Please add me to the email chain using rane.baldwin@gmail.com .

I debated policy for 4 years in high school in Kansas, coached PF for 2 years in Iowa during college, and then coached policy for a couple years in Boston. l now work for an urban debate league on the east coast. This means that I watch a lot of TOC circuit rounds but judge infrequently.

I will listen to anything and enjoy K's, although my knowledge of the lit itself is limited and you thus need to be explicit. I am tabula rasa, but arguments that are highly racist/sexist/cissexist/islamaphobic, etc will be devastating to your speaker points and potentially harm my ability to evaluate the technical aspects of the round. In other words, please don't tell me that immigrants are terrorists. I will be super annoyed with you.

My threshold for arguments with impacts like fairness and education is quite high and I will expect you to articulate your warrants thoroughly. I need to know what you mean by "critical pedagogy" and why specifically you are better for debate than your opponents.

Please articulate and do not speak faster than you can do so clearly. I'm okay with speed and spreading but am not comfortable judging extremely fast debates. I may ask you to slow down.

4 years of PF experience. However, assume I don’t know anything.

thanks :)

cydney.edwards@gmail.com is my email and I would like to be on the email chain

Morgan Park HS, Chicago UDL Debater 2004-2008

Program Coordinator Chicago UDL 2013-2016

Program Coordinator Silicon Valley UDL- 2016

Program Director Miami UDL- Current

Program Association Washington DC UDL- Current

Judged and competed in policy for 4 years in HS. Have experience judging PF, LD and Speech events as well.

I enjoy T and theory debates when there is something impacted.

Reading the generic Condo block doesn't do anyone any good unless your opponents have caused harm in the round and you're ready to put time and energy into proving it.

I enjoy policy vs. policy debates as well as the K and performance arguments.

Run what you want, just do it well!

I'm flowing so I'm only voting on arguments made, extended and impacted.

Updated Last: May 4, 2023

Email: christian.d.jones[at]gmail.com (yes, I would like to be on the chain)

Experience: Head coach for 11 years.

My General Paradigm
Debates must be fair and winnable for both sides, but debaters may argue what is and is not fair. Debaters may try to convince me which particular instance of debate ought to occur in each round. I will try to have an open mind, but I do have likes and dislikes.

Speed
I prefer debaters to ensure clarity before trying to accelerate. I can handle speed, but if I can't understand it, it doesn't get flowed. If I am being honest, I would estimate that I can catch almost every argument at about 85% of top speed for the national circuit. But if you brake for taglines and present them in a unique vocal inflection, top speed is not a problem.

Decision Calculus
I will only intervene if I feel I absolutely have to. I prefer that debaters to help me decide the debate. Comparative arguments will usually accomplish this. Extrapolations in rebuttals are acceptable if they are grounded in arguments already on the flow. Arguments that are extremely offensive or outright false may be rejected on face.

Style
I enjoy and find value in a variety of argumentation styles as long as they do not preclude a debate from taking place. A debate must have clash.

Framework
The 1AC presents their argument to a blank slate. If you want to change this, you will need an interpretation and to be clear on the criteria for winning the round. This criteria should offer both sides the possibility of winning the debate.

Topicality (or any other procedural/theory argument)
If you want me to vote on a proposed rule violation, then you need to win the complete argument. You must win that you have the best interpretation, that the other team has violated your interpretation, that your interpretation is good for debate, and that the offense is a voting issue. If you want to argue that the other team is breaking the rules, then you have the burden of proof. Procedural arguments may also urge a lesser punishment, such as, excluding the consideration of an argument.

Kritik
I do not want to proscribe specifics when it comes to kritiks, but I do want to see clash and comparative argumentation in any debate. I prefer Ks that are germane to the topic or affirmative case in some way. I like kritiks that have a clearly defined alternative. Alternatives that propose something are preferable to 'reject' or 'do nothing' type alts. I am not a fan of ontological arguments, especially nihilistic ones. If you choose to enter the debate space, you have already ceded certain assumptions about reality.

Counterplans
I am open to any type of counterplan, but all arguments are subject to the standard of fairness determined in the debate round. That said, if you are going to read a counterplan, it should probably have a solvency card.

Tulsa-Union '17

Michigan State '21

*updated for West OK districts '21*

The Big Picture: I did policy for about 10 years through high school and college, I've been out of the game for about a year to focus on my journalism/history degree and operating MSU's independent student media organization. Topic jargon may need a little more explanation for me.

I have the most experience with policy arguments but don't let that deter you from reading your best strategy.

One big update: My preference/bias/ideological sway toward policy arguments & T-USFG/Framework has become considerably weaker in the year I've been out.

For T/FW: Show me the impacts and why your interpretation solves them.

The bottom line: Specificity, context and explanation are crucial. Don't just prove your argument true but show how it interacts with the flow at large.

*updated for '17 Glenbrooks*

Top level

My preferences exist, but I’ll attempt to be as objective as possible.

I'm best for a CP+DA strategy but would prefer you do what you do best.

Warranted evidence comparison is the most important thing regardless of strategy.

Debate is a game, don't make the game a harmful place for someone else.

T-USFG & Planless

My ideological sway is toward T-USFG but I will do my best to not let that get in the way.

Topical versions of the aff are persuasive and helpful.

Sometimes these debates mistake the forest for the individual trees. Having the best impact comparison is the key.

Topicality w/ plan

I love a good T debate.

My default is competing interps and how the evidence interacts. Reasonability is not a question of the aff being reasonable it's if the counter interp is reasonable.

To win T there needs to be a clear distinction between the kind of topic each interpretation creates.

In round abuse is more persuasive than potential abuse, but if impacted out that changes

Disadvantages

The more specific the better

A lot of DA scenarios are preposterous but we discuss them normally. Smart arguments that poke holes in the internal link chains can reduce DA risk quite a bit

Zero risk is hard, not impossible, super small risk of DA can be written off indistinguishable from zero

Turns case arguments are persuasive when well explained (preferably carded), they typically depend on the link being accessed

The link is generally more important than uniqueness can be persuaded the other way on this question

Bring back line by line

Counterplans

Same as DA, the more specific the better

Not going to judge kick for you

If it basically does the aff CP theory becomes a bit more persuasive (plan plus, consult, processes)

If there is textual and functional competitiveness then CP theory is not as persuasive, but am not ideologically positioned against it

Kritiks

I’m down – high theory stuff needs a bit more explanation because I don’t usually know what’s going on.

Please no conceptual 3 minute overview

Please no excessive buzzwords in place of explanation

9 times out of 10 it IS your Baudrillard.

If I don’t know what the alternative is doing the chances of it winning the round are very low.

Roll of the Ballot arguments tend to be self-serving or just a sentence that identifies the controversy of the round. I don’t think they get either side anywhere.

I could vote on an impacted out perf con argument.

Hello, I'm Julie and I've judged Policy, Congress, PF, Speech etc. at the TOC, national qualifiers and at the Massachusetts state and local level for a decade.

Policy: If you are amazing at spreading, I have a hard time understanding at the highest velocity, so try to remember to slow it down. I'm willing to have a debater persuade me of a technical violation, but it's not of default focus for me, so articulate it clearly.

Congress: I highly value mutual respect for one another in my chambers, so please be persuasive while also being respectful. Argue the issues, not the people. I immensely dislike rudeness as I think it's a malady of the times.

Thanks,

rnix@bostondebate.org

Policy Debate Coach for 3 years at Edward M Kennedy (MA), now working for the Boston Debate League. I'm familiar with the resolution and most of the common policy Affs this year. I'm familiar with the more common K and Theory arguments, but if you're running a theory-heavy kritikal aff, do a little bit extra to make sure I understand your argument. I believe my role as the judge is to help both teams improve their arguments and learn from the round.

I go blank slate as best as possible, but I will vote down offensive arguments, and I will explain myself fully in my feedback if that is the reason why I voted you down. I will vote on anything, including K, T, Theory, FW.

Please extend your positions throughout the debate, if you drop an entire position in a speech, even if you bring it back later, I will vote on fairness/violation issues (but only if the other team actually explains the nature of the violation and why I should care that there was a violation in the round, I will do my best not to intervene). Violations won't lose you the debate, but they may cause me not to consider some of your arguments.

I will only ask to see evidence if there has been a direct challenge by the opposing team to it's content or validity.

Impact analysis is the debate round. Convince me why your impacts within your framework are best and why you best achieve your framework and you'll win the round. If one side drops framework, I will assume whatever framework the other team gives me. You need to do the work to weigh the most important arguments at the end of the round. It's safe to assume that if an argument was run and extended throughout the debate that I will at least minimally weigh it in my decision calc, so ultimately you need to explain to me why the summation of your impacts outweighs those of the other team.

I'm pretty good with speed, but volume is important, as long as you're loud enough we'll be all set. There is something to be said for emphasizing your most important points by extending them throughout the round and changing your tone when you present them. Otherwise I will assume everything you're saying has equal weight, which may not benefit you in the round.

Organization is important. Tell me which flow you're on and tell me when you move to something new. If you're giving a line-by-line, let me know, otherwise I'm going to flow everything straight down as an over/underview. I won't do the work for you on the flow.

Lives don't matter. If you want me to weigh lives, you must first tell me why lives matter. Otherwise, talk about literally anything else.

TL;DR: Always sign post in summary and final focus, extend, and provide warrants for impacts and responses. Do the weighing for me.

Signpost: Please signpost your voting issues at the top of your summary and final focus. Then as you speak, reiterate them at the top of each voter. If you don't signpost, I have no idea what you are talking about. It just sounds like you are extending your whole case or doing another rebuttal. Either way, I have no idea what to vote off of. IF YOU DON'T PLAN ON SIGNPOSTING, YOU DON'T NEED TO SPEAK.

Don’t extend through ink: If you get a concession out of your opponent, extend it in your speeches. I am flowing only the speeches so if you don't bring it up in your speeches, it didn't happen. Also, do not say "extend my 5 impacts" or "extend my 5 responses." Actually say these impacts or responses.

Collapse: Collapse all your arguments down into 1-3. If there is clash between teams, you can make that one voting issue. As long as the things are relatively related, I have no problem.

Consistency: Voting issues should be consistent between speeches. If you have two voting issues in summary, then you should have the two same voting issues in final focus.

Timeframe: All impacts should have a timeline. It is hard to weigh impacts if I have no idea how long it takes for them to realize.

No audible alarms: Please try not to use audible alarms. They are annoying and only serve to cut yourself off. While it will not affect speaker points if teams insist on using them, I will drop my pen when it rings regardless of where you are in your sentence.

Cross-applying: I will cross apply arguments and impacts that each team extends into summary and final focus even if teams don't do it themselves. In addition, if I card you and the evidence is critically relevant to either side, I will cross apply that also. This does not mean that I will create and vote off of new arguments I find in the evidence. This just means that if your card provides two impacts and you neglect to mention the other impact could negate the first one, I will take that into account and apply it for you. I am not an activist judge; I just want to make sure that evidence is being used properly and is not misconstrued. If I feel something is purposely misconstrued or left out, I will drop that card and any resulting impacts.

Weigh: Explain why the impact of one issue is more important even if the metrics are different. Hint, prioritizing lives is a losing battle, refer to top of paradigm.

Speaker Points: If you signpost, speak coherently, cover the flow, and are engaging, you can expect a 30. Prioritize coherency over speed because 1) Stumbling knocks off speaks and 2)Anything I can't flow I can't weigh. Not covering everything on the opponent's flow is OK if you cover all the important impacts and warrants. Missing a thing here or there won't affect speaks. Engagement just means you don't speak in a way that would lull me to sleep. Tournaments are long; I get tired. If you are funny, sassy, or at least make eye contact, I will be more than happy. Please don't look at your flow the entire time. Always SIGNPOST in summary and final focus. This is my biggest pet peeve. If you don't signpost, that's 2.5 points gone. Just tell me "first voter is x" and "second voter is y." Very easy to get these points and makes my RFD easier since I know what the big issues are.

Assume that I have a general understanding of the topic but definitely explain any esoteric ideas or little know events/facts.

Also, please don't be rude or condescending; it's a competition but everyone should enjoy their time in debate, not feel harassed.

Debate Background: Policy Debate for ICW (2012-2016, TOC Qualifier 2015 & 2016) and Harvard (2016-2017)

Coaching/Judging Background: Policy (Boston Debate League 2016-2020, ICW 2017, GBN 2018-2019, University of Iowa 2019-2020) and Public Forum (National High School Debate League of China 2017 & 2020)

POLICY PARADIGM

You do you. That being said, I am much more familiar with policy arguments than critical arguments. Good, warranted analytics are much better than bad, underhighlighted cards. Tech determines truth. Limited topic knowledge.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

Given my background, the most persuasive arguments often draw on a few strong pieces of evidence. Weighing in summary and final focus determines who wins. I don't flow crossfire.

Make My Job Easy

A couple of key points:

- T arguments need to be actually abusive. I will listen to them and flow them, but they need to be solid.

- Spreading your opponents out of the round. Whatever. But I also recommend not spreading your judge (me) out of the round either.

- Critical arguments, outlandish plans, etc. go for it. If we pretend to be the USFG, there is equal room to be space pirates.

-Make my job easy. Signpost, explicitly tell me why to vote.

She/her/hers. Currently a K-12 social studies curriculum writer, formerly a middle school and college debate coach. I returned to assistant coach for Mercer University from 2021-2022 having previously competed as our program was making its transition from small, Southern tournaments to large NPDA tournaments. I have been out of college debate for about nine years - my background is in K-12 education, and I have coached some middle and high school programs, mostly public forum debate and a little policy. My teams have won the middle school Urban Debate League national championships in public forum (2020) and the NPDA championships in novice NPDA debate (2022). I am now happily retired from coaching, but still occasionally enjoy judging.

I am not super technical, but I enjoy hearing all kinds of arguments and I like it when I can learn something new in-round. I am good with most kinds of arguments, strategies, and approaches to debate. I like good organization, lots of signposting, and rebuttals that group and collapse arguments intelligently so that I can discern exactly where you want me to vote. Overall I believe the debate space is yours. I want you to be able to debate about the things you like to debate about, in the way that you like to debate about them, but I think there are a few things that are fair for you to know about me, so here they are.

(1) I am convinced that spreading can be problematic for the activity, and is potentially ill-suited to an NPDA debate format where the topic changes from round to round and there are no text files we can share to help people follow along. To be honest top speeds and lack of clarity trigger a migraine for me nine times out of ten and I want to listen to debates at conversational to slightly faster than conversational rates. On your end, it is probably important to you that I can hear and follow all of your arguments.

(2) My threshold for voting on topicality is pretty high. If their interpretation is actually abusive and causing ground loss/education loss/etc, run it, but I don't necessarily enjoy t debates that are introduced just because you can. I won't drop folks if they run a topicality arg that I don't like of course, I just think your time might be better spent on something else with me in the back of the room. If you love T and you run it every round and it doesn't feel like debating for you without it, then please carry on.

(3) I am interested in critical debates, but I have been out of the debate world for a minute, teaching middle school social studies and being a mom, so you are going to want to explain your argument in pretty fine detail. Unlike some of your judges, I am usually not devoting a bunch of my free time to reading and cutting literature exclusively for debate. I think you should always be detailed as a rule, but I just want to be clear that I am probably not the best judge for blippy and/or very generic kritiks. Explaining your story on the link level is very important, I want to hear explicitly how you're jumping from point A to point B.

(4) I don't think that debate is just a game. I don't necessarily mind judging traditional policy-oriented rounds, but it's always important to keep in mind that the statistics and literature and news headlines that are just a means to a ballot for some are real life for many others, both within and without the debate space. Be thoughtful. Be measured. Be kind.

hi! i did pf debate at newton south high school for 4 years. i would say i'm a flow judge, but i'm not going to write down every single word you say. it's your job to make it clear what your points are and what you're going for. with that being said, you can win my ballot by:

1) signposting!!! in every speech pls

2) collapsing on one or two points at the end, pls don't try and extend every single piece of offense you have

3) weighing! tell me why your argument matters more than your opponent's!

i don't flow cross, that's a time for you and your opponent to ask each other questions. if you want me to vote off of something said in cross, please mention that in your speech!

most of all, please be respectful and remember that debate should be a safe environment for everyone. have fun!!!