NFA 2024 UPDATE:These are the FIRST debate rounds I have judged on this topic and since last NFA. PLEASE SLOW DOWN. Argument or strategy complexity isn't a problem, but spreading will be. My resolve to keep NFA-LD debate accessible has only strengthened. I will give verbal warnings and your ability to heed these warnings will factor into my decision and speaker point allocation. As has been true in the past, I will find it very difficult to vote for "bad" arguments, even if they are substantially under-covered or in some cases even conceded.

Past Affiliation:Lafayette College
Years in Policy Debate: 3 years HS Policy, 4 years NFA-LD, 1 year coaching CEDA/NDT, 20 years coaching NFA-LD

Props:

-The NFA-LD rules
-Using standards to actively demonstrate why I should prefer your interpretation
-Reading a plan text and defending its implementation as a policy in good faith
-Even/if statements in rebuttals
-Moderating your speed
-Slowing down during analytics so I can actually flow your warrants
-Weighing and comparing impacts
-Comparing warrants in cards
-Internal Link arguments
-Unique impacts
-Doing the work to actually apply the framework to the impact discussion
-Slower rebuttals because you collapsed
-Case specific CPs and DAs
-Explaining and annotating where the Kritik links are on the aff flow

Slops:

-Excessive speed
-Card dumps with no contextualization
-Being rude and overly aggressive
-Using language and/or tactics intent on excluding your opponent
-Factually incorrect arguments about the topic
-Completely ignoring inherency
-BS theory arguments, like "perms are wrong"
-Conditional CPs/ALTs

Other things:

-I won't vote for an argument just because it is conceded, you have to justify WHY that argument is relevant to my ballot and decision. Arguments that are 'bad' don't get any better because they are conceded.
-I prefer rounds that are quick and smart to rounds that are fast and dumb
-I think the 1NR should collapse a lot - you should have time to say why you win the argument, why the argument is relevant to the round, and why it deserves consideration for the ballot.
-If you go for everything in the 1NR, I will NOT do extra work for you to answer the questions above. I will also be more likely TO do work for the 2AR as they struggle to keep up and cover everything.
-I believe that in NFA-LD, Topicality is primarily jurisdictional and prefer competing interpretations. Using standards to adjudicate which interp to apply is more important to me than proven abuse. If you win that your interp should be preferred AND that they violate it, I will vote on T without abuse.

Brent Brossmann                                        

Director of Debate, John Carroll University since 1993

Years in debate: Since 1976

Years Coaching: Since 1985                                                                      

Rounds per year: ~50 per year recently

I am a policy maker.  I believe in the value of policy debate. The organization specifies that it embraces policy debate. I will make my decisions on policy. Thus, there are two ways you can win my ballot:

1. Have the best policy. This is mostly a comparison of plans and counterplans; advantages and disadvantages. However, many kritiks have policy implications and are relevant to policy making. Others are not.  

2. Prove that your opponent’s practice is so egregious that I need to vote against them regardless of the policy. That could be for topicality, a theory violation, or some in-round behavior that was so egregious that it should be the voting issue. Topicality is a voting issue. It is not a reverse voting issue. The negative doesn’t actually win topicality without demonstrating in-round abuse. In-round abuse can be proven by demonstrating that arguments to which you should have access were denied to you by the affirmative’s plan. You don’t actually have to run and lose the arguments, but you do need to win that these were arguments you should have had access to, that they were important and that the plan denied you access.   

Counterplans need to be competitive. The counterplan must be better than the combination of the plan and counterplan (net benefits) or better than the plan alone IF the policies are mutually exclusive.

As a policy maker, risk is important. Please use impact comparisons to weigh rounds for me. Probability, magnitude, risk and time frame are arguments that both debaters should use in rebuttals to weigh the round for me.  Prioritize those that help you win and explain why they are more important.The bottom line is that debaters need to respond to each other’s arguments in meaningful ways. However, there is a strong presumption against any argument which does not directly relate to the policy being discussed in the round, unless it is a compelling argument as to why your opponent is abusive either in theory (not playing fairly) or in discourse (is actually offensive). I will continue to defend the value of policy debate.

 To help the tournament run on time, I’ll submit a ballot before I comment. After that, I’ll be happy to disclose. The best education in debate happens in the post-round discussion and the more quickly that follows the end of the round, the more relevant the information is.

 SPEED

I don’t care about speed, per se. I do care about clarity. I know that some debaters care about speed. My policy is that the person who wants it to be slower “wins” that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say “slower please.” If someone says that to you, slow down.

ARGUMENT PREFERENCES

I do not want to hear arguments that don’t have a real impact on policy.  For example, the fact that the USFG may be evil for some (fill in your own) reason, is, by itself, not a reason to reject a particular policy advocated by the affirmative. If you prove that the affirmative’s policy is evil, that is a reason to vote. If you abolish the USFG and prove that such a counterplan is competitive with the plan, that is a reason to vote. However, a general indict of a system which will continue regardless of how I vote is not a reason to reject a particular policy enacted by that system.

FINAL THOUGHTS

Have fun. Be kind. Learn a lot. Don’t forget to smile or laugh. Remember, your opponents are here because they share your love of the event. The same is true of your judges.  I love my wife more than my life, and yet I’ve been willing to come to tournaments without her for the last 30 years. We all dedicate huge amounts of time and passion. Respect that and your colleagues. Finally, my last name is pronounced with a long O, like a bro. But you can call me Brent.  

I debated for four years and coached for five.

As a debater I started policy and shifted towards the kritik. As a coach the reverse became true. I tend to enjoy both arguments when they are articulated well.

In theory while potential abuse can be a voter I find in round abuse examples significantly more compelling.

Speed:

Speed is fine provided it is clear.

I believe the person who wants it to be slower “wins” that issue. So, if someone is too fast, simply say “please slow down.” If you are asked, please slow down.

Argument Preference:

I prefer good arguments over bad arguments.

To clarify: I believe that the crux of many debates are lost on the impact calculus discussion.

The last thing I want is to weigh the two paradigms/world views/policy option based on MY ideals. Tell me why your viewpoint is better. Tell me why your ideology/mindset/impact happens faster or why time frame isn't important. Instead of Extinction Vs Structural Violence explain the warrants of Utilitarianism vs Dehumanization.

I am a tabulae rosa judge with a strong tendency towards policy debate. I am open to viewing the round in different ways (kritiks), but you need to make a compelling case for the particular round. I view debate as an educational activity so I expect to see clash, clear arguments, and excellent analysis. Your arguments need to be clear and well organized. I can follow a moderate speed that is intelligible. If you are gulping for air, you are probably not intelligible. Make good choices and clearly identify the arguments you are addressing. If you are disorganized, my flow will become disorganized and you are likely to lose speaker points and possibly the round. Be sure to identify how and why I should vote. Just making a claim is not sufficient. You need to provide the support and rationale. If you are using tags, acronyms or buzz words, make sure you clearly explain them. If you do not, I will not vote on those. Debate is a communication activity, so you should be mindful of my reactions to the debate.

Background:

I competed in HS policy for 3 years and NFA-LD for 4 years (graduating in 2010). For several years after my competitive career ended, I was very active in judging, coaching, etc. Since 2016, I've judge a few rounds a year, but on a sporadic basis.

I may or may not know the full text of the resolution by the time I judge you.

Overview:

I have no predispositions against any particular positions. I am probably more likely to vote on theory arguments then the average judge. I probably am more of a sucker for good framing arguments (of either the round or a position) than most judges. I probably am more likely than most judges to refrain from signing my ballot based on a single dropped argument in the line-by-line and consider it in the context of the round as a whole instead. I am willing to vote on almost any procedural, including but not limited to: Full Citations, Solvency Advocate, Vagueness, Specification args, Inherency Procedurals, etc. I won't vote for any of the above listed procedurals unless you win the in-round debate on the standards/voters. I am ok with most speeds. However, due to a lack of consistency in recording people talking very fast in my daily life, I can't promise with certainty I can flow every point at your top speed. It is safer for you to perhaps dial it back one notch, but I won't drop you out of spite if you go too fast for me, I just might miss something important! I am ok with whatever crazy nonsensical K you want to whip out (the sensible ones are also good!), but I am a judge who likes to read evidence so they better be well-evidenced claims and not just power tagged nonsense.

Topicality/ Procedurals:

If you are the Aff you probably are pretty worried right now based on that procedural-friendly overview. Well, perhaps you are right to be worried, but my judging of procedurals is pretty even-handed. I don't think a counter-interpretation is required to win a topicality argument as the Aff, you can defeat a procedural on its merits. If you do have a counter-interpretation, your theory arguments (in this context usually referred to as "standards") will be given equal consideration and you get to do comparative analysis twice instead of only once! A few other notes of relevance here:

a. I don't require proven in round abuse to vote on a position

b. The NFA-LD rules are a persuasive and valid support for a position being vote-worthy

c. Arguing the rules are wrong or dumb or should be ignored will be an uphill climb for you in front of me

d. I voted for an RVI only one time in my life (it was on a panel and I squirreled :) )

e. I am completely fine with your own interpretation of a word or any interp that is not a literal dictionary definition, as long as it makes sense and you can defend it

f. I don't know what the overall distribution or topic areas of most Affs are so if you point out some common Aff that to you sounds like an obvious counter-example to your opponents interp, I probably won't get it

Case/Disads:

My most preferred way to decide a round is on impact comparison and relative advantages / disadvantages. A straight up politics, global warming, or heg debate will be just dandy for me. I don't know if I have too many tips and tricks on my judging of these things. I probably am more likely to consider solvency defense arguments and weight them in my decision making than most judges. "That's just defense" is a valid answer to an argument, but it is not 100% of the time a winning answer if the defense is substantial. If you call out specific pieces of evidence or make an argument based on an interpretation of the card text, I will ask for the evidence and read it after the round. Even if I think it is unlikely to matter in the final decision - you took time out of your speech to call out a specific element of the submitted evidence, and I consider it a judicial obligation to take the time to consider it specifically (exception if you literally drop the argument later in the round).

I am ok with any and all non-body count impacts. I consider it an onus on both debaters to engage in the framing debate over how to compare body counts to non-body count considerations, but I have no predisposition towards one or the other.

I am ok with real-world impacts (i.e. the "people in this room" type impacts) however, I'd prefer they come attached with some-kind of framework for voting, otherwise they are unlikely to be very consequential in the hypothetical world of the affirmative/negative.

Counter-Plans:

Do what you want here, but a few warnings... When I debated topical CPs were not a thing that was done, so if you do one my initial reaction may be unfavorable, but I will do my best not to let that bias my adjudication. I kind of think given the time constraints and format of LD that conditional CPs are pretty BS. Also, they are a bad idea strategically in LD but that is a different discussion. Anyway, I won't drop you just for running a conditional CP, just know that my pre-disposition in LD specifically is in favor of the condo bad side of the theory debate.

The K:

I don't have any specific grievances against any particular popular K authors. My preference is to hear topic or aff-specific Ks. In my experience the K deployed as a case-specific strategy is far more effective then a generic backfile K that you pull out because that's the only strategy you've got in your bag, but hey, if that's your only strategy you gotta go with what you've got. The one thing I will say is, if you are reading a non-case relevant K, I really won't give much weight to the fact that your arguments are evidence-based vs. your opponent's analytics. So as the Neg I would advise you not to consider that a silver bullet response. You have to understand the philosophical argument and be able to APPLY it to the debate round at hand.

Ok I think that's it. Ask me questions before the round if I forgot something obvious!

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

I did NFA-LD debate for 4 years, and since then have judged occasionally.

I try to keep a careful flow and will weigh arguments based on how you tell me to prioritize them. Impact calculus is very important. When there is clash between evidence making competing claims, tell me why I should prefer your evidence.

I'll listen to / vote for anything, but if I had to express a preference it would be for policy focused debate and DAs and CPs rather than Ks, however if you want to read a K, it's totally fine. You're probably better off reading what makes you comfortable and plays to your strengths rather than trying to prioritize my preferences. For DAs and Ks I want to see a clear link, more specific to the case is better, and you should explain how I am weighting your impacts (impact calc or framework). For CPs and K alts I want to understand what you are advocating - I'm not a fan of ambiguous CP text or vague alts.

A note for the affirmative, when you only have 3 minutes for the 2AR you should make them count. You don't need to spend 1:30 reading a pre-written overview reminding me what your advantages were. Effective 2AR time allocation is one of the most important skills that separates top competitors. I vote on the flow, make sure you're covering key points and not dropping half the NR.

My educational background is in math, physics, and engineering rather than anything related to political science or philosophy, which I am mostly exposed to through debate. As such I am unlikely to be familiar with the thesis of some more abstract K arguments based on block titles or authors last name, so if you are going for such a position it is important that what you reading is clearly explaining the key ideas in round. On the other hand, if the topic lends itself to scientific discussions, I may be more familiar than most with scientific / technical arguments and evidence.

I'm fine with conditional arguments in general, but not if they are being used abusively. I don't really care if you kick a CP with a bunch of defense read against it and go for the status quo, but I might care if you read some contradictory positions which you intend to kick out of when collapsing latter in the round.

Any procedurals are ok. If the procedural is a rules violation, then I don't think showing abuse is necessary. For other types of procedurals my default position is also that showing abuse is not necessary, but I'll consider arguments to the contrary. The standards debate is how I evaluate these arguments. I like competing interpretations. I much prefer a few well developed standards with impacts over a bunch of blip taglines.

Having said that, your procedurals still have to be logical and persuasive. My default position is condo is generally fine, your opponent running weak arguments isn't an RVI for some reason, and poor time allocation on your part is not a form of time skew.

Speed is fine, as long as you are clear, but would prefer if you went at a pace where your opponent is able to keep up. When reading analytics (such as standards for theory arguments) you should go at a pace where I can flow your warrants and impacts, which may involve slowing down compared to when you read evidence. I do tend to follow along with your speech doc, so you can probably go a bit faster if you give me a well organized doc and roadmap, and go a bit slower if you're jumping all over the place or making analytics not in the document.

Evidence quality is important to me. I want your cards to clearly support the taglines you give them, and the language should be comprehensible to a general college educated audience. I tend to be skeptical of cards where what you are reading is a few disjointed sentence fragments spread out over pages of minimized text - make sure you are not changing the essence of the original or creating new arguments. I will look at key cards after the round, but I expect you to actually read the important parts, I'm not going to go hunting for your warrants if they're hiding in the middle of the page in size 6 font. When cards clash in the round, I will be really happy if you compare evidence quality and warrants.

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

I debated for four years at the University of Richmond using a variety of arguments.

My predispositions:

I weigh analytical argument - especially defensive analytical arguments - and evidence indicts higher than most.

I have no particular ideological ax to grind with any kind of argument, but in the past I have been a hard sell on affirmatives refusing to affirm the resolution in any way, but receptive to many different interpretations of the resolution and the topic.

On theoretical/framework arguments I am also hesitant to vote unless teams have been obviously and significantly disadvantaged.

I generally like intrinsicness permutations if they are adequately justified (e.g. do plan and ban the particle accelerator seemed to be to be quite real world and reasonable policy action). Generic arguments why they are bad that do not answer why the specific permutation should be allowed are given little weight.

Other stuff:

I am not an expert at flowing but try my very hardest, those who speak relatively slower and more clearly and are more likely to get their arguments down on my flow.

On speakerpoints I can be a little unpredictable and haven't judged in 3 years, so recent new standards and such and scales are a bit new to me. My aim is for my speakerpoints to not stand out in any way, but over the top rudeness will be punished. Trying to engage the other teams arguments in the most direct and/or clever way will be rewarded.

The California swing tournament is my first on the topic, so presume limited knowledge of the literature.

Prior experience - NDT/CEDA 2010-2014; Moot Court 2015-2017; currently a lawyer and coach for Moot Court and volunteer for Speech and Debate. Read and confirmed on November 3, 2022.

I HAVE NOT JUDGED A PROPER DEBATE ROUND (LD) IN TWOISH YEARS. I have been working with Moot Court for the last two years and there is rebuttals in that, but I feel like you deserve that transparency as debaters. I will answer any questions prior to the round and will try to get a basic understanding of the topic prior to rounds.

I really like impact analysis. I think reasons why you win and why your arguments are better helps me determine my ballot. Clearly articulating a story and supporting it by everything you've done in round while comparing the other side's argument is key. Doesn't necessarily have to be long.

I like smart analytics. I don't read cards unless told to in the final speeches or I am trying to clear up something contested in the speech. If I am being told two cards contradict and there is not warranted analysis why I prefer one over the other, then I will probably read those cards.

I think information in the 1NR and 2AR has to be connected back to something said earlier or a response to the other side's new argument.

I don't mind theory arguments.

If a plan is not inherent, then there is no reason to vote for the plan and I default Neg. Neg gets the status quo, unless argued otherwise, and can argue that the status quo is better.

TOPICALITY - I am fine with T debates. Proven abuse is always better than potential abuse. I think if you are going for T in the 1NR, only go for T. The more you can explode T from your original block and beat back Affs answers the better. Need to clearly explain the abuse or potential abuse and that story should be briefly articulated in 1NC and abuse can start to be developed in cross x with appropriate questions.

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.

I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.

Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.

I debated at Hillsdale College for 3 years in Parli and NFA LD. I've been judging since 2016, but very sporadically so I'm not as up to date on the norms of the circuit as I once was.

Overall, I try very hard to vote where I'm told to vote in the round. If someone tells me to make a voting issue of something, I will look there first. I will also try to go by the arguments that are made in the round rather than inserting my own opinion into the round. I especially appreciate impact calculus as it helps me figure out how to weigh everything in the round. If I have to make my own decision on how to weigh impacts and which impacts to vote on, you might not like the outcome. I try very hard to go by the flow when I make my decisions.

Speed: I haven't had any issues keeping up in most rounds even with my time out of the circuit, but I'll say speed if you're going to fast or clear if I can't understand you. I also do not approve of speed being used as a way to exclude your opponent (or a lay judge on the panel) from the round.

K's: I'm not hostile to them, but I usually don't understand them very well and won't typically vote on something unless I understand the argument. Imagine trying to explain your K to a toddler or your grandma. I don't have the background in the hefty philosophical arguments, so you'll need to walk me through it if you want me to vote there. I prefer policy alts or a clear role of the ballot.

Procedurals: I've probably got a lower threshold on procedurals than most judges. I don't need proven abuse to vote on them, but if you want to win it then you can't just shadow cover it and extend your violation. You'll need to win on the flow to win the procedural.

I debated on the national circuit in high school. and did nfa-ld for 3 years for Otterbein college.

I've judged a lot of NFA-LD rounds over the past 20 years (50 plus), about 20 high school policy rounds, and 1 CEDA round.

My default paradigm is policy maker. I believe the NFA rules must be followed, you have to have a plan, no counterplans that change the type of government, etc.

Disads (generic or otherwise) are a good reason to vote neg.

I generally believe that the negative should not be able to kick a counterplan if the aff turns it or runs disads against it. 2 or more conditional counterplans is very very very very likely to get me to pull the trigger on conditionality bad, since I think this type of strategy creates messy/shallow debates with little clash.

Kritiks-as long as you don't have a floating pic alternative that you claim solves case (I consider this kind of a utopian 'government change' counterplan prohibited by nfa-ld rules), I can be persuaded to vote on the k. I'm most often convinced that the K can be kind of a counter 'moral obligation'' to vote negative. The K can also be used as a solvency takeout (plan cannot solve if we are in a neoliberal structure"or an impact turn (critical legal studies-law increases oppression/reduces fairness).

T-depends on the round and the arguments. Since many teams are running big affs this year at the center of the topic, hopefully we can focus on substance instead of T.