Jean Ward Invitational
2020 — Portland, OR/US
Lincoln-Douglas Judge Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
ASU 2021 update
This is my first online circuit tournament. I do not have topic knowledge.
Please do not pref me if you read tricks. I will probably evaluate the round poorly and then we will both be sad.
I did policy debate (not very well) in high school. I did not debate in college. I have mostly judged LD. I judge more locals than circuit.
Things before the debate
Blatant discriminatory behavior (racism, sexism, homophobia, oppression good, etc.) will get you voted down and reported to tab.
Give content warnings.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Any variation of "I'd like to thank my opponents and the judge for being here today and making this debate possible. Now moving on to my contentions..." – The phrase "off-time roadmap" – Knocking on things during the round – Quantum mysticism – The phrases "firm affirmation/negation" – Saying "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now"
eDebate - put the order in the chat please. I think it makes it easier for everyone. I would prefer it if your video is on, but you do you.
I try my best to be tech > truth.
Speed: on circuit I'm like a 4/10, Oregon like a 7/10 to a 8/10. Please slow down on tags and analytics. Please be slower when debating online.
Unwarranted arguments are not arguments.
I'll probably flow cx.
The onus is on you not to misrepresent your evidence, not on your opponent(s) to catch you cheating.
I am slow at typing my rfd. It's not you, it's me.
Thoughts on Specific Arguments
Case: For the aff: the debate starts in the 1AC, not the 1NC. You wrote the aff for a reason: articulate it, extend it, weigh it against (for example) t-framework. Use it in later speeches! For the neg: be sure not to just put defense on the aff. Solvency deficits are probably only meaningful when paired with offense on the same layer. Good case debate rewarding for both me and you.
Disadvantages/Counterplans: Yes. These are what I'm most comfortable judging. Debates on disads is usually the weakest on the link level. Please read complete counterplans with a solvency advocate at the very least. I am starting to wonder about how much leeway I should give "perm do both, perm do the aff, perm do the cp" one-liners.
Kritiks: I am worse for them than I would like to be. I probably don't know your literature base. Please over-explain how the links outweigh the perm.
Phil: Nothing against it. I probably don't know your literature base. I need you to articulate what offense looks like in these framings.
Topicality: T is good. For extra and effects T all you really have to say is "drop the non-t offense" and then do the line by line. Otherwise, please explain how your interp is necessary for good debates. Please put standards in the 1nc and not just in the block.
Theory: My default is to drop the argument unless articulated otherwise. I think frivolous theory arguments are probably bad. Please slow down on your underviews/spikes.
Framework: Is how you frame your work. Love to see it.
If you have any questions about anything feel free to ask/email me. I look forward to your debates!
I align with the tabula rasa paradigm, if you can defend an argument you can make it.
I like critical theory, and will default to reasonability on T unless Neg proves a real violation.
T and theory are a priori and I will evaluate them before any post fiat imps
I personally think the base DA is cancer but of course I'll still vote on it if you really want to run it.
I did policy in hs and now do NFA LD for Lewis and Clark
I am a parent judge with some judging experience in PF, LD, Parli, and speech formats (2019-2020 was my first season). Please help me to be a better judge by using clear road maps, maintaining reasonable pacing, and keeping me oriented via liberal use of signposts.
I'm Charlie and I competed in debate throughout high school in LD and CX, and in college for Lewis & Clark in parli for 3.5 years. In Spring 2019, I transitioned from a competitor to a judge. On balance, I'd prefer to be tabula rasa but have found that whatever question a particular round collapses to, some work for each team remains. Therefore, I vote for whichever team I have to do the least amount of work for. That being said, let me try to paint a picture of who I am as a judge to help you know where/how I might be doing work. I have divided this into several sections to help you find what is most relevant to you.
****PRIOR EXPERIENCE AS A COMPETITOR****
In HS, I did LD as a novice, and CX the following two years, mostly doing the one-off/K Aff thing. I wasn't particularly successful doing this and I saw a lot of very good anti-K strategies deployed as a result. My senior year, I did more circuit LD.
As a frosh, I would often try to juke my opponents by reading off-beat K's like Lacan or a Mahayana Buddhism shell my friend and I wrote after taking a Japanese history class. Over time, our antics lost their element of surprise. I read a lot of cap, going for alienation extensions in the block trying to link turn their offense. That was a more reliable strategy.
As a soph, I was for the first semester much more traditional, just reading CPs and DAs. It was a refreshing experience. I read some Virilio and wrote a shell that was successful at nats. That was more successful because of the partner that I had at the time than the actual shell itself. My belief was that the shell relied a lot more on tricks that were a sentence long that I wasn't clear enough for everyone to understand.
As a Jun: Read weird K affs and K's. During my second semester, we read a lot of T. T, case, and K was a lot of fun.
As a Sen: Read some old K's, mostly.
**** THOUGHTS ON ARG TYPES/STYLES****
Speed/flashing: A faster than normal pace is fine. A pace that might make me have to rely on the speech doc to get tags, authors, and args is not. I like speed that is done well. READ: Speed is fine, change your tone between tags and and authors and cards. You can go fast, but every verbal cue you can give me and as much pen time as you can give me is only going to help be flow you more efficiently. Even if you were slow and you did not do these things it would not be optimal.
The K: It is delightful. It is also delightful when they get torn apart. I love the anti-K game just as much, if not more than the K game. My problem with the K is that sometimes to really 'get the lit' and the strength of the arguments that are presented, is not always conveyed due to complexity, word choice, clarity, etc. Speaking truth to power works only if I am able to understand the truth.
Conditionality: I have absolutely no idea why this is a controversial point. Conditionality is not bad. It isn't good. It just is. You might as well question whether a tradeoff is good or bad. Condo just changes the rules of the game, it doesn't remove the alleged drive to 'cheat'. Making a neg team defend a CP from the onset or collapse to one in the block just inspires creativity to go a different direction... like reading 6 T's...
T: Love it, but have a full shell though, with an interp, violation, standards, voters, and a way to evaluate T. I have dropped teams against untopical affs because they didn't know how to read T. In this context, I look to the letter, not the spirit of the T. I don't need abuse to be proven.
*** Example***These are not the best arguments but this should help you understand what I am looking for in a complete shell***
A: "The aff must present a fiated, actionable, hypothetical policy option "
B: They read a kritikal affirmative that takes no hypothetical policy action
-aff increases their ground infinitesimally through the use of philosophical lit, even if the neg is allowed reciprical ground by their counter-interp, I had no way of knowing beforehand, this harms fairness because the neg has to prepare twice as much as the aff
2. Research Skew
-the neg has to research twice as much as the aff, which given the same time constraints, means that I have to be half as well researched as I could have been on any one position, this harms education because depth is more imporant than bredth. depth o/w because it makes education more sticky because going on further on one point increases the amount of neural connections making it easier to remember
3. Predictability -
there is no way to guess what argument that they may read given that there are centuries worth of critical literature, prefer my interp because its better for clash and predictability. policy oriented arguments move research towards the most recent cards which encourages concision and the liklihood of clash, clash is the most important aspect of debate for fairness and education. education because clash is the only unique aspect to debate that you can find outside of a class room for things like decision making. fairness because if I had no ability to clash, then it is impossible for me to win.
Fairness - fairness is k2 debate survival because otherwise its a coin flip, no reason to compete or work on debate if you are guaranteed to lose. competitive equity is k2 participation in the activity
Education - why debate exists in the first place, if debate is anti-educational, then no reason why institutions should fund coaches and travel, no reason why it should continue
Competing Interps - Evaluate T under CI because it is the best way to reduce the chance of judge intervention.
T is A Priori - you have to understand the rules of the game before you can play, no way to the judge to vote aff if their aff should not have been allowed to read in the first place,
***end of example****
RVIs, OCIs: I never really understood the reasons why these should not be allowed. Maybe if I was a better debate I would, but I am not, so I do.
-T: can't win as an RVI, but possibly as an OCI. The aff should not win just because they were topical, but maybe they should if the neg read three T's and they win offense under a new counter-interp.
-Theory: Can win was both. Do I really need to read the text of my speech in the first 2 minutes? Or the first 30 seconds? If I win that I should not and that theory is A Priori before other sheets of paper, then I should win. How is this different than T? An aff can reasonably expect a T debate depending on the wording of their plan and their advocacy, and can/should not be blindsided by it. I think theory should be high risk/ high reward.
I don't care much for disclosure theory.
Xtra Speaks for Cap Good
If you know your opponent, say the aff or neg when referencing their arg, as opposed to saying "jim bob's argument is weak here"
Debaters that lose the round by just shadow extending tags
Debaters that lose the round by not collapsing
Debaters that lose by “winning” the line by line but lose the round.
I am finally updating my paradigm after about six years of using this site!
Here's me in a nutshell:
* three years as a college Parli competitor in the NPDA; Parli team captain
* wrote master's thesis on "Characteristics and Impact of Superior Forensics Tournament Ballots"
* twelve years coaching experience at four private high schools in three different countries (U.S., China, Kuwait)
* coaches all formats except Policy
* team has earned state and national titles
2. General Preferences
* flow judge
* Some speed is okay.
* Off-time road maps are fine, but unnecessary. Honestly, I don't listen closely to them, and they never buy you enough extra time to actually make the difference in the outcome of a round.
* Don't electronically share your flow or case with me--this is an oral communication event. If you want me to hear something and know it, you need to say it.
* Things I highly value in all debates include: Clash, Impacts, Voting Issues. As a general rule of thumb, remember that whatever you say to me, you should make clear WHY you are saying it. How does this argument connect to the round as a whole? Why does it constitute a reason I should vote for you? How does it relate to what your opponents are saying? Etc. Please don't let your rounds turn into "two ships passing in the night." Grapple directly with the arguments made by your opponents, and make my decision easy at the end of the round.
3. Specific Preferences - Parli
* Ask each other lots of questions! There is a reason you are allowed to do this.
* GOV should provide sufficient resolutional analysis in the first few minutes of the PMC for all of us to know what type of round we are dealing with (policy, fact, value) and how the round will be decided at the end. Don't skimp on this part. If any terms in the resolution are ambiguous, define them.
* For resolutions of policy, talk about stock issues -- Harms, Plan, Solvency, DAs, etc. I will act as a policy maker.
* For resolutions of value, talk about value and criterion, then help me weigh these in the final two speeches.
* I am fond of creative/unique interpretations of resolutions. However, I will also vote on Topicality if OPP makes the argument well.
* Counterplans are fun but are often misused.
* Kritiks very seldom win my ballot. Proceed with caution.
* I dislike generic off-case arguments. The arguments you make should be ones that you and your partner have come up with during your prep time in response to the specific resolution you were provided. Please don't just read shells your coaches/captains have written for you, especially not if you don't really understand them.
I am a first time parent judge. Please do not spread. If you talk fast make sure it is understandable, if I can't understand you or you're too fast I'll put my pen down and stop flowing. I would rather you don't use technical terms in round, and if you do use them please explain them well. I'm not familiar with any kind of progressive arguments, and if you unwisely choose to read anything progressive, make sure it is explained very well in a way that isn't extremely technical or convoluted.
I am the mother of a sophomore debater at South Eugene High School. I have no personal experience as a debater. Please, no spreading, and be sure to speak clearly and enunciate!
I have a liberal arts background, am familiar with current events, and am careful to listen to all sides before making a decision.
To maximize your odds of succeeding, transition arguments in a way that is distinct and very clear, clash as much as possible with your opponent, behave civilly, and weigh the debate in later speeches. Use all your time, but don't repeat yourself. Avoid jargon that is unique to the debate world. Provide an off-time roadmap if possible.
If you have questions about my preferences, feel free to ask before the round starts.
Coach, Gig Harbor HS, Gig Harbor WA
Coached LD: 21 years
Coached CX: 17: years
Competed in LD: 4 years
Competed in NPDA: 2 years
Rounds judged 2016-17, LD: 10, CX: 1, PF 1
LD Paradigm: I have been competing in, judging and coaching Lincoln Douglas debate for over twenty years. I have seen a lot of changes, some good, some not so good. This is what you should know.
I will evaluate the round based on the framework provided by the debaters. The affirmative needs to establish a framework (usually a value and criterion) and then show why, based on the framework, the resolution is true. The negative should either show why the resolution is not true under that framework or provide a competing framework which negates. My stock paradigm is what most people now call truth testing: the aff's burden is to prove the resolution true and the negatives is to prove it false. I will default to this absent another paradigm being established in the round. If both debaters agree that I should evaluate as a policymaker, I am able to do that and will. If you both put me in some other mode, that is reasonable as well. If there is an argument, however, between truth testing and another way of looking at the round the higher burden of proof will be on the debater attempting the shift away from truth testing.
As far as specific arguments go.
1. I find topicality arguments generally do not apply in Lincoln Douglas debate. If the affirmative is not dealing with the resolution, then they are not meeting their burden to prove the resolution true. This is the issue, not artificial education or abuse standards. I have voted on T in the past, but I think there are more logical ways to approach these arguments if the aff is affirming the entire resolution. In a round where the affirmative runs a plan, T becomes more relevant.
2. I find the vast majority of theory arguments to be very poorly run bastardizations of policy theory that do not really apply to LD. I especially hate AFC, and must/must not run plans, or arguments of this nature.
3. I have a strong, strong, bias against debaters using theory shells as their main offensive weapon in rounds when the other debater is running stock, predictable cases. I am open to theory arguments against abusive positions, but I want you to debate the resolution, not how we should debate.
4. You need to keep sight of the big picture. Impact individual arguments back to framework.
Finally, I am a flow judge. I will vote on the arguments. That said, I prefer to see debaters keep speeds reasonable, especially in the constructives. You don’t have to be conversational, but I want to be able to make out individual words and get what you are saying. It is especially important to slow down a little bit when reading lists of framework or theory arguments that are not followed by cards. I will tell you if you are unclear. Please adjust your speed accordingly. I will not keep repeating myself and will eventually just stop flowing.
I have not judged very much CX lately, but I still do coach it and judge it occasionally. I used to consider myself a policy maker, but I am probably open enough to critical arguments that this is not completely accurate anymore. At the same time, I am not Tab. I don't think any judge truly is. I do enter the room with some knowledge of the world and I have a bias toward arguments that are true and backed by logic.
1. I will evaluate the round by comparing impacts unless you convince me to do otherwise.
2. I am very open to K's that provide real alternatives and but much less likely to vote on a K that provides no real alt.
3. If you make post-modern K arguments at warp speed and don't explain them to me, do not expect me to do the work for you.
4. I tend to vote on abuse stories on T more than competing interpretations.
5. I really hate theory debates. Please try to avoid them unless the other team leaves you no choice.
6. The way to win my ballot is to employ a logical, coherent strategy and provide solid comparison of your position to your opponents.
I am able to flow fairly quickly, but I don't judge enough to keep up with the fastest teams. If I tell you to be clear or slow down please listen.
About me: I am a father, Language Arts / History Teacher, and Speech and Debate coach. I have been a member of our community as a competitor, judge, and coach since 1990. I believe that this activity is the most important thing young people can do while in school. Trends an styles come and go, but one immovable truth guides my participation in this activity: I care for you, am proud of you, and look forward to you taking control of our country and making it better than when you found it.
About LD: I see my role in the round as a non-intervening arbiter tasked with the job of determining what world, aff or neg, we would be better off living in. I have judged V/C rounds, policy rounds, theory rounds, framework rounds. And while I have not attended a camp, or have a grasp of the current jargon in circuit debate, I find myself able to render decisions consistent with my peers even though I might not be able to vocalize my rationale the way camp debaters expect. I know who won, I just don't have the catchy phrases or lingo to explain how. You can not spread if you don't include me in the email chain. And even then, during rebuttals, I really do need clear signposting and pen time at the critical moments when you need me to hear your analysis. I am a smart guy, but as a father and teacher, I don't have the time to be hyper-versed in the literature. But if you take a small chunk of time, explain your theory, I'll get it. Ultimately, the email chain and the pen time will allow me to have a clean flow. And I (and you) want that clean flow for me to render a decision we can all be happy with.
So what are we looking at to secure my ballot. I'm a rubber meets the road kind of guy. I look for impacts. I expect engagement. I typically don't pull the trigger on T. I find most T arguments un-compelling if even my uneducated self knows about issues the Aff is bringing up. And in a world of disclosure, I am guessing most people know what's going on. This isn't to say I don't vote on T, but my bar is high. I'm open to pre-fiat arguments. I'm fine with considering RVIs. I'm fine with CX during prep if both competitors are ok with it. I don't mind audience members, but I will clear the room if I find the audience being disrespectful, or trying to cheat a glance at my ballot.
My RFDs in round are short, focus on the major voting issues, and are not open to cross examination by students or their coaches. I will write my more detailed thoughts out on the e-ballots prior to the end of the tournament.
Finally, I'm not going to be hurt by how you pref me. I'm going to do my best to do right in the round. One will agree with me. One won't. That's the nature of the game. But the sun will rise on the morn regardless of how you pref, or how I vote.
tl;dr is in bold
I have 4 years of HS policy debate experience debating semi-regularly on the national circuit, and sporadic college parli experience. I have been judging HS policy debate on and off since 2012 and have been judging national circuit LD frequently since 2019. I have generally found that my experience with CX translates to judging the national circuit style of LD without much in the way of skipping-a-beat.
As a debater I ran primarily kritiks during my most competitive seasons. As such I'm familiar with most K lit bases, theory args, etc, and I'm comfortable with speed. I do ask that you please vary speed and/or tone between your tags, theory shells and analytics versus the text of your cards, especially if you're reading a lot of blippy theory args. Being comfortable with speed doesn't mean I appreciate flowing all 8 of your 5-word standards in 10 seconds with no 'nexts' in between.
I generally consider myself fairly tab, with that being said I have some opinions:
Plan Texts/DAs/CPs: Don't be discouraged by the fact that I was a K hack as a debater. I don't find that I enjoy K heavy debates any more than policy oriented ones as a judge, I just enjoy good debates. I specifically enjoy well executed small/janky plans and CPs. I don't have much else specific to say about these args.
Kritiks: As above, I'm very down with whatever K you want to run, even the weird ones. I don't necessarily believe Ks require an alt, if you can make clear why the aff is entirely self defeating or detestable on face, I think you can win, but you're probably better off with an alt. I do try to counterbalance against a bit of commonplace anti-K bias in terms of the degree of explanation I require from Ks. If debaters are expected to understand the intricacies of what's happening in the South China Sea, I think it's reasonable to expect them to know the definition of Biopower. However, I do expect a robust explanation of how your K interacts with the Aff specifically and the unique wrinkles of your kritik. I think this specificity tends to become more important in the more postmodern lit bases, as well as with args like Cap which can be run in near infinite flavors.
'Nontopical' K affs/Project Affs/Performance Affs/Rejecting the resolution/Whatever: I am probably more down with these types of affirmatives than the average judge. You should articulate either in the 1AC or near the top of the framing/framework flow A. your interpretation of what debate is, what it's for and your Aff's relationship to the resolution (are you claiming to be topical somehow? shouldn't have to be?) and B. why doing whatever your Aff is doing is good in light of that interp.
Speaker Points: I believe these are arbitrary and I wish we had better ways to break ties. I tend to give high-ish speaks with the winner of the debate getting an extra half-point. Being that I think they are arbitrary, I may tank your speaks, no matter your speech quality, if you anger me by being needlessly rude or obnoxious.
Theory Generalities: I believe that competing interpretations is the only truly appropriate way to evaluate debates about debate. I am more likely to evaluate reasonability type arguments as a standard or defense against voters on theory than as a proper response to competing interps because top level reasonability arguments are themselves a competing interpretation -- lending the argument a weird performative incoherency on-top of, in my experience, never being clearly defined.
I generally take it for granted that fairness is an internal link to education unless told otherwise.
I will generally vote on any theory argument that I'm instructed to vote on if the offense is clearly won. That being said if you pick up on one of the arguments I am about to say I do not like, or something you and I both know is an awful argument, I may drop your speaks.
RVIs: I see these being read a lot in LD. I do not recommend reading these in front of me. I don't generally believe that it is unfair to debate about any aspects of debate, and I don't think I've ever seen an RVI run convincingly. If you insist on going for an RVI, I'd be far more compelled by arguments about theory bloat harming the educational value of debate than the args I typically see along the lines of 'they read too many theory args/I disagree with their theory args and that's not fair.' But probably just don't.
I am much more willing to consider Ks of framework/theory (which I've always viewed as distinct from RVIs, though I've seen them used interchangeably in LD) as voters. If you go for this, you should have a clear story about what is so rhetorically/structurally harmful about their theory arguments that your opponent ought to lose outright.
Floating PIKs: Don't do them. If your kritik doesn't solve some aspect of the aff you're probably doing it wrong, but if your alt actually enacts nonprecluded parts of the affirmative plan, you need to be forthcoming about that in the 1NC. I'm probably more lenient than most on floating PIKs when judging policy, but the structure of LD definitely raises my expectations in terms of specificity from the 1N. I won't reject the argument out of hand but I'll allow new "floating piks bad" in the 2AR which will obviously sink your PIK.
Aff/Neg Choice: I hate these args. In line with the rest of my opinions here, I believe things in debate should be up for debate. Reading interps that state terms of the round should be chosen by either party, or that an opponent should not be allowed to respond to a particular argument, fundamentally does not sit well with me. I think winning these args requires winning with essential certainty that whatever "choice" it is you're making (e.g. aff chooses util good) be the best choice, in which case you should just win that interp in the first place.
Perf Con: I probably take perf con arguments more seriously than the average judge. If there is a significant rhetorical/performative/in-round component to enacting your alt or advocacy, I think performative contradiction can be articulated as a turn that is not resolved by conditionality. I think it makes more sense articulated as a solvency turn than a theory interp though.
Those are all the specific things I can think to comment on at the moment. If you have questions, certainly ask.
I mostly judge PF these days; if you have questions about other events, or more specific questions that aren't covered here, email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. I competed primarily in LD and NPDA, so I'm pretty technical and flow-oriented.
- Read whatever you want. Creative, weird, and interesting arguments make judging more fun and will probably help your speaker points.
- I'll call for cards at the end of the round if anything looks sketchy.
- Speed is fine, but make sure you're clear.
- I don't flow crossfire.
- When I judge, I effectively look at all of the pieces of offense that were extended through the final focus speech. I then go through each one and effectively decide which matters most. Weighing, framing, and evidence comparison are all incredibly helpful since it a) makes my job easier and b) allows you to control which arguments I evaluate first.
- No new arguments in summary or final focus, except in response to new arguments that your opponents have made.
- I'm fine with "sticky defense" but I generally won't evaluate anything unless it's in the final focus; and if it's extended through ink I won't evaluate it.
- Speaker points are based off of a combination of technical skill and being nice.
Contentions/case - I'm an econ and political science major, so I'm a fan of really specific, nuanced arguments in those fields. I'm comfortable judging really obscure or squirrely contentions, since they liven up the tournament a bit.
Framework/Kritiks - I'm a big fan of good K debate, and creative, interesting philosophical arguments or frameworks will probably boost your speaks. That said, if your framework doesn't have any evidence/warrants to back it up, I probably won't consider it when I evaluate the round. I have a soft spot for Marxism, anti-colonialism, and poststructuralist authors like Foucault and Guattari.
Theory - I default to competing interpretations. I'm pretty neutral about most theory debates and I'll vote for most interps (yes, including shoe theory) as long as you win on the flow. I think given the inconsistent community standards in PF, theory is a necessary tool for debaters to shape those standards.
My paradigm is generally pretty simple. I will buy anything in round if you make me believe it. Show me the link chain. Tell me where I am going on the flow. I am comfortable with speed. If you provide framework please carry it through the whole round, this is paramount in LD for me.
I have been coaching for 7 years, and before that I was a competitor. I have judged/coached every style of debate.
Ask me questions in round if you need more specifics. I will vote on anything. :-)
THEORY- I evaluate theory debates by trying to determine which interpretation is best through the standards, unless I'm told differently. I also am more likely to believe that the negative has access to at least one conditional advocacy, maybe more. I enjoy listening to topicality
K's- I am open to hearing all kinds of critical arguments though I do ask that you please assume I have not read much, if any, of the literature base. I am open to critical arguments being read on both the affirmative as well as the negative.
Feel free to ask me any questions before the round begins
feel free to email me about any questions or concerns you may have!
I go to college at Lewis and Clark and debate for them as well. I did LD all four years in high school, qualified for nationals 3x, was a state champion, & did all that cool debate stuuffff.
Just go for your best strat. I will listen to any argument. Ultimately, it's your debate and your style is what you should bring to the table. I will vote for anything as long as you make it MATTER. This means impact weighing, framing, and even extending!!!
I vote on flow.
I'm tab, do whatever you want.
Speed is cool BUT if you are reading heavy lit, don't expect me to be able to follow everything-- so in that case you may wanna slow down. Ultimately, I cannot vote for something I don't understand. Also, don't spread tag-lines and plan-texts.
I won't do extra work for you. What you say, is what's on the flow.
Please make the round accessible for everyone... it's not fun debating yourself :(
I am okay with non-topical affs, topical affs, pseudo topical affs, basically whatever. I like being exposed to different forms of debate. however, have something material I can vote for...
You don't need to defend USFG or even the topic, but make sure to be ready for the FW deb8.
I like all debate-- cp, disad, t/theory, k...
I will vote on condo bad â˜ºï¸
I default to competing interps.
probs won't vote on frivolous theory-- yes, disclosure theory is frivolous.
my threshold for topicality is pretty high and you need to really go hard on voters. like why am I, as the judge, supposed to even care about topicality? with that said, i enjoy a technical t/theory debate!!!
when going against the K aff, FW is probably strategic but make sure to meet the K at its own level, too. remember that K affs are ready for the FW debate, so that flow isn't always the best to go for. but alas, if you are winning the FW debate, it's probably best you go for it.
I'm one to believe theory in any speech is OK-- as abuse can occur in any speech.
Background- I debated for Sprague High School in Oregon, went to multiple national circuit tournaments in LD with fairly good success. I now debate College Parli for Lewis and Clark College.
General Debate thesis:
This space is for you, not for you to conform to my ideologies. So, if you want to judge in a certain way or change the normal practices how I ought to judge, please provide me a method to do so (ROB, Alt, etc.)
However, without some other alternative I normally default to the flow of the argumentation that is presented, and the framing of how I should evaluate certain arguments.
Flashing doesn’t count as prep, and please add me to email chains: email@example.com
I will have a lower threshold than most on theory, but that doesn’t mean you shouldn’t execute it well in front of me. I will need a clear interp and counter interp in order to resolve the questions about the text of the interp, and whether certain “I meets” or “we meets” are true. Something that is also very helpful for me when going for theory is weighing between interps and standards, so I can have a cohesive ballot story in the end.
I Default to Competing Interpretations, No RVI, Drop the arg on most theory, but drop debater on T.
Meta Theory is good, but I’ll listen to arguments that say otherwise.
Disclosure theory for me is in a grey area for me, I won’t paradigmatically oppose it, but I’m pretty convinced by people from small schools don’t have to disclose. However, if the other debater has similar resources or access to the community as many large schools have, or if it is egregiously under covered, I will vote for it.
They’re pretty cool. I don’t have any particular preference as to what literature you read, but if it some dense postmodern criticism please go slower on tags. Also, it would be nice to have a ROB, but if you don’t that is fine.
They’re cool as well. I’m pretty open to wherever you would like to take the discussion as long as it will not be traumatizing to anybody in the room. Other than that, just give me a reason to prefer your method, and Ill adapt. Theoretical arguments are legitimate against these positions in my mind, but you would have to win it in order for me to vote on it.
Da’s: I dig them. The good ol Disad outweighs and turns case is pretty compelling.
CP: don’t really have any preferences here. Whether PICS, International CP’s, States CP’s are justified, that’s up for you to decide.
Framework in LD:
I don’t have a preference as to what framework ought to be evaluated. That is something for y’all to decide, so if it is won the flow ill evaluate the rest of debate through its lens. If there is a presumption or permissibility/contingent standards in the framework, go for it. But something that is lacking in a lot framework debates is the lack of comparison of meta ethical standards, and weighing the rest of the debate through such lens.
Im fine with Speed
If you are clear on tags, I really don’t care too much on the clarity in the card. If there is something wrong in the text, that is burden of your opponent to call.
I reward speaks base of strategy, not off of speaking or clarity.
I tend to give high speaks, averaging a 28, nothing below a 27 usually, and if there are strategic decisions made on both sides ill give 30’s.
If there is a evidence violation, please make it a cohesive argument, and pointing to parts in the card to where I can verify the violation.
Clipping is bad, so if there is video support of the violation I will give a L 20.
If there is a dispute between what a piece of evidence claims, please say why is the text of the card different from the tag, point to a quote in the text, and ill determine whether such claim is valid.
I have a low threshold on extensions, especially in the 1ar in LD. So, if you just say “extend X tag” I will do it. But you should probably do further analysis on how that effects the rest of the debate for strategic purposes.
If you have any questions, you can email me at firstname.lastname@example.org.
Please read a trigger warning if you are reading potentially triggering material. This also goes for IE’s. I am more than happy to answer any questions about my paradigm before round.
I graduated from the University of Oregon in 2022. I spent all 4 years there competing in NPDA/NPTE style debate with my partner Alex. We did pretty well for ourselves and won the NPTE in 2022. Prior to that I did Oregon HS debate and a handful of IE’s.
I am very comfortable with faster, more technical forms of debate, however I was never the fastest flower and will certainly call slow and clear if I cannot understand a debater. I am similarly comfortable to more lay forms of debate. Please do what you would like to do in debate as long as it is not openly racist, misogynistic, transphobic, ableist, or violent towards members of the debate space.
I really like disads and kritiks with materially grounded actions as their alternative. Favorite argument is probably the internal link/impact turn. My threshold for theory greatly increases when the interpretation requires the opposing team to perform a specific action in order to meet. For example, actor specification theory requires a team take a particular action (ie specify their actor) in order to meet the interp while PICs bad theory only requires a team to not do something in order to meet the interp. You can obviously still win spec type arguments in front of me, I will just need a greater link story to justify voting on your impacts. I protect rebuttals but you should still call out new arguments.
While it is the judge’s job to evaluate the arguments given in round it is apparent to me in my experience that judge bias and intervention is inevitable due to indirect, implicit, or missing clash. While I will defer to arguments in the round whenever possible here’s where I will default absent argumentation otherwise.
Magnitude > Probability > Timeframe
Death is probably the biggest impact unless you specifically argue why something else outweighs it
Theory and Kritiks procedurally come before case because they discuss impacts within the debate space.
Fiat is just imagining that something happens so that the debate can be centered around the consequences of the action of the resolution rather than whether the action would happen in the first place.
Competing Interps > Reasonability
Quick update for online: I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I will say clear or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain or file share (and include your analytics!!) so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.
TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.
If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com
Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.
I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.
I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.
However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:
Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.
For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.
Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.
Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.
Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.
For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.
I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).
I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.
Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.
I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.
I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.
If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.
Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.
Final Approach to RFD:
I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!
Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:
- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.
- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.
Expirience: 2 years of policy debate, 14 years of coaching debate.
email chain: email@example.com
Delivery: I am fine with speed but Tags and analysis needs to be slower than warrants of carded evidence.
Flashing counted as prep until either email is sent or flash drive leaves computer. PUFO if you need cards call for them during CX otherwise asking to not start prep until the card is sent is stealing prep.
Topicality: T wise I have a very high threshold. I will generally not vote down an Aff on potential abuse. The Aff does have to put effort into the T debate as a whole though. If you don't, I will vote on T because this is a position that an Aff should be ready to face every round. Stale voters like fairness and education are not compelling to me at all. I also hate when you run multiple T violations it proves you are trying to cheap shot win on T. If you believe someone is untopical more real if you just go in depth on one violation.
Framework: I need the debaters to be the ones who give me the reasons to accept or reject a FW. Debaters also need to explain to me how the FW instructs me to evaluate the round, otherwise I have to ask for the FW after round just to know how to evaluate the round which I don't like doing or I have to intervene with my own interpretation of FW. If it becomes a wash I just evaluate based on impact calc.
Kritiks: As far as Kritiks go, I also have a high threshold. I will not assume anything about Ks. You must do the work on the link and alt level. Don’t just tell me to reject the 1AC and that that somehow solves for the impacts of the K. I need to get how that exactly works coming from the neg. This does not mean I think the Kritikal debate is bad I just think that competitors are used to judges already knowing the literature and not requiring them to do any of the articulation of the Kritik in the round itself, which in turn leads to no one learning anything about the Kritik or the lit.
Counterplans: If you show how the CP is competitive and is a better policy option than the Aff, I will vote for it. That being said if it is a Topical CP it is affirming the resolution which is not ever the point of the CP.
Theory: No matter what they theory argument is, I have a high threshold on it for being an independent reason to vote down a team. More often so long as argumentation for it is good, I will reject the arg not the team. Only time I would vote on disclosure theory is if you lied about what you would read. I beat two teams with TOC bids and guess what they didn't disclose to me what they read, I am not fast or more talented and only did policy for two years so do not tell me you cannot debate due to not knowing the case before round. I do believe Topical CPs are in fact just an affirmation and not a negation.
For both teams I will say this, a well thought out Impact Calc goes a long way to getting my ballot signed in your favor. Be clear and explain why your impacts outweigh. Don’t make me connect the dots for you. If you need clarification feel free to ask me before round.
I think LD should have a value and criterion and have reasons to vote one way or another upholding that value or criterion. I cannot stress this enough I HATE SEEING CX/POLICY debate arguments in LD debates I FIRMLY believe that no LDer can run a PLAN, DA, K, CP in LD because they don't know how it operates or if they do they most of the time have no link, solvency or they feel they don't have to have warrants for that. AVOID running those in front of me I will just be frustrated. Example: Cards in these "DAs" are powertagged by all from least skilled to the TOC bidders they are not fully finished, in policy these disads would be not factoring into decisions for not having warrants that Warming leads to extinction, or the uniqueness being non existant, or the links being for frankness hot piles of garbage or not there. If you are used to judges doing the work for you to get ballots, like impacting out the contentions without you saying most of it I am not the judge for you and pref me lower if you want. In novice am I easier on you sure, but in open particularly bid rounds I expect not to see incomplete contentions, and powertagged cards.
Look easiest way is be clear, do not read new cards or impacts after 2nd speaker on pro/con. I hate sandbagging in the final focus, I flow so I will be able to tell when you do it. Biggest pet peave is asking in crossfire do you have a card for that? Call for the warrants not the card, or the link to the article. I will not allow stealing of prep by demanding cards be given before next speech it just overextends rounds beyond policy rounds I would know I used to coach it all the time. Cite cards properly, ie full cites for each card of evidence you cite. IE: I see the word blog in the link, I already think the evidence isn't credible. Don't confuse defensive arguments for offensive arguments. Saying the pro cannot solve for a sub point of their case is defense, the pro triggers this negative impact is offense. Defense does not win championships in this sport, that's usually how the Pro overcomes the Con fairly easy. BTW calling for cards outside of cross fire and not wanting to have prep start is stealing prep you want full disclosure of cases do Policy where its required. Cross is also not the place to make a speech.
My name is Kaelyn and I did LD for 3 years in high school and have been judging and coaching for past 7 years.
I will look at the round based first by the framework (value and criterion) that is set by the affirmative. The affirmative should be using this value and criterion as a way to prove that the resolution is true and support this with evidence. The negative must then either provide a counter framework to prove why the resolution is not true, or prove why the resolution is not true under the affirmative's framework. If the affirmative cannot prove the resolution to be true or the negative provides more persuasive evidence against the resolution then I will negate. I am open to other ways to weigh the round if both debaters agree on this during the round.
Other aspects to keep in mind:
I am basically going to be deciding who wins the round by looking at the key framework in the round (whichever is established as the most supported framework in the round) and looking at my flow to see which side has the most arguments on the flow that support that framework.
I am in general looking to see the big picture at the end of the debate, I do not want to decide the round based on details of definitions or small semantics. I prefer have bigger impacts linked back to the framework.
Delivery: I am fine with speed but like tags and important information to be read slower. I will say clear if I can't understand the speed.
I do understand progressive debate arguments like topicality, theory, DAs, Ks.
I am open to vote for them if I feel it is warranted within the round. I do not like to see progressive arguments for no reason or to just be confusing. If it is going to be run I want it to be well explained and it is your job to tell me how this is going to function in the round and why I should vote for it. Similar to avoiding nitpicky issues, I expect to see a justification for theory to be run.
Overall, I am looking for clarity, politeness, and a debater to show me exactly how they win the round.
For all debate formats- Run whatever you want, but for the love of all that's good and right, please, please respond to what your opponent runs, explain your clash analysis, and give me a weighing mechanism.
LD- Not only should V/VC be defined, I'd like to know your rationale why they are superior over other V/VC you could have chosen. ALSO, have clarity on how the VC gets you to the V. And of course, contrast how your V is superior. In the event your opponent has the same V, and/or tries to claim your advantages through his/her V, clarity of comparison analysis, and reinforcement, are pretty darn important. All too often I'm seeing debaters essentially referring to an opponents position, as if that somehow provides clash. I need analysis of opponents arguments to give me a reason to flow to your side.
CX- I like on-case arguments, T is fine. Not huge fan of Theory when all you know is how to read the canned script of your Theory argument w/o understanding or being able to explain your own argument, same goes for K.
PF/Parli- Comparative Impacts! Logical pace w/o spread- breathe and just explain ideas and clash.
Civility always. Clarity is key. I'm not a fan of spreading and I appreciate clearly outlined contentions and organized arguments. Thank you.
Updated: Dec 2020
he/him - Former LD and Policy Debater 98-01. Head coach in Oregon. Strong background in economics. Like trad and progressive rounds.
Speech Docs should be sent to koeglerj at gmail dot com.
TL;DR version: Speed is fine. If your argument is obscure or poorly linked/warranted, I am not going to do the work for you. I like good theory, but frivolous theory generally gets underweighed even in drop situations. I default to drop the argument. K's are welcome. I will vote down a debater that creates a toxic environment for debate. Debate is a game. Impact calc evaluation is generally weighted towards probability, particularly in cases where the probability delta is negligible. Assume that I am familiar with the topic, but do not assume that I am familiar with your lit. I seek the easiest path to a ballot.
Speed: Speed is fine. Online debates make comprehension more challenging. Speech docs provide some solvency. I recommend that if you have been told you are unclear, that you slow down and/or enunciate.
1) I will not "connect the dots" on your arguments. If it is a complex argument, break it down to the point where an intelligent observer could follow you. Assume that I am an informed judge, both on the topic and in technical debate.
2) Topicality. I will vote on topicality. The debate can occur on whatever ground the debaters agree on and I am ok with that, but I will default back to topical ground. To win topicality, the neg needs to show me how the Aff has abused the the fairness or educational aspects of debate AND give me the bright line of minimum responsibility the Aff should have used (and why). Conversely, the Aff wins T by showing how their argument answers the resolution substantively. Words matter, so I consider linguistic arguments as valid T challenges. Aff winning Topicality does not mean that Aff wins the round. Topicality is a prerequisite to debate, not a reason to affirm. I prefer to err on the side of Aff meeting topicality, so Neg T challenges should not be generic. Aff, my expectation for answers to T is limited to why the Aff position meets the topicality challenge or why the challenge is wrong/unfair/removes substantial aff ground/etc. You do not have to spend 2 minutes answering T. Disclosure by itself is not an answer to a T challenge. (I think this is overkill, but I have had debaters challenge me post round on how I weigh T, so here it is.)
3) For impact calculus, I weigh probability first. I find it troublesome to vote on negligible probability increases even when magnitude is maximized. Your best bet is to make your magnitude argument, but spend time showing the change in probability.
4) Claim, warrant, impact. Warrantless arguments are not weighed. There is no such thing as implied impact. Warrants can be evidence, clearly explained reason, or analytics.
5) Drops are not "true" arguments. Extend and impact them if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
6) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent. Inconsistent weighing methodologies (ie "weigh this way for me, but another for my opponent") is a good way for me to ignore your weighing. You can win arguments under multiple weighing mechanisms.
K's: I like well executed K's, but generally don't buy into generic K's. Frame it well. It must be thoroughly explained. If it lacks analysis, it won't win you anything. A K should have a solid link.
1) Theory should be a response to a violation/abuse, not a standard strategy. A lack of specificity will lose you the argument. If you are rattling off random theory in the hope that something is going to stick, it won't. Save yourself the time.
2) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
3) I default towards dropping the argument over the debater.
4) I generally don't buy into RVI's. If you go for "drop the debater", the creation of a W/L mandate for your opponent does open you up for RVI arguments.
5) I believe in being as objective and non-interventionist as possible. I feel that theory arguments tend to ask me to not be objective. In order for me to weigh theory, I need a clear bright line for meeting and violations. Skip the flowery "education is why we are here" nonsense and actually tell me what the violation is, why it is a violation, and why I should sign the ballot now.
Prep: No prep while waiting for the doc to arrive. Determine preferred methods of evidence exchange before the round. Include me. koeglerj at gmail dot com.
Speaks: I consider 27.5 (27 on Oregon circuit) to be the average speaks, however I give 29+. Better points are achieved through clarity, professionalism, and technique. Points are deducted for rudeness, poor technique, and incomprehensibility. Speed will not impact this evaluation, unless it becomes unclear or sloppy.
1) I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If I feel offended (thats pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) I prefer substantive debate to theory debate and generally err towards substantive debate. This doesn't mean I don't find value in theory, but I tend to undervalue bad theory in order to evaluate substantive debate.
3) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
4) Pref list:
5) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
6) My pronouns are he/him.
7) Just call me Jeff.
Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser.
Disclosure: I feel like disclosure is a settled discussion. For Nat Circuit, disclosure should occur on any case that has been run before. For Oregon circuit, I do not have this requirement.
Policy Judging Paradigm:
TL;DR: Send your speech docs to koeglerj at gmail dot com. Topicality is important. Impact calc evaluation is weighted towards probability, then magnitude. Theory and K's are welcome. I prefer substantive debate.
Speed: Speed is fine. Online debates make comprehension more challenging. Speech docs provide some solvency. I recommend that if you have been told you are unclear, that you slow down and/or enunciate.
1) I vote on topicality. Be topical. Neg needs to present clear violations and bright lines. Aff needs to answer why they meet or why the challenge is illegitimate. That's it.
2) I prefer high probability harms to infinitesimally improbable harms. Look at it this way: if you have harms that have infinitely small probability, that is how much weight I will give them in the round.
3) My ballot calculus typically includes weighing the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow. Prefiat interests preempt all other weighing.
4) Theory is fine. I don't vote on frivolous theory. If your arguments are asking me to evaluate what is "fair" or "educational" you need to clearly tell me what those terms actually mean, otherwise you are asking for my preconceived notions, in which case I tend to undervalue the argument.
K's: I like well executed K's, but generally don't buy into generic K's. Frame it well. It must be thoroughly explained. If it lacks analysis, it won't win you anything. A K must have a solid link. Please don't assume I am familiar with the lit.
1) I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If I feel offended (which is pretty tough to do) or if I feel your opponent is the target of your issues, you will lose the round. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.
2) Run any argument you want, but I tend to favor T over K Affs. Use them at your own risk. No prejudice against them, but I feel that a burden of proof exists on the affirmative and that is tied directly to the resolution.
3) I don't have any triggers, but I expect you to clear the issue with your opponent and inform the room.
4) Signpost. Please signpost. Even if you give a good roadmap before your speech, signpost during, so that I make sure I am following your arguments the way you want me to. You know what happens when you assume...
5) My pronouns are he/him.
6) Just call me Jeff.
1) Theory should be a response to a violation/abuse, not a standard strategy. A lack of specificity will lose you the argument. If you are rattling off random theory in the hope that something is going to stick, it won't.
2) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
3) Instead of stacking your shell with 9 voters or standards, just give me the best one you've got. Please fully explain your violation and ensure that your interpretation actually demonstrates the rule that has been violated. Please define what you mean with terms like "fairness" and "education", though I find this is less of an issue in policy.
4) I default towards dropping the argument over the debater. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.
Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser. I will read your evidence. This is one of the few times I will intervene on purpose. If I catch your evidentiary violation, I will vote on it.
I am fairly flexible in my PF paradigm.
1) Speed is fine. Be clear and provide evidence to your opponent after your speech, if requested.
2) I am ok with follow-on questions in crossfire so long as they follow the same thought process. Questions may be answered by partners, but it may impact your speaker points if only one partner ever answers questions. Questions should only be asked by the two speakers from the immediately previous round.
3) Be topical. This is rarely an issue in PF, but I will vote on it.
4) Impacts will be weighed by probability first. Extremely improbable impacts won't impact the ballot significantly even if they are "big stick" impacts.
1) Topicality is critical as it is the only way to show comprehension of the topic. Demonstration of comprehension of the topic is required to get my ballot. This means that K's will probably struggle to win my ballot.
2) Prebuilt cases/arguments are discouraged. Theory is still an appropriate way of drawing attention to potential norm violations. I want to see argumentation developed in the allotted time frame.
3) Speakers have an expectation to accept and respond to a reasonable number of questions during the allotted times in their speech. Generally speaking, 3 questions should be responded to (with exceptions). Failure to answer additional questions is acceptable if the speaker fills the remainder of their time with new arguments. You can expect to lose speaks if you don't accept additional questions and end your time with enough time remaining to have fielded those questions. Abuse of the questioning standard (rambling questions, failure to acknowledge questions, interruptions) will result in speaker point losses. Abuses can be used as voting issues.
4) Truth over tech. Arguments that are not factually correct will be undervalued in my evaluation.
TL;DR: Don't be a dick, do whatever you want. I’ll evaluate the flow and I can hang.
Be respectful and don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Off time roadmaps/orders are preferred, don’t thank me before you speak, don’t shake my hand. If disclosure is not the norm I am willing to disclose. Pronouns: he/him/his.
I did policy in high school and NPDA at University of Oregon. My partner Gabe and I won the NPTE in 2022.
Preferences that matter for my decision
- Debate is a game
- Hard debate is good debate
- Lying won't get you very far, interpreting the truth will
- You will be auto dropped if you defend a bona fide Nazi
- Terminal no solvency is a voting issue, but takeouts are rarely terminal
- Nonfalsifiable arguments are probably in bad faith
- I default to magnitude first sans weighing
- Spirit of the interp is not real, write a better interp
- I default to competing interps but do not default to theory is a priori
- Alts that are lit based are better than alts you made up
- Topicality violations are not derived from solvency
- Collapsing is always better than not collapsing
- For the love of god extend the aff
- For the love of god answer the aff
Preferences that matter but less for my decision
- Theory is a cop out - if you're winning theory and substance go for substance
- I think condo is fine for debate but will vote on theory if won
- Going for RVIs is usually cowardice
- Perms are defense, defense is a suboptimal collapse strategy
- Links of omission are weak
- Psychoanalysis is grounded in at best tautologies and at worst transphobia, you can win it but please be cautious
- Decolonization is not a metaphor
- Nuclear weapons are tools - irrational nukes don't exist
- Anthropogenic climate change is real as are extinction risks
- Science is a very useful ideology
HS Parli specific:
Spread if you can; don't spread if you can't. I will protect, but call POOs when you think necessary.
Parli is not a "common knowledge" format simply because of limited prep. A pet peeve of mine is arguments about germaneness with no warrants or impacts. These arguments are winnable, but often have little or nothing to do with the argument it attempts to answer. I will not vote on something "germane" to the topic over something "not germane" to the topic absent an argument on the flow. I evaluate what is germane to the debate; if an impact stems from the action of an advocacy or the resolution (however wacky it might seem), it is probably germane.
Any questions about either my paradigm or my decision email me at firstname.lastname@example.org
Email chain: email@example.com
Current: OES (Oregon Episcopal School) 7 years
- Cornell assistant coach
- UW debater
- Interlake debater (long time ago)
1. Open to any argument.
2. Debate is a game. You get to set the rules, except for speech times, speech order, and prep time.
3. Tech > truth. I am deeply suspicious of truth claims in debate. I endeavor to be flow centric in my judging.
4. Don't steal prep.
5. Debate is a scholarly activity. Sharp use of excellent ev is compelling to me.
6. If I seem grumpy, it just means I'm engaged and interested.
Comments on specific lines of argument:
The general rule is that T is great, subject to the exceptions below in the "Substantive arguments" section. Innovative interps or well carded args on T are refreshing.
Theory other than T
I vote for and against theory args.
- Condo / dispo: make no assumptions about the number of neg positions a team gets. Default to dispo (its ok to kick). Need justification for condo (its ok to contradict). Willing to change these defaults.
- Framework / T USFG: sure, but you will be more successful if you also engage substantively with the aff even if you don't ultimately go for those args in the 2NR.
- ASPEC, OSPEC, etc: if they are meaningful arguments, no problem voting for them.
- Novel or resurrected theory: explain it, win it, and the ballot is yours.
Straight forward. A couple of pet peeves:
- "Perm do both" is not an argument. Perms need an explanation of how they function and why they disprove competition.
- "Perms are severance and VI" is not an argument. As a default, perms are a test of competition and not an advocacy, barring an actual shift by the aff.
Mild preference for Ks grounded in the topic or with meaningful links to the aff. Links of omission are usually not persuasive.
My Speech and Debate experience includes competing in Individual Events and CEDA debate as an undergraduate student at the Universiry of Oregon (1988-1992) coaching Debate at Willamette University while I was in Law School (1002-1995), and judging High School and College Speech & Debate as a parent of debaters at McMinnville High and University of Oregon.
I have been a trial lawyer for 25 years. I like clash, quality evidence from qualified sources, comparative analysis, and crystallization in last rebuttals. Don’t take anything for granted. You have to explain your arguments, why your evidence is compelling, and how the arguments weigh in the round. It’s your job to persuade me and communicate your positions in a way that is effective - that is how you will win my ballot. I don’t like whining, personal attacks, dominance, aggression, and disrespect. I do appreciate professionalism, kindness, and integrity.
Be smart and speak well.
Tl;dr Please tell me where to vote and do the impact calculus necessary for me to not have to intervene. GO FOR OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS!! Run what you want and I will do my best to evaluate your arguments through the paradigm that you wish for me to adopt. The only caveat is that I won’t vote for teams that go for racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic etc. arguments or perpetuate oppression in round against their opponents.
I did national circuit LD in high school and parli in college. I’m in my fourth year of college debate at Lewis and Clark College. Basically, I’m down to hear most arguments. I’ve spent majority of my time as a debater in college running Kritiks and K Affs but most of my time in HS reading really small topical affs, disads and counterplans. Theory, Framework, “projects”, poetry etc. are all fine in front of me and I will evaluate them how you tell me too. The only thing that I have already decided before the round is that the individuals within the debate space should not be excluded by judges or opponents because of the oppressive structures that permeate this space. I don't think debaters have to be overly and excessively kind to one another because who is required to do that is also based on oppressive structures just don't be unnecessarily rude. A great example of this is that if both teams/debaters dont spread then just have a debate at regular speed, or if an opponent asks you to clear or slow so they can engage with the arguments please do. Basically don't be an asshole.
Few extra things to keep in mind
1. I really am not a fan of frivolous theory but I will evaluate it if you go for that strat, just don't expect high speaks from me if thats the case.
2. Repeat your advocacies, interpretations and perm texts twice at not top speed. Or just give me a copy if you want to do that. Those are things that the exact wording is crucial for me to evaluate other arguments.
3. I will listen to independent voters, especially if the other team/opponents forward violence in the round.
4. I’m not going to fill in the blanks for you just because I ran and preferred reading the K in college—if anything, it might mean that I hold ya’ll to a higher standard.
5. Don't assume pronouns onto your judges/opponents, either ask or just call the other team/debater aff or neg.
I try to approach each debate as a blank slate. My position as a judge is not to impose my own idiosyncratic beliefs about "what debate should be" onto the round. Speed is not typically an issue, and if it is, I will say "clear." I am open to kritiks, counterplans, and whatever else you have, but I would observe that the most creative (or to be less generous, outlandish) argument is not always the most effective one.
Also, be polite.
If you have any additional questions or concerns, please let me know before the round.
For debate: quality over quantity for arguments (I'm allergic to spreading). If it's too fast for me to follow, I can't tell if it's a solid argument, so it means nothing to me. I'm more interested in engaging your opponent's arguments rather than tossing out a lot in hopes that an argument gets dropped.
I'll also say that maintaining clash in a debate is important to me. I am very unsympathetic to positions (counterplans, for example) that seek to evade the central issue in a resolution. Exploring positions that may not be popular or agree with your own opinions strikes me as one of the most valuable parts of debate, and you will do much better with me arguing those positions forcefully rather than trying to reframe a debate in terms that are more "comfortable."
For speech events, you still have to say something that is coherent and intelligible, but I have found that speeches that naturally vary in pace and tone keep me engaged much better than those that do not.
FWIW, I'm a science and math prof in my regular life. While I never competed in debate, I run lots of them with my students!
EMAIL (for email chains/mid-round memes): firstname.lastname@example.org
I use they/them pronouns! Please respect that! For example: "Mikay is drinking coffee right now. Caffeine is the only thing that gives them the will to keep flowing."
I debated for Lewis & Clark in parli for 4 years and coached at SDSU for 2. I liked policy and critical debate - no preferences there, read what you want to read. Some caveats: especially in K v K debates, I am prone to buy your argument more if you spend time explaining your method/advocacy, how it solves, and why it's better than the other one (hopefully with offense!). If I can't explain what your solvency mechanism is as I am writing my RFD, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on it. For theory debates, if you do not collapse and choose to go for theory and other offense, there is a low likelihood that I will vote on the theory. If you clearly win the sheet in a way that requires absolutely no intervention on my part fine, but that is highly unlikely if you are not collapsing. Be nice, have fun, and maybe read some overviews or something idk.
ALL HIGH SCHOOL DEBATE:
Background: I competed in high school Policy for two years on a not very good Idaho circuit, with a few LD/Pf tournaments thrown in the mix. Additionally, I competed for Lewis & Clark College in Parliamentary Debate for four years. The majority of the literature I have read involves critical feminism and queer theory and phenomenology, which makes me pretty decent at understanding the majority of critical debates. In debate, however, I probably read policy/straight up arguments at least 70% of the time, and thus can understand those debates just as well.
The way to get my ballot: I appreciate well warranted debates that involve warrant and impact comparison. Please make the debate smaller in the rebuttals and give a clear story for why you have won the debate. This limits the amount of intervention that is required of me/all judges and will make all of our lives much easier. I will auto-drop teams that yell over their competitors' speeches or belittle/make fun of the other team/me. I value debate as an accessible, educational space, and so if you prevent it from being either of those two things, I will let you know.
Speed: I am a decently fast debater and can typically keep up in the majority of rounds. If you are reading cards, slow down for tag lines, author affiliations, advocacies, and interpretations, because those are pretty important to get down word for word, but feel free to go fast through the rest of the card. If you are cleared/slowed by the other team and do not slow down/become more clear, I will give you low speaks (again, debate is good only insofar as it is educational and accessible - spreading people out of the debate is boring and a silly way to win).
Theory: I love theory and believe it is currently underutilized in high school debate. I appreciate well thought out interpretations and counter-interpretations that are competitive and line-up well with their standards/counter-standards, as well as impacted standards that tie in with your voters. Theory is a lot of moving parts that require you fit them together into a coherent story.
Condo: I think conditionality is very good for debate, but also love hearing a good theory debate about condo. I have a pretty level threshold for voting either way, so have the debate and I will decide from there.
Critical affs/negs: I love hearing K's that are run well, both on the aff and neg! I have voted for and run critical affirmatives, and have also run/voted on framework answers to those very affirmatives. I am about as middle of the road as you can get, so again have the debate and I will decide from there based upon the arguments presented in round.
Finally, if you've made it this far, please please please do what you can to make debate educational, accessible, and worth all of our time. Coming in and being mean/spreading out some novices will not make you better debaters, so there is no point in doing so! This activity means so much to so many people; the least we can all do is be respectful of those around us.
PARADIGM FOR CHAD RIGSBY
I'm the current Saint George's Debate Coach and a former Assistant Debate Coach at Gonzaga University. I've been judging on and off for 20 years.
I believe that debate is a combination of strategic game and storytelling. I consider the flow the game board and I pay attention to drops, but I expect that debaters will have a coherent story to explain their victory at the end of the round. Although I am comfortable with most sorts of arguments, I would say that I'm primarily interested in strategic decisionmaking and in an explanation of why a team should win.
I don't have many set preferences about arguments. I'm fine with critical/methodological arguments, though I do look closely at the Role of the Ballot in these situations; too often, these arguments devolve into discussion of methodologies that don't seem to really compete. I am willing to listen to most theory arguments and don't have particularly strong preconceptions about them, though I do look for theoretical consistency.
I understand that debate often requires people to speak fast. I'm fine with that. I will tell you if you're not clear enough.
Good Luck & Have Fun!
I did Policy debate in highschool, College parli, and college LD. So I have some experience and can judge any type of debate.
I am open to any style of debate, whether more kritik focused or policy.
I will vote on theroy that as long as youre winning the flo0w and have standards and voters
Make sure you extend your arguments and have competitve and impacts with magnitude, probability, timeframe.
Use framework if possible, to frame yourself ahead in the round.
Overall I like debates that are respectful, have good clash, and are creative in their case and/or argumentation.
1) Be polite.
2) Provide clear links.
3) Signpost for me, I want to know where you're at on the flow at all times.
4) Have fun!
I debated for 5 years between high school and college, including 3 years in parli for the Lewis & Clark team. I am fine listening to whatever you’d like to read. To win my ballot you should focus your last few speeches on impact weighing; don’t go for everything in the round, but tell my why your best arguments outweigh your opponent’s. I’m fine with speed, although I will ask you to slow down if you’re going too fast for me to flow. Additionally, I don’t think speed should be used as a tool for exclusion, if you are clearly spreading your opponent out of the round, that will hurt your speaks.
Lastly, be kind and respectful to your opponent. Debate is an environment that can naturally create a lot of nastiness and toxicity within rounds, so put your best foot forward and recognize that being rude and disrespectful to your opponent does not make you a better debater, nor will it make you look like one to me.
The best way to win my vote is to be the one who provides the most compelling case, and to be a strong technical speaker.
Assume I know nothing, the burden of information is on you.
~Clear signposting, make sure I can keep up with your mode of speech as I try to follow along.
~Limit spreading, if I can't understand you I cant judge you.
~Please watch your tone, you don't need to shout.
~I tend to favor philosophical arguments.
*Please disclose if at all possible.
currently accepting submissions for a new paradigm meme
Who are you?
I am currently a 3L at Lewis & Clark Law School and co-LD coach for L&C. I graduated from L&C undergrad in May 2020 and did parli (NPDA) debate there. I also competed in high school for four years, mainly in LD. For the sake of ultimate transparency, I want to make my debate opinions as explicit as possible. I promise to try my best :)
I dont want to read ur whole paradigm. What do I need to know?
I will listen to any argument (except disclosure) that you make and will weigh how you tell me to. Ks are my favorite and theory/topicality is not. Please make clear extensions. pls dont be a jerk. I will absolutely not tolerate any behavior that is racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/discriminatory in any way and will not hesitate to vote you down for it.
Note for High School:
You do you! I have done or am familiar with every high school event. All of the below would apply in a technical/circuit style debate round. If you are unfamiliar with any of that, don't worry! I will evaluate the round how you tell me to. Feel free to ask me questions. Be kind to each other. Have fun with it!
How do you allocate speaker points?
I really struggled with coming up with a consistent way to give speaks. They are usually arbitrary and reflective of personal biases... SO i usually give high asf speaks (30 + 29.9). That being said if I don't give you the speaks you wanted pls dont read into it, i have no idea how to give speaks in a fair or consistent way. I'm open to any args you want to make about speaks and just let me know if u have any questions.
How do you feel about Speed TM?
Any speed that you are comfortable with is fine with me. I will tell you to slow or clear if I am having a hard time, though this probably will not happen too often with speech docs. I do have sympathy for debaters who cannot keep up with extremely fast opponents so keep that in mind if you plan on spreading against someone who cannot.
What about the K?
I love love love performative affs and GOOD k debates. I've almost always read non-topical Ks with some fun (loosely) topical debates mixed in every once in a while. I’m familiar with almost all K lit but please do not assume I know exactly what you are talking about (especially when it comes to D n G bc i simply do not get it.) I am most familiar with futurism arguments and performance affs. Cap is fun! Generic links are so frustrating and so are unclear alts. I love a good explanation of the world post the alt. I'd honestly rather vote for an uncarded link that is specific to the aff and contextualized to the debate than to vote on a generic carded link.
How do you feel about perms?
Love it. Fun stuff. Perms are probably advocacies because everyone treats them like they are.
What if I want to read theory/topicality?
I guess... If you read theory or topicality, read a smart interp with a clear violation and standards/voters that make sense. Voters that do not make sense to me include: fairness without a warrant, education without a warrant, “NFA rules say it’s a voter.”
I prefer proven abuse. I don't think potential abuse has an impact.
I also think the competing interps vs. reasonability debate is SO dumb. "prefer CI bc reasonability leads to judge intervention" and "prefer reasonability bc CI leads to a race to the bottom” are not warrants. If you really want to know how I evaluate theory, it is likely that I will "reasonably" vote for whichever "competing interpretation" is doing the best.
We meets are terminal defense on T.
T sucks so much on this topic - how can you be in the area of interests groups while only regulating political campaigns?
I also really dislike how T has become an auto-read nearly every round. Like we all know you were in fact able to predict the aff and could probably have read some analytics that amount to solid case answers. There is literally no impact other than 'but its technically unfair'. I guess my point is cut it out unless you have a good reason to be reading it.
Ok but rules are important to me... How else can we have a fair debate?!?
I think MOST of the rules are fine and whatever (speaking times, rules for prep, rules on evidence citations). However, a significant amount of other rules hold up structures of racism and sexism. And, many of the okay on face rules end up being enforced most harshly against minority debaters.
I wanna read some topical stuff! How does that sound?
Great! Read tons of topical stuff. I do like me a good topical debate! Clearly articulated link chains and impacts will go a long way.
Be condo if you want plus I prefer a hard collapse anyway. DO NOT LIE ABOUT BEING UNCONDO.
Collapse, slow down for important things you really want me to remember, don't forget to do impact calc, I will not vote on disclosure, and have fun ;)
Please feel free to send/ask me questions! You can reach me at email@example.com or send me a message on facebook. Otherwise you can ask before a round!
I am a first-time parent judge, and I have no personal experience as a debater. Please do not spread. If you talk fast, please make sure it is understandable; if I can't understand you because you are too fast I'll put down my pen and stop flowing. Be sure to speak clearly and enunciate. I would prefer you don't use too many technical terms in round, as I will not be familiar with them.
To maximize your chances of winning, please try to transition arguments distinctly and clearly, and try to clash as much as possible with your opponent. Please be civil, and remember to weigh your debate in later speeches. Off-time roadmaps are welcome.
I have a business background, and am familiar with current events.
I am a lay judge. I struggle to digest spreading, so use it at the risk of me losing track of some portion of your argument. Insofar as IEs go, I'm fairly open. Please use a trigger warning as a courtesy to others in the room if applicable. No need to thank me, but please be courteous to each other.
I have a background in policy debate, so that means that I like structure and specific impacts. Other than that, I am pretty tabula rasa. Please tell me how you win this debate with discussions of burdens and weighing mechanisms. In Oregon Parliamentary, I am not a huge fan of Ks because I do not think you have enough time to prepare one properly, but I will vote on one if the opp links into it hard, like you can show me how they are specifically being sexist, racist, trans/homophobic, etc.