I vote aff every round unless the neg concedes.

Misc Things

If you ask for my email, I assume you aren't using pocketbox, which warrants a double loss.

The A-Spec O-Spec double bind is the only argument I will flow or evaluate in any round.

Ericson 03 is a 14 year-old card. I can't evaluate a card older than the teams debating. Unless it's Antonio.

If you tell me "Don't Drop Antonio", I won't drop Antonio.

Speaks are on a scale of 1-30 for a reason.

That being said, overviews on Ks are correlated directly to speaks, the longer the overview, the higher your speaks.

I alternate between tech>truth according to speech. Same with an Offense-Defense Paradigm

i.e

1AC - Tech>Truth

1NC - Truth>Tech*

2AC - Tech>Truth*

2NC - Truth>Tech*

1NR - Tech>Truth*

1AR - Truth>Tech*

2NR - Tech>Truth*

2AR - Truth>Tech*

*if there is an offcase position or anything on case in any of these speeches I don't abide by these rules, and I do not flow. Instead I play solitaire and if I win the Aff probably wins, and if I lose, the Neg probably loses

2018 immigration topic addendums

Since Critical Geopolitics applies to this year's topic I am morally obligated to tell you my thoughts on it

As Eric Forslund once said "I’m DEEP in the lit – especially the critical geopolitics lit. If you call it “borders” I’ll dock 2 speaker points. They’re fundamentally distinct. "it’s a true argument and if you’re debating a team that can go for it, just read the geopolitics K on the aff. Duh"

I also agree with Forslund on a another point, Consult NATO -

"Reading a 2ac block to consult nato is an imperative . If the 2ac does not do this, they have lost the debate because it could ALWAYS be read in the block. I am willing to pull the trigger on even the possibility of consulting nato being read in the block even if the negative does not make this argument."

I do differ with him on the question of warming, while this is a religious issue for me too. Forslund believes warming is not real, and if the teachings of Winnie the Pooh have taught me anything, warming is not only real, but very very very good for honey production, which makes it inherently good. That's why you might notice everytime someone says "warming bad" you can see the effects of a microagression on my face

a phrase that has come up a lot is "T is a floor not a ceiling", which really annoys me because the scriptures are on my side here too, as they very clearly say that topicality is a window not a car door.

And as always, reading a plan about immigration is a god given right, too bad god is dead and was a metaphysical construct anyway.

NoBro 2020

Harvard 2024

Important Update: Since leaving the activity, I have come to the conclusion that spreading is detrimental to skills learned. I also haven't flowed spreading in over a year, so I would prefer debate at a conversational pace.

Please add me on the email chain: anna.farronay@gmail.com

I have a great appreciation for the preparation and effort that goes into each debate round. I understand debate has different meanings for each person but I do believe that competition is the center of the activity - we care about what we do because of a desire to win. I will do my best to understand your arguments even if they are not arguments I would normally be familiar with.

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Non-Negotiables:

(1) I will only evaluate complete arguments: that means that every argument should have a claim and warrant. Incomplete arguments like a 10-second condo block will not be flowed and when you extend it I will allow the other team new answers.

(2) Be clear and give me pen time. If you are not, you will be dissatisfied with the decision and your speaker points.

(3) Every team consists of 2 speakers who will split their speech time equally. I will only allow one person to give every speech.

(4) The line-by-line is key. Answer arguments in the order that they are presented.

(5) I will not evaluate arguments that hinge on something that did not occur in the debate round I am adjudicating.

I believe it would be unfair to obscure any predispositions I have since a neutral judge rarely exists. That being said I have been persuaded to abandon my opinions in the past by speakers who use humor, charm, and smart, specific arguments. I also have a very expressive face so use that to your advantage. At some point, I had very different ideas about debate and I can be reminded of that.

Preferences:

(1) I believe that policy debate does encourage in-depth research practices. However, I will admit that I am a K debater who is definitely more proficient at judging k v. policy debates than a policy throwdown. This being said I do not want to judge silly positions like China Doesn't Exist so please be conscious what you run.

(2) Theory - I will do my best to understand your theory argument but I have never understood the debates (even something as simple as condo). If you choose to engage in these debates, have some caution and lean on the side of over-explanation.

(3) Framework (K v. Policy) - The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say we reject the representations of the 1AC/2AC.

(4) K affs - I will be the first to admit that former K debaters often dislike K Affs after they graduate/quit. I don't love them - I do believe there is less in-depth preparation, especially with new K affs, and I do have a high bar for how these debates end up. If you go for fairness, you'll likely win. But if you do insist on reading a K Aff, the easiest way to my ballot is going for the impact turn and cross-applying it to every standard from the negative team. I want to emphasize that I did love the K at one point but in recent years policy debaters have excelled at FW that has made it very difficult to vote for the K.

Cypress Bay '20 | Georgetown '24

Put me on the email chain: Gavsie.joshua@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff:

I did policy debate in HS and I'm currently competing at Georgetown.

Do whatever you want. I'm as happy to judge a K v K debate as I am a nuanced CP/DA debate. This round is for you all, not me. Most of my opinions about the activity can be overcome by good debating so just be smart and you can probably win my ballot.

That being said, there are obviously the standard non-negotiables. For example, "racism good" or anything else of the sort gets you an L with 0 speaker points. I feel like shouldn't have to say much more here just please don't be a bad person.

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny.

A significant amount of the following stuff is taken from Tessa Harper. I think they articulated their thoughts on this stuff really well and it mirrors how I feel about these issues.

How I Evaluate Debates:

I'll evaluate arguments as per the execution on the line-by-line unless told otherwise. Dropped arguments are true but that doesn't mean it's the best argument or the winning one. Explain why concessions matter and why they should frame my ballot.

I'll have the speech doc open but I'll be following YOU so please be clear (especially in online debate)!! I'll be looking at cards if I really need to or if specific pieces of evidence are flagged.

Clash Debates:

- I'll vote for framework but it's not an excuse to not engage with the affirmative. Negative teams that fail to do this usually sound like block-reading robots and will not fare super well in these debates unless they grapple with specific parts of aff offense.

- That being said, there is a difference between T and framework. If you want to take the aff up on some other part of the topicality debate outside of focus on the USFG, I'm definitely down for that.

- Critical affs should probably have a model of debate. This means that impact turns to T should be coupled with a good counter-intepretation and that the aff should counter-define words in the 2AC. A 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards.

- Examples/history matter a lot and will influence how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make the arg far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

- TVAs are usually not super important to me. At best, they're fine defensive arguments but not what you really need to be winning in these debates to get my ballot.

- Critical affs should ideally have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be more persuaded by T against affs that don't do or say anything about water than I will be against teams that read an affirmative which answers a core question of the topic.

- K's v policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I also enjoy in-depth link and alt work. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out, even if it is a useful trick. These are the kind of debates I'm the most well versed in if that's something that's important to y'all.

K v K debates:

- These debates can be a lot of fun to watch - if both sides demonstrate a good understanding and application of the literature they're reading I'll be very satisfied.

- I like critical affs that defend material praxis. Advocating for grounded praxis will always get me interested in a debate. Don't let this mean you abandon theory -- theory is extremely important for controlling the direction of politics, subject formation, praxis, etc. but when I have a soft spot for critical affs that are able to combine theory with praxis. (See above about using history.)

CPs:

- Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

- I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

- PICs -- I like these. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory.

DAs:

- Specific DAs are always good but politics can be good too and get the job done when debated well

- The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

- 2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically are cool

Topicality:

- Not super familiar with the T norms on the water topic - do with that what you will

- I do really enjoy T debates - creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

- Precise and predictable limits are good!

- Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

- Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed - you should control this framing.

- I default to competing interps but reasonability arguments paired with a strong push on arbitrariness/precision can be persuasive.

Pet Peeves in no particular order:

- Not flowing speeches. There shouldn't be a minute and a half of figuring out what cards were skipped before cross-ex. (Especially in varsity debates lol like cmon pay attention)

- Bastardizing revolutionary history and/or reading ev written by reactionaries will lower your ethos and speaker points - there are so many better ways to debate the cap K than reading imperialist propaganda about communism. Please do better.

- Don't call me "judge." Josh is fine.

- Profoundly untopical policy affs written only to beat critical teams but never to be read against policy teams (ehem, "sabotage")

- Being mean for no reason in cross ex.

- Reading the cap K as a root cause/state good double whammy, rather than, ya know, a real argument.

LD Things

Everything above still applies but it’s worth noting that I think tricks/friv theory is an absurd form of argumentation. If this happens to be your thing, strike me and move on. If you primarily read anything else, I’m probably a fine judge for whatever you want to do lol.

I’m not super familiar with the heavy philosophical aspects of LD but am not unwilling to vote for it, I just may require a higher threshold for explanation in these debates.

PF Things

My background is in policy debate but I'm familiar with the structure and style of PF rounds. That being said, I'm really not trying to watch kids in PF attempt to spread through their case and adapt to me in a way that is clearly not their preferred style of debating. What this does mean is that I have a higher standard for evidence comparison, line by line, and actually answering arguments. If you do these things, you're in a good spot. If you don't, you will likely lose. Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

ALSO, the evidentiary standards in this activity are wild. If someone calls for a card and it takes you five minutes to send out a link to a 60-page PDF, I will not be terribly happy. Please actually cut cards and have them readily accessible in the debate.

Cypress Bay '21 | UCF '25 (not debating)

Add me to the chain plz: zachlevdebate@gmail.com

Prefs

I know you are really only here to do your prefs, I'll try to make it as easy as possible. TLDR, I really couldn't care less what you do, just do you.

In HS I cut our AFFs (90% said extinction), Process CPs, and Ptx DAs so do with this what you wish.

If you are reading an AFF with a "non-extinction" impact, you need to beat the DA, framing doesn't take out the DA it just changes how I weigh one impact v. another.

If you are reading an AFF without a plan, I'm probably not the most experienced judge for you. I never read a K AFF and only ever went for T or the Cap K against them.

If you like to read Ks on the NEG, I will probably have a higher bar/need more explanation for certain kritiks (Baudrillard, Psychoanalysis, Bataille, etc.) but for the more basic kritiks (IR Ks, Cap, Settler Colonialism, etc) I will probably know what you are saying (doesn't mean you don't have to/shouldn't explain your theory/how the alt works/not give examples).

Specifics:

Theory

Condo is generally good, but a poor 2NC/2NR to "dispo solves" or "pre round condo" can be exploited.

All theory args except condo are reasons to reject the arg, not the team.

Process CPs are good with a rez-specific advocate, PICs are good, 50 State Uniform Fiat is good, Limited Con Cons are good, and so are most other args.

T v. Plans

Limits > ground

Reasonability needs to be coupled with a C/I (apparently ppl think reasonability means being "reasonably topical" and goes with a W/M arg. it doesnt <3

T v. Planless AFFs

Fairness is an impact.

2AR should ideally be a C/I with some form of offense (impact turn or some unique offense).

I am a huge fan of the planless effects-topical AFF that defends some sort of action and links to DAs.

Ks

AFF gets to be weighed most of the time (unless something goes really wrong in the 1AR/2AR).

Please no overviews over like 15 seconds or "I'll do the X debate here!".

The more specific the link/more lines picked out of ev the more compelling your arg is/the higher the burden for the AFF to answer said arg is.

CPs

CPs need to be functionally AND textually competitive (but like...still haven't heard a reason for why LIMITED intrinsic perms are bad in the 2NR).

Word PICs out of words NOT in the plan are NOT competitive.

I'll judge kick the CP by default but if the 2NR doesn't say judge kick and the 2AR says don't judge kick, I wont.

DAs

Should almost always turn the case.

Weird/out of the ordinary/reverse politics disads are pretty cool and will def be rewarded with high speaks.

Misc.

Plz don't call me judge.

Presumption flips NEG by default but AFF when a CP is in the 2NR.

If both teams MUTUALLY agree to debate on a previous topic because this one sucks, that's fine with me.

Good organization is key so that I am able to follow your arguments and judge accordingly after the round.

Make sure to make the connections between your arguments explicit: don't expect me to be tying your loose ends. Fully flush out all of your arguments before moving on. Give me reasons and evidence as to why an argument is true (by using facts or theories). Sign-posting is always good.

Please don't cut cards without saying where you stopped.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think your side should win. Tell me what you want me to vote on and why. Although evidence is expected, don't hide solely behind it and give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, it's about applying your own critical thinking and give me some impacts.

Impacts are the biggest thing i will vote on. Prove to me that your impact is greater than your opponents.

Specifics:

Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it but don't rely solely on it. The best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs. what the affirmative made it out to be.

Counter-Plan: This is so important. Remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than the Affirmative's plan, or else aff gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you don't contradict yourself and give yourself room to affirmative to debate it. You also don't have to perm everything and check to see if your arguments are making logical sense.

Kritik: This is not really my cup of tea but i will still consider it. Make sure to explain the Kritik well. Tell me how the aff's plan fits into your K and it makes everything worse. I still want impacts even if you do K's so arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.

2AR/2NR: No new arguments in the last two speeches. New arguments will impact speaker points but still be considered. Make sure to conclude and compare as to why you should win.

Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine and your teammates can help you but don't be an ass. When asking questions, allow the person to answer and avoid interruptions.

Ethics: Don't clip cards, don't misrepresent evidence, don't use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.

Speaker Points: I will typically award between 20-30 points, but will mark below for serious ethics violations. I will be looking at the following: Technical proficiency, arguments (including the use of sufficient evidence), clarity, engagement with opposition arguments and finally impacts.

Cypress Bay High School 2020

Emory University 2024

Note for 2023-24 Season: I have not done debate-oriented research for this topic, so I likely will not be the most familiar with your arguments before the debate begins. I have done some light research on topics peripheral to the resolution this year for my undergraduate work though.

hielijah@gmail.com

TLDR: I primary focused in high school on reading CPs, DAs, and Affs with plans, but I will vote on whatever. Speaker points explanation is at the bottom of the paradigm if you are here for that. I enjoy pretty much any debate, so don't let my paradigm influence what arguments you make. Just have a fun time. Please add me to the email chain before the round starts. If you have any questions just ask before the round

DA's: Impact comparison is super important. I've always thought that politics DA's are usually pretty bad, but if you are bringing the heat with the politics cards on the neg, or can point out the flaws in your average politics DA during the round I will be extra happy.

CP's: I am not a huge fan of the average consult counter plan in past years, but given the shallow DA ground on this topic I am more tolerant of them than I usually would be.

CP Theory: If you want to go for theory go for it, if you can stop the flow from being messy that would be nice.

Ks: Do whatever you like, not a huge fan of long overviews. I am not super convinced by plan focused style arguments, but I can be convinced otherwise.

T: Do whatever. As of now I have not judged any rounds on cjr and have not cut many cards for the topic either. Do with that information as you will.

planless affs: Go for it, just do impact calc when going for and answering T. K v K debates I'm down to watch, but will need clear link explanation during the debate.

Tech vs Truth: Tech over truth, but if something is untrue it is easier to answer.

Speaks: Generally I will try to conform to tournament norms and community norms

LD Notes:

Quick pref help: (LARP>K>Trad>Theory>Phil>Tricks)

Most of stuff from policy paradigm applies.

Not a huge fan of tricks, spikes, or rvi's but if you win on them I'll vote for them.

PF Notes:

Do whatever you want.

Good organization is key so that I am able to follow your arguments, mark them on my flow, and judge accordingly after the round.

Make sure the make the connections between your arguments explicit: don't expect me to be tying your loose ends. Fully flush our all your arguments before moving on, giving me reasons and evidence as to why an argument is true (by using facts or theory). Sign-posting is always good. Again, being organized ensures that your argument is able to be followed and that I follow everything.

Misrepresenting your oppositions arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they dont call you out on it), but it won't win you any speaker points. And no card clipping--heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win. Tell me what you want me to vote on and why. Although evidence is expected, dont hide solely behind it and give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, its about applying your own critical thinking.

Specifics:

Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it, remember that the burden lies with the negative to show why the affirmative definition is abusive, and it better be a good reason. Show me why the debate is worse off as a result of affirmative's definitions, dont just say that it is. Also be sure to provide your alternative interpretations, the best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs. what the affirmative made it out to be.

Counter-Plan: Remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than CP+, or else affirm gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you dont contradict yourself and give room to affirmative to debate it, anything else is abusive. More than 2 conditional arguments is abusive and will be judged down.

Kritik: Make sure to explain the Kritik well. Don't just tell me that the paradigm that the affirmative accepted is bad, show me specifically how the plan worsens the outcome as a result of your kritik and its implications. Doing anything less will not win you the argument. Theory-heavy rounds are not my favorite, and any theory arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.

2AR/2NR: No new argumentation in the last two speeches. New argumentation wont be judged on and will impact speaker points. However, the only exception to this is as rebuttal to new argumentation brought up in the previous speech, but there's a fine line here.

Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine, but will impact speaker points accordingly. When asking questions, allow the person to answer and avoid interruptions.

Ethics: Dont clip cards, dont mis-represent evidence, don't use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.

Speaker Points: I will typically award between 25-30 points, but will mark below for serious ethics violations. I will be looking at the following: Technical proficiency, argumentation (including the use of sufficient evidence), clarity, and engagement with opposition arguments.