She/Her/They

Wayne State University Debater

Email: fshdebate03@gmail.com

Fine with any args - win the flow, win the round. As far as persuasiveness goes, not the biggest fan of args defending power structures like imperialism for impacts that are lowkey dehumanizing. Debate is a game quote on quote, but if it comes down to voting between a policy 'uS cHiNa WaR sCenAriO' that positions America as a grand actor and accesses that through language that purposely paints POC/nations as in need of intervention v. a (properly ran) critical arg that addresses the in-round impact of that rhetoric, I will lean towards the latter. I wholly believe in the ballot being powerful in terms of transforming mindsets - while there is little room for a world where I'd vote on a K just because I don't like/agree with the premise of the opposing team, I also do give more weight to args that are contextualized to the debate space itself v. a grandiose fictional impact.

Organization, clear tagging, and generally 'good' debating on a tech and/or ethos level makes for better speaks. Will also bump you up .2 speaker points for incorporating languages other than English.

* Misogyny, bigotry, purposeful misgendering of opponents, etc. i.e. abusive use of the debate space is an automatic vote down. If I feel like there are racial biases embedded in your args depending on the severity I will either 1. Incorporate that into my ballot or 2. bring it up in the RFD. *

Tag teaming in CX is fine in moderation.

You can e-mail me at ian.kimbrell.debate@gmail.com.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK: Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Debated all 4 years in highschool mans did some debate at MSU I prefer policy options but if you decide to run a k just explain to me how the alt can solve and how the k is better than the aff I vote on topicality especially if it was dropped I’m really a laid back judge as long as everyone is having fun I think the round was successful

Joshua Rivera
TL;DR version of my judge philosophy:

UPDATE: Some debaters have asked me if I wanted to be part of an email chain before the debate. My rule is that I will star and look at evidence after the round if I am told to by a debater during the round to do so. So for example if you say, "prefer our evidence assumes theirs" or "their ev doesn't claim X, it's poorly highlighted" or something similar to that. What this means is that I don't need to be part of the email chain, I can just look at evidence after the round.

• As a debater I debated advantage CP's and politics all the way to performance affirmatives. Your focus should be choosing the most strategic option for the debate.
• I tend to err affirmative on theory for the following CP's : Process, Multiple Plank CP's, Delay, Floating Pics.
• I tend to err Neg on theory for the following CP's, Consult, Advantage, Word Pics.
• I default to competing interps on T.
• Speed is a part of our activity, however, accessibility should be as well.
• I never understood the policy v critical divide. My role is to facilitate the educational activity of debate as a judge and vote for who did the better debating.. This means I am willing to vote for the most limiting interpretation of framework and the most fluid as long as you have a good defense of what you choose.
• I'm not very emotive as a judge. If I have a blank face it doesn't mean anything in terms of your performance during the debate.

Experience

• Debating:
  • Policy debate in the Chicago Debate League 3yrs, graduated 2011.
  • NPTE/NPDA parliamentary debate 4yrs at SIU (I didn't know what it was in high school either, like policy, but with rotating topics).
• Judging & Coaching:
  • 4 years of judging primarily at New Trier, GBX, NW RR,
  • Coached various schools in the Chicago Debate League from time to time & camp instructor CDSI.
• Education:
  • Economics/Political Science SIU
  • Master of Public Policy at the Ford School of Public Policy @ University of Michigan
• Career:
• Senior data and policy advisor at Poverty Solutions at the University of Michigan

Preferences:

• I see debate as an academic forum that should be driven by the students who are engaged in the activity and that rounds should be won based on the better debating and not on judges individual biases.
• Flowing and Line-By-Line are an integral part of how I understand the activity, if you have another way you think I should judge a debate you must be specific.
• My "default" judge setting is an offense/defense paradigm.

Paperless Rules: (Tip: In the rounds I have judged debaters who flow on paper tend to have a better understanding of the round.)

• You should have a USB drive that works and that is easy to acces for other debaters.
• You send all cards you are reading in a speech
• What happens to the file is dictated by the policy given to you by your coaches or school administrator.
• Jumping files is NOT prep time.
• If you are affirmative, it is a nice thing to have your file on a USB ready 3 minutes before the round is set to start.

Specifics
Speaker points:

• 4 minute overviews are unpersuasive.
• Debaters are best utilizing their time in the 2NR/2AR doing comparative impact analysis, or if you want to clarify the debate a 30 second overview "writing the ballot" Ask yourself, "what arguments do I want the judge to say won this debate?" and execute on that.
• I pay attention to how debaters utilize cross-x - great cross-x's can get me on your side.

Disads:

• Impact calculus and evidence comparison can really get me on your side in a debate.
• Kicking out of a disad entails more than "ext the defense" those three words are not an argument.

Counterplans:

• If you read a plank you should have solvency evidence for it in the 1NC.
• Process CP's tend to bore me but if you make your solvency arguments specific to the plan I can be easily convinced.
• After 3 CP's in the 1NC I tend to err aff on theory.

Kritiks:

• My familiarity with the literature its not relevant - your application of the argument to win the flow is.
• I prefer kritik debates that focus on the specifics of case, getting high speaker points will entail and in-depth knowledge of the application of the K to the arguments of the 1AC.
• I'm not to fond of floating pics but can be convinced if you do well on the representations debate.
• I think affirmatives can defend their representations and usually do well when they defend Positivism,Pragmatism, and be willing to impact turn the K.

Topicality:

• I tend to evaluate the debate through competing interpretations. I'm fine with reasonability but prefer the definition to be more than " our affirmative is reasonable."
• "Topicality is a disad" doesn't mean anything.
• Successful teams have leveraged definitional precision and/or vision of the topic as ways to approach framing the debate.
• Topicality is a gateway/voting issue. In the instance where topicality itself is impact turned the team should defend an alternative means of structuring what we accept as "talking about the topic".

Theory:

• Going for it as a cheap shot not win a ballot in front of me.
• I do enjoy when the 1AR makes a smart decision to go for theory you should articulate a clear impact i.e abuse, potential abuse, with arguments that are specific and that do not solely rely upon random causal claims that are just filled with jargon and not warrants.
• Remember include reason to reject the team or else that flow is going away and I will evaluate the rest of the debate.

Questions? email me at riverajoshua1993@gmail.com

UC Lab 16

Michigan 20

1. Debaters have a debilitating tendency to fail to see the forest for the trees. Most debates can be resolved by 1 central issue, define that issue and tell me why you are winning on that question.

2. I am tabula rasa- I have a read a drilling aff, a Moby Dick aff, an Asian Identity aff, an encryption aff, went for Baudrillard ALOT, etc. In other words, do what you want!

3. The best way to win a K in front of me is to spend a lot ton of time on the link debate and give each link an impact and/or turns case args. Pull lines from the 1AC, go into their internal links or the structuring logic of the aff- don't just read your generic heg links to the K blocks.

4. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reason you think I should vote for you.

5. Nuance is always strategic and appreciated.

6. Im not the best for techy T and theory debates but I can most def handle it.

7. CrossX is a speech and it is super important.

8. After some personal experiences I have come to believe that death good arguments pose a serious real life threat to the mental health of high school debaters. If you read these arguments and the other team makes the argument that death good is detrimental to the community, I am very likely to vote on the argument. However, that does not mean that you shouldn't read arguments like fear of death bad in front of me.

Put me on the email chain please. sfdroumayahk75@sfldk12.org

I really don’t care whatever you run, just make sure that it’s

A.) Not racist

B.) Not sexist/xenophobic/problematic etc. (If you’re running something that’s controversial I don’t mind. Just don’t be like “women are inferior so we win” type arguments)

C.) It’s ran well.

I love both kritiks and traditional policy affs. I’m familiar with a vast range of K and policy topics, but don’t assume that I do know a specific theory or ultra-specific regional phenomena. As I judge, I try to be as ambivalent as possible and judge the debate based on the flow and debaters, not my personal opinions. Run what you like and what makes you most comfortable.

I’m not truth over tech, and I can flow very techy debates well, but if you straight up lie and say something like “Obama is the 8th president of the United States” I will not consider it.

Speed is never an issue for me (ex. spreading at 300 w/pm) but if I can’t understand what you’re saying I will not flow it. This applies to situations such as if it sounds like there’s rocks in your mouth and nobody can understand what you’re saying because you just spread through 15 cards while slurring together 50 paragraphs into one with an indistinguishable enunciation per word.

a small note: I value framework in debates when it comes to discussions and implementations both in the hypothetical and real world.

I debated at West Ottawa in Holland, MI before attending UM.  I teach English/coach debate for Detroit Cristo Rey.

There is a ten year gap between when I debated in high school and my recent return to debate as a coach/judge.  But I have no issues with speed, as long as the speaker makes sure to read tags clearly (i.e., if I can’t understand you, I won’t be able to include it in my flow).

I’m a pretty straightforward policymaker judge, but with a touch of tabula rasa.  I prefer content to style, but remain open to kritiks and topicality as long as they are well-reasoned and clearly connect to the specifics of the round.  If you do a good job of convincing me that I should vote on an issue, then I will.  That said, I do tend to vote more on disadvantages and counterplans, and I prefer a well-organized debate/flow.  The more logically the debate is structured and the more substantive the arguments, the happier I will be.

As for performance, I am fine with tag-teaming but I expect everyone to contribute during CX (no hiding behind your partner).  I will not accept rudeness.  If you feel the need to rattle your opponent with brusqueness, then you cannot have much faith in your argumentation.

I base speaker points on both clarity of speech and strength of argument.  Don’t simply speak - draw my attention to important connections and evidence, and emphasize what you believe to be key voting issues during the round.

Email: rtimm4341@gmail.com (went years opposing being on the email chain on the grounds that it removes the debate from what is actually claimed by the debaters, but zoom debate being what it is, maintaining a purist stance is not practicable)

I have been involved with debate since 2003. As you might suspect of something I've been doing longer than most people reading this will have been alive, I'm here because I genuinely believe in and enjoy the activity. Hopefully you feel the same way! Happy, fun teams make happy, fun judges make happy, fun, high point rounds.

Tech > truth. There's virtually no argument that can't win if argued well. The places where truth matters more are generally structural issues with debate, e.g., barring a drop, you can't tech uniqueness arguments into controlling the direction of the link or a non-competitive advocacy out of the perm. Other than that, I judge with the least possible intervention whatever my (often strong) thoughts on the argument may be. I tend to read VERY little evidence, as few teams actually make sufficient use of their evidence for it to be relevant to my decision. Evidence is an argument support system, not an argument itself, meaning that you need to actually flag a card and focus on its warrants for it to stand a chance at directly coming into my decision.

Far too much impact calculus is incredibly shallow. The majority of rounds, impact calc consists of noting an untouched extinction impact and asserting then asserting an immediate timeframe and 100% probability. This is as silly inside a debate round as it would be in the real world. You're much better served making specific, probabilistic arguments drawing on carded warrants and comparing them to your mitigation of their impacts. Relatedly, too many teams simply let impacts stand untouched, hoping instead to mitigate at the link and uniqueness levels. This tends to result in me having to grumpily parse whether to vote in favor of the side claiming two extinction events that may not be unique or the side claiming three extinction events that may not link. Impact defense and (be still my beating heart!) impact turns therefore tend to result in cleaner, more fun rounds.

CPs: I am extremely aff-leaning on most questions of competition. If your CP competes off the definition of normal means or certainty, it doesn't. That goes for consult, delay, condition, what have you: if perm do the counterplan is in the 2AR, you will almost certainly lose. No, perm do the counterplan as a response to your sweet consult Turkmenistan CP does not sever out of anything. Yes, that does make your CP almost impossible to run.

States CPs are often theoretically illegitimate, but I'm actually unusually sympathetic to them this year. The vast majority of our criminal justice system is controlled by states rather than the feds, meaning that there is an unusually rich literature supporting state-level solutions.

Critiques: I'll openly admit to being one of the least sympathetic judges on the circuit to the theory behind most critical arguments in debate. There's tons of great and interesting philosophy being written and read every day. Unfortunately, almost none of it is what we as a community have decided to use to write our Ks. The vast majority of "high theory" authors are embarrassing hack frauds. Every time I wind up being exposed to Zizek or Baudrillard or the like reminds me of Schopenhauer's famous comments that Hegel "was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense" and wrote "such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not." (Note: if you don't know what I'm talking about, you almost certainly do not have a strong enough background in philosophy to actually understand the arguments you are making.)

That said, I have a slightly above 50% lifetime voting record in favor of the K. Good K debaters make their argument as specific to the aff as possible, something especially easy on the criminal justice topic. You will always be better off engaging with the substance of the aff. Good K debaters also try not to let the round devolve into a seeming stream of consciousness in no particular order. The average high school K 2NC/1NR seems to skip up and down the flow with no regard for structure or responsiveness. Structureless speeches result in messy flows result in frustrated judges trying to parse implicit clash after the round.

Non-traditional/performance: Debate is a game, and the only rule that can't be disputed is the length of your speeches. However, I'm never going to be a particularly good judge for performance affs. All things being equal, the neg will usually have the advantage on T/framework for two reasons: 1) empirically, almost every performance debate is a meta-debate with almost no topic-specific education after the 1AC; and 2) especially on a topic like CJR, virtually everything done by non-traditional affs could also be done topically, requiring actual engagement with your performance. That is to say, no, the aff saying "the USFG should" is not the same thing as roleplaying as the USFG.

Theory: theory arguments outside the "conditionality bad" family are almost never reasons to reject the team. This goes double for blippy little nothing arguments in the middle of a block being labelled an independent voter. However, arguments like severance or floating PIKs are often extremely useful. If you go for a CP/K, I will not compare the plan to the status quo without an extremely compelling argument why I should.

Topicality: Unless told otherwise, I default to evaluating T through a competing interpretations lens. A-spec and similar arguments are rarely a winner.

I'm Jay Urban. I live in Detroit, Michigan but only moved here in summer of 2018. I competed in speech and debate in high school in Nebraska and at a high level collegiately for Hillsdale College in Michigan. I have an MBA from Indiana University Kelley School of Business

After serving as an Army officer for 5 years I went into the business world and work as a business unit leader and in marketing for an automotive company.

What I am looking for:

#1 - I am going to flow and at the end of the day I will decide who won each of the topics that were introduced/debated. It is up to the debaters to let me know what the important threads of the flow are and which I should weigh more heavily. You are going to have to argue/support what you want me to prioritize.

#2 - Content matters. I want to be able to see that you really understand the content. The debate should flow from this as much as possible, rather than a debate about theories and ideas that have been superimposed onto the debate by one of the teams. I will allow the razor of topicality to be used aggressively on any case that strays (from a flow perspective). With that being said - if we are focusing on content there are going to be good chances to bring in higher level theories and critiques that easily graft onto the rest of the debate. Make sure you let me know what priority you think these types of arguments have in the context of the other arguments.

#3 - Communicate. At the end of the day, debate is an interesting game that we all play on Saturdays. If you really want it to apply to real-life, make it about communication. Introduce your arguments at the beginning of the speech in a clear way. Summarize your speech effectively at the end. Make fewer points better. Listen to what your opponent is actually saying so that you can address the arguments and points.

#4 Logic - Anyone correctly calling out fallacies by name and explaining how the argument is weak or illogical gets big increase in speaker points and will largely be winning that thread of the flow. I think of math in the same way - if you have an argument or plan that uses numbers, please spell them out. A good plan that solves for financial issues or can really improve or solve by X% over a given timeline is really powerful.

#5 Wordplay & Allusion - It won't win you any threads on the flow, but it will emphasize the good logic work you have done and increase your speaker points to put in a well-worded epithet, idiom, couplet or short analogy/story that relates.

Things I don't like -

A. speed reading/talking - I debated for 4 years in college for a highly ranked team. We didn't do the fast talking thing. I don't think that high school debate rounds need this. It covers a lot of the good work that should be going on in debates - framing the content and making sound arguments that engage with the topic and the opponents' arguments. Anything I can't understand doesn't get flowed.

B. reading long speeches off of cards. Practice reading and summarizing effectively. You may think that this card is a great counter-punch in and of itself.... evidence doesn't always age well and many of the cards in the decks I have seen are opinions from subject matter experts, but they aren't facts.

C. Slippery Slope arguments that lead to worst case scenarios. As debaters we should see this from a mile away and know that it is a vile practice only employed by preachers and politicians.