either-or. As a result, while I have a hard time voting against an aff who was not abusive, if the negative has a better definition that would operate better in terms of ground or limits, then I will vote on T. To win, I also think you must either pick theory OR the case debate. If you go for both your topicality and your K/DA/CP I will probably not vote on either.

In terms of other theories, I evaluate theory based on interpretations and I think more specific and precise interpretations are better. Contextualized interpretations of parli are best. I also think theory is generally just a good strategic idea. However, I will only do what you tell me to do: i.e.- reject the argument v. reject the team. I also do not vote for theory immediately even if your position is a position I generally agree with. You will have to go for the argument, answer the other team's responses, and outweigh their theoretical justifications

For both Aff and Neg: on K's I don't find K's as persuasive as a running case proper. I'll listen to them, but remember that personally, it's not my preference and that you'll need to do more work for it to convince me ie. giving a realistic alt that functions both inside the round and outside of it, and that will actually solve the structural issue that you bring up. I don't vote on the risk of solving with the alt.

At the end: Evaluating rounds- I evaluate rounds as a PMR. That means to me that I first look to see if the affirmative has lost a position that should lose them the round (T’s and Specs). Then I look for counter advocacies and weigh competing advocacies (K’s and Alts or CP’s and Disads). Finally, I look to see if the affirmative has won.