Background:

I'm a parent of two children in speech and debate. I'm awestruck by the many things about the community:

• The real partnership between the parent/teachers and the students. The parents *really* care about the success of the community, and the students create such beautiful pieces of "verbal art". This interplay is magical to me.

• The vector of growth of nearly every student over the course of the season. It's flattering to watch a specific orator/debater incorporate feedback you've given them earlier in the season, and then watch them hone and improve their art over time.

General:

Debate is to me an exercise of research, oration, logic, education, and decorum. All five of these aspects are vitally important when one ventures into their eventual career path. The general speech and debate student gives better presentations than 80% of the people in my field of work -- this is not an exaggeration. That being said, those five factors inform my judging paradigm and philosophy.

Paradigm:

My letter of the law paradigm is hypothesis testing, mostly because I am not skilled enough to judge otherwise. Think of this paradigm as the use of rhetorical devices in a scientific manner to disprove your opponent(s)' null hypothesis.

For practical purposes it should be considered a clean slate (tabula rasa) approach. I've seen published versions online on tabula rasa, and those don't really match up 100% to my philosophy. I just kind of take the actual translation of the phrase tabula rasa and go from there. If this is policy/CX, this means that it's 100% tech over truth. That is, if your opponents have a wacko source that says the human population on Mars is higher than Earth's, you'll have to address this in your flow. If this is LD or PF, then it's "mostly" tech over truth -- I will intervene if a warranted "non-fact" is introduced and I have 99.7% certainty that it is indeed a "non-fact".

Think of me as a juror on a civil case -- I will weigh my verdict based on the preponderance of evidence and logic, and I will likely ask for specific evidence cited in your case.

Preferences:

Speed: Go as fast as you want as long as I can understand what you're saying.

Evidence: Sign post. If you are going fast, please make an emphatic "Next" or "And" between your taglines. I try to flow the tag line, the author/year, and a few bullet points from the EV that is read. If the internet is available at the tournament, please feel free to add me to your email chain: kurtis_araki at yahoo dot com.

Cross-Ex: I flow it.

Topicality: Just follow the general "counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters" model.

Theory: Run it as if I've never heard of it before. Not being well versed in debate jargon hurts my ability to give you a good summary of what I know, but it seems like it should be run similarly to topicality.

Kritiks: Up until recently, I thought I was okay with Kritiks. Then, I was hit by something I hadn't heard before called a "Deleuze" K. So, adjusting to this, I highly recommend that you prepare me as a judge that you will be running a Kritik. Run it very slowly. Perhaps signposting "Link", "Impacts", "Alternative" will make it easier for me to flow. Make it 100% obvious how it ties into the resolution/plan. Alts must either include a counterplan or a warranted and active agent in the status quo.

Kritikal Affs: I don't understand them. Please do not run them.

Performance Affs: I also don't understand these. Please do not run them.

Morally abhorrent stances: Despite my want to be 100% tech over truth, I won't accept "Genocide good", "Extinction good", "Debate bad", or "Racism good" as part of a link chain. If your opponents explicitly state any of these four abhorrent stances as part of any of their link chains, and if you point it out and flow it to the end, you will win the ballot. As a note, your opponents have to explicitly state it in an unprompted manner.

Time: I don't consider evidence exchange as prep time. Please do not have your hands on your laptop or pen in hand while receiving your opponents evidence. I'll leave it up to the competitors if they want to self time or if they want me to govern strictly.

Gender Pronouns: Try your best to respect each other's preferred gender pronouns. It will not affect my ballot if you or your opponent makes a mistake in gender pronoun usage.

Hello! I'm Gracen Atkinson. I did public forum and congressional debate for 4 years of high school and when to state speech/debate all four years, and I'm currently studying Vocal Music Education and Music Composition at the University of Idaho. I judge primarily on clear arguments and communication. I dislike dropped arguments in any capacity, and, if you're in a format with an interesting gimmick, use that gimmick to your advantage, because I will judge solely on the Value/Criterion in LD if it's ignored by one party, and will do the same with Plans and CX. I do love to see some crazy arguments and really innovative ideas, though, so I'll buy almost any argument and idea you throw at me as long as you explain and support it well. Most of all, have fun, and try to make the round one I'm happy and excited to judge.

Pronoun: He/Him

I've been out of debate for a few years now. Speed is fine, but go normal speed on stuff you want me writing down. Generally anything that makes it easier for me to flow will help you win (good organization is helpful: being clear when making separate tags/args, when switching flows, what part of flow you are on, etc.)

Make my decision easy! I really like framing/impact calc stuff, please don't make me jump through a bunch of hoops to vote for you. Generally fine with whatever, if you have something you aren't sure about just ask! Big fan of T, I don't tend to go for T reverse voting issue type args unless it's really well done. K debate with good framing/role of ballot argumentation is also a plus!

I default to impact calc if not told something different in framing (I also assume T before impact calc). If impact calc is good with you please expand on how I should prioritize stuff (ie extinction first type args make it really easy to vote for you), otherwise you are likely to get a weird/unpredictable RFD.

TLDR; experienced flow judge, don't be mean to anyone please :(

Debate Background

I did debate for four years in Idaho, mostly PF but I dabbled in LD a bit. I was the PF State Champion in 2019 (flex) and I made it to Round 9 at Nationals (flex) so I promise I know what I'm doing :)

General Judging Philosophy

I'll accept pretty much any argument that you want to run, as long as you warrant it properly and it doesn't involve marginalizing groups of people (ex: racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, etc). This also applies to how you treat your opponents in round. Debate is a game, and I encourage you to have fun with your arguments, but make sure that everyone can play the game in a safe and welcoming environment!

As for how I evaluate the round, I'm strictly a flow judge. I personally think that trying to determine a round based on who I think communicated better is extremely subjective and creates opportunities for bias in my judgement, and I want to minimize that as much as possible. Plus, that's why we have speaker points. As such, the way you present your arguments WILL NOT affect my decision in the round, I'm only going to evaluate their substance.

Quick Note for Novices

Feel free to read the next few sections of my paradigm, but don't worry if there's stuff in there you don't understand. I'm not holding you to the same standard as varsities, just do your best and try to learn as much as you can from every round you compete in!

PF Specifics

Make sure to link and warrant your arguments! If I don't understand how your argument applies to the topic, then I'm not going to evaluate it.

I'm going to assume that the round is being evaluated under the framework of Cost-Benefit Analysis unless you give me a compelling reason for why the framework should be something else (I do love me a good framework debate). Assuming the framework is Cost-Benefit: WEIGH. YOUR. IMPACTS. Seriously, the team that does better weighing will win my ballot (almost) every single time. Don't just tell me that your impacts are better than your opponents', tell me WHY they're better. Here are some ways that you can do this:

- Magnitude: "we save 1000 lives, while they only save 100 lives, so we outweigh on magnitude"

- Scope: "our impact affects the global population, while theirs only affect the US population, so we outweigh on scope"

- Timeframe: "our impact happens 5 years sooner than theirs, and it lasts for 10 years longer, so we outweigh on timeframe"

- Probability: "our argument has a 95% chance of happening, while theirs has a very low chance of happening, so we outweigh on probability"

You don't have to use these specific terms (and I'd generally recommend that you stay away from using them in front of lay judges), but these are a few ways that you can weigh your arguments against your opponents'. Try to quantify your impacts if you can! (I'm a math major, I like numbers lol)

Traditional LD Specifics

If you're both running the same criterion, it probably isn't worth time arguing about the values unless there's a VERY important distinction (ex: don't bother with arguing quality of life > societal welfare, they're similar enough that it doesn't really matter). If you're both running different criterions, give me substantial reasons why I should prefer your criterion over theirs. Don't just tell me "consequentialism is a better way to view this round than deontology", try to directly compare the benefits of viewing the topic through the lens of consequentialism compared to taking a deontological approach.

Even if you don't win the V/C debate, you can still win the round, as long as you win under your opponent's V/C. It's probably in your best interest to explain how you're winning under both frameworks (see the previous PF section about weighing if your criterion involves evaluating impacts!).

Policy/Progressive LD Specifics

If you're going to spread, please share your cases with your opponents and me (carsonbarningham@gmail.com) before the round or ASAP. Even if you don't plan on spreading, it's probably beneficial to do this anyway. Also, make sure your opponents are okay with you spreading, otherwise, please don't do it :)

Counterplans are fine.

K's are fine within reason. If I have no idea what you're talking about or how it relates to the topic, I'm not going to vote for it, so please explain it thoroughly.

Theory is also fine, but only in clear instances of abuse. You also don't have to write a T Shell if you're unsure of the format, just tell me why what they're doing is abusive.

Tech > Truth, I'll vote for arguments even if I hate them as long as you warrant and weigh them properly.

Speaker Points

I'm pretty loose with how I award speaker points. If your speaking is very clear and smooth, you'll probably get a 29 or 30. If you're demeaning to your opponents or overly aggressive, I'll probably lower your speaker points.

Evidence

I won't call for evidence unless someone in the round wants me to look at a specific card since they think it'll impact the decision. On very rare circumstances, I'll ask to see evidence if something sounds VERY fishy. If your evidence doesn't say what you claim it does, or if the source isn't properly cited, then I'll just drop the card but you can still win based off of your other arguments. Paraphrasing a card is fine, just don't misconstrue the evidence. You should also say the author/publication and year for every card that you read in round, just so that I know you're not making stuff up :)

Miscellaneous

- You don't have to extend defensive arguments if your opponents don't refute them

- You DO have to extend offensive arguments if you want to use them in the last speech

- I don't flow cross-ex, so if something important happens, tell me in the next speech

- Off-time roadmaps are fine, just keep it under 5 seconds

- I'm cool with speed, but don't spread unless your opponents are also cool with that

- If you're still talking when the timer goes off, you can finish your sentence, but if you continue talking after that point then I'll take off speaker points

If you have any questions about how I evaluated the round, email me afterwards at carsonbarningham@gmail.com

Feel free to ask me for any advice of what you could have done better (whether you won or lost) or just for debate advice in general, or you can even argue with me if you think I made the wrong decision!

Hi!

I debated all throughout high school, mostly LD but I am familiar with the other formats.

I don't care about speed as long as you're not tripping up a lot. Tag teaming is fine. I do flow CX and vote on it so keep that in mind. I'll primarily vote on impacts which outweigh the amount of arguments and evidence every time.

No need to ask if I'm ready, I'll be ready unless I say something.

I debated 3 years in high school, and have 5 years coaching experience. I am the current assistant coach at Mountain View High School in Idaho. Most of my focus is on policy debate. When it comes to evaluating the round of any style of debate, I am a tabs judge. If you tell me how to vote, that's the way I will vote. I want you all to debate the best way you do and not try and adapt to what I like. If you can explain to me why you should win the debate, you will win the debate.

With that being said, I have a harder time seeing why running a Kritik should win you my ballot. I do default more to a policy framework. If you can take the time to tell me why you win, then run a K. However, I do tend to see more of a reason to vote for a policy argument. I also love to vote on Theory and Topicality. If you can show abuse in this round, then you have my ballot. Please feel free to ask me any specific questions at the beginning of the round.

I coach at Eagle High School in Idaho.

Our team participates in CX, LD and PF. I hold no preferences regarding the style of LD ran in the round. However, I do possess certain preferences about debate in general as well as what I expect for specific styles of LD.

In all rounds, clarity is crucial. I do not oppose introducing lots of arguments, but I need to comprehend what a debater is advocating. Articulation—especially on tags—is essential. Regardless of the number of arguments introduced in the round, I expect debaters to sign post and respond line-by-line on the flow. The only exception to this falls in rebuttals when I expect clear voters for why I should prefer one position over another; I still want debaters to address significant points from the line-by-line as they summarize the flow. If I spend a lot of time filling out the ballot after the round, I probably am deciding how I should weigh the impacts while attempting to intervene as little as possible.

With traditional LD, I do not like cases which give the appearance of a value/criterion approach but actually provide a plan (criterion) and solvency (value). If debaters prefer policy style cases they should run them rather than masking them in a traditional case. I expect the criterion to provide a weighing mechanism to analyze which of two values/actions/positions proves superior. Thus, debaters should weigh all arguments introduced in the round and provide me with impact calculus so that I know which of the two positions I should prefer. If topicality becomes an issue, I expect the negative to follow a CX approach (counter interpretation, violation, standards and voters).

I do not hold preconceived notions on the structure to which a progressive case should adhere, but I do expect debaters to demonstrate a strong understanding of them (especially during cross-examination). Any critical cases need a clear link to the resolution and a clear story so I can actually follow your position. I realize that a plethora of pressing issues prove worthy of discussion, but I come to the round expecting to actually learn about the topic. I tend to vote more on post fiat implications and impacts—because it permits me to weigh both debaters’ arguments—but understand that some circumstances call for pre-fiat or theory implications. I will vote on theory arguments, but I will hold them to a very high standard if it means that by accepting them, I must exclude weighing both debaters’ impacts to reach my decision.

Essentially, I expect extensive evidence and research to be shared. Your claims need to be backed up by such evidence to be sound and show thorough knowledge and understanding. Make sure your transitions, signposts, are clear as well.

I'm a college freshman and absolutely love debate. In high school debate was "my thing"- you could catch me in some random high school gym waiting for rounds to start basically every weekend of the school year. Saying that, I have debated Lincoln Douglas, Policy and Public Forum and am quite comfortable with all three styles. I'm also comfortable with speed. Any argument you throw at me I'll consider- just make sure you have sufficient evidence/ logic to back it up. I'm a flow judge and will prioritize your arguments over how pretty you speak- if you sound angelic but nothing of content is coming out of your mouth, I'll catch that. Clash with each other's arguments and tell me why your arguments are of greater significance than your opponents. If you're debating LD, make sure the value/ VC debate is a significant part of the debate- that's an essential part of LD, so don't let it be brushed under the rug.

Excited to judge you all and good luck!

I debated all three years of high school and I am familiar with all types of debate. I am very open as a judge and I will vote on pretty much any argument. It is imperative that you clearly emphasize what you want me to vote on and make that the main focus of the debate. Don’t spend most of the debate talking about one thing just to tell me in the last speech that I should vote on something else.

Speed: I’m good with speed just make sure you aren’t going so fast that you are sacrificing actual argument. Additionally if you are going so fast me or your opponent can’t keep up that isn’t going to help you.

Flowing: If you want me to be flowing something and I’m looking up I’m not flowing it. Go back over it so I can get on the flow.

K’s: I will vote on these if they are well explained and make sense in your debate type. (I’m not going to vote on a K in PF)

In my former life, I was a high school coach. I taught speech, CX and LD. I have had no reason to change my philosophy so I will choose education as my pivot point. Teach me what great ideas you have. That means that your position should be communicated as if you were giving me everything I need to know in a CLEAR, CONCISE argument. I need to understand why something is important, why you chose to run it, upheld with clear support. If you don't say it, I am not completing the argument for you in my head (really, I walk around half the time looking for my phone and it is in my hand). Rebuttals should be used to crystalize the round (write the ballot for me).

If you'd like to send me your case: schmeddy60@hotmail.com

Y'all it has been a minute since I have participated in or judge debate. However, rest assured that I remain emphatically passionate about it, I've just been busy adulting these last, however, many years.

I was a high school debater, National Qualifier in Policy/CX debate. I also debated in College and took third at Nationals in Parliamentary style debate. Since those many eons ago, I have completed law school and have been practicing law for the past 7 years.

When it comes to Policy debate, I love a solid Harms/Solvency and Advantages/Disadvantages argument. I'm not a fan of CPs nor Ks. I like to think my flows are exquisite so please sign post. If you want to spread your opponent, go for it, but note if your arguments are shallow and they can group A-M and demolish them with three words, well then you've wasted time. As to speed, I can handle it but if you're not communicating clearly, it'll be difficult to win the argument.

With LD, the beauty of LD is to have a break from the intricacies of Policy and have a nice philosophical discussion about values and criterion. I love that stuff. I minored in philosophy, so I promise while I wasn't a LD'er in high school I still love it. Kant is my favorite.

As to Public Forum, well kids, this became an event after my debate days and I've never judged a round of it. What I can tell you is that respect for your opponents and clarity in your arguments is what I will always prioritize.

In the end, I'm here to support an activity I loved as a high schooler and college student; these are your debate rounds, enjoy them, give it your all, and strive to do your best.

Overall I am a communications style judge.

For Public Forum/Lincoln Douglas:

I'm often a beginner on the topic so clarify any acronyms/abbreviations, uncommon terms, and/or advanced concepts when used.

Your off-time road map, as well as clear signposting during your speech, are important and appreciated for my notetaking. Slow down and really emphasize each of your contentions and evidence tag lines so that I can make myself notes.

As for speed: I'm OK with a fairly fast pace presentation as long as you are completely understandable using good diction and clarity and that the arguments are clear. If you lose me, you've lost the argument. I suggest that you consider presenting your best arguments well and skip just trying to squeeze more in.

I like line-by-line refutation of arguments presented by the opposing team.

Respectful clash in cross makes debate interesting and helps me be attentive.

I will compare and weigh the arguments presented, including likely and convincing impacts.

End with voters and impacts...go ahead and write my ballot for me in your final speech :)

In Lincoln Douglas debate, all the above information applies. I think definitions, resolution analysis, and framework are an important and interesting part of this style of debate but don't make them the only focus of your argumentation. I love to hear clear and specific arguments about the topic. I will base my vote on any and all arguments presented.

Policy Debate:

I don't prefer judging policy debate, so if I am sitting in front of you as your judge in policy it is because no one else was available. I'll do my best for you, but consider me a "Comms" judge, a mom one to boot! Please avoid debate abbreviations and jargon as much as possible, taking time to translate debate lingo in my brain distracts me from understanding your important information.

Speed will NOT be in your favor. Slow down, start from the beginning, define terms, present your best arguments, and explain it all to me. Do not just read your evidence cards and expect me to interpret how that supports your case, tell me what it means.

I will judge on stock issues like topicality, inherency, and solvency, but I would prefer to be weighing really good arguments with supporting evidence provided by both sides. I take notes about the information presented, but I don't "flow" the way you do. You should directly refute the arguments presented by the opposing team, but rarely do I vote purely on "flow through" unrefuted sub-points. Generally, I'm looking for the evidence and arguments that are most believable for me. In terms of impacts, I will prefer the likelihood of negative impacts occurring over the magnitude of devastation. Good luck!

Congress:

I love well organized and passionately presented arguments designed to convince your fellow Representatives to vote with you. Well researched and prepared speeches are appreciated, but how they are presented definitely impacts the score I give. Eye contact and presentation with purposeful variation in volume, tone, pace, and inflection for impact and persuasion will set you apart for me.

The bills and resolutions being argued are interesting, but I like the discussion to move forward. So, if you have a prepared speech that just restates points already presented, I would prefer you didn't give it. I like it when speeches given later in the discussion refer to points previously made by other representatives and either support or refute them. I also think that extemporaneously style speeches with fresh points given later in the discussion can be impactful, so feel free to listen to the discussion, use your brain, common sense, and add something meaningful to the discussion even if you did not originally have something prepared for this bill.

1. Supurb Speaking - Once upon a time Congressional Debate was a speech event, and thus I still partially judge it as such. Putting a little heavier weight and judgment on to one's fluidity as well as presentation skills.
2. Concrete Context - In addition to the last point, sounding/presenting well is one key point of my paradigm. However, the other is determining who actually has the evidence and research done to back up their presumably beautiful speeches.
3. Tackling Topics - Debaters who actually debate differing points of conflict (rather than continue to bring up new information) are those who take the first step to winning in my eyes. You must always explain why your side of presentation is superior to your opponents. (which are backed up by x, y, and z by this evidence)

I've competed in Congressional, Public Forum, and Lincoln Douglas Debate-- (2 time national qualifier for Congress). So I'd like to think I know what it's like to be in your shoes as a debater, as well as what to look for in your debates :)

Have fun and learn something!

Tell me what issues you think are important in the round and impact out your arguments. I will default to a policymaker framework but if you provide a well-reasoned lens through which I should interpret the round or vote I'm open. I don't usually enjoy theory heavy debates (i.e. tons of gratuitous topicality args). Feel free to ask me for clarification or more details if there are specific issues you're curious about. Good luck!

Who am I:

MS CS. I build AI models in industry

7 Years of Debate mainly in public forum.

I am used to national circuit public forum. I won PKD Nationals in college public forum twice.

-------------------

Public Forum

I will do my best to come into the debate with no preconceived notions of what public forum is supposed to look like.

Tech > Truth unless the flow is so damn messy that I am forced to go truth > tech to prevent myself from letting cardinal sins go.

Here's the best way to earn my ballot:

1) Win the flow. I will almost entirely vote off the flow at the end of the debate. If it's not in the FF I won't evaluate it at the end of the day.

2) Impact out what you win on the flow. I don't care if your opponents clean concede an argument that you extend through every speech if you don't tell me why I should care.

3) Clash with your opponent. Just because you put 5 attacks on an argument doesn't mean it has been dealt with if your attacks have no direct clash with the argument. If you are making an outway argument, tell me and I can evaluate it as such!

4) Please.. PLEASE extend your arguments from summary to final focus. Public forum is a partner event for a reason. i don't want two different stories from your side of the debate. Give me an argument, extend it through all your speeches and that's how you gain offense from it at the end of the day.

K's/Theory

I am fine with K's but please be aware of the following:

Y'all this isn't policy. It's public forum where you have potentially 4 minutes to detail a K, link your opponents to it, and impacted it out. This doesn't mean I won't evaluate and potentially vote on a K, rather I would caution against running a K just to say you ran a K in public forum.

Theory makes debate a better space. Don't abuse it

Speed

I can keep up with pretty much whatever you throw at me. Signposting is critical but in the rare case I have trouble I will drop my pen and say clear to give you a notice.

Plan's/Counterplans

I will drop you if you run one of these. This is public forum.

Speaker Points

Speaker points will be given with a couple points of consideration:

1) Logic. Anyone can yell cards 100mph at the top of their lungs. Speaker points will be higher for individuals who actually use logic to back up their evidence. Honestly you should be using logic anyways.

2) Signposting and clarity: Organization and well-built arguments are key in PF and.. ya know.. life.

3) Coding jokes. I am a computer scientist and will probably lose it (.5 SP bump for adaptation)

Calling for evidence

I will only call for evidence that is contended throughout the round, with that being said if you want me to call for evidence, tell me to call for it and what is wrong with it so I don't have to throw my own judgement in.

Any other questions ask me in round!

Lincoln Douglas:

I have judged quite a bit of Lincoln Douglas in Idaho; however, I am primarily a national circuit Public Forum Coach. I have will no problem following your on-case argumentation. K's, while I have introductory knowledge about, are not my speciality and please adjust accordingly.

I have no problem with counter plans in LD and I will come into the round with an open mind of how LD is supposed to look.

4 Tips for me:

1. Win the flow by extending your arguments and collapsing on key voters.

2. I could care less if you win the value/c debate unless you tell me why it ties to your impacts in a unique scope that your opponent does not.

3. Coding jokes get a .5 SP bump for adaption. (I am a computer scientist and believe adaptation is important to public speaking. But you won't be penalized for this haha)

4. Have fun!

If you have any questions please feel free to ask!

Policy

I have judged well over 50 policy rounds in Idaho; however, I have never judged national circuit (TOC) policy. What does this mean for your adaption to me?

Add me to the email chain marckade@isu.edu

1. Run whatever you want. I have no problem with K's or any other argument some local circuits believe to be kryptonite. I believe debate is a game that has real world implications. I am tech > truth. See #3 for more info

2. I have ZERO issue with fast paced, spreading of disads, on case, and generic off-case positions such as counterplans. You can go as fast as you want on these as long as you are clear in the tagline.

3. If you decide to run something fancy (K's), you will need to slow down a little bit. I have judged K debate, but it is not my specialty and I am not up to date with the literature. But I believe most K's to be fascinating and I wish I judged them more. The most important thing you can do to help me vote for your K is EXPLAIN the links. Links are everything to me <3

I have been out of the game a while, but I still love and know how debate works.

Policy

I graduated from high school back in 2017. I did policy debate for the strong majority of my high school career. On the neg, I'll vote on anything, but the T debate has to be solid. I go back and forth on K affs; I love them when they are well done and I hate them when they are not.

As far as spreading, speed is great even awesome, but you go to be clear and go slow on the tags and extra slow on the plan text. I am not as fast of a writer as I used to be, so take it notch back.

I honestly don't know a lot about the topic this year, so be careful with relevant terminology. Ex: define OTEC as ocean thermal energy conversion.

See tips below Especially number 2. Please, come on guys. All of you should do this.

LD

I haven't judged very many LD rounds, but I know debate. Keep a good flow. I value argumentation over how you say it, but don't be rude. From my policy perspective, I'll see the value as the framework for evaluating the land. The criteria should uphold your value. You can go ahead and go a little faster, but don't do something you aren't comfortable with.

Tips: 1. Keep a neat flow or you'll probably lose and it makes judging harder.

2. Voters, voters, voters, impact calc. You have to explain why your args have greater value whether they be education or nuclear war. Who knows maybe education outweighs nuclear war. Crystallization

3. Don't run something you don't know anything about. Don't run a K to impress me please.

4. Road map and sign post please!!!!

Experience: took second in the state of Idaho and qualified to nationals in policy in 2017

Short Version

Tech>Truth

Probably familiar with your K lit, but very open to hearing framework, case outweighs, and liberalism good debates.

Fine with planless affs, as long as you've thought deeply about your argument in relation to the resolution, your positionality, and the discursive model of debate.

Good judge for advantage counterplans, specific PICs, states/politics, and big DA/case debates. Lean aff on process and consult CPs, but if you have to read them I won't hold it against you.

Make real arguments, embrace clash, respect your opponents, and have fun!

Any pronouns, email chain: kashif.ravasia@gmail.com

General Thoughts

Debate is a social, educational, and competitive space, and I'm not going to pretend I don't have biases as a judge or as an educator. The defaults laid out in this paradigm are for the most part debatable, but I also think adaptation is an important skill for debaters to develop, and you will not get good speaks if it's evident you haven't given any thought to your audience.

Ask me as many questions as you want after the round--my favorite debaters are the ones who care about their arguments and the activity. With that said, be respectful. I don't always make the right decision, and you have a right to be upset whether or not you deserved to lose, but please approach the post-round discussion as a space for mutual education. Also, I can't/won't tell you exactly how many speaker points you earned, but I will give you a general evaluation of your speaking skills and tips for improvement on request.

Speed is fine. If your speed is compromising your ability to provide emphasis or to coherently explain the structure of your arguments, I would consider slowing down (especially for the 2NR/2AR).

Offensive language and/or harassment: zero speaks, loss, and tab involvement.

Incomplete arguments justify new answers.

Don't waste your speech time telling me everything your opponents conceded, giving in-depth explanations of arguments you're clearly winning, or telling me that new arguments are illegitimate. Give me a quick explanation of why the conceded arguments matter for the debate as a whole and move on to the more contentious parts of the line-by-line.

CX

I really like debaters who put their personality into cross-x exchanges and rebuttals. That said, if posturing is part of your debate personality, please focus your snark and aggression on arguments, not people, and be nice to your opponents between speeches and between debates.

Please try to avoid speaking over your opponents. I get that it's sometimes necessary, but try to start your questions as your opponents finish their sentences, and try to cut yourself off so you can listen to the next question. I promise I won't think less of your argument because your opponents didn't give you a chance to fully explain, provided that you flesh the argument out in your rebuttals.

Tag team is fine.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations. If you're going for reasonability, please tell me what it looks like by the 1AR at the latest, because I don't want to arbitrarily decide what reasonability means or incentivize new 2AR interpretations.

Please provide warrants and impact comparisons much as you would on any other flow, and engage with the line-by-line. I find case lists and contextual definitions very persuasive.


Theory

Again, I want a lot more warrant explanation and clash than I usually see in theory debates.

5 minutes of theory in the 2AR is a reasonable strategy against certain CPs.

Don't extend theory, even conceded theory, on arguments that have been kicked (other than condo). It's good form to answer all theory arguments, and your speaker points will reflect that, but I'm not voting on their vague alts shell when you go for states/politics.

I don't have any real thoughts one way or the other on T vs theory. Convince me.

Counterplans
Advantage counterplans are awesome. I tend to think multiple conditional planks are legitimate; if the aff can't defend their internal links, they probably deserve to lose.

Specific mechanism counterplans and specific PICs: love em. I don't usually think you need a solvency advocate for PICs, but if the aff has a carded defense of their mechanism and you don't have a carded indict of it, you'll be behind.

Counterplans cut from aff ev are the best, but make sure they have real net benefits.

Agent CPs are probably legitimate, especially CPs like Congress and Courts. I lean slightly neg on unlimited condo, international fiat, and multi-actor fiat.

CPs that compete off of immediacy and certainty are highly questionable, and I lean aff unless you have high-quality, topic-specific evidence.

Default to judge kick--Idk why a CP being a bad idea is a reason to do the plan, but I can be convinced not to kick the CP for fairness reasons.

DAs

Make sure your DA is a real argument: highlight your cards appropriately, and if you can't get the link and internal link story to sound coherent, don't read the DA.

Specificity wins DA debates, but spin can also work in a pinch.

Politics DAs: Love em. Recency wins rounds, but prove it matters in the context of the link/internal.

If you think your topic DA might be racist, it probably is.

Death/Suffering Good Arguments (Policy and K)

I cannot be convinced, within debate, that we should not attempt to maximize well-being and minimize suffering. This is more a "rules of the game" thing that anything else; a simple, pseudo-objective evaluation frame minimizes the extent to which debaters have to compensate for their judges' ethical idiosyncrasies. On the other hand, feel free to make arguments about how attempts to prevent suffering and death backfire (Buddhism Ks, Nietzsche Ks, even spark). I don't think it's necessarily a good thing to imagine worlds in which suffering is reduced, nor do I believe that there is never value in short-term sacrifice; I just think reducing suffering is valuable. If you make these arguments, please avoid dipping into "poor people dying is an acceptable sacrifice" territory, because those debates are horrifying. Reactionary death good takes create bad debates.

Anthro debates are always kind of a mess because there's no community or academic consensus on how to weigh animal suffering. I would prefer not to have to weigh human lives against animal ones, but I realize you might not have the ability to adapt to this part of my paradigm, so I'll do my best to evaluate these debates fairly. Just know that my decision will largely come down to my subjective evaluation of your storytelling, ethos-building, and general persuasiveness, as it is primarily a question of values rather than evidence.


Kritiks-general

Good K debates are my favorite debates to watch. Bad K debates are painful.

This section is the longest part of my paradigm not because I'm actually that much of a K hack but because Ks are based in dense, complex scholarship, and I have more biases to unpack.

The easiest way to improve the quality of your K debating is to make more specific link arguments. Generic links broaden the scope of the K, giving the aff more opportunities to generate offense and making the alt harder to defend.

Framework

I'm not convinced fairness is an impact, but it's a great internal link to education if you can win that your form of education matters (which probably requires engaging with the aff on some level). I probably lean slightly toward a belief that institutions can be reformed in the long run, but I find myself agreeing more often than not with the aff's description of how power functions in the status quo. I am impressed by neg teams that understand critical literature well enough to meaningfully compare the aff's method to the neg's model of debate/politics, and I am equally impressed by aff teams that use both the topic literature and current events to contextualize the K.

All of this is to say that I believe framework, debated well, is both a strategic and an educational argument. With that said, I am not a good judge for neg teams who want to use procedural framework as a way to avoid engaging with K affs, nor am I a good judge for aff teams who think that, because I'm familiar with their lit, they don't have to defend their relationship to the resolution.

K v. K rounds

I usually look at the theory of power and alt debates first, but link specificity can also win or lose the round.

The aff should look to generate offense against the alt. Assuming the K is germane to your aff, your authors likely speak to comparative methodological questions. If they don't, that's awkward for both you and your authors, and you should consider reading more recent and more inclusive theory.

The aff probably gets perms. I can be convinced otherwise if the aff has no clear method or if the neg is reading a rhetoric K.

Structuralist and poststructuralist Ks of oppressive institutions (Settlerism, antiblackness, orientalism, ableism, etc.)

I love listening to these debates, and they're almost always determined by the strength of the link argument.

On the neg, make as specific a link argument as possible, and be ready to explain your link(s) as an answer to the permutation.

On the aff, pay close attention to what the neg is critiquing, and respond accordingly. If the neg is attacking your heg advantage, defend the importance of American hegemony. If the neg is attacking liberalism, defend liberalism. If the neg is attacking specific rhetorical choices you made in the 1AC, defend those choices or present a framework argument about plan focus.

In a general sense, I tend to think that the poststructuralist and intersectional versions of these Ks are great against K affs and potentially strategic against both soft left and big stick affs. They take a bit more explanation than the older, more ontologically rigid versions, but they also have a number of tricks that can be used to mitigate aff offense and win the theory of power debate.

Nietzsche, D and G, Baudrillard, Derrida, and other Ks that implicate language and/or truth

These debates largely come down to the quality of explanation. A lot of these authors use arcane jargon and make generic, sweeping statements about ontology, epistemology, and language. This is both a strength and a weakness, because they'll apply to almost any aff but you have to do the work of unpacking your authors' arguments and applying them to your opponents' case.

Make sure I have a non-arbitrary way to evaluate impacts. This probably means steering away from the more extreme interpretations of relativism.

I don't think these Ks are strategic on the aff, because these authors' orientations toward becoming, fluidity, and deconstruction make it really hard to build a consistent 1AC, and you'll probably lose a lot of debates on presumption, at least in front of me. On the other hand, I find these affs fun to hear and contemplate, and I won't vote for an argument that isn't explained well in the round, so if you're feeling bold, go for it.

Psychoanalytic Ks

Psychoanalysis is not an area in which my understanding of the lit is particularly strong, and I am deeply suspicious of universalizing arguments about drives and desires, especially when deployed as answers to structural critiques.

If you want to read Ks that draw on psychoanalysis as a way to discuss affect and social relations, on the other hand (Berlant, Irigaray, Ahmed, Butler, Sexton), I'm definitely willing to listen and familiar with the lit base. These debates generally end up intersecting heavily with CRT, queer studies, and intersectional feminism, so many of the above points apply.

Cap K

If you want to discuss capitalism/neoliberalism, you need to be more specific than "the aff is capitalist--capitalism is bad." In what ways does the 1AC expand class inequalities or contribute to capitalist ideological structures? What is your method for transitioning away from capitalism? What systems and institutions should be implemented in its place? If you can't answer these questions, I'm holding the aff to a very low standard in responding, because it's impossible to come up with disadvantages to "something other than capitalism" until the neg specifies what that something might be. On the other hand, I am inclined to consider (specific) alternatives to capitalism seriously even in the absence of a thoroughly developed lit base, because I am sympathetic to the argument that capitalism crowds out and delegitimizes alternative scholarship.

As suggested by the above paragraph, I'm a better judge for Gramsci, historical materialism, or Bifo than for your Kovel or Giroux alt, but as long as you can explain your method, feel free to read whatever.

On the aff, you should be able to characterize your 1AC's relationship to capitalism/globablization/neoliberalism. Not every policy that promotes economic growth necessarily prioritizes the demands and interests of the capitalist class, and if the aff is structured around wage increases, labor organization, or improvements in working conditions, the debate should be about reformism vs radicalism rather than the value of capitalism writ large. On the other hand, if your aff is incompatible with the alternative, impact turns are going to be much more persuasive than a bunch of link and perm tricks.

Experience: Sixth year judging high school debate ... still just a mom judge.

Paradigm: I'm going to vote on the flow, and clash. Crystallize! Quality is better than Quantity for Voters.

I'm fine with spreading, just make sure I catch your tag lines if you want it on my flow. You can run Theory and/or Kritic to your heart's content. Don't get mad at me if I don't get the point ... it is your job to sell it, I'm not required to buy it.

I was a head coach for 12 years with 13 years of experience in judging debate.

I will judge on the flow, and I am open to most any kind of argument. I am fine with speed, though I find that sometimes people are not as clear as they think they are. I will say CLEAR if you're not clear.

Lots of clash, please. Make sure you are addressing your opponent's arguments in a meaningful way. Impact your drops... Tell why winning the dropped argument gives you the advantage.

In LD, understand, explain, and link to your standards.

Give me thoughtful and well articulated voters.

Good luck!

Pronouns: He/him/his

For email chains/post-round questions: yikwill@gmail.com

TLDR: I did policy for all four years in HS, but it has been a few years. I consider myself a tabs judge, so debate the way you think will you the round. Be sure to do the analysis for me on the flow because I won't accept just name dropping evidence as a response to an argument. As long as you read your tags slow enough and your spreading is somewhat coherent, I can keep up with any speed you read at. Be kind.

Long

Please, please, please signpost. My biggest pet peeve when judging is people not telling me where they are on the flow. This is more than just saying "on the DA". Say what argument you're responding to or say you're going down the flow and stick to it. It makes it very hard for me to judge rounds when I don't know where to flow your arguments.

Background:

I did policy for all four years of high school. While it has been a few years since I've competed, I should be able to keep up with whatever you're saying at any speed. This means as a judge, I want to enable you to be your best self. Debate the way you think will win you the round. As a former debater, I know what I feels like to have to change your style to fit a judge's paradigm/prior experience.

Specifics:

* I am tech over truth except if you try to impact turn oppression, racism, genocide, etc.

F/W: It's dope if you do it right. If not, it's a hot mess. Give me clear interpretations and defend those interpretations with standards.

Theory: Basically the same as my opinions on f/w.

Ks: While my knowledge of K literature is not the best, I am quite familiar with how they work. Thus, if you're going to run a K with a rich literature background, you'll have to do the work in explaining it to me.

CPs: All good with me. I default to unlimited conditionality for the neg, but that doesn't mean I can't be convinced otherwise. I also default to "PICs are legitimate", but again, my mind can be changed with a good theory arg.

DAs: All good with me. I love a good impact calculus debate. Why should I prefer nuke war? Why should I prioritize probability? What does that mean in the context of the round? That doesn't mean I won't look at the uq, link, and I/L though if they're challenged.

Speed: Please make your tags distinct in some way from your evidence (slowing down, raising your voice, etc.). Go as fast as you'd like on the evidence but make sure you're somewhat intelligible.