NSDA DISTRICTS HOA ONLINE TOURNAMENT

A few specifics for this particular tournament:

1. The rules at this tournament are limiting on judges viewing evidence. I very rarely call cards as it is, but in the event that there is a disagreement about what a particular piece of evidence says, make sure that you clearly reference which card it is. When referencing a card that’s being questioned, please read out a more complete citation including at minimum: author first and last name (if there are several authors, the first listed name and “et al” is acceptable), the name of the article, the name of the publication, and the most specific date of publication you have. If possible, please read out any questionable rhetoric from the specified card. Per the rules of this tournament, you SHOULD NOT include me on any email chains, or email me anything directly.

2. This tournament is a no disclosure, no verbal feedback tournament. In keeping with the rules, I will not disclose my decision or provide any feedback on your performance after the debate has concluded on the google meet call. Because all ballots are online, I will provide very detailed feedback there. If you need any clarification on my feedback or have any specific questions, feel free to have your coach email me directly with your questions.

INFO

aryn.m.barnes@gmail.com for all email chain and clarification purposes

BACKGROUND

I did LD at Liberty/Liberty North HS (Kansas City MO) 2008-2012, and NFA-LD (policy style debate) 2012-2015 at Truman State. I also coached several policy/LD debaters from 2012-2017. In 2017 I took a hiatus from speech and debate and am getting involved in the activity again in 2020. I judged policy and LD on an almost weekly basis from 2012-2017, both as a volunteer and hired judge, and have judged tournaments both at the local and national circuit level. As a debater I ran arguments ranging from: traditional LD, kritiks, theory, big impact arguments (affs/DAs), to performance affs.

PARADIGM

**OVERVIEW

This is a general look into my judging style. If you want to know about more specific arguments, see below.

As a judge, I’m pretty tab. I tend to believe that debate should be a space that allows people to engage in whatever discussions they find most interesting, and I will avoid interfering as much as possible. I put effort into setting aside my own personal biases to evaluate all arguments fairly. The only things I won’t evaluate are arguments that are intentionally damaging or offensive (EG something that explicitly advocates for discrimination, genocide, or hate crimes) and reading these arguments in front of me will likely result in an instant L. For evaluative purposes I tend to default to net benefits unless told otherwise. I am comfortable with speed, but it is very important to make sure you’re signposting/tagging important arguments as I’ve been out of the game long enough that my ear isn’t quite as attuned to speed as it once was. Impact weighing is also very important to winning my ballot. I’m lazy and generally vote for the side where I have to do the least amount of work to get to an RFD. You need to be talking about how all of the arguments interact. Good impact analysis could easily be the difference between a win and a loss for you.

Arguments I like hearing: creative affs, structural impacts, kritikal/performance arguments that link to the topic, creative theory arguments, and arguments with a case-specific link.

Arguments I don’t love: inherency, generic counterplans, spec arguments, minor repair, and other super generic theory arguments.

**SPECIFICS

Aff:
Anything you want. Impact everything to extinction? Great. Talk about structural violence? Awesome. Read poems or sing all of En Vogue’s ‘Free Your Mind’? Go for it. As long as you can tell me why this means I vote for you, I’m down.

Inherency:
This is my least favorite debate. For the most part, I’m going to impact inherency arguments as solvency D unless you have specific theory/voters that go with it. Unless you read something that says the plan text verbatim was just passed, inherency alone likely won’t be enough to get the W.

Topicality:
I’m pretty neutral on T. I’m not more or less likely to vote on it versus any other argument.

Theory:
Generally, this is a mixed bag. I don’t need proven abuse to vote on theory args, but without abuse I need the arguments and implications to be clear. The more generic your theory/violation is, the less likely I am to be compelled to vote on it. On the other hand, creative theory arguments that may not come up very often are really fun to see, and I’m more likely to vote on theory without proven abuse when the argument is well thought out and interesting.

On-case debate:
Case defense is very beneficial for impact weighing, but I’m not going to vote on defense alone. On-case offense like turns are always great.

Disads:
the more specific your story, the better. I’m not opposed to more generic disads as long as they clearly link to the aff.

Counterplans:
Not the biggest fan of counterplans in general. I tend to like PICs and agent counterplans the least, as in my experience most of these args seem low-effort. This doesn’t mean I’m more likely to vote against the arguments, I’ll probably just grumble under my breath about it during your prep. Specific counterplans are great, and if you’re going to read a counterplan it’s really important that you take the time on solvency to explain why the counterplan is the best/only option as clearly as possible.

Kritiks:
Kritiks are also fine. As a debater I tended to run Ks that talked about structural violence, rhetoric/language, fem, and narratives. I’m at least vaguely familiar with most Ks that have been around for more than 5 years. If you’re going to read a kritik based on the works of a specific philosopher (EG Baudrillard) you need to be very good at explaining your argument and the literature, as I have a weaker knowledge of the lit base when it comes to these types of Ks.

Performance arguments:
These are welcome. As mentioned under Affs, it’s important that you articulate why your performance is important and why it justifies the ballot.

Non-topical arguments:
I won’t reject an argument for being non-topical without your opponent telling me to (with impacted voters). In general, I prefer that your arguments are at least related to the topic in some way. If you’re going to read a non-topical argument and you want to win, it’s important that you can articulate both why your issue is so important that I should ignore the topic, AND answer all theory/T as clearly and cleanly as possible.

Anything else:
If you need clarification on any of this or you have a question about something I didn’t address, just ask me.

Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

Info/Bio

I am a current 3rd-year member of the University of Central Missouri's Talking Mules Speech and Debate Team where I do mainly Interp events (Prose, Poetry, Duo, and DI), but I do limited prep (Impromptu) and Platform (Communication Analysis/Rhetorical Criticism and Informative). I do PF Debate and Parliamentary Debate alongside that. Needless to say, I have almost done it all.

In High School, I did HI, DI, DUO, PRO, POE, POI, and Duet Acting along with PF Debate for a little bit.

PF

I will be a flow judge thus it is not enough to just talk pretty. I would prefer that everyone stays respectful to me and each other. I highly consider debate to be a civil argument and not "who-can-out-yell-the-other-team". Other than that, my standards are at the same level as any other debate tournament.

LD/CX

I do not have as much knowledge on these events, therefore do not speed. I know enough in terms of their operation, but not the technical and logistics of it. Arguments have to have logic and make sense. I will do my best to flow the rounds.

Former Blue Springs HS Debate 2012

Experience

1. IE: Poetry, Domestic Extemp, Oratory, Congress

2. Debate: Policy, Public Forum

Pref Public Forum and INF and Extemp.

I'm a tab judge. Debated Policy through high school, BP in college, now I coach for the Denver Urban Debate League. I don't feel any particular way about theoretical positions or certain authors. I'm fine with speed. I am not likely to vote on tiny technical drops unless they have been seriously impacted out by the opposite team. I think debate is a game, and we are trying to make thoughtful and strategic moves to best our opponent, so I will reward analytical steps taken towards that objective. I vote on K affs, including affs that don't defend a plan text and pretty much anything you're willing to throw at me. My pet peeve is poorly extended warrants. At the end of the day, you should be telling me why you win. Your rebuttals should write my RFD for me. More than happy to provide additional feedback or advice outside of rounds, contact me by email.

I am a parent judge and have been judging for nearly 15 years. I am most comfortable with, and have the most experience with, judging LD and PFD. I can hang with Policy, but I sometimes find it intimidating, mostly because of the spreading and the technical jargon (hint hint).

I believe that debate is first and foremost about communication. So, communicate! Break it down for me, be clear and concise about why your case is superior, tell me why your opponent can't win, and whatever you do--don't spread!

I also believe in professionalism. I am all for a spirited, passionate, even aggressive debate, but rolling your eyes, getting snotty or condescending, stampeding over your opponents' answers during cross, and/or laughing at your opponents is unprofessional and it will be very unlikely that you will win the debate if do those things. Also, part of professionalism is showing up prepared. If you come in scattered, don't know where your materials are, can't find your evidence, don't know your time limits, don't bring writing utensils, don't wear shoes (seriously, I've seen all of those things!), you're probably not going to win.

I heavily consider HOW you present your case, but I don't only consider the performative stuff. As an author and school librarian, I love a good framework, and have a deeper-than-surface-level understanding of how research and reliable sourcing works. I WILL pay attention to your evidence. If it's old, vague, partial, or especially if it's sketchy/unreliable/weird, you can trust that I will catch it. I like creative arguments, but I don't like dubious evidence.

Debate is fun and adrenaline-pumping, but it is also about learning and becoming skilled at critical thinking, communication, and public speaking skills that you will carry through life. Knowing how to research effectively and get your ideas across clearly and succinctly, all while acting in a respectful and professional manner will get you far (in both your next round, and in life).

Did I mention that you shouldn't spread? Don't spread!

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

I believe debate is a communication event. If I can't keep up with you, you lose.

Background: I graduated from William Jewell College in 2020, where I studied Institutions and Policy and am now a Northwestern Pritzker Law 1st year student. I competed in LD and USX in high school (2X national qualifier in the latter) and competed in parliamentary (NPDA) debate in college. I am familiar with all events and mainly judge Extemp, LD, and Policy.

Debate Paradigm: I flow every round and render my decision solely on the flow (absent abuse or rule-breaking). I have no preference as to specific arguments I want to hear. Analytical, clear argumentation wins every time. Be sure to make the debate smaller in your final speeches. By that, I mean identify the few key arguments in the debate and explain why they matter the most and why you win on them. A line-by-line final speech is rarely helpful.

(NON-NFA) LD Paradigm: The Value/VC debate is incredibly important and should be present at every point in the debate. Personally, I feel that the loss of philosophy in LD is incredibly sad but that does not influence my decision-making.

NFA-LD Paradigm: I follow all rules set by the NFA governing documents. I especially recognize that spreading is antithetical to the debate. I will vote on stock issues and when the debate comes down to solvency I will evaluate the debate based on impact calculus so I encourage debaters to argue impacts. In the final speeches, I expect debaters to make the debate smaller. By this I mean to crystallize the few key arguments and explain why these should ultimately decide the winner of the debate. I have no preference for argument types but am willing to listen to Ks, topicality, and traditional policy arguments. No particular style will give you an advantage, I will decide the debate based on the flow.

Policy/CX Paradigm: Although I didn't do Policy in high school, my time in Parli made me intimately familiar with the structure of this format of debate. Feel free to run any form argument in front of me (e.g., critical, case, disad, counterpart, anything) but I truly have no preference so you get no bonus points just by debating a certain type of way. At the end of the day, you must win the flow and give me key, crystallized arguments explaining why the arguments you are winning are the most important. Speed is fine so long as it is clear. Assume I am an educated citizen when it comes to explaining arguments.

TFA Congress Paradigm: I place a strong emphasis on the originality of ideas and the logical structure of the speech. Questions and answers should be meaningful and succinct. Grandstanding when asking a question is strongly looked down upon. I expect the presiding officer to accurately track precedence and keep their colleagues to the time limits. I did not compete in Congress often in high school, but I always did at least two tournaments a year and was often the presiding officer. While I do not automatically give the presiding officer a high ranking or great scores, I do find their job to be difficult and think judges often don't appreciate their duties.

Four years of national circuit policy debate in high school. I tried to keep this short, so if you have any specific questions please ask.

Some general points:

-Basic principle: Win an argument and a reason why that means I should vote for you

-I try to be as unbiased as possible regarding your selection of argumentative styles and regarding my evaluation of the merit of specific arguments

-You should therefore read whatever arguments you're best at and which give you the best chance of winning

-I probably lean towards the "policy" side of things

-Flashing is not prep but please know how to use a flash drive

-Clarity and good line by line are greatly preferred and appreciated; you should avoid overviews whenever possible

-Explain why your arguments matter in the context of the debate as a whole and why they're voting issues

Aff:

-I tend to lean slightly neg on framework questions; I think that most K affs are not particularly about the topic and I think that it's a huge bonus if your aff actually engages with a topical question

-I think that your aff should have some written statement of advocacy

CP:

-These are great

-I try to be neutral on CP theory but it's going to be an uphill battle to get me to agree that I should exclude from debate some large and common category of counterplans (e.g. Agent CPs bad). Theoretical objections which are more specific in nature are likely to be more persuasive.

K:

-Go for it

-Avoid using an excessive amount of jargon

-The earlier points about avoiding overviews, doing good line by line, and explaining yourself apply especially to this debate

DA:

-Yeah sure whatever

-Politics is fun but be good at it

Theory:

-I'll vote on it

-Try to clearly explain your arguments and slow down a bit to ensure you communicate them clearly

Style:

-Being funny is always a plus

-Be clear

-Do line by line and signpost clearly

I am as fluid as the room needs me to be.
I'll gladly accept Impact Calc, Logic, Ks, Spreading, CEDA-style, Theory, FIAT, DAs, Ts, and just about everything else.

I look for the quality of the debate, and mark high in forms of forcing clash and counterattacks.

Understand that I am an expert on this content, so I do not need filler or backstory.

I want to see teams take calculated risks and show backbone.

I WILL VOTE AGAINST ABUSIVE MANIPULATION OF TEXT/CARDS/INFORMATION

Best of luck to all!

Email: shawn.daugherty@nkcschools.org (prefer SpeechDrop to email chain due to school computer 'firewall' from overpaid IT staff...)

GTA at KU Fall 2021

former NDT/CEDA debater for the University of Missouri - Kansas City

I'd like to be on the email chain.

I will do my best to adjust to your style and evaluate what is presented.

I enjoy judging debates.

I'm generally fine with speed, but please slow down for tags and authors. I flow on paper. If you spread full speed through a CP with 5 planks, I will be struggling to know what it does.

I think debate is usually about story telling, and I often find myself more comfortable voting for debaters who have provided a better and more complete story. This also means I am more hesitant to vote on arguments that just don't make sense to me - this seems obvious but I feel like it comes up more frequently than expected. I need to understand your argument well enough to explain to the other team why they lost a debate on it.

Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful things.

---------

Kritiks - I like a good kritik. I usually find myself more persuaded by kritiks that have an alternative in the 2NR with lots of examples and explanation for why it resolves the impact. I think policy affs often lack a robust defense of utilitarianism, and I enjoy listening to arguments about why we should use another method to make ethical decisions.

I would also encourage you to:

- contextualize your links to the affirmative

- explain why you control / solve / turn / moot the 1AC's impacts

- illustrate why the aff is factually incorrect, in a way that is consistent with your criticism -- usually think it's a little awkward when the K about epistemology contradicts your case defense from xyz think tank -- I would encourage you to read smart case arguments or be ready to defend "we're negative and get to do that"

I usually think K affs that 1) do something or advocate that something should be done 2) have some relation to the topic - are the most persuasive. If that's not your aff, just be sure to explain why you have good reasons not to.

Topicality / FW - Interpretations should be strategic and well justified. If you go for T, be sure to have clear impacts and weigh them. Reasonability vs competing interpretations is up for y'all to decide. In FW v K debates, I think specific and clear offense in the last speech usually ends up deciding my ballot. Affirmatives without a plan text should be sure to have significant offense - and explain why it outweighs clash or whatever.

Theory - Sure. Be in-depth, specific, and weigh the impacts of each interpretation. 3-4+ condo is probably a lot in front of me, especially if there is a clear in-round abuse story.

DAs - Works for me. Tell a good story and do lots of impact comparison.

CPs - Counterplans are cool and create interesting strategies. I probably lean slightly affirmative on most of the theory here, but could be convinced otherwise. That being said, strategic PICs are often very persuasive to me. If you read a big multi-plank CP, you should particularly emphasize what it does and how it works. Otherwise, we may not be on same page at the end of the debate when you assume that I understand why plank #7 solves the 3rd internal link of the second scenario on the first advantage.

Also, negatives should do more case debate. I am often convinced that plans wouldn't really do anything.

Speaker points:

DO:

- funny or particularly insightful remarks during the debate

- send speech docs quickly and effectively (for example, 1NR sent by the end of 2NC CX)

- signpost well during your speech

- make smart, strategic decisions during the debate

DON'T:

- steal prep

- be overly rude or mean

Hi! I'm Alex, I'm a 4 year policy and congressional debater that just graduated law school and has judged debate with some frequency.

Speak as fast or as slow as you want.

I'm mostly good with you running what you want, and leaving it to the other side to dispute it, but with that in mind, I think most Ks/Critiques are weak arguments and would rather you focus on the merits of your and your opponents case. That's not to say you can't run one, you just need a pretty compelling reason for me to be convinced by it.

Try to at least minimally address all of your opponents arguments, even if you think the argument is completely stupid, I lean toward not wanting to reason away an argument by myself.

Roadmaps are always appreciated, I tend to flow on a singular sheet old style, typically on the back on the score sheet if possible.

I'll probably write some feedback about delivery and speaking if I have any, and that definitely affects speaking points, but judging will be done entirely on the merits. I'm not opposed to a low-point win, you could be the worst speaker out there and still have the best argument.

Most importantly, have fun with it! You're there to win, but it's better to enjoy something that takes up so much of your free time.

I debated for Missouri State University for four years and competed primarily in the NDT-CEDA circuit, as well as NFA-LD.

I ran a myriad of arguments in college, and have no real preference for the type of arguments teams choose to read in front of me. I encourage everyone to read the arguments they are most comfortable and prepared to go for. That being said, I am not an expert on HIGH high theory (seriously, who is?), and so with any argument, ensure that you are explaining your theory in depth, apply it in round strategically, and you'll be fine.

Speed is not a problem, clarity is. Especially in the era of online debating, you should focus on clarity over going to your limits speed-wise.

Please send the email chain and any questions you may have to missouristatede@gmail.com

Preferred Name “Nae” pls and thx :)

6 bids to the TOC senior year

3x NDT First Round

For Email Chains: edwardsnevan@gmail.com

College Paradigm:

Do what you want and I will vote for who wins I care very little what anyone at this level reads as long as isn't blatantly racist, sexist, homphobic, etc. Just do you the best you can.

HS Paradigm w/ some edits:

I am a young judge and I am still figuring out my ideas about debate so this paradigm will be an image of what I currently think about the activity. My favorite Judges: Shree Asware, DB, DSRB, Eli Smith, Rosie Valdez, Nicholas Brady, Sheryl Kaczmerick. Here's a list of what I think about certain arguments/ideas.

TLDR: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. I'm down with speed but will yell "clear" if you're just mumbling. GLHF.

BTW: I make decisions quick it isn't a reflection of y'all I just think debates are usually pretty clear for me. I also have noticed I make a lot of faces and am pretty transparent about how I feel about stuff....take that as you wish.

Tech = Truth- i do believe technical debate is incredibly important to keep the flow ordered and to stop judge intervention BUT only if you are winning the meta-framing of the debate that makes your technical arguments true under your vision of the world. I'm also willing to throw the flow out the debate if compelling arguments are made by the debaters that it's a bad model for how I adjudicate. WARNING: This means you need to have a clear way for me to evaluate the debate absent the flow or I will default to it ie "flow bad" isn't enough.

Theory = Needs an interp not just xx is bad vote them down, but I'm always down to judge a theory debate.

DA- They're fine. I'm capable with judging them and have no problem keeping up with normative policy debate. I enjoy impact turns and I think the most important part of this debate is the impact calc/impact framing. I need reasons why your impact comes first and how it interacts with the other team's impacts. If you're both going for an extinction claim you need to win the probability and timeframe debate with some good evidence.

CP- I enjoy the theory debates here and I think they are important to set precedents for what debate should look like. I lean slightly aff on theory but I think I lean more neg against the permutation if it's well debated out. I think the affirmatives's best bet in front of me is to take out the net benefit unless the CP is just not competitive with the aff. NO JUDGE KICKING THE COUNTERPLAN NO NO NO EITHER GO FOR IT OR DON'T PLS AND THANKS.

K's- this is what I do and i'm most familiar with but this is a double edged sword because it means i expect you to be on point about how you articulate these arguments. Specific links are killer, but generic links applied directly to the aff are just as powerful when warranted. You can kick the alt and go for presumption but that usually requires you winning a heavy impact framing claim. Do your thing and make it interesting debate with your ideas and don't read me your generic Cap blocks (i do enjoy a good cap k though) that have nothing to do with what's going on in the debate. MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE!!!!

K AFF's- non-traditional affirmatives are also my bread and butter. I love how creative these affs can be and the educational benefit that these affs show. Be passionate and care about what you're doing and use your 1AC as a weapon against every negative strategy to garner offense as well as the permutation. Go for nuanced framing arguments and don't be scared of an impact turn. Having Roberto as my partner and Amber Kelsie/Taylor Brough as my coaches has forced me to learn a lot more high theory and I actually enjoy it if done right just know what you're talking about or I will be sad. :(

T - I actually like T against policy aff's a lot if you're gonna normatively affirm the topic you better do it right ;).

FW- this is where I feel like I get pathologized a lot on how I feel. The summer before my senior year my partner and I went for straight-up framework every round with fairness and limits arguments. I think this position run correctly combined with nuanced case engagement with the aff is actually a fantastic argument especially against aff's with weak topic links. I think arguments like dialogue, truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground BECAUSE the latter group of impacts end up being internal links to the prior. There's a TVA to almost everything so get creative, but TVA with a card that applies to the aff is a killer. If you're aff in these debates you should either impact turn everything or have a model of debate with some clear aff and neg ground. There are a bunch of ways to debate framework but having offense is the key to winning any of those strategies. ALSO DON'T FORGET THE AFF. YOU WROTE IT FOR A REASON EXTEND IT EVERYWHERE.

SIDE NOTE: All pettiness and shade is invited if you make me laugh or throw a quick jab of quirky shade at the other team I will probably up your speaks. If you make fun of Roberto (my partner) I will up your speaks. Also, Naruto/Bleach/My Hero Academia references will be rewarded.

OTHER SIDE NOTE: I grow increasingly tired of people yelling at eachother in CX and the trend of white cis-men constantly interrupting and talking over black folk/poc/women/queer/trans folk. If you do this I will probably be less inclined to care about whatever you say in CX and I may slightly punish your speaks.

Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will cause me to stop the round and move on with my life

Everything is a performance.You can hmu on my email at the top for any questions. Good Luck!

Be a decent human in round. It’s educational, it’s fun, don’t demean your opponent or be rude for the sake of a performance. If it is clear that you are not following this, you have been warned.

What I vote on.

I will vote on a lot of things so long as you can argue it well. Not tag arguments and read them word for word, but actually argue them and weigh them against your opponent’s arguments in the debate. I will vote on K’s. I will vote on T. I will vote on theory. I will vote on impact calculus. Just argue your point well and make the debate a debate and not two sides talking at two separate walls.

General things.

I have experience both doing debate in a number of styles and in IEs, also a number of styles. Weigh your impacts for yourself. I think it’s far better for you to do the work and have me, as a judge, hear you advocate for it than for you to rely on my perspective going through the round. I will flow throughout the round. I am okay with speed but I am mindful of those who rely on spreading the other out of the round and focus too heavily on speed versus good arguments. Being fast does not mean you will win, but it doesn’t mean you will lose either. I like all kinds of arguments to be made so do what you are comfortable with whether that’s a case-heavy debate, DAs, CPs, Ks, FW, T, or anything else. Be a nice human and enjoy the experience.

If you have any other specific questions, don’t be afraid to ask. I am not intimidating and want you to enjoy what you do and what you present. Have a good round!

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

My email for the chain: kaevans97@gmail.com

I graduated from Missouri State University in May 2020 where I competed in NDT/CEDA as well as NFA-LD style debate all four years. I'm attending law school this year, so I have little to no specific topic knowledge, but a good torts or contracts joke will certainly get you a bump in speaker points.

TL;DR: It is your job as the debater to tell me how to evaluate particular arguments in the round. If you fail to do that, I will be forced to impose my own standards of judgement and I would much rather that I didn't have to do that.

In all honesty, I am more truth over tech, but if there is a drop I won't completely disregard the argument (even if I find it silly). That generally means that if you are reading a ridiculous argument that you created to confuse your opponents, you are already in an uphill battle with me. No, aliens will probably not kill us all. And no, the world is probably not just a simulation (if it is, then I picked the wrong one). Use that information as you will.

At the end of the day, debate is an activity that you compete in for a finite number of years. This competition is not the impetus of your life's achievements; please do not treat it that way. Be kind to everyone in the round and enjoy the experience.

CPs:

I personally think conditional advocacies have gotten a little ridiculous, but will entertain them if you give me a reason to. I find it unlikely that I will vote on theoretical objections as the sole reason for decision, but I can be compelled to use it as a reason to disregard a CP/Alt in the 2nr (given that the neg has not already kicked it). If your CP was pulled out of nowhere before the speech started, you will have to do a lot of work to convince me it is real (see above).

If you are aff, you will need a developed solvency deficit at the end of the debate unless you are going for offense on the net benefit. I know that seems obvious, but sometimes 2As forget.

DAs:

I don't really have any wild opinions here so I will be brief. The link is the hardest part of the DA to win and thus the most vulnerable to affirmative arguments. You should focus most of your energy there. If you don't have clear impact calc in the 2nr/2ar I will have a much harder time deciding what to do with the DA in comparison to aff impacts and that puts you in an awkward position at the end of the round.

Ks:

I have a love-hate relationship with critical arguments in debate. That is based mostly on how debate forces those arguments to morph from their original intent. That being said, the aff needs to win either a perm or an outweighs argument that is developed and does more than just repeat the same tag line repeatedly. The best critical debates on the neg engage key portions of the aff to prove a link to the aff either performatively in round or housed in the core premises on their literature. I am unpersuaded by vague links to USFG action or other actions that are so inherent to the status quo that I cannot differentiate between the two. I also personally think alts are generally underdeveloped and I have a hard time determining what to do when the neg kicks the alt and all that remains is a vague link.

Whatever my opinions, this is your activity. I want you to do it the way that is the most enjoyable for you. A well-run K is better than a half-assed policy round any day.

Topicality:

TBH, as a competitor I sucked at topicality debates. That doesn't mean I don't understand how they function or that I am unwilling to vote on T, but you will likely have to do a little bit more work to make sure I understand what your arguments mean for the decision. I apologize if that is annoying.

(For policy affs that are attempting to meet the resolution): I do not care if there is no explicit in round abuse. That is useful, but not required of a topicality argument. Honestly, if the aff is pretty topical (especially if it is arguably the core aff on the topic) I will have a hard time being persuaded by topicality. I guess prove me wrong.

(For anti-topical affs): Your TVA mustn't be perfect, but it must include core aspect of the aff's literature. Meaning you need to engage with the aff in some way in order to win the TVA. If the aff team puts a random DA on T, there has to be impact calculus for it at the end of the round, otherwise I will treat it as perhaps an example of your larger argument, but not an independent reason to vote aff.

Critical affs:

I am going to be honest. I am not your best judge. I am not inherently opposed to the concept of K affs, but I feel many are disingenuous and ask me to make decisions based off of claims I can neither verify or claim to know given my subject position. With that being said, if I am your judge in those rounds I would prefer that your aff intertwine in some substantive way with the topic. If your aff's only claim to the topic is that you used the word "climate change" in one card in one speech of the round, that is not an interaction with the topic. Now, if you have a whole narrative about what "climate change" means in relation to your subject matter, then I will be more persuaded by your answers to T. With that being said, I am not going to auto vote against a K aff.

I was a philosophy major, but I am not an expert in your topic area so you cannot assume I know the jargon specific to your literature. Obviously, at the end of the day, debate is a game and if you choose to play it without a plan then that is a choice you get to make and I will respect that. Have fun, be kind, and I will do my best to adjudicate the round in a (semi) competent manner.

Final comments:

If you feel I have made the wrong decision, I am sorry. My decisions are not intended to be disrespectful and I have no intention to harm or criticize a debater personally based off anything that occurs in round. I get that debate is hard and we all make mistakes. I hope that you extend that same understanding and respect to me. If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them before/after the round or in an email before/after the tournament.

(Go Bears)

I will consider content delivery as well as substance. You must be understandable. My primary concern regarding substance is that you provide the most convincing argument with supporting points and sources.

Speech/Debate Experience - Current assistant coach in KC, MO. I have been the assistant coach for almost two years, but my speciality is English; therefore, I can not follow speed well. Speaking should be clear and understandable along with eye contact and good posture.

My universal paradigm request in debate is to include evidence with your claims. You can tell me to vote on something but if you don't evidence from reliable sources to back it up, I will dismiss it. I will look elsewhere for a claim that does have evidence included. Do not expect me to do the work for you or to be as well versed on the topic as you, it is better to assume I do not know a term than to jump straight in and leave the judge behind. You have done the research, I have not. Make sure that I am up to speed on all the technical terms needed to understand your argument.

Prep Time: If someone is not speaking, someone is running prep time. It is your responsibility to exchange evidence efficiently (if online, establish an email chain before the round if you think you'll need it). I will not stop prep if you "say stop prep, I want to request evidence from my opponent's". Take care of that during cross-ex or email speeches before you speak. There are time constraints in debate for a reason, abide by them, don't try to bend around them."

Policy Debate:

I am an old-school policy systems judge. I vote for what I am persuaded is the superior policy system whether that is the affirmative plan, the status quo, a counterplan, etc. Topicality is always a voting issue, including on whether the counterplan is topical. Partly because topicality matters so much to me, I have never voted in favor of a team that promotes K. I'm not saying I never will--just that I haven't yet.

I seldom give much weight to generic disads--have a link. Same with "end of the world" advantage impacts--have a link.

I realize why information gets flashed between teams. Please realize that I do not see what is flashed at this level of competition. I judge on what I hear. More to the point, I judge on what I hear and understand. This is an oral exercise, in my opinion, and if it is impossible for me to understand, the fact that others in or out of the room might understand what was said is absolutely irrelevant--making me understand is your job. I might ask you for evidence that you read that is challenged in some way by the opposition. I won't ask you for evidence that you do not read in the round.

I believe that there are limits on fiat. I believe that attitudinal inherency invites attitudinal solvency arguments.

I take a better-than-average flow and judge off of it. I still want to be persuaded, though. Not every line on a flow is equal nor should it be.

Public Forum:

I tend to judge it like Policy in terms of overall judging philosophy. But where the time limits of policy make line-by-line refutation preferable, PF puts a premium on summaries and lumping arguments together. I dislike crossfire. I say this so that you know I want debaters to be courteous and professional during that time. Rudeness and dominating behavior in any cross-ex period is not a good idea with me as a judge.

Lincoln-Douglas Debate:

This format is not called "Policy Without a Plan." At its best, it is not a debate about competing policies, but rather a debate about how a country/people/planet should evaluate competing policies. What are our standards? What means the most?

As much as these standards and values are important areas of debate in this format, I must admit to getting bored with much time being devoted to the details of the theories of long-dead philosophers. These ideas aren't good because they are old; if you're right, they are old because they are good.

Reagan-style Debates:

This is my favorite format because it places a premium on communication and persuasion. I think civility and courtesy is more important in this event as well. I look at WHAT is said and HOW it is said to decide most rounds. But when those considerations leave me undecided, I will factor in what I perceive to be the character of the person speaking as reflected by their demeanor in asking and answering questions and other conduct during the debate.

As to how I evaluate "what is said": please read the policy debate paradigm above. If you are advocating a certain policy, albeit without a plan, I will vote for it to the extent you persuade me that it is the superior policy. On the negative, convincing me that what the affirmative is promoting is unnecessary or harmful is the way to proceed. Think old school and you cannot go wrong with me in this format.

Common to all formats:

I am not a tabula rasa judge. Although I am not predisposed to a result, I do not approach any issue as if all knowledge or common sense was sucked from my brain immediately upon being handed a ballot.

I mainly look for you demonstrate your understanding of the topic by making clear attacks and building your case back up after being attacked. In the end, I will be looking at the attacks and evaluating who made the stronger attacks. Generally, the more convincing arguments are supported by evidence and are clear in how they relate to your opponents arguments.

University of Chicago '24 (MPP with concentrations in International Development and Urban Policy)

Indiana University '21 (BS in Business Economics & Analytics)

Dec 2023 update: I don't have much background on this topic, besides some high level interactions in my coursework. Please be sure to overexplain and define all acronyms. If I don't understand your argument, then I can't vote for you.

Please add me to the email chain: mehuldebate@gmail.com. Feel free to email me with any questions, comments, or concerns before/after the debate. Please send me a doc at the end of the debate with the relevant cards referenced in the 2NR/2AR, though do not count on me reading them all. Decision times are tight and I find myself having little to no time to read cards.

I try my best not to let outside knowledge affect my decision of the debate. Overall, you do you and I will work hard to make the best decision I can. All of the below are simply predispositions but I will evaluate the round as is. If I look confused during CX/your speech, I probably am and you may want to clarify your point. If you have me for a format other than policy, go to the end.

Spreading: Dial back to 70% of your top speed. I am not actively involved with debate and my ears are slow to adjust. Please be clear on the tags, long blocks/overview, important analytics, or a theory debate so that I can flow it. I don't read along with speech docs since this is a communication activity. I flow on paper so a quick pause in between flows is appreciated.

I will not evaluate re-highlighting that's inserted into the debate. You have to read it in your speech.

Online debate: Please slow down and make sure to adjust your microphones. If the audio is distorted, my ears ring which will cause me to miss arguments and I can't flow. I will try to say "clear" but obviously this can be tough over Zoom.

Counterplans

I'm open to most types of counter plans. I love intuitive CPs that are logically based on 1AC internal links/1AC CX. You should probably have a solvency advocate (or otherwise a defense of why you don't need one).

PICs are cool if they are functionally competitive. Not a big fan of word pics.

I won't automatically judge kick in the 2NR. Please make it explicit if that should be an option, although winning this is an uphill battle.

Theory

I'm pretty middle leaning for theory. Condo is probably fair game for the aff after 3ish conditional advocacies. Just slow down on these debates. Otherwise, I default to "reject the argument not the team".

If the neg lies about theory (i.e. says they can't kick planks but still does it), I would encourage affs to capitalize. I will vote against that.

K affs/Framework

I think affs should be related to the topic. I have a hard time voting for critical affs that don't engage with any topic literature. If you're reading a critical aff, you are better off impact turning framework in front of me instead of going for "we meet". It's strange when teams go for "we meet" and then no link topic DAs.

Not a good judge for you if your strategy relies on debate bad/is a rejection of the activity or your arguments orient around "survival strategy".

Negs should focus on what voting negative means and what my ballot can resolve. Fairness can be an impact or an internal link. TVAs are good (not necessary though) but they need to be specific. I think oftentimes 2Ns say a plan text but never explain how that engages with the aff's literature or why that model of debates is better. TVAs from re-highlighted 1AC evidence are very compelling to me.

Kritiks

Make sure you slow down in the overview, talk about the specifics of the aff, and have offense (this includes having a specific impact). Please explain buzzwords or high-theory concepts. I do not actively read K literature, so it's likely I have little to no background on your argument.

If your overview is more than 30-40 seconds, I'm not the right judge for you. Not a fan of "cloud clash" where the 2N just cross applies the overview to the line by line. I'm fairly sympathetic to the aff in debates (1AR especially) where the neg relies on that strategy.

Something that always annoys me is when teams can't explain their alternatives in CX. You should be able to explain what the world of the alternative looks like and why it's better than the status quo.

I don't think a team needs specific link cards to every argument in the block as long they do specific analyses using historical and contemporary examples of their theory and how it interacts with the aff.

Topicality

I love a good T debate. Just make sure to have clear impacts, of which fairness can be one. Please slow down and make sure to not go for the "buffet" in the 2NR - pick your best argument and sit on it. And please don't forget the case list, something I think it's underutilized by negs.

DAs

Impact calc is important here. Spend some time in the 2NR/2AR on how I should evaluate the impact, turns case, magnitude, etc. The more you write the ballot for me, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Read uniqueness. If the 2AC says "they didn't read uniqueness so we get new 1AR answers", I'm pretty sympathetic to that.

Politics DAs are cool, especially if there are real topic links. Not a fan of rider DAs or anything of that sort.

__________________________________

Public Form

I don't have a ton of experience coaching/judging in this format outside of some work at camp. That being said, I'm definitely not a "lay" judge. In terms of judging, please start the beginning of your final speeches with impact calculus and how I should write my ballot. Oftentimes these debates get very messy and it's tough to resolve them. Every argument does not need to be there. Pick your best and sit on it.

LD

Most of my stuff from policy applies here. Like with PF, don't have a lot of experience with it outside of camp. My biggest advice is to focus on narrowing the debate down by the final rebuttals. The cleaner the rebuttals, the easier it is for me to write a ballot.

Congress

I competed in the activity for 4 years so please don't treat me like a lay judge. A lot of these thoughts are borrowed from my former coach, Ryan Andersen. For the most part, you do you but a few thoughts/pet peeves I have:

- Evidence should preferably come from peer-reviewed journals, books, & articles. When that's not possible, it should be considered credible and you should be able to defend your source in CX. There seems to be a trend of people quoting random blogs or students who don't have qualifications relative to the debate.

- Don't paraphrase evidence. Please read directly from the article but also make sure to choose the best line or two to save time.

- Focus on the analysis more than the evidence. I think too often people let the evidence do the talking for them and spend much less time on the impacts of a given argument. Explain the short-term and long-term implications of different warrants present in your evidence.

- I find roleplaying introductions/antics to be silly. You all are high schoolers, not actually in congress.

- CX should be spent asking targeted questions about the specific arguments made in the speech. I tend to see a lot of time wasted here by trying to set up a question that's not actually important. I think this is an area where average and excellent debaters can distinguish themselves.

- Every speech after the first affirmative speech should have refutations. These should be as specific as possible. This means not only refuting others by name, but contextualized "line-by-line" style debating where you engage with the substance of why the argument is incorrect. Debaters who are able to do evidence comparison, embedded refutations, etc. are ones that I will rank higher. This is a debate event, not speech, so I would like to see lots of clash.

- If no one is standing up to speak on a bill, move to previous question. This activity can get frustrating (more so in Zoom) when there are a bunch of parliamentary antics (including excessively long recesses) instead of fostering debate

I debated LD and PF for a time in high school (graduated 2018), but my main events were interp. I have judged quite a bit since. This paradigm was edited for brevity in January 2023, but not for content. My judging philosophy remains the same, if you happen to remember me/it.

All debate events: Unless a participant’s conduct was so abusive or their performance so poor as to make me question whether or not they should be involved in speech and debate at all, I will judge on the substance of the resolution. Avoid frivolous claims of abuse in round.

Policy:I have not debated policy, but I have plenty of indirect and judging experience with it. I will be a flow judge. I typically judge on stock issues, though you are more than welcome to attempt to convince me that I shouldn't. I appreciate a relevant K, and I am willing to vote on topicality and theory, but I am unlikely to do so unless your substantial, resolution-specific arguments depend on my decision about that theory. If you allow your speeches to become consumed by theory and your opponent does not, your chances of winning my ballot will significantly decrease. I dislike agent counterplans and PICs – if you're going to run them, the competition needs to be explicitly clarified in detail and uniqueness will be a (if not the) voting issue.

LD:Lincoln-Douglas was developed to be a morals and values debate form, so I expect you to have value clash. At the very least, tell me how your arguments support your V and VC. Pragmatism is a value I will readily accept if you want to debate hard facts. Please use cross-ex wisely – thirty seconds of well-done cross-ex often provides more clarity than the entire 1AR. My best piece of advice: give me voters. Unless I see a glaring issue in the round, I am very likely to accept some combination of the voters presented to me in final speeches and use them to make a decision. Giving me your best arguments at the end as voters will usually ensure I consider them on my ballot.

PF: The purpose of Public Forum is to explain complex current events to a layperson. While I am a flow judge and understand theory, PF is generally not the place for those arguments. Stick to the substance of the resolution, and if theory is absolutely required to debate the substance, explain it clearly and in simple terms. The substance of the resolution includes the type of resolution (should, on balance, etc.) and you should debate that out if warranted. I have debated PF and understand your time constraints and format, so “drops” will only negatively impact your team if you are clearly ignoring an argument with significant clash. Please do drop topics in the Summary or Final Focus that are clearly peripheral so that we can narrow the round to voting issues. I will typically consider stock issues simply as a convenient way of organizing my thoughts, but while thinking through them may make your arguments more effective, I do not expect you to discuss them explicitly. Do not run a counterplan – I can identify one and will vote you down even if your opponent does not mention it.

Interp: I will judge on your technique (character differentiation, blocking, voices), your performance ability (stage presence, general acting skill), and your piece (selection, cutting, enjoyability). Please give me characters, make me care about them, and tell me their story. Though it can be especially moving for your piece to have some greater societal achievement in mind, it is not a requirement of any interp event, so a piece that successfully convinces me of some injustice but fails to conform to a basic plot curve will probably not get the 1 – even if perfectly performed. A piece that does both well will have a competitive advantage. You will be ranked last on my ballot if your piece does not exceed 8 minutes.

Any other IE:I’m a bit out of my realm. Appeals to logic are strongly preferred to appeals to emotion. I will not attempt to be tabula rasa in these rounds – it is the responsibility of the speaker to meet the audience where they are. Particularly in oratory and info, because your speeches are rehearsed, I expect solid technique and a good presence. Please don’t forget the fundamentals.

I don't like speed. Evidence and clear structure are important. I like a clear, easily understandable speaking style.

I like intelligible speech and stock issues. I'll vote for anything that's persuasive and supported with evidence, though.

Competed:

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

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

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

Coached:

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

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

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

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

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

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

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

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

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

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

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

Speaker Points:

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

Online debates:

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

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

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

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

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

Disads:

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

Counter Plans:

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

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

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

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

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

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

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

Case Debates:

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

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

Topicality/procedurals:

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

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

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

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

Steal prep.

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

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

Refusing to disclose.

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

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

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

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

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

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

Disclosure thoughts:

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

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

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

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

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

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

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

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

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

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

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

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

I did PF, LD, and Congress for 4 years at Liberty North High School in Liberty, Missouri. I graduated from Western Kentucky University in 2021 and competed in NFA-LD (one person policy), impromptu, and extemp. I was also a Debate Coach at Ridge High School during while at WKU.

Add me on the email chain - isaackeller7@gmail.com.

If you use speechdrop.net, send me the code.

Also, please disclose aff and neg on the WIKI.

I will vote on the flow every round. It's your job to execute the line by line just as it is my job to evaluate it fairly. The paradigm below should tell you just about everything you need to know, but feel free to ask me anything before the round.

Overview:

College LD has converted me into a tech over truth debater. I'll evaluate just about any argument that isn't blatantly offensive (sexist, racist, etc.). That includes impact turns. However, if it is a little harder to believe, or a little more out there, then there's a higher threshold on supporting warrants and evidence. I give a lot of weight to conceded arguments, even if they suck. If it's a back and forth wash, I'll prioritize the debater with deeper analysis and higher quality arguments - just win truth and tech to be safe.

Good debate requires extensive research, preparation, organization, and good communication skills. I appreciate successful in-round execution and strategy. I will reward newer and better quality evidence, organized citations, and clear speakers with high speaks and a tie-breaker. Evidence should always include the date published, author, author quals, and source - you should treat evidence in debate like you would a research paper. However, all you need to do is say the author last name and year in round.

Extend warrants and give a detailed explanation/analysis of the argument. Extending through ink is pretty much only good if the argument extended is conceded; however, I'll give more credence/vote on it if you spend some time on it.

I'm very unlikely to vote on defense. You need offense in the round to be a winner.

Speed: You can go as fast as you want, but don't sacrifice clarity for speed. I'll clear you as many times as needed until I can understand you. If I need to do it more than 3 times in a speech, I'lll be annoyed, and your speaks may be in danger. I'll reward proper enunciation, slowing on tags, and slowing on author/publication.

If you aren't spreading, I'll likely flow on my computer. If you are, I'll flow on paper. Never worry about me not looking up, it's just because I'm focused on the flow. I'll pay attention to CX, but you need to keep all arguments that you want me to flow and evaluate within speeches as well. Perceptional dominance in CX will only get you so far. However, I am paying attention and won't tolerate flip flopping as CX is binding.

RFD: Debate is an educational activity. I will give an RFD after the round and welcome any questions you may have to try and clear up confusion or defend my decision.

To be straight with you, you're in charge of whether you receive my ballot or not. I really don't want to intervene, that's more work for me, I prefer to judge a debate where I can be as hands off as possible. Weigh arguments and use ballot directing language - you can do this with an overview in the last speech that tells me how you win or with voters, I really don't care. Don't leave me with a ton of different unresolved impacts on each side where I have to decide whether I want extinction from nuclear war or extinction from pandemics. I'll always default to the team that maps a clear route to the ballot over the team with a shotgun strat.

Please debate the topic. It's both a question of fairness and a question of education. I have voted for performative arguments that ignore the topic before but will give a lot of leeway to framework. Critical arguments are fine as long as they clearly have something to do with the resolution and are explained well.

Speaks are determined by efficiency, smart choices, and persuasive/clean delivery.

Policy:

Read the overview above for general questions about my paradigm.

Knowledge: I never did policy in HS and rarely judge/coach it now. My flaw as a judge is my lack of knowledge on particular strategies and details within the event (what speech to stop reading cards, what a nicely executed block looks like, dividing the flow in speeches, etc.). I've got a decent understanding of the event from following the NDT/CEDA in college. In terms of argumentation, college LD isn't much different.

Pref: I prefer judging traditional policy debate. Specifically, CP/DA/Case debate. Big fan of policy affs and neg positions with big impacts. It's not that I'll drop you if you run critical arguments or theory, I just rarely go for those positions in college and thus have a worse understanding of how to evaluate those positions compared to traditional policy. I also just enjoy judging/watching policy oriented debates more.

Kritk Aff: Please in some way adhere to the resolution. There are some persuasive fairness and education arguments I can vote on if you don't.

Case: I love well researched, in-depth rounds, and that requires deep case debate. Specifically, less debaters are focusing on method/solvency spec take outs, which is a bummer because that's where a lot of education/research comes to play. Offense on case is strategic, especially with strats lacking a CP.

Kritik: If you choose to go the K route, I'll evaluate it to the best of my ability. I'm comfortable/familiar with Set Col and Cap, anything else will require you to explain it super well to get my ballot. This means devoting enough time to overviews and framing claims than you would otherwise. There are a lot of reasons that I think K debaters have the burden of explaining the K well - just know that I expect to be able to understand the position by the end of the debate. I can't vote for something if I don't know what it does/what I am endorsing.

DA: I understand, as any policy judge should. Love myself a Tix DA (agenda and elections) - pretty much all I go for in college. I appreciate topic DAs, econ DAs, and fism. Please collapse, whether that be Case/DA or Case/DA/CP. The DA should blow up in the 2N - I want a thorough line by line with an overview, extensions, and impact calc. If aff only puts defense on the DA, and it serves as a net-benefit to a CP or there's risk of offense on case, probably not good for the aff.

CP: It only needs to sufficiently solve the affs offense with a net-benefit to get my vote. I'm a big fan of states and clever, well researched, adv counterplans. The counterplan should have a similar evidence burden as the aff; it needs to at least say the method proposed through the counterplan solves. Aff should always perm, but I do debate, so I understand that the CP is competitive if it has a net-benefit (states with agenda tix, conceded perm on states means nothing without terminal D or offense on agenda). Make sure you explain the perm well if you go for it. As for consult CPs and other non-competitive CPs, - they are trash and I am easily persuaded by the perm.

AR Theory: I prefer to avoid AR theory, but tbh, I become sympathetic to the aff if neg reads more than 2 CPs. However, this changes if the aff has an illogical amount of advantages. I'll vote on condo/pics bad if it's all aff goes for in the 2A, but it's definitely an uphill battle for you if it isn't conceded and neg reads less than 3 CPs.

Imp turns: Talked about this in the overview above. I'll vote on it. Pref not seeing back files though.

T: I default to competing interps but will let you debate out standards and education/fairness. Go all in, otherwise I probably won't vote on it unless aff really messed up. Procedurals are strategic - you'll never be punished for reading one without going for it. Won't listen to RVIs.

Theory: Positions like vagueness, minor repair, etc. are not reasons for me to drop the debater. I don't want to see weird blipy theoretical arguments and am 99% sure I won't vote on them.

Congress:

Although not directly applicable, you can read the overview above for general questions about my paradigm. To a degree, I will evaluate your speech with some of the perceptions/preferences I have listed in the overview.

Knowledge: I did congress all 4 years of HS and have coached/judged it for the last 3 years. Just like any other form of debate, I think congress judges should reward students that have clearly worked hard and have thoroughly researched the legislation. That being said, beyond outstanding communication skills and argumentation, I look for unique, well researched points when evaluating the content within a congress speech. Congress can become repetitive very quickly, so it's important to avoid stock debate if you're not giving the authorship or the first couple of aff/neg speeches.

PO: Go for it if you think you can do it well. I'll reward the PO if they do a good job and keep the room running effectively. I can assure you I will not forget to rank the PO.

Delivery: Congress is more performative than the other debate events. It should include the following:

A clean/funny/entertaining/relevant attention getting device

A speech outline/road map (pass/fail this for reason 1, 2 and 3)

References to sections or purposes of the bill

Data/evidence to support your arguments/claims

Transitions in-between points

A conclusion that is linked to your introduction

Time: Congress functions a lot like extemp in the field of time. You should not go over or under and should aim to end your speech at 2:55-3:05.

Evidence/Data: I pay a lot of attention to evidence/data when deciding how to rank speakers. You should list the author/organization, qualifications, and publication date when referring/paraphrasing evidence. I will reward the use of academic papers, more recent publications, and high quality evidence (where it can be directly quoted not paraphrased). Empirical/quantitate evidence with stats, polling, etc. has a stronger backing than qualitative evidence. Just like any other debate, I would like to hear good explanations from both the evidence and the debater. Don't get caught up in 3 mins of reading someone else's work.

Debate/Questioning: Okay, this is how you achieve my 1st ranking. Ask incredible, gotchya questions in questioning or strategic preemptive questions for your speech. This is some of the only debate in the event, so you really need to exploit it to impress judges who usually judge PF/LD/CX. While I will obviously evaluate your speech, I will also evaluate the questions you ask and the answers you give when deciding your score. Furthermore, if you're not giving the first speech, you need to make refs to previous speakers to get my 1. This is congressional debate, you are not suppose to read off a pre-written flow pad - there needs to be analysis generated in the round that you present as well.

Authorship: If you give the authorship, you are giving up the ability to refute in speech. It is your job to prempt arguments from the negative and address those arguments within your speech. You should also describe the problem the bill addresses and why your bill is uniquely important.

Please don't role play. It won't effect my voting, but it quickly turns congressional debate into mock government, and I think the time in your speech can be better spent.

My name is Maggie Kenney and I am a senior at Saint Louis University. While in high school, I debated in Public Forum primarily, with Congress and Big Questions on the side. My university doesn't have a debate team, so I now compete in Model United Nations at the college level.

When judging Public Forum, I emphasize the importance of interacting with your opponent's arguments in a dynamic way and providing clear comparisons between the impacts of your case and your opponents. I also appreciate clarity in your speeches and sign posting which contentions that you are referring to so that it's easier for both judges and opponents to flow. I'm open to any and all arguments, especially those that I haven't heard before.

For Policy, my paradigm is a combination of Gaming Model and Legal Model. I also have sympathies for the Legislative Model.

For LD and other non-Policy debate, I consider the classical model of persuasion (ethos, pathos, logos).

I'm predisposed against counterplans, so the NEG had better convince me it's the right argument for the *specific* AFF case. Otherwise, I'm judging two AFF's, which is not what secondary ed debate is about.

POLICY DEBATE JUDGING PHILOSOPHY

1. My Judging Paradigm

1. I am a Flow Judge: Stock Issues are Very Important
1. Topicality is a VOTING ISSUE
1. If teams propose counter definitions, the team with the best definition (i.e. strongest justification for its proposed definition) will win the argument. If the team proposing a definition drops its definition or its justification for the definition, and the opposing team counters, the opposing team will win the argument.
2. BUT NOTE: “fairness” is generally NOT a strong argument on Topicality — no whining!
2. Debate theory Arguments are acceptable but MUST be supported
1. “Education” arguments are superior to whining about fairness.
3. Counterplans are acceptable, but the Negative should still address the Affirmative case
4. Well Done Critiques (Kritiks) can win a round
5. Generic disadvantages are acceptable if properly linked to the specific plan
1. Brink/threshold arguments are acceptable but can be overcome by valid counters
6. Superior evidence can win the round
1. More recent or more reliable or better sourced evidence can prevail over weaker or older evidence.
2. Teams should not repeatedly read the same evidence UNLESS the other team has challenged a specific piece of evidence. Repeating challenged evidence is acceptable to prove the validity or strength of the challenged evidence.
2. I base my decisions on Substance over Style
1. Presentation skills are Important, but dropped arguments matter
2. Superior presentation skills will lead to higher speaker rankings but dropped or ignored arguments may result in victory for the opposing team.
3. I care about Cross-Examination — It Matters How You Ask and Answer Questions
1. Cross-Examination questions and answers may make a difference in a close round
1. Effective cross examination can tip the scales in favor of a team.
2. Effective answers during cross examination can tip the scales as well.
2. OPEN cross-examination is an abhorrent abomination and should not exist!
1. Each speaker should be able to answer questions without help.
2. Each speaker should be able to ask questions without help.
4. I Appreciate Well-Executed Humor. Debate should be FUN! Being Rude is Unacceptable!
1. My Experience with Policy Debate

1. High School Policy Debater for Four Years
1. National Qualifier Senior Year
2. State Qualifier Senior Year
2. College Debater Freshman Year
3. High School Policy Debate Judge Last SIX Years

I debated in high school and college in Minnesota. I coached high school debate in Minneapolis during college and at University Academy in KCMO for DEBATE Kansas City.

I have no preference for speed as long as you are clear.

I evaluate debate by default as a policymaker, but may be persuaded to other points of view.

While I have coached teams that practiced performance and kritiks, they are not my favorite approaches.

I can't recall ever voting negative on inherency.

Theory is fine up to a point. Conditional position ideally should be resolved quickly.

Topicality is always a voting issue.

Anything else, please feel free to ask.

James Makkyla

Paradigm below is from 2020 Nats, much of it still applies.

Hi all, my name is Jake (he/him), and I debated from 2011-2015 at Park Hill South HS. I exclusively competed in LD, but have judged all three debate forms extensively.

I strongly prefer on-case arguments to off-case args, but don't let that prevent you from being creative. This LD topic specifically allows for a broad discussion of state authority, structural racism, etc.

For LD, I judge based on the value and criterion. Whoever wins the V/VC debate wins the framing debate, and I'll sign my ballot for which side can prove that their contention-level args better achieve/maximize the winning framework. As an example, I've voted (through gritted teeth) for a 'Death Good" framework argument because the opposing side failed to explain why the extinction of the human race didn't minimize human suffering. Did I like it? No. Did the winning team get perfect speaker points and a glowing ballot? Certainly.

PF is, for me, just LD without the V/VC. If you want to give me a structure/weighing mechanism, that's great (and I think important whether you do it implicitly or explicitly). Otherwise, I'll just default to the criterion the sides generally agree on (saving lives, saving $$$, etc.)

For both of these debate forms, it is important to clash. Disagree with your opponent. Showing why you're right without clashing makes for a muddled debate.

I've asked to judge LD/PF, but if I end up judging a CX round, my only ask is that you don't spread. I can't keep up and generally think that spreading is a regrettable feature of modern debate. I'll keep up as best I can, but please please please impact your arguments. With CX specifically, I'm not familiar enough with the debate form to maintain my crochity preference for "traditional", on-case forms of debate, so go for theory, go for T, go for whatever you want. Just make sure you can explain it to an educated lay audience.

Voters. Are. Everything. Your/your team's last speech should include voters. They make my life easier.

I will flow meticulously and will be as gracious as I am able in us all figuring out how to debate online. Spreading of any kind in any debate form, especially over this online interface, will result in an immediate loss. If everyone spreads, then good luck because who knows what will end up on my flow.

Feel free to ask me questions before! I will be incredibly generous with speaker points to account for the technical oddities. My heart goes out to all of you for competing under these circumstances.

Overall - agree overall with most of the judges' paradigms on what they consider.

For debate, I appreciate a vocal cadence that will slow down to emphasize key points in an argument. Delivery is more than what is spoken, it is how it is spoken.

For any of it, keep in mind your audience and find points where you can speak while looking directly into the camera.

TOO LONG DIDN’T READ: You do you. If you bring me chai I will give block 30’s. If you have questions then ask me.

Theory arguments are boring.

Parker Mitchell

[unaffiliated]

Updated for: DSDS 2 - Feb '24 - Link to old paradigm (it's still true, but it's too much. This is a shorter version, hopefully less ranty. If you have a specific question, it's likely answered in the linked doc.)

Email: park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

General Opinions

I view debate as a strategic game with a wide range of stylistic and tactical variance. I am accepting (and appreciative of) nearly all strategies within that variance. Although I do try to avoid as much ideological bias as possible, this starting point does color how I view a few things:

First, fairness is an impact, but: Economic collapse is also an impact yet I'm willing to vote DDev, the same holds here. I view Ks and K Affs as a legitimate, but contestable, strategy for winning a ballot. In other words, I will vote for K affs and I will vote for framework and my record is fairly even.

Second, outside of egregiously offensive positions such as Racism, Sexism and Homophobia good, I have very few limitations on what I consider "acceptable" argumentation. Reading arguments on the fringes is exciting and interesting to me. However, explicit slurs (exception - when you are the one affected by that slur) and repeated problematic language is unacceptable.

Third, it affects my views on ethos. I assume most debaters don't buy in 100% to the arguments they make. This is not to say that debate "doesn't shape subjectivity," but it is to say that I assume there is some distance between your words and your being. In other words: There is a distant yet extant relationship between ontology and epistemology.

I find I have an above average stylistic bias to teams that embrace this concept. In other words, teams that aggressively posture (unless they are particularly good and precise about it) tend to alienate me and teams that appear somewhat disaffected tend to have my attention. This is not absolute or inevitable. This operates on the ethos and style level and not on the substance/argumentative level.

Fourth, I will attempt to take very precise notes. My handwriting is awful, but I can read it. I will flow on paper. I will flow straight down and I will not use multiple sheets for one argument (I'm talking Ks too, this isn't parli). I will not follow along with the doc. I will say "clear" if you are unclear during evidence, but not during analytics, that's a you problem. Clarity means I can distinguish each word in the text of the evidence. Cards that continue to be unclear after reminders will be struck from my flow. I flow CX on paper but will stop when the timer does. I will not listen during flex prep, I don't care if you take it.

Experience

13 years of experience in debate. I'm currently working in the legal technology world, not teaching or coaching for the moment. I have been volunteering to assist for Wichita East in a very limited capacity this year, while judging for SME on occasion.

Formerly: 6 years assisting at Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2015-2021), 2 years as Director of Debate and Forensics at Wichita East (KS, 2021-2023). 4 years as a debater for Shawnee Mission East (KS, 2010-2015), 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City (MO - NDT/CEDA, 2015-2020). I have worked intermittently with DEBATE-Kansas City (DKC, MO/KS), Asian Debate League (aka. ADL, Chinese Taipei, 2019-2021), Truman (MO, 2021) and Turner (KS, 2019). 2 years leading labs at UMKC-SDI.

Topic Experience (HS)

19 rounds. Did not coach at a camp and I am not actively coaching, so my experience is middling. I think I have decent familiarity with the topic concepts due to personal interest and participation in past topics, but I'm not exactly up to date. I think my knowledge is rather limited on social security affirmatives. I feel that most teams are broadly misinterpreting the topic and that topicality is quite a good option against most affirmatives.

Topic Experience (College):

Basically 0. I know some NFU stuff from the prez powers topic.

Topic Specific Notes

This is a rant that you should probably take with a grain of salt pre-debate or during prefs, I just think aff strategic choice has suffered this year and can improve.

Outside of K affs, I've been thoroughly unimpressed by most affirmatives on the topic. I think they are largely vulnerable to some easy negative argumentation. I do not think this is because the topic is "biased," but because affirmative teams have been simultaneously uncreative and, when creative, counterproductive. I think the best way of reading a plan aff is by digging in your heels in the topic area and strongly defending redistribution. I think the ways of skirting around to initiate other plan based debates often introduce far more significant strategic issues for the aff than they solve. There seems to be this presumption that winning a dense econ debate is impossible so you have to find a different topic, which to me is both dangerous and lazy. I have actually 0 problem with being lazy, only with the fact that these alternative topics seem to be way worse for the aff than the existing one. See the following paragraph for my earlier rant about this that illustrates one example, however it is not the only example I have seen:

If you read the carbon tax aff - cool, it's not like I'm auto-dropping you but my god, this cannot be the biggest aff on the topic. I'm not sure I've ever seen the biggest aff on the topic stumble into so many (irrelevant and non-topic germane!) weaknesses while revealing so few strengths. Have we all forgotten about basic debate strategy? Trust me, no one is forcing you to read a warming advantage and lose! At some point, this is your own fault. Typically on climate topics judges are prone to give a little leeway to the aff on timeframe just so the topic is debatable - but make no mistake - you will not get that leeway here.

Argument Specific Notes

T - my favorite. Competing interps are best. Precision is less important than debate-ability. "T-USFG" will be flowed as "T-Framework." No "but"s. It's an essential neg strat, but I'm equally willing to evaluate impact turns to framework.

CPs - Condo and "cheating" counterplans are good, unless you win they're bad. Affs should be more offensive on CP theory and focus less on competition minutiae. Don't overthink it.

DAs - low risk of a link = low risk of my ballot. Be careful with these if your case defense/cp isn't great, you can easily be crushed by a good 2AR. I find I have sat or been close to in certain situations where the disad was particularly bad, even if the answers were mostly defense.

Ks - I feel very comfortable in K debates and I think these are where I give the most comments. Recently, I've noticed some K teams shrink away from the strongest version of their argument to hide within the realm of uncertainty. I think this is a mistake. (sidenote - "they answered the wrong argument" is not a "pathologization link", but don't worry, you're probably ahead) (other sidenote - everyone needs a reminder of what "ontology" means)

Etc - My exact speaks thoughts are in the old paradigm, but a sidenote that is relevant for argumentation: my decision is solely based on arguments in the debate (rfd), my speaks arise from the feedback section of my ballot - I will not disclose speaks and I won't give specific speaks based on argument ("don't drop the team, tank my speaks instead" "give us 30s for [insert reason]") I'm much more concerned with your performance in the debate for speaks, argumentation only has a direct impact on my vote and not other parts of my ballot.

****************************************************

that should be all you need before a debate. there are more things in the doc linked at the top including opinions on speaks, disclosure, ethics as well as appendices for online debates and other events.

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging

++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)

(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)

Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito

I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.

Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.

I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.

Assuming aff defends a plan:

Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.

High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?

Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.

Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.

Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.

If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.

I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.

Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.

Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:

Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html

Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).

Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.

In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.

If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.

This was too short?

* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.

Email: gabemorrison77@gmail.com

Four years NDT and NFA-LD at Missouri State

Four years CX in high school at Greenwood Lab

***About Your Judge***

Hi, you're probably here because I'm judging you. You have my sincerest condolences.

I was a 2N for 3/4 years in college. My usual 1NC consisted of Nietzsche (neither Der Derian nor "suffering good" nonsense) and several on-case turns, with the latter occupying slightly more 2NRs senior year.

I recently rewrote my old argument-by-argument paradigm because I felt that it poorly represented my judging tendencies and encouraged over-adaptation. I like creative, enthusiastic, and generally high quality debating more than I do any particular argument.

***Suggestions***

- Debate the best version of your opponents' argument.

- Case debate is neat. Smart analytics are sometimes better than cards (doesn't apply to CPs and certain Ks, although case analytics are still very helpful in the latter case). Case 2NRs are power moves.

- Clever impact framing > "role of the ballot."

- Make big decisions in the 2NR and 2AR. Focus on the impacts you actually need to win. Poor prioritization is the death of strategy.

- Define terms with multiple/ambiguous meanings. I like precision because I am pathologically obsessive. If left to my own devices, I will strive to interpret keywords in the least consequential manner, but you might not like the results.

- Honesty > "not one step backward, comrades"

***Requests***

- Don't remove FW interpretations & counterinterpretations from your documents. I'm bad enough at adjudicating T/FW as is and I am on the verge of docking speaks for failure to do so.

- Don't be self-righteous or holier-than-thou, but if that's just who you are, please be good at it.

- Don't pivot for an ableism strat because someone said idiot. The link is usually more ableist than its object, the alternative is non-unique, and homonyms exist.

- Be nice to one another.

- Try to have a good time.

***Dogmas***

- Zero risk is possible and usually occurs when arguments are completely irrelevant or missing internal links.

- The ballot does not represent anything more than "who did the better debating." Everything else is impact framing and development of your story's setting.

- "Ontology" does not mean what many debaters seem to think it means.

- Knowledge is a network of metaphors and metonyms that are taken for granted. Facts are what we call metaphors whose referents have been lost over time. Linguistically mutability does not imply the possible change in a concept, but a state of constant change. Most arguments that universalize adjectives are absurd.

- Fiat is not a verb. We do not "fiat" the plan (or alt) into existence. We suspend disbelief like people do with all hypotheticals.

- "Critique" does not have a K in it unless you are German or LARPing as a German.

- Floating PIKs are PIKs in the same way that the States CP PICs out of the federal government.

***Warnings***

- I don't care about Policy v K ideological battle lines. I don't care about PRL and CEDA bogeys. I will probably not be convinced to care. Sometimes an argument is just a cigar.

- If you spend your prep removing lots of analytics from the doc before you send it, I will interpret it as a lack of confidence in your own arguments and regard them with suspicion for the rest of the debate. Moral of the story? Make analytics up on the fly, get good at pretending you make analytics up on the fly, or flash your blocks.

- I was terrible at topicality and framework debate for eight years. I have voted for and against it several times, but I am not good at flowing it and I seem to view theoretical impacts differently than many other debaters. That does not mean "don't read T." I just may be a little less predictable and more likely to make mistakes.

- I find many ableism arguments patronizing. I will do my best to be open-minded and evaluate yours as an individual case, but I will still probably be a little biased. You can alleviate the impact of this bias by (1) not romanticizing disability, and (2) not excluding, authenticity testing, or in general not making hasty assumptions about the physical and mental faculties of your opponents.

***Theory***

- Theory lean: Conditionality? Good. PICs? Good. Perf Con? See "Conditionality?". Consult/Conditions? Evidence-dependent. International/Foreign? Probably bad. 2NC? Usually, but context-dependent. 1NR? I cast fireball.

- High threshold for conditionality bad. I do not understand why contradictions in a vacuum are imbalanced, even if you win that they exist. I have seen many contradictory advocacies and very few actually forced affirmative teams to debate themselves.

- Solvency advocates are unnecessary if the CP text is referencing aff evidence. CPs without solvency advocates are more a reason for affirmatives to get away with fewer cards and questionable permutations than for me to reject the CP.

- Judge-kick is context-dependent, but I will probably assume judge kick if conditional unless told otherwise.

- Rejecting the argument usually de facto rejects the team.

- Theory is not usually a reason to reject the team outside of conditionality. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that other reject-the-team situations are less common.

***NFA Folks***

- "I do not want to vote on your spec arguments, RVIs, disclosure theory, solvency advocate theory, or similar gobbledygook.* I do not think these arguments have educational merit. This is an exception to my general inclination to be open to all arguments. Be warned: I might not vote on it even these arguments even if they are dropped by the other team, unless you make a serious time commitment and explain to me why your argument is different." - Joe Hamaker

- Neg has a a huge side bias, y'all. 2ARs should accordingly focus on doing overviews, impact calculus, and generally framing the round, as opposed to delivering comprehensive line-by-line answers, as they will be near impossible against a competent opponent.

- NRs should collapse their offense to take full advantage of extra speech time.

High School Policy: I was a debater in high school and college with more experience with college-level policy than high school but I do frequently judge high school policy (about 6 years of experience). I haven't judged any high school policy debates this season yet. I mostly consider myself a policymaker judge but that being said I can also be convinced in a round to judge by a more tabula rasa position depending on what metrics are given to me to judge the round by and the clash on those metrics. I'm okay with speed with the understanding that virtually you probably have to slow down more than in-person because more of your speech is lost via glitches, tech issues, etc. I generally prefer quality of arguments over quantity. Communication skills are very important as is keeping the debate organized as it plays out. I rarely vote on topicality unless there is an absurd violation or in-round abuse. I'm cool with counterplans, disads, conditional negative positions. When there are debate theory args or kritik args, I expect a thorough explanation from the team running them instead of a reliance on using the right buzzwords to try and win the argument (in other words there's gotta be real substance if you're running these args). I strongly encourage impact calculus, clear voters, and an organized flow.

High School LD: I've judged high school LD for about 6 years but never participated in it myself. I'm okay with any rate of delivery as long as it is clear and accessible for both debaters. Criterion and values are both very important for my decision as is the clash on these issues. Final rebuttals should have base line-by-line and voting issues (I don't care where the voting issues appear in the speech just clearly signpost them). Voting issues are absolutely necessary. Jargon is cool with me. I would say my decision comes down to both of these things: who is the winner of the key arguments in the round and who is the person who persuaded me more of his/her position overall. I expect the key arguments to made clear to me via voting issues. Evidence is very important to me (empirical and analytical). I keep a rigorous flow (so keep it clear and organized for me!).

In general, I appreciate a solid delivery: clarity over rushing, good enunciation, and logic. Reliance on reference materials should be minimized to the greatest extent possible, and eye contact is a must. Enthusiasm/energy is also a desirable attribute. Finally, for Cross-X I do not appreciate a counter plan from a negative team.

CX all four years in highschool, one year of parli in college.

Love to flow, and impacts are v important.

I also love topicality, so if you choose to run it, please be sincere about it. And give voters!

You can gut check an argument, but I won't do it unless you tell me to.

Ultimately, it's your world, I'm just living in it. Do whatever you need to do to get that W

I have judged debate/speech/congress for 7+ years. I primarily judge in the Missouri NSDA circuit, but I have also judged some out of state tournaments and at the state tournament level. I judge primarily on topicality and each participant's ability to defend their position, both in their speeches and responses. I also judge on presentation of materials (speed, eye contact, clarity, etc.). I will also consider the sportsmanship and ethics of the round in my decision. Competitors should remember, this is a respectful, competitive environment, and should be argued as such. The expectation is respectful and informed arguments by all participants.

Lincoln Douglas

I value the resolution and topicality. Affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution is, generally, a true statement. Negative has the burden to prove the resolution false. I base this judgement primarily off the topicality of the argument. I do NOT weigh the option of counterplans as a valid true/false decision. I will judge based off of knowledge of the case and resources, as well as the teams' ability to rebuttal to questions being asked. I will also consider impacts referenced by either team in my decision. It is in your best interest to have a complete, well-rounded case, that fully supports your position.

General Notes: Speed - I prefer a manageable, understandable speed and tone. If I don't have time to comprehend your words, I can't flow your argument, which could result in missed points. I prefer the quality of your words, than the quantity. I will not disrupt the debate to address these issues, so please consider this before you start.

Author: I am more concerned with the argument you're making rather than who it is said by. References are important for credibility purposes, but I am not traditionally persuaded in an argument just due to the source being cited.


Policy Debate

Similar to above LD comments, except in policy, the negative team has presumption and affirmative team must must clearly argue their impacts.

4 years at BVSW

Current Sophomore debating at Missouri State

add me to chains: elidebate35[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

Tech>Truth

Not the best judge to have a planless debate in front of

Have done 0 research on the HS topic so keep that in mind

Competing Interps> reasonability in a T debate

Condo is good but its a debate to be had

K Aff/Framework:

I think that if you are reading a planless aff an advocacy statement should be part of the aff, I think it needs to be in the area of the topic and if it's not, I'm going to be very persuaded by framework. I think procedural fairness is an impact in the round and will be persuaded by it. I may be persuaded by structural fairness outweighs, but more then likely not unless very well done. The best chance a K aff has is to win a DA or a broader impact turn. If you do end up reading a k aff in front of me, I may not have a great evaluation. K v K has a decent chance of being completely lost on me unless it's a k i've gone for.

K's:

If the answer to the K is Framework and a perm, please go for it (Change due to KCKCC

I'm not deep in the lit so don't expect me to know the nuances of Baudrillard or arguments like that. I think that specific links to the aff are good and the more specific the better. I don't think links of omission are good and am very unlikely to vote on them. If you are a K team don't be deterred to go for what you feel comfortable going for but if it's really high theory explanations go a long way.

CP:

Cps should be textually and functionally competitive with the aff. This is what I have gone for in college and am very comfortable voting on them. you should make a sufficiency framing arg. I default judge kick if nothing is said in the round.

DA:

Great. I am ok with generic links but at some point in the debate you should make an arg as to why it applies to this aff specifically not just the topic as a whole. you should have impact calc in every block and in the 2nr as well.

T:

T's a voting issue and comes before most aff theory, RVI's are not

1. Experience with LD debate: Community Judge

2. Please indicate your attitudes towards typical LD practices:

A. What is your preferred rate of delivery? Typical conversational speed

B. Does the rate of delivery weigh heavily in your decision? No

C.Will you vote against a student solely for exceeding your preferred speed? No

3. How important is the criterion in making your decision? It may be a factor depending on its use in the round.

A. Do you feel that a value and criterion are required elements of a case? Yes

4. Rebuttals and Crystallization (check one of the answers for each question)

A. Final rebuttals should include: Voting issues

B. Voting issues should be given: at the end of the final speech, or .

C. Voting issues are: not necessary.

4. The use of jargon or technical language ("extend,". "cross-apply," "turn," etc.) during rebuttals is: acceptable

5. How do you decide the winner of the round? I decide who is the winner of the key arguments in the round

6. How necessary do you feel the use of evidence (both analytical and empirical) is in the round? Always necessary

7. Please describe your personal note-taking during the round: I keep detailed notes throughout the round.

1. Your experience with policy debate: Occasionally judge policy debate

2. I have judged ____ years of policy debate: 0-10 years

3. Which best describes your approach to judging policy debate: stock issues

Circle your attitudes concerning these policy debate practices:

4. RATE OF DELIVERY: 7

Slow and deliberate 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Very rapid

5. QUANTITY OF ARGUMENTS: 4

A few well developed 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 The more arguments arguments the better

6. COMMUNICATION AND ISSUES: 6

Communication skills 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Resolving substantive most important

issues most important

7. TOPICALITY: I am willing to vote on topicality: 3

Often 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Rarely

8. COUNTERPLANS: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

9. GENERIC DISADVANTAGES: 1

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

10.CONDITIONAL NEGATIVE POSITIONS : 2

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

11. DEBATE THEORY ARGUMENTS: 5

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

12. CRITIQUE (KRITIK) ARGUMENTS: 3

Acceptable 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Unacceptable

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:
- "I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate how you feel rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my paper, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behoves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

Jay Rye - Head Coach - Montgomery Academy

Experience- I have been involved with L/D debate since 1985 as a former L/D debater, judge, and coach. I have been involved with Policy debate since 1998. I have coached Public Forum debate since it began in 2002. While at many tournaments I serve in the role as tournament administrator running tournaments from coast to coast, every year I intentionally put myself into the judge pool to remain up to date on the topics as well as with the direction and evolving styles of debate. I have worked at summer camps since 2003 - I understand debate.

Philosophy

I would identify myself as what is commonly called a traditional L/D judge. Both sides have the burden to present and weigh the values and/or the central arguments as they emerge during the course of the round. I try to never allow my personal views on the topic to enter into my decision, and, because I won't intervene, the arguments that I evaluate are the ones brought into the round - I won't make assumptions as to what I "think" you mean. I am actually open to a lot of arguments - traditional and progressive - a good debater is a good debater and an average debater is just that - average.

While for the most part I am a "tabula rasa" judge, I do have a few things that I dislike and will bias me against you during the course of the round either as it relates to speaker points or an actual decision. Here they are:

1) I believe that proper decorum during the round is a must. Do not be rude or insulting to your opponent or to me and the other judges in the room. Not sure what you are trying to accomplish with that approach to debate.

2) Both sides must tell me why to vote "for" them as opposed to simply why I should vote "against" their opponent. In your final speech, tell me why I should vote for you - some call this "crystallization" while others call it "voting issues" and still others just say, "here is why I win" - whatever you call it, I call it letting your judge know why you did the better job in the round.

3) I am not a big fan of speed. You are more than welcome to go as fast as you want, but if it is not on my flow, then it was not stated, so speed at your own risk. Let me say that to the back of the room - SPEED AT YOUR OWN RISK! If you have a need for speed, at the very least slow down on the tag lines as well as when you first begin your speech so that my ears can adjust to your vocal quality and tone.

4) I am not a big fan of "debate speak: Don't just say, cross-apply, drop, non-unique, or other phrases without telling me why it is important. This activity is supposed to teach you how to make convincing arguments in the real world and the phrase "cross-apply my card to my opponents dropped argument which is non-unique" - this means nothing. In other words, avoid being busy saying nothing.

5) Realizing that many debaters have decided to rely on the Wiki, an email chain, and other platforms to exchange the written word, in a debate round you use your verbal and non-verbal skills to convince me as your judge why you win the round. I rarely call for evidence and I do not ask to be on any email chain.

1) Arguments are good, Impacts are better

2) Clash is important. I want to see where ideas come together, not just two separate cases.

3) I am a flow judge so covering case and signposting is ideal!

Overall have fun! Enjoy it! :)

I competed in L/D and Public Forum, as well as every IE in High School. In college, I was on the Northwest Missouri Team and won 10 national championships through Pi Kapppa and PCSDL leagues. Over half of these wins are in Public Forum Debate, as well as Duo, and platform events.

Who I Am:

-I debated 4 years @ Lawrence Free State High School in Kansas

-I debated 3 years on the Varsity/DCI circuit

-I ran a variety of arguments including standard policy args and some forms of kritiks (Neolib, Rights Malthus, Anthro, Postcol Fem, etc.)

- I also debated in PF and did speech/forensics (DI, Duo, Duet, Poetry, Congress, Impromptu lol)

In General—

I don’t think it is my job as a judge to call for evidence, kick CPs, decide how I should evaluate the debate, etc. It is your job to tell me these things. This means impact calculus plays a significant part in the way I evaluate the round—please do it. Warranted extensions only or it isn’t an extension.

I don’t put up with rudeness, racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, or ableism-- these are worthy of losing a ballot and certainly a reason to dock you speaker points.

I expect debaters to do whatever they are best at and want to do in front of me-- debate is not an event for conformity.

Topicality—

If you’re going for T it should be the entire 2NR. If it is not, you’re not doing enough work. I evaluate education and fairness as impacts, so treat them as such. I am more persuaded by education. I am fine with creativity to make the aff topical, but at a certain point would rather you just reject the resolution than squeeze your way into a nonexistent “we meet” arg. I think rejecting the resolution is fine and switch side debate is typically not a winning argument. If you can prove that your education is best in the round I am willing to listen to what you have to say.

DAs—

Fine, great, everyone should do them. If you don’t have a specific link you better be prepared to do a lot of work for me.

CPs—

Generic bad. I think smart and well developed PICs are a good way to control offense in a debate. Don’t assume doing theory and a perm is enough to get out of the CP. I default to sufficiency framing so I need clear reasons why the aff is more desirable. Blippy word PICs and delay CPs are annoying.

Ks—

Most familiar with neolib/fem/anthro/ri mal. You need to explain what the alternative does specifically—even if it is inaction. I like to hear “in the world of the alternative…”. I need to know why the aff is uniquely bad. Permutations are always valid, but often poorly executed and cause severance. Severance is probably bad. If I have to do a lot of work just to understand your jargon and what the K is I’m not the judge for you.

Theory—

I have a higher threshold for voting on theory, it needs to be the center of the rebuttal if that is what you want. I almost always view theory as a reason to reject the argument not the team. Obviously I can be persuaded otherwise. Severance mostly bad. Condo mostly good. K’s are not cheating. PICs are good but also sometimes not. Slow down on theory.

If you have any questions, feel free to ask- kshi@uchicago.edu

BIO: I recently graduated from Truman State University with a Bachelors degree in Communication. I grew up in Kansas City, MO, where I debated four years of CX in high school and then moved onto NFA-LD. Just a personal note about debate, I believe this is a space to be heard and that real change can come from arguments in debate rounds. I also view debate as more of an educational activity than a competitive one, although we all love to win lol, but I want to see that you are really learning about the topic and that you have a real understanding of the arguments that you are making.

*** side note, I will not let you forfeit a round. I will make you debate and it will be awkward so please do not try.

_______________

SPEAKS

0-20: Your coach needs to have words with you about how belligerent/ racist/ homophobic/ rude you are to other members of the community. I have no tolerance for these kinds of things and you shouldn't either. Debate is dying and we are a community. Being aggressive and being rude are separate things. Be kind to one another.

25-26: You failed to do anything correct in the round

26-27: you do minimal correctly. You have not come to grasp with what debate is and how arguments function together.

27-28: You get a c-b on this debate. some important dropped args or framing questions are not challenged

28-29: You handled this round well. There were minute problems that can be resolved easily that can bump you up.

29-29.5: You are a solid debater and have done exactly what I would do (or slightly better) to answer different arguments. Typically this range is also associated with you winning against a very good opponent, or very easily.

30: I have no corrections. You have had a perfect round and all of your arguments are on point and delivered properly. You have made some kind of strategic decision that I did not think about that I find genius.

______________

WILL VOTE ON

Theory out of 1AC

Speed theory - if justified, although speed is a useful tool, it should not be used to weaponize the debates. If your opponent asks you to slow down and you do not, but your opponent does not bring it up, I will intervene and I will severely doc your speaker points.

Framework v. K affs - love it

Framework turns v. other positions (Ks, DAs, Case args) - love it too

CP theory

K LD - I will listen to any K you want to read, but if I can tell if you don't understand it or it isn't topic specific, you are going to have to work really hard to get me to vote on it. I have a general knowledge of most Ks, I am most familiar with Fem Ks, and discourse related arguments.

Speaking for others arguments (There are ways to not make this problematic. However, identity is very individualized and commodification of someone else's identity for your own gain is a problem for me. For instance, do not be a white male debater reading the narrative of a black woman.)

HS-LD

For any arguments that relate to it see above. In terms of how I evaluate LD rounds I rely heavily on the framework debate to determine how I will evaluate the round. Pay it it's due and try to win it. However, if you are able to show how your arguments fall into your opponents’ framework then I will be willing to vote for you if they win the framework shell. Also please clash with each other. I have seen too many rounds where each speech is just explaining 1ACs and 1NCs and I don't have a specific reason to vote against one or the other. At that point my personal morals let me decide how I feel about the topic. You don't want that. I don't want that.

I am more progressive when it comes to LD due to my policy background. This means PICs, Ks, CPs and DAs are all acceptable. weigh them and explain the args as they apply to the aff case.

I prefer single standard debate as well. Death is bad and morality is good (but subjective) I dont need a specific mechanism for how we prevent or entrench one or the other. if you read it thats fine but I probably won't look at it that much unless you thoroughly explain it to me.

NFA - LD

SPEED: I can do speed. I do have some conditions though. PLEASE READ T SHELLS SLOWLY!!!! I need to hear the definitions, standards and voters. Bottom line is if it isn't on my flow I can't vote for it. Speed SHOULD NOT be used as a weapon especially if there is a specific debater in the round that has a disability that hinders them from spreading or flowing quick speech. Be respectful of individuals and their experiences.

TOPICALITY/THEORY: needing proven abuse is BS. Affs that say dont vote on potential abuse are wrong and should read counterinterps that apply to their affs. If the neg interp is bad then warrant that out in the standards debate.

If you want to win T in front of me you should pull through all your standards and voters, a dropped standard or voter is an easy way to win T if you can impact it out. I would also much rather see one or two well thought out T shells than multiple small violations.

When it comes to theory I love it. I tend to flow it on a different sheet so tell me when I need to pull one out. Theory args can win rounds in front of me if there are well warranted and aplicable to the topic. This means I will vote on Extra T or Effects T arguments if you make them well enough. I love to vote on them if they are conceded. Warrant out why some shells are weighed first in the round and explain to me how different shells interact with each other. T is never a reverse voter though and neither is theory. Predictability is not determined by whether or not something is on the wiki or if you have seen it before. Predictability is based on whether or not an interpretation is predictable given the resolution. The same goes for reasonability.

DISADS: I love to see disads! This is one of my favorite arguments to see and evaluate. However, if you run generic links that's no bueno for me. generic links from the Neg means generic responses from the Aff are acceptable. I don't want a generic debate y'all. give me some links that pertain to the case at hand.

CPs: They exist. I never really ran them but I do know how they work and I will evaluate them. Also prove it competitive. (Hint: I like Disads. that can help.) I will vote for the perm on presumption if you don’t prove them to be competitive as long as there’s a perm on the CP.

KRITIKS: I like the k debate and will vote for them but explain the literature. I am most familiar with feminist literature and identity kritiks. I have also seen antiblackness and afropessimism rounds that I have enjoyed a lot. But that does not mean I am entirely up to date on the newest literature or how your lit plays into the round. Just explain it to me. NEVER RUN MULTIPLE IN ONE ROUND!!!! The Alt debate turns ugly and I don't want to deal with that. Affs should either have a plan text or an advocacy statement as to what they do. I don't like performance debate as much as just reading the cards, however I have voted for poetry performance in rounds. I will listen to identity args. Race, disabilty, and queer lit are all acceptable in front of me and I can/ will evaluate them. Neg should be able to defend alt solvency. I am not going to automatically grant that. I will not kick the alt for you. saying "if you do not buy the alt kick it for me" is not an argument. If you do not explicitly say "kick the alt" or something of that nature I will evaluate the alternative. If it does not solve then I will be persuaded by risk of aff offense. I also want to point out that P.I.L. was correct, Anger is an Energy. If structures upset you, feel free to rage agaisnt them. This can include the debate, economic, racial, gendered, and other spaces. If you are oppressed and you are angry about it, I will not limit your ability to angrily refute the system.

CASE: I am always here for the growth, heg, and democracy bad debates as well as the prolif good ones. My strategy typically was to go T, K, O so I enjoy hearing why heg is bad and how the alt avoids it and how the aff isnt topical.

PRESUMPTION: I will not vote for terminal defense on the flow. I need an offensive reason to vote for you. Whether that be a disad, K, or advantage I need something to evaluate to give me a reason to reject the other team. Find it, win it, and extend it. Also, do the calculus for me of what impacts matter and why they matter. When I do the calculus I look to magnitude, timeframe, and probability. Explain why you fit into those please.

CONDO: I find it disingenuous to read more than one condo advocacy in one round. You can do it if you win the theory debate but I will be more lenient to theory in a world of multiple conditional advocacies. If you are running multiple advocacies please make it only be CPs. I don't want to see a CP and K in a round because almost always the CP will link to the K and I think that's cheating.

I WILL NOT VOTE ON

Topical Cps - I believe that they do steal aff ground and make it very difficult for the aff to debate solvency, yes perms can solve, and you are welcome to have that debate but I strongly dislike topical counterplans.

______________________________

At the end of the day it is my job to sit in the back of the room and listen to discourse on the issues presented. It is your job to determine how that discourse happens. Just because I say I do or do not like something should not change your strategy based on the round. I have voted for things I never thought I would and have changed my opinions about things a lot. I give higher speaks to anyone who can read my paradigm and change my opinion or do something that is incredibly intelligent in round. Do what you are comfortable with and I will adjudicate it based on what is in front of me.

Other than this PLEASE feel free to ask me.

Current Associate Director of Debate at Emory University

Former graduate student coach at University of Georgia, Wake Forest University, University of Florida

Create an email chain for evidence before the debate begins. Put me on it. My email address is lace.stace@gmail.com

Do not trivialize or deny the Holocaust

Online Debates:

Determine if I am in the room before you start a speech. "Becca, are you ready?" or "Becca, are you here?" I will give you a thumbs up or say yes (or I am not in the room and you shouldn't start).

I get that tech issues happen, but unnecessary tech time hurts decision time.

Please have one (or all) debaters look periodically to make sure people haven't gotten booted from the room. The internet can be unreliable. You might get booted from the room. I might get booted from the room. The best practice is to have a backup of yourself speaking in case this occurs. If the tournament has rules about this, follow those.

DA’s:

Is there an overview that requires a new sheet of paper? I hope not

Impact turn debates are fine with me

Counterplans:

What are the key differences between the CP and the plan?

Does the CP solve some of the aff or all of the aff?

Be clear about which DA/s you are claiming as the net benefit/s to your CP

"Solving more" is not a net benefit

I lean neg on international fiat, PICS, & agent CP theory arguments

I am open minded to debates about conditionality & multiple conditional planks theory arguments.

Flowing:

I strongly prefer when debaters make flowing easier for me (ex. debating line by line, signposting, identifying the other team’s argument and making direct answers)

I strongly prefer when debaters answer arguments individually rather than “grouping”

Cross-X:

"What cards did you read?" "What cards did you not read?" "Did you read X off case position?" "Where did you stop in this document?" - those questions count as cross-x time! If a speech ends and you ask these, you should already be starting your timer for cross-x.

Avoid intervening in your partners cross-x time, whether asking or answering. Tag team is for professional wrestling, not debate.

Public forum debate specific thoughts:

I am most comfortable with constructive speeches that organize contentions using this structure: uniqueness, link, and impact.

I am comfortable with the use of speed.

From my experience coaching policy debate, I care a lot about quantity and quality of evidence.

I am suspicious of paraphrased evidence.

I like when the summary and final focus speeches make the debate smaller. If your constructive started with 2 or 3 contentions, by the summary and final focus your team should make a choice of just 1 contention to attempt winning.

Because of my background in policy debate, it takes me out of my comfort zone when the con/neg team speaks first.

Rachel Thibodeaux

Email Chain: r.thibodeaux99@gmail.com

FC 2018-2019 Parli & Policy Debater

CSU Long Beach 2020-2022 Parli & Policy Debater

CEDA & 2x NPTE Competitor (National Rank: 14th lol, as if that means anything)

MY BACKGROUND:

I am a former burnout parli and policy debater. That means that I have not read a single news article, listened to a single political podcast, or read a single scientific journal since graduating. Instead my time has mostly been spent going clubbing, raving, and traveling.

How many rounds do I have on the topic? Zero :) cite & explain the context of your evidence.

During undergrad I was barely a K debater and sort of a soft left aff debater. While a lot of my advocacies were v performative aka "embrace eroticism", I truly like hearing straight up policy debates more often than not, or at least I'm prob the judge you want in straight up v K debates. My current mode of thought tends to be more of a pragmatist. I see debate as educational sure, but I also am the type of person that now defaults to believing the state to be inevitable, etc. Rachel as a judge is a lot more grounded and lukewarm than Rachel as a debater.I am not a fan of Theory debates just bc you can. If you run like 6 off with most being theory I'm probably going to tank ur speaks, but I won't necessarily vote you down. With that being said, I don't see debate as a game, but more educational than not. Usually my impacts talked about the educational importance of the type of knowledge we produced in a debate round. I believe that to be true.

MY PARADIGM:

Role of the Ballot: You define what the role of the ballot is. The duality of debate is this: there are rules meant to be followed and rules meant to be broken, neither being mutually exclusive. Tell me how I should be voting, I am fine voting in nontraditional means as long as you win the argument that is how I should vote. This means evidence and reasoning. Although I try to be as impartial as possible, I still have a few methodologies that I default to when deciding a round:

Please have clear spreading before you try to pick up speed.

Extend your arguments to keep it in the debate. If it isn't extended, I won't vote off of it. That also means if it's brought up in constructive but not extended in rebuttals... well...again, won't vote off it. Especially true for the 1AR 2AR speeches.

Weigh your args. I need to see some impact calculus. A round can be changed all based on the framing of args. Explain why the arguments you're winning outweigh the arguments your opponent is winning. With that being said, try to keep framing grounded in the reality of the debate.

Evidence. Go beyond the tag and tell me the story of the debate.

Feel free to run a K or K Aff. A good link story is everything! For the K Aff just throughly explain how your Aff links to the topic, if that is your Strat. If you reject the res all together that's great! Let me know why your education is critical to the round and/or why procedural fairness shouldn't matter. I give the Aff a lot of leeway and T usually goes for Aff (I don't like you throwing out Ts just to waste time and if its clearly a topical Aff, don't do it).To win the K, you must be able to tell the story of the alt effectively. I need to be able to see what the alt tangibly does and how it would change the world, the debate space, etc. That doesn't mean I think alts are vague, that means I think debaters are vague about their alts. Key distinction.

Identity/Race Args: Love them. Will be sympathetic to them, but I have and will vote against them. Good debating comes first before the argument ran however Truth > Tech. I don't equate good debating to purely tech. I've met lots of good debaters who maybe are losing the line by line, but know how to tell the story of the round so that they still win. I love arguments that especially talk about queer theory (pls no straight-up Edelman :'( ive heard him so much), eroticism, and latine/latina identities. However I'm not a fan of identity politics. If your arg is centered around you needing to win because of your identity, that won't win me over.

Don't run identities args you don't identify with. This reproduces marginalized communities' suffering as fungible in order to win a ballot. Lame, I'm not a fan.

Cps. Run your CP. I'm not particularly convinced by condo bad theory and probably won't vote on it unless someone is running more than 3 advocacies...even then...eh. I'm a firm believer in Neg Flex, so you'll have to do some more work on condo bad for it to be a voting issue.

Theory. Please slow down, theory tends to have extremely condensed arguments and because of that it can get blippy. I'm most likely not the judge you want to run more than 3 theory sheets on. I have a high threshold for theory because I see proliferation of theory as harmful to the quality of debates. That being said, don't be afraid to run theory if it makes sense to you, just be prepared to justify it.

How to get high speaks:

-Don't give me roadmaps (I like to be surprised :^D)

-slur the tags ❤️

-Run Ks you made during pre-round prep

-read my partner's fw cards during the round

-actually just read my entire eroticism shell word for word I love it

-spend your neg block telling me the role of the neg bc i obvi have never debated

Okay actual speaks:

-any edm reference: nghtmre, illenium, zedd, mvse, subtronics, audien

-honestly if you're funny I'll give high speaks

-be smart over being aggressive (probably my biggest regret as a debater was taking things too seriously, have fun and let your arguments speak for themselves. I promise you a smart argument doesn't need an overly aggressive debater to win the ballot)

kmwhite@olatheschools.org

Policy:

I've been coaching in KS for about 15 years and debated in high school and college before that. It's been quite awhile since I've done much coaching and judging on the national circuit. I'm opening to listening to almost anything but don't assume I'm familiar with specific authors.

You're likely to be the most successful in front of me by debating in your comfort zone and doing it well. I'll list some preferences below but they are all flexible based on what happens in the round. Particularly smart, original arguments can persuade me to vote on just about anything.

I DO NOT want to listen to you be rude to each other. We're all in an activity that we enjoy. Please don't be rude or condescending.

Delivery - Speed is fine. I'll say clear or slow once or twice if you're too fast, but then if you don't adjust I won't keep it up. Please slow a bit during transitions to give me a second to process where you're going.

Round progression - Please narrow the number of arguments but deepen those arguments as you go along. Give me reasons to prefer your arguments that are based on analysis and warrants. Avoid answering developed arguments by just repeating a cite.

Topicality/Theory - I enjoy these types of arguments if they are well-developed and have warrants and impacts. I don't like blippy lists of theory or cheap shots where you read six quick perms and crow because they dropped #5. Tell me very clearly what I should do with your argument if you win it.

Policy impacts - I'm most comfortable evaluating rounds as a policymaker. If you don't specify another method, that's what I'll use. Focus on offense and impacts. I do believe it's possible to mitigate an impact or weaken the link to the point I shouldn't consider it. I have a slight preference for real-world, high probability impacts over low probability terminal impacts.

CPs - These are fine. I have a fairly high standard for competitiveness.

Ks - I like philosophy and enjoy listening to good K debates, but I'm not up on a lot of the literature. Please clash with the opposing arguments and explain exactly what I'm voting for and why. On the neg, apply your ideas directly against specifics from the aff case so I can tell you understand how the arguments interact.

Evidence - I prefer not to look at speech docs unless there's a specific point I'm trying to clear up. Debate is a verbal activity and I want to primarily judge what I hear you say. I will look at evidence if it comes into question.

I'm bothered by the increasing use of heavily biased evidence that hasn't been through an editorial process so please feel free to make source arguments or call their evidence into question. If I end up in a position where I'm comparing evidence directly because you're both telling me your evidence is the best, I will definitely take author's quals into account.

My speaker point midpoint is about a 27.5. If I think you had decently ok speeches, that's where you'll be. Noticeable strategic errors in argument choice or time allocation or delivery will reduce that, insightful arguments and solid strategy will bring it up. I don't mind open cross-x but if you stand up there silently while your partner answers all your questions instead of prepping, you'll both lose points.

LD:

My preference is for LD to be a discussion of philosophy and morality. That can definitely include evaluating outcomes, but don't assume that I'll always vote for the person who proves the "best" outcomes over somebody with a strong philosophical justification for their position.

I dislike both affs and negs who seem to be advocating a specific plan and whose argumentation seems mainly about poking very small and specific holes in each others' plans.

Due to the time constraints, I am much less likely in LD to vote on "gotcha" drops than I am in policy.

Currently leaving this blank due to doxxing of judges. Ill update again before the season or debaters can email me for a copy. SovietHistory2396@gmail.com

I am currently an assistant coach at Lansing. Previously, I was the head coach and director of debate and forensics at Truman High School in Missouri. I was a policy debater in high school. I have taught at debate and speech camps and I frequently judge policy debate, LD, PF, and speech.

EMAIL CHAIN: jeriwillard@gmail

Things I like for you to do: send an email effectively and efficiently, speak clearly, and respond to arguments. Communicate TO THE judge.

GIVE THE ORDER AT THE BEGINNING OF THE SPEECH.

I flow on paper. Be clear when you are switching args.

The aff should be topical. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. (Read: I rarely vote on T. Running T? Go all in.) If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are much more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters. I read evidence and it factors into my decision.

Clarity matters. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me and you should stop doing that. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping.

The link matters. I typically care a great deal about the link. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

I am fine with K debate on either side of the the resolution, although I prefer the K debate to be rooted in the substance of the resolution.; however, I will listen to why non-topical versions of the aff are justified. Methodology should inform FW and give substance to FW args beyond excluding only other positions. Links should clearly identify how the other team's mindset/position/advocacy perpetuates the squo. An alternative that could solve the issues identified in the K should be included with solvency that identifies and explains pragmatic change. K debaters must demonstrate their understanding and purpose of their K lit. Moreover, if you would like for me to vote for the K, it should be the main argument in the round.

Overall:

I debated at UMKC (graduated in 2014) and Oak Park High School.

For the most part, I don’t have a huge preference in terms of what arguments you read in front of me. In general, I would say that I have more experience with policy-type arguments, so if you are going to go for a K you may need to do a bit more explaining than you otherwise might (except for the Security K or Cap/Neolib).

Keep in mind that for the most part, the notes below are just my default positions on various arguments. I won’t outright reject any arguments or vote against you if you make an argument that I say I don’t agree with below. This is especially true for theory arguments. I like theory debates, and if you have a well-developed theory argument with specific and well-explained impacts, I will vote for it if you win the debate. If you have questions about any of this, please feel free to email me Woodb92@gmail.com

Specifics:

Topicality/Framework: T is a voter and is never a reverse voter. Affirmatives should be about the topic. Neg needs to articulate a clear impact to their framework or T arg to win the round. I evaluate T/FW in an offense/defense framework like all other arguments. However, generic impact turns about why talking about the things in the 1AC is good will probably be an uphill battle. A counter-interp and specific impact arguments about what your interpretation allows for/doesn’t allow for is more persuasive to me.

K’s: For the most part I like Kritiks, but ultimately they should be about the aff. The more specific and well explained the links, the better. Don’t rely too much on jargon, especially when explaining your alternative. If I don’t know how your alternative functions or how it solves in the context of the link debate, I probably won’t vote for it. “Role of the ballot” arguments aren’t super persuasive for me, especially if the “role of the ballot” is essentially to talk about whatever you talked about in the 1AC/1NC. If the Aff has answered the K substantively, I don’t think that it matters that they didn’t say the words “role of the ballot.”

CP’s: I like CP/DA debates. I lean toward 50-state fiat and Agent CP’s being legitimate, but as I said above, you can win these args the other way as long as you explain your impacts. Int’l Fiat is closer, but probably legit. Counterplans should be functionally competitive with the Aff.

Theory/Condo: I tend to think that conditionality is good. Counter-interpretations about “2 worlds vs. 3” are arbitrary and generally not persuasive.

Misc. Notes:

-        Evidence quality is pretty important for me. I would rather you read one long card with several good warrants than 10 cards where you shot-gun highlighted 12 random words in each.

-        Explanation of the warrants of your evidence and making comparisons/distinctions between your evidence vs. the other team’s evidence is essential. Extending a tagline and saying “this goes aff” is not an argument.

-        “Extinction” or “Goes Nuclear” is not a tag.

-        Don’t be a jerk in cx. 

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.