POLICY Paradigm:

I'm Juan Carlos, a Political Scientist with a Master's in Economics and Business. My primary areas of expertise revolve around comparative politics, international relations, and macroeconomics, with a particular focus on the Iberian Peninsula and Latin America. I have conducted research in Spain, Portugal, and Mexico, and my current research projects are centered on post-industrial economies and the triggers of regime change in Latin America.

In the context of policy debate, I encourage the concept of CLASH, emphasizing the quality of arguments presented by both sides. Any argument is acceptable as long as it directly relates to the central theme of the debate. If you intend to introduce theory or debate multiple scenarios, it is essential to streamline your main arguments early in the debate. While speed is permitted, it should not come at the cost of clarity; you must thoroughly explain your arguments, and I will not vote for a one-liner that you breeze through in a matter of seconds.

Framework: When advocating for a particular framework in your debate, you should provide a comprehensive analysis of why your chosen framework offers a better option for policy debate. I do not appreciate framework arguments used solely to consume time or run multiple off-cases without a strong rationale; I rarely find such strategies convincing.

Kritiks: I am open to voting on Kritiks, but I expect a thorough impact analysis and a clear explanation of the alternative proposed by the Kritik.

On the Negative side, I anticipate a careful analysis of the "K," including an impact calculation. On the Affirmative side, I expect you to use your Affirmative case effectively and construct a robust framework argument in support of policy-making.

Counterplans/Permutations/Disadvantages: When presenting counterplans, I expect to see a competing counterplan with a detailed breakdown of the net benefits. I also anticipate a well-articulated disadvantage (DA) that doesn't get triggered by the counterplan. I have never voted for a counterplan presented in isolation. If the Negative team can demonstrate that the Affirmative case worsens the status quo, causing the DA, I appreciate well-argued internal links. While I am generally not a fan of broad, general DAs, a strong discourse on such a DA can change my perspective.

Cons:

• Rude debaters: Maintain decorum and respect during the debate.
• If going paperless, avoid excessive time consumption on flashing; make it quick and efficient.
• Always flow the debate, as not doing so will negatively impact your speaker points.

Pros:

• Display sportsmanship throughout the debate.
• Come well-prepared with your arguments and research.
• Incorporate a sense of humor when appropriate to foster a positive debating atmosphere.

PUBLIC FORUM Paradigm:

Debate Philosophy: In public forum, I prioritize clarity, accessibility, and the ability to engage the audience, as these are crucial elements of this style of debate. Public forum should be an accessible forum for debaters to engage in discussions about current events and policy issues.

Clarity and Accessibility: I place a high value on clarity in public forum debates. Debaters should be able to explain complex concepts in a way that is understandable to a general audience. Speak clearly, avoid excessive jargon, and make sure that your arguments are easily accessible to both the judge and any potential audience members who might not be familiar with debate terminology.

Content Quality: Quality over quantity. In public forum, I value well-reasoned, well-evidenced arguments over a barrage of content. Debaters should focus on a limited number of key arguments and provide strong evidence to support their claims. Less is often more in this format.

Crossfire: Crossfire can be a valuable part of public forum debates. I encourage debaters to use crossfire to clarify, challenge, and engage with their opponents' arguments. However, I expect crossfire to be conducted with respect and professionalism.

Summary and Final Focus: The summary and final focus speeches are critical in public forum. These speeches should provide clear overviews of the key arguments, voters, and weighing mechanisms in the round. These speeches should not introduce new arguments but should crystallize the debate and explain why your side should win.

Use of Evidence: Use evidence to support your arguments, but make sure the evidence is relevant, credible, and contextualized within the context of the debate. Evidence should be cited clearly, and it should be used to strengthen your claims, not overwhelm your opponents with sheer quantity.

Impact Analysis: Debaters should clearly articulate the impacts of their arguments and why they should matter to the judge and the audience. It's not just about presenting arguments; it's about explaining why those arguments are significant in the context of the resolution.

Framework and Fair Play: Public forum is typically a more accessible form of debate, and I appreciate debaters who maintain a fair and balanced approach to the debate. Playing by the rules, respecting time limits, and adhering to the format is essential.

Cons:

• Rude or disrespectful behavior will not be tolerated.
• Avoid excessive use of jargon and complex terminology that may alienate general audiences.
• Disregarding time limits or rules can negatively affect your speaker points.

Pros:

• Maintain sportsmanship and professionalism throughout the debate.
• Come prepared with a thorough understanding of the topic and strong arguments.
• Foster a positive and engaging atmosphere by using persuasive speaking skills.
• Adapt your style and arguments to the audience, ensuring accessibility and engagement.

Philosophy: I approach debate as an educational activity that values clarity, argumentation, and strategic thinking. Debaters should engage in well-researched and informed discussions, prioritizing depth over breadth. I appreciate creativity and unique arguments but expect them to be grounded in evidence and logic.

Framework: I default to a policymaker perspective, meaning I will evaluate the round based on which team provides the most compelling reasons to adopt or reject the proposed policy. However, I am open to alternative frameworks if both teams agree on an alternative way to evaluate the round. Without a clear framework, I will default to a policy-focused approach.

Flowing: I flow the round and prioritize arguments made in constructive speeches and extended in later speeches. Clear signposting and road mapping help me follow your arguments better. If an argument is dropped, it is the responsibility of the opposing team to point it out.

Evidence: Quality evidence is crucial. I prefer well-cited and recent evidence that directly supports your claims. I am skeptical of evidence taken out of context, so provide a nuanced and accurate representation of your sources.

Clash: I appreciate substantive clashes between teams. Rebuttals should not solely focus on defense but should engage with the core arguments presented by the opposing team. The more direct clash and engagement with your opponent's case, the better.

Speaker Points: I award speaker points based on clarity, organization, strategic thinking, and effective cross-examination. Being respectful and professional is also essential. High speaker points are earned through strong argumentation and effective communication.

Speed: I am comfortable with speed but prioritize clarity over speed. If I cannot understand your arguments, I cannot evaluate them. Be mindful of your pacing and make sure to signpost clearly.

Flexibility: While I default to a policymaker framework, I am open to evaluating the round through different lenses if both teams provide reasons. Adaptability and responsiveness to the arguments made in the round are key.

ADD ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN

meilirubio7@gmail.com

Updated Dec 2023

I prefer not to read cards unless I have to (and won't follow along live in the doc) but you can include me on email chains. My email is sarahsmaga@gmail.com.

About Me:
Groves High School '10, Michigan State University '13
I debated for three years in high school and was a coach and judge in college (mostly for Niles North HS). Since then, I've judged a handful of NYCUDL and BAUDL rounds each year.

These days, I'm a pretty flexible judge - just make sure that you stay organized, explain your arguments well, and help me understand why I should vote for you. If you're interested in my more technical thoughts (circa 2013), see below.

General:
Take my philosophy into consideration when prepping your strategy, but ultimately you should run arguments you feel comfortable running.

1. Clipping cards is cheating. If you are caught clipping cards, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points that the tournament will allow.
2. (new) Prep ends when your speech is saved on the flash drive and that flash drive is removed from your computer. I used to be more relaxed about this, but realized it makes rounds inefficient.
3. Tag-teaming in cross-x is fine. Prompting during a speech is fine. Neither should be excessive. That being said, if two people are talking over each other, I can't flow/hear anything.
4. Be nice to other people in the round. Being condescending, rude, mean, etc. will impact your speaker points.
5. Speed is not as important as clarity: I need to be able to understand you read your arguments in order to vote on them.
6. Please define specific acronyms and topic-specific terms of art - I didn't work at camp last summer and have had limited exposure to the topic.

Specifics:

Counterplans - I'm fine with multiple conditional worlds, but they might make the aff's "condo bad" arguments more convincing. I'm less fond of process counterplans, dirty word PICs, etc. Make sure you explain specifically how your counterplan solves the aff advantages - this might require more work if you run an excessively complicated counterplan. Affirmatives should be making perms, solvency arguments, exploring any links to the net benefit, etc.

Disads - These are good. The negative should be making disad turns case arguments, and the affirmative should be careful not to drop them. I think it is possible for the affirmative to win terminal defense, but it's often very difficult - make sure you're also making offensive arguments as well. I'm not a huge fan of intrinsicness, vote no, bottom of the docket, etc. but I would vote on them if dropped and impacted accordingly.

Kritiks - Try to avoid jargon and explain your arguments, I'm probably not familiar with them and I don't come across critical literature very much in my science major classes. I'm much less persuaded by super-generic or "dirty word" kritiks, especially if they don't prove that the affirmative plan is a bad idea. I think the aff can weigh their advantages and should be doing impact calc versus the kritik, especially on issues of timeframe. The negative should interact with the affirmative and clearly explain the alternative - if these things are unclear by the 2NR, I find it difficult to vote neg.

Theory - I think most theory questions (with the exception of conditionality, PICs) are a reason to reject the argument, but not necessarily the team. If you think otherwise, make sure it's articulated in the debate. Theoretical objections against the consult counterplan, etc. are also convincing if argued well. I find it more difficult to vote on theory when there is a distinct lack of clash - don't just reread blocks, engage with the other team's arguments. Please explain what "conditionality" and "dispositionality" mean - clarify judge-kicking, etc.

Topicality - I prefer a competing interpretations framework. There should be substantive analysis, starting in the block, about why I should prefer your interpretation/standards/voters (just re-reading the 1NC shell in the block isn't sufficient). Impact calc is important here too.

Project Teams/Nontraditional Affs - Historically these are not the debates I feel most comfortable in. Make sure you explain your position and make efforts to engage with the other side's arguments.

4yrs of policy debate experience with BAUDL

mostly ran queer k args on both aff and neg

run whatever you'd like, i'll vote for anything as long as its warranted and debated well

add me to the email chain: ksolisdebate@gmail.com

specific stuff:

case: pls have some type of clash in the round, don't forget to extend case throughout all your speeches when aff or i wont vote for you.

kritiks: mostly ran k's throughout most my debate career. pretty familiar with queer args and antiblackness authors. higher theory shit needs to be explained clearly enough so that your opponents understand and for me to vote on it.

da/cp: make link stories good and explain your impacts well, especially in the last rebuttals. i'm more familiar with structural violence impacts than with larger nuke wars ones, for example, so if you're going for an impact like such you absolutely have to have a good link story and imp calc to sway me your way. if you have a cp make sure its competitive or ill vote on perm.

t: i hate T, but run it if you want. i'll vote for it although i'll probably hate the round :)

k affs: my faves, don't run one just to try to win me over as a judge. make it good though if you run one! when answering fwk make sure you answer the line by line args (ie. limits, ed, grounds) and provide your own da's or something if possible for extra offense.

fwk on neg: when against a k aff you gotta explain why the aff's spec critique is taking away education from the traditional usfg args or why they're not mutually exclusive from policy or whatever your interp is

theory: condo bad, severance bad, etc. type of args are cool and i'll vote for them, bring them in early and impact them out

cx: tag team is cool, but it should be an appropriate balance from both partners cross x is binding so i'll also flow it. if the other team agrees, you can use prep time to extend any cx.

misc: clarity over speed, i'll evaluate the round based off what i flowed not from sent docs. i wont count flashing as part of prep, just don't use this as an excuse to steal prep - make the debate fair, if i peep y'all doing this ill drop your speaker points. i'll also drop your points if you're being racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. ------ be respectful pls

have fun y'all :)

My name is Amanda Tobey. I debated for J.P. Taravella High School, for UCF and George Washington. If you are reading this I am probably coaching/judging for GDS. Use this as a guideline for what to run in front of me, and the end of the day most debaters will do what they do best anyway so just do it well and I’ll vote off of what you tell me to.

 

I am now retired. I recently taught middle school policy and public forum for GDS, but as they are novices with no circuit to compete in, I am not that caught up on literature for any current topics. You have been warned*

If you have questions for me: Amandathetobey (at) gmail (dot) com.

 

GDS Invite: updated 9/23/17

Sorry for the late update! Some of this was on the wiki. I just updated this to make my disad and K preferences more open. 

PFD THINGS

At the heart of things, I am a Policy debater who is very comfortable with PFD as I have taught and competed in it a bit. I value tech over truth.

 

• You need warrants
• You need links and internal links
• You need impacts
• If you are extending something you need all of the above
• weigh stuff/impact analysis

 

 

 

Policy Things

After judging a few debates on the 2015-2016 topic these are things I've been saying after every round:

1. Perm texts should be specific

2. SHORT o/v's in rebuttals are your friend (and mine)

3. Organization counts

4. Impact out f/w, T, and theory if you want me to vote on it.

Short but not so sweet:

Love: theory, T, topic specific (IR) disads, and high theory/regular k’s.

Like: case, adv cps, pics.

Tolerate: politics, identity-based args (ask me about this if unclear)

Hate: any spec arg (you will lose speaks), card clipping (potential loss if proven)

  Theory(Framework):

I love theory, I think learning about why we debate the way we debate is important. I was both a cheating 2N and a lying 2A so you do you. I think theory is fluid and changes round to round. I default to competing interps. I like to hear the history of the arguments (i.e. condo and how in the 70’s one off was abuse but in 2002 seven off was the norm) this is important to understand why my ballot matters in these rounds. Please highlight things in these debates that I should focus on (i.e. examples of non-abuse, examples of in round abuse) and/or try not to make these debates messy. RVI’s are almost always shitty. DO NOT RUN SPEC ARGUMENTS IN FRONT OF ME- even if you win on something else your speaks will go down for it. Front-lining is your friend. I default aff framing for framework and this may or may not be a pre-req to theory or T- please keep at least part of these debate alive in the last rebuttals because this is an important questions that should be resolved by the debaters. (look to counterplans for exceptions)

 

Topicality:

As with theory, topicality is awesome. I used to run really abusive affs and I loved slamming affs for being abusive. I have a medium threshold for voting on extra-t/effects-t, just spend time on it. I’m slightly more truth oriented on T than theory but I still rely heavily on my flow. Affs should have a plan txt that is enacted by the USFG- I am more amiable to wacky plan txts than straight up plan advocacies. Whether that plan txt has to be fiated…..is debatable. I default to competing interpretations and I am very impressed with teams that keep T debates clean.

 

Case:

If you need another sheet of paper for something like an overview- tell me please. I love card analysis more than new cards. Smart arguments are good arguments, and I will evaluate smart analytics against bad cards. Be clear in overviews, this is your aff, you know it better, don’t forget that. I’m also fine with squirrely things like not going for your aff, case arguments used in theory debates, ect.

 

CP:

Counterplans are counterplans.if you want me to judge kick you have to tell me and then justify it depending on the theory in the round. I am slightly against multiple plank counterplans and think theory can check back. That along with 50 states and Lopez, I think theory has a good place and I slightly favor an aff ballot. All other counterplans are completely tab and fair game. Please don’t rattle off perms like it’s your job, they should be separate; they should have specific texts with cards if you want to make me super happy. That being said, I sometimes lean pro aff on most all perm theory (except severance).

 

Disads:

Oy. So I i used to be pretty meh on politics disads. Now,  I am a lot more open. I really love a good topic disad. That being said, I will totally vote for any disad, you just must: 1. Keep the debate clean 2. Spend time on it and the entire story 3. Write my rfd. Not one sentence (They dropped the link debate). I mean tell me the impact of that and how that means the 2ar is screwed and has been since the 2ac. I know cutting hyper-specific link cards is a pain, but it goes a long way.

 

Kritik:

My small amount of time in college made me more disillusioned with the K but I am getting over it. I am most familiar with security, cap, GBTL, and Nietzsch. I have no issues voting for k's.  Including high theory stuff.

Performance: I think debate is an academic space and a unique one. Only in this space do academics spread ideas, talk about foreign policy, flow, fiat stuff, ect. I think we can talk about x’s rights anywhere to anyone, but policy prescriptions are unique to this space. Thus, I do not like things that take away from the precious time and space that is policy debate. You should justify how it’s policy prescription or relates to it. General performance and identity don’t meet that standard and I will be very likely to (but not definitely) vote on framework in these rounds. (edit: given our current political climate I can see a world in which this is more "policy" and this I am more open to it)

Exceptions: If someone is racist/sexist in a round, you have impacts that are fiated, or if you are responding to a team that is performance with “but you don’t include me”

 

Cheating:

I encourage you to record rounds, if someone is clipping cards or cheating in any other way, I will punish them. Bring it up during the round. Make a theory arg.

 

Tech:

Jumping isn’t prep, all teams must have access to all evidence. I will allow 2 minutes per team per computer malfunction, after that it’s prep. I keep prep, you keep prep, we all keep prep! You may have to remind me of high school times. Act like you know how to work your computer/stand/space even if you don’t. I may have my computer out in rounds. I will not record anything without your permission and will give you my FULL attention during all cx’s and speeches.

 

Speaks and other important things you should know (and speaks):

My name is Amanda, this is policy debate, please don’t call me Mrs. Tobey or “judge”. Be friendly, act like you've known your opponent your whole life. I like a “cool” style of debate. That being said I was also very passive-aggressive and sarcastic which is fine by me, but should you get too aggressive and make me uncomfortable, speaks will go down. If you want warning for anything tell me- I think it’s noble to know what you need to work on and would love to help but after one warning, if it is something that is bugging me, it will affect speaks. I view speaks as 75% how you say something (clarity, ect.) and the structure you say it with (2ac’s shouldn’t put T at the bottom) and 25% actual smart arguments (that impact turn was a good idea). 

Partnering- I very much value my partner and I expect you to, too. I’m fine with open cross but do not cut your partner off if it’s their cross, do not over tool your partner, do not be a dick to your partner please.

Finally, if you ask me something that I already put here (not including clarification) I will be annoyed which is not a good way to start the round. I took the time to write this so you have the best chance of adapting, take the time to read it. If you show me good flows after the round (like as soon as the 2ar ends) I will add .2 to speaks.

 

So I basically stole this form Shree Awsare- I think it's a good representation of speaks.

< 25: You were offensive or obnoxious and deserve this.

25: No arguments past constructives, no spreading or bad spreading, no strategic thought of usage of the aff/neg constructive.

26: You showed up and made some claims (mostly without warrants) that occasionally clashed with your opponents- bad ethos and bad spreading.

27: You made a variety of claims in the debate (some backed up with warrants) but had a variety of severe strategic mishaps and/or failed to impact your claims- badish ethos, okay spreading.

28: You made a variety of claims in the debate (most of them backed up with warrants), but you were occasionally playing with fire and had questionable strategic maneuvers. okay ethos, good spreading.

28.5: You are solid. Your claims are backed up with warrants and you have a strategic vision that you are attempting to accomplish. Solid spreading, okay ethos. You use examples and don't just read pre-written blocks, you contextualize.

29+: You've done everything needed for a 28.5, but you sounded really, really good while you were doing it. This probably includes: you had excellent ethos/pathos, you were incredibly clear, and your strategic vision was executed nearly flawlessly.

30- You did all of the above and you made a connection. Somewhere in the debate (or at multiple points) you looked at me and made a topical one-liner or said something that changed the way I viewed the debate.

          

 

Cal debate 13-17, coached for Cal 18-22, currently coaching Houston.

I'm online for Georgetown but expect to judge in person at Texas and the NDT. Online, please slow down a bit and record your speeches in case there are connection issues.

Debate is for debaters; I'll vote for no-plan Affs, Ks, and even conditionality bad. Of course, arguments that attack opponents as people, wipeout*, spark, and "new Affs bad" will never be considered.

Default is judge kick. This can be reversed but requires ink before the 2AR.

I take judge instruction very seriously.

I have a very high bar for ethics challenges and will presume good faith error by the accused.

*Saying another value matters more than extinction is perfectly fine.

 

I have judged a minor slew of the wild'n'crazy debates over the past few years. This has lead me to a strong appreciation of the fundamentals: line-by-line, "even if" statements and strong impact calculus. That said, I like to learn and experience new things. If you introduce me to a word or an author or a frame of thinking, I am more likely to reward you with whatever ballots mean. 

 

My definition of a *good debate* is as follows: words are clear and discernible, arguments are distinct and comparative, speeches are well-organized and contain multiple historical and situational examples, debaters are cordial and crafty while always keeping a sense of humor, paperless wastetime is kept to a minimum and the final two speeches are spent writing my RFD.

 

Unless you are doing something wrong, I almost always flow cross-ex.

 

While not impossible, I don't typically vote for teams that solely extend defensive arguments.Since definitions of offense/defense differ among judges, mine are:

Offense = what they advocate is/leads to something that is bad/dangerous/catastrophic. Defense = something they said is incorrect/unlikely/false.

 

If you are using debate to fashion a new Total World-Image, you should realize that I might not care that hard. I leave you with the following kernel of empuzzling wisdom from the Haruki Murakami:

...there is nothing unusual about a dairy cow seeking a pair of pliers. A cow is bound to get her pliers sometime. It has nothing to do with me.

(Older Extra-Long Version, All Of Which Is Still True-ish)

My primary goal as a judge is to enjoyably resolve debates with a minimum quantity of my own intervention. While true tabula rasa is impossible, I think that attempting to constrain the influences on my decision to arguments in the debate is a necessary thought experiment in the interests of pedagogical competition. Therefore, I will attempt to prevent my prior knowledge of the topic, history, and certain authors or literatures from influencing my decision and will consign such interests to post-round suggestions and comments.

That being said, I have some presumptions which are generally reflected in the way I make decisions in really bad/unresolved or good/close debates, where key questions are left to the judge. If you want me to judge in a different way, then you should introduce a judgment calculus as an argument in the debate itself and tell me how you’d like things resolved. Below are a list of some of my considered presumptions.

STRUCTURE

Debate is a game — it is supposed to be fun and it is supposed to stimulate participants’ intellect. Rules and constraints on arguments are a vital element of motivating this stimulation, in the same way that constraints on poetic forms motivate novel plays of language. Debating the rules, the framework and the impact calculus within that framework has always been a component of winning debates. This is true whether the framework argument concerns a stipulation that the affirmative defend the minimum number of votes necessary for legislative passage, that the judge is a logical policy-maker, that the affirmative must defend a topical plan or that every debater must answer the cross-ex questions posed to them. Fiat and policy implementation are black boxes that can be uniquely unpacked in every debate for strategic gain, whether via an intrinsicness argument or an argument about one’s personal connection to the topic.

Line-by-line is pretty important — it’s how I flow and my flow typically dictates how I decide debates. If there is a compelling reason not to decide a debate on dropped arguments, tell me what it is during the debate and if the other team drops it I’ll make a good-faith effort to embrace your paradox. Conceded arguments may be treated as true, but the scope of that truth is limited by arguments which remain contested. I try to remain vigilant of new arguments in final speeches.

Scope matters — an argument that is thesis-level is more powerful and wide-ranging than a specific argument, but because there are more opportunities for counter-example, general arguments are logically easier to disprove. If you concede the truth of a thesis-level claim without taking the opportunity to find a counter-example, then you should not be surprised when the debate is decided at the level of generalities. See Karl Popper’s explanation of Occam’s Razor for an explanation of the logic behind this.

Warrant depth and diversity are key — it’s how I decide most contests between given claims. Counter-intuitive, improbable and morally repugnant claims are totally winnable with diverse and high-quality warrants.

Cheap shots aren’t a great idea — I’m a pretty good flow but I have a high threshold for clarity. If you mumbled out a voting issue or trick perm in pig latin that the other team missed there’s a decent chance I missed it too. I won’t vote on an argument that I didn’t record during a speech unless all four debaters agree that it was made or concede the same

Offense/defense is standard — with some obvious exceptions it seems like everyone wants to debate this way, so I’m happy to go along with it. I do think there are serious problems with the logic of offense/defense, most easily highlighted in debates over the link differential between a plan and counterplan. I am also susceptible to offense/defense bad arguments (“Arguments are sentences that are either true or false…the counterplan either links to the DA or doesn’t… therefore link differential as a concept is incoherent… you’re either pregnant or you’re not”), but I’m sure there are good responses to such objections

THEORY

Remedy is the most important question for theory debates. I will assume that the impact to a theory argument is to reject the argument unless it is explicitly stated otherwise prior to the final rebuttals.

Conditionality is usually a good thing, but then again it is possible to have too much of a good thing. Nuanced theory is key — I’m more sympathetic to the aff if conditional advocacies contradict or steal the aff in some way, as opposed to the debate over whether or not conditionality in the abstract is good or bad.

Postround conditionality is sweet for the negative but terrible for the aff. I am very sympathetic theoretical objections against it. I won’t kick arguments for the negative unless explicitly told to, and then only if the aff doesn’t object.

Permutations are tests of a link unless explained otherwise. If there is a link argument extended by the negative, then it must be explained how the permutation resolves the link arguments.

DISADS

Uniqueness controls the direction of the link if decisively won by either team — otherwise I’ll evaluate all arguments probablistically via offense/defense

Diverse case turn arguments are a great way to persuade me that you’ve won the debate

I find that I begin most of my decisions by looking at impact uniqueness — the part of debate that determines whether or not either side truly controls “try-or-die”. If a team decisively controls impact uniqueness, then I may be inclined to vote for them even if they appear to be losing much of the rest of the debate.

Extreme-low-risk causal chains fall within the penumbra of statistical noise and in principle only dictate possibility rather than probability. In other words, if you lose a key defensive argument on a DA, you have proven that the link-chain suggested by the DA is possible, but not probable. Because lots of things are possible, the fact that the DA is possible may not be significant in my decision.

COUNTERPLANS

PICs done right are some of my favorite arguments. Case specific, functionally and textually competitive, with specific solvency advocates are awesome

Counterplans that steal the aff are probably unfair for the aff to have to debate — I’m more aff-leaning on condition/consult than most

Cross-ex is the best way to establish competition

Solvency advocates in general are preferable but not a must

KRITIKS

Specificity is key — if you aren’t pointing to specific 1AC cards to do link analysis then you are depriving yourself of both a speaker point opportunity and strategic advantage

Think through what the alt is — if you get embarrassed on the alt being vague and/or naive and/or dumb in cross-ex then I may feel hard-pressed to vote for you

Floating PIKs are silly but really strategic — if you make them too sneakily in the block and then claim that they were “dropped” I think the 2ar probably gets a few new-ish logical answers

CROSS-EX

I flow it sometimes, it’s binding and vital for speaker points

INTERNETS

Only use it for research questions during debates — fine for Wikipedia checks or to get the context of a full article, not cool to open an email with a bunch of new updates half-way through the debate. If you want to use time during a debate to cut a cards, that’s your own business

SPEAKER POINTS

I give speaker points for rhetorical and persuasive flourish, use of historical examples and creative analogies, humor and technical talent. I may lower points for debaters who fight with or interrupt their partner, are cruel or disrespectful to their opponents, who prompt excessively, who make poor use of cross-ex. I will also punish the speaker points of debaters who use prejudicial or discriminatory language in a debate, or violate ethical norms of conduct.

ETHICS

I don’t vote on ethics challenges. There are other remedies that solve better, and I don’t think that it is worth ruining an entire debate over one person’s opinion of what constitutes “community norms” or “ethical practices”. That being said, please don’t lie, cheat, steal, cross-read, fabricate evidence, text/chat with your coaches during a debate and so on — it fosters a weakness of spirit if you get away with it and makes you look pathetic and/or stupid if called out on it.

PERFORMANCE

Arguments are arguments, whether made by voice, image, song or body. That being said, sometimes it’s difficult for me to flow the warrants of the body, so make sure you explain your arguments in plain language. I appreciate rhetorical debating, and will give higher speaker points for performances that look like some effort was put into composition and rehearsal.

I find that reading evidence often distracts from / undermines the rhetorical force of a performance. I appreciate warranted argumentation — you don’t need to hand me a lot of evidence.

Your opponents influence the way that I judge your solvency. Make sure that the other team understands what you’re argument is, or at very least give them the opportunity to understand. Performance teams whose arguments are excessively complicated, vague or constantly morphing can undermine their own raison d’etre.

I am more sympathetic to performances that either justify the resolution or have advocacy statements that are germane to the topic. I think that topicality and framework are different arguments. Make sure you can defend your education in the context of the education facilitated by the resolution.