Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

My name is Perry and I debated LD for AHS in Florida where I semi'd at the Esports TOC and won a few tournaments.

In general I try to be 100% tech over truth. I really hate intervention/dogmatism as a debater, and I will vote for any warranted argument no matter how ridiculous it is. I dont really care what you do as long as you do it well.

General Things

I will evaluate the round on the flow, if you say something like "fuck the flow", I will just ignore it and move on. This doesn't apply to tricks which win on the flow why I cant evaluate it/trigger presumption [IE semio-cap has contaminated language so you can only vote aff].

I am much much more receptive to semantics/truth testing/jurisdiction args than most people on the circuit

You need to extend arguments. Idk why this just like stopped being a thing. If you dont extend conceded arguments they dont exist. That being said, these extensions can be very brief for a conceded flow. IE: Indian and Pakistan go to Nuke war now which causes extinction, and the plan stops that through disarmament. TO CLARIFY THIS MEANS YOU NEED TO EXTENDED CONCEDED PARADIGM ISSUES!!!

CX is not a speech and you cannot extend arguments from it.

I wont vote on blatantly new arguments, and will hold the line even if the other debater doesnt point it out.

I wont vote on arguments that A] Say you should win the round only because of your identity category IE Auto Vote for me because im [X] group or B] Arguments that constitute personal attacks on your opponents conduct out of round.

A lot of arguments people read now just are claims without warrants, I consider "no warrant" a sufficient response if you explain why their argument is unwarranted [You can't just assert no warrant without a warrant]

I will have no idea what it means to "gut check" or "reject this arg because you as a judge intuitively know its false". Like do I, im confused.

Tricks

This is probably the type of debate I am the best at and read the most as a debater, but I really am starting to be annoyed by the state of tricks in 2020.

Good Tricks== Skep, Skep Triggers, Contingent Standards, Burdens, Clever and straight up Aprioris, Metaethics NIBS like Monism, ECT.

Bad Tricks== Really terrible theory spikes like "evaluate the debate after the 1nc", "no neg analytics", shit like the resolved apriori.

Please do weighing between aprioris/NIBS, absent this the round is hard to resolve

This being said I will still vote on bad tricks if they are technically won on the flow and it wont effect your speaks that much, I will just die a bit inside and have a lower threshold for responses.

Phil

This is my favorite type of debate, and the arguments I find the most interesting.

I think normativity is very important, you should be able to explain why your impacts are bad and we have an binding ethical obligation to refrain from allowing them to happen. I am very persuaded by the arg that absent a normative framework [Or explaining why normativity is bad] arguments have no impact.

Independent Framework Hijacks are very underutilized and strategic.

Frameworks should have an normative syllogism. I really dislike the current trend of reading 10 preclusionary util warrants without justifying the fundamental principle of the framework, and I will be receptive to arguments pointing out why this is illogical.

I will not vote on epistemic modesty absent people actually explaining to me how to "compare the probability of the framework times the magnitude of the impact under a framework". Like what does this mean, I have no idea how to evaluate the round under it. Also "maximizing expected moral value" is not a warrant.

Theory/T

I am fine with frivolous theory and enjoy good theory debates. I read a lot of shells which win off risk of offense on competing interps.

That being said the current trend of reading memey altruistic shells like shoes theory, must be from X state, must have school ID, ECT, is entirely unfunny and needs to die. This means: 1] If you actually go for something like this in the 2nr/2ar I will cap your speaks at a 28.5 2] Pretty much all the other debater needs to do to respond is just be like "me doing something marginally unhealthy for myself isnt a logical reason I should lose the round" and "your norm justifies an infinite race to the bottom for links of omission" and I will disregard it. Also idk why you would read shoes theory when you could just read a much better shell or something.

In general you should engage on the standards level and create unique offense against the shell. I am not a fan of the new norm of people just spamming a ton of paradigm issues.

True theory shells need to return with a vengeance. Seriously, if the aff reads like eval after the 1ac, or all neg interps are counter interps and No RVI, their is no reason why you should reading ASPEC when you have a violation that is literally impossible to respond too.

Reasonability is probably true and very underutilized. People should also go for drop the argument more.

I will vote on RVIs. Its probably easier to win an RVI on theory than T.

I will vote for or against Nebel T, but I tend to think that it is more true than false. I think the aff should go hard for pragmatics given that Nebel is just objectively right semantically.

If their are multiple shells in the debate, please do weighing between them.

LARP

I dont have most experience with this, but these arguments are pretty intuitive and can be fun when done well. I also wish I got to judged more of these debates because I enjoy them

Impact weighing is a must-- other wise the round is messy as fuck.

I think their can be close to 0 risk of an impact. This being said I tend to think high magnitude impacts are very strategic.

"The aff is a good idea" is not an argument.

Im probably one of the few judges on the circuit who leans aff on no neg fiat.

I think PICS that are structurally competitive with the aff are fine, but it will be very hard to persuade me that Agent/Delay/Process CPs are reasons to negate.

I also lean aff against advantage counterplans.

I love plan flaw.

I also like impact turns, including really stupid ones like wipeout.

Disads should have uniqueness. If you just read a link and impact in the 1nc, and then the 1ar makes a real uniqueness press, I will be extremely unpersuaded that you have the ability to read a bunch of new cards in the 2nr.

Case Outweighs is a great arg

Inherency/Uniqueness debates are cool

I think this is mentioned somewhere else in my paradigm but I find the planorama idea really funny and if you do it you will get good speaks.

RESPOND TO THE CASE. I really dislike larp 1ns that are just 8 off and then a dump of cards without making a single line by line argument in the speech. If you do this your speaks will be :(

Also a lot evidence sucks so clever analytics>>>>>terrible cards that are just empirical claims without empirical warrants highlighted to death.

Kritiks

I am probably a much better judge for this than you think since I became much more critical near the end of my career and 8 out of the last 13 2nrs I gave (TOC & Harvard) collapsed to the K.

I know a decent amount about PoMo K's (I have read primary source for Psycho, Baudy, Bataille, Nietzsche, Heidegger, Vattimo, ECT), but I dont really know anything about IDPOL args besides the ones that are super common on the circuit (Afropess, Queerpess, CripPess, Warren, Setcol).

Im fine with voting on K tricks like Floating PIKS, Root Cause, VTL, ECT but you should hint at them in the first speech.

I REALLY REALLY REALLY REALLY HATE BLIPPY INDEPENDENT VOTERS. I cannot emphasize this enough, if your strategy relies on labeling every marginally offensive 1 line argument as an reps voter against your opponent, you will not be happy with my rfd. I also find that most independent voters are not complete arguments given that they are almost never linked to a framing mechanism. I actually really like reps K's, but I think at a minimum they should 1] Have real evidence or a well fleshed out analytical warrant that isnt just a claim 2] Justify why they have a normative impact under a framework in the round, or arguments why intuitions are important and 3] Have an internal link why the action causes debate to become inaccessible, and why accessibility is a voting issue. Absent meeting this checklist, I think they are like reading theory shells without paradigm issues, and I feel comfortable disregarding them.

The alt should be competitive with the aff. If your K is just a random descriptive claim about the world and a solution without a reason the aff is bad, I will be extremely, receptive to the perm.

I dont think the term "role of the ballot" magically means you automatically win 100% preclusionary impact weighing, people need to win framing as a broader structural quesiton.

How to get high speaks:

[1] Read a Good Skep warrant/trigger that I havent seen before.

[2] Trigger and win on a contingent standard

[3] Do the planorama thing

[4] Go NC/AC

[5] Have the 1NC order be case

[6] Read either Heidegger, Nietzsche, Levinas, or Merlau-Ponty well.

[7] Read a K aff that proves the res true.

[8] Read a K that substantively negates as a NC. IE Blackness is ontological so we have no obligations because ethics is impossible.

[9] Read policy args proving the whole res true or false and just win util.

[10] Be funny

[11] Most obscure phil tbh

Updated 4/11/24 for Post-NDT

Hi everyone, I'm Holden (They/He)!

University of North Texas '23, and '25 (Go Mean Green!)

If you are a senior graduating this year, UNT has debate scholarships and a program with resources! If you are interested in looking into the team please contact me via my email listed below and we can talk about the program and what it can offer you! If you are committed to UNT, please conflict me!

I would appreciate it if you put me on the email chain: bukowskyhd@yahoo.com

For high school LD rounds, please also add jhsdebatedocs@gmail.com

Most of this can be applied to any debate event, but if there are event specific things then I will flag them, but they are mostly at the bottom.

The TLDR:

Debate is about you, not me. I think intervention is bad (until a certain point, those exceptions will be made obvious), and that letting the debaters handle my adjudication of the round as much as possible is best. I've been described as "grumpy," and described as an individual "that would vote on anything," I think both of these things are true in a vacuum and often translate in the way that I perceive arguments. However, my adherence to the flow often overrides my desire to frown and drop my head whilst hearing a terrible argument. In that train of thought, I try to be as close to a "no feelings flow bot" when adjudicating debates, which means go for whatever you want as long as it has a warrant and isn't something I flat out refuse to vote on (see rest of paradigm). I enjoy debates over substance surrounding the topic, it's simulated effects, it's adherence to philosophical principles, and it's critical assumptions, much more than hypertechnical theory debates that aren't based on things that the plan does. Bad arguments most certainly exist, and I greatly dislike them, but the onus is on debaters for disproving those bad arguments. I have voted for every type of argument under the sun at this point, and nothing you do will likely surprise me, but let me be clear when I encourage you to do what you interpret as necessary to win you the debate in terms of argumentive strategy.

I take the safety of the debaters in round very seriously. If there is ever an issue, and it seems like I am not noticing, please let me know in some manner (whether that be through a private email, a sign of some kind, etc.). I try to be as cognizant as possible of the things happening in round, but I am a human being and a terrible reader of facial expressions at that so there might be moments where I am not picking up on something. Misgendering is included in this, I take misgendering very seriously and have developed the following procedure for adjudicating cases where this does happen: you get one chance with your speaks being docked that one time, more than once and you have lost my ballot even if an argument has not been made related to this. I am extremely persuaded by misgendering bad shells. Respect people's pronouns and personhood.

Tech > Truth

Yes speed, yes clarity, yes spreading, will likely keep up but will clear you twice and then give up after that.

Debate influences/important coaches who I value immensely: Louie Petit and Colin Quinn.

Trigger warnings - they're good broadly, you should probably give individuals time to prepare themselves if you delve into discussions of graphic violence. For me, that includes in depth discussion of anxiety, depression, self-harm, and suicide.

I flow on my laptop, and consider myself a pretty good flow when people are clear, probably a 8.5-9/10. Just be clear, number your arguments, and slow down on analytics please.

Cheating, including evidence ethics and clipping, is bad. I have seen clipping become much more common and I will vote you down if I feel you have done so even without "recorded" evidence or a challenge from another debater.

For your pref sheets (policy):

Clash debates - 1

K v K debates - 1

Policy throwdowns - 1/2 (I can judge and am fairly confident in these debates but have less experience in this compared to others)

For your pref sheets (LD):

Clash debates of any kind (Policy v K, K aff v framework, phil v k, etc.) - 1

K - 1

Policy - 1

Phil - 1

T/Theoy - 1/2

Tricks - 4

Trad - 5/Strike

I'm serious about these rankings, I value execution over content and am comfortable judging any type of debate done well.

The Long Version:

Who the hell is this person, why did my coach/I pref them?

Hello! My name is Holden, I've been involved with debate for 8 years now. I am currently a communication studies graduate student at the University of North Texas, where I also got my bachelors in psychology and philosophy. During my time as a competitor, I did policy, LD, and NFA-LD. My exposure to the circuit really began my sophomore year of high school, but nothing of true note really occurred during my high school career. College had me qualify for the NFA-LD national tournament twice, I got to octas twice, broke at majors, got gavels, round robin invites. I now coach and judge exclusively, where I have coached teams that have qualified to the NDT, qualified to outrounds of just about every bid tournament, gotten several speaker awards, have accrued 30+ bids, and made it to elimination rounds and have been the top speaker of the TOC.

I judge a lot, and by that I mean a lot. Currently at 600+ debates judged since I graduated high school in 2020. I think this is because judging is a skill, and one that gets better the more you do it, and you get worse when you haven't done it in a while. I genuinely enjoy judging debates because of several reasons, whether that be my enjoyment of debate, the money, or because I enjoy the opportunity to help aid in the growth of debaters through feedback.

I do a lot of research, academically, debate wise, and for fun. Most of my research is in the kritikal side of things, mostly because I coach a bunch of K debaters. However, I often engage in policy research, and enjoy cutting those cards immensely. In addition, I have coached students who have gone for every argument type under the sun.

Please call me Holden, or judge (Holden is preferable, but if you vibe with judge then go for it). I hate anything more formal than that because it makes me uncomfortable (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.)

Conflicts: Jack C. Hays High School (my alma mater), and the University of North Texas. I currently consult for Westlake (TX), and Jordan (TX). Independently, I coach American Heritage Palm Beach CW, and Barrington AC.

Previously, I have been affiliated with Cypress Woods MM, and Eat Chapel Hill AX.

What does Holden think of debate?

It's a competitive game with pedagogical implications. I love debate immensely, and I take my role in it seriously. It is my job to evaluate arguments as presented, and intervene as little as possible. I'm not ideological on how I evaluate debates because I don't think it's my place to determine the validity of including arguments in debate (barring some exceptions). I think the previous sentence means that you should please do what you are most comfortable with to the best of your ability. There are only two concrete rules in debate - 1. there must be a winner and a loser, and those are deicded by me, and 2. speecj times are set in stone. Any preference that I have should not matter if you are doing your job, if I have to default to something then you did something incorrect.

To summarize the way that I think about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does it best, "I believe judgign debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, faor, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

I’ve been told I take a while to come to a decision. This is true, but not for the reason you might think. Normally, I know how I’m voting approximately 30 seconds to 1 minute after the debate. However, I like to be thorough and make sure that I give the debate the time and effort that it deserves, and as such try to have all of my thoughts together. Believe me, I consider myself somewhat comprehensible most times, I find it reassuring to myself to make sure that all my thoughts about the arguments in debate are in order. This is also why I tend to give longer decisions, because I think there are often questions about argument X on Y sheet which are easily resolved by having those addressed in the rfd. As such, I try to approach each decision from a technical standpoint and how each argument a. interacts with the rest of the debate, b. how large of an impact that argument has, c. think through any defense to that argument, and d. if that argument is the round winner or outweighs the offense of the opposing side.

What does Holden like?

I like good debates. If you execute your arguments in a technically impressive manner, I will be impressed.

I like debates that require little intervention, please make my job easier for me via judge instruction, I hate thinking.

I like well researched arguments with clear connections to the topic/the affirmative.

I like when email chains are sent out before the start time so that 1AC's can begin at start time, don't delay the round any more than it has to be please.

I like good case debating, this includes a deep love for impact turns.

I like it when people make themselves easy to flow, this includes labeling your arguments (whether giving your arguments names, or doing organizational strategies like "1, 2, 3" or "a point, b point, c point, etc."), I find it harder to vote for teams that make it difficult for me to know who is responding to what and what those responses are so making sure I can flow you is key.

I like debaters that collapse in final speeches, it gives room for analysis, explanation, and weighing which all make me very happy.

I like it when I am given a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can take place via a framing mechanism to help filter offense. This can takes place via a standard, role of the ballot/judge, framework, fairness v education, a meta-ethic, or anything, I don't care. I just need an evaluative lens to determine how to parse through impact calculus.

What does Holden dislike?

I dislike everything that is the opposite of the above.

I dislike when people make problematic arguments.

I dislike when debaters engage in exclusionary practices.

I dislike unclear spreading.

I dislike messy debates with no work done to resolve them.

I dislike when people say "my time will start in 3, 2, 1."

I dislike when people ask if they can take prep, it's your prep time, I don't care just tell me you're taking it.

I dislike when debaters are exclusionary to novice debaters. I define this as running completely overcomplicated strategies that are then deployed with little to no explanation. I am fine with "trial by fire" but think that you shouldn't throw them in the volcano. You know what this means. Not abiding by this will get your speaks tanked.

I dislike when evidence exchange takes too long, this includes when it takes forever for someone to press send on an email, when someone forgets to hit reply all (it's 2024 and y'all have been using technology for how long????). If you think email chains aren't vibe then please use a speechdrop to save all of us the headache.

I dislike topicality where the interpretation card is written by someone in debate, and not about the specific term of art in the topic.

I dislike 1AR restarts.

How has Holden voted?

Since I started judging in 2020, I have judged exactly 602 debate rounds. Of those, I have voted aff approximately 52.23% of the time.

My speaks for the 2023-2024 season have averaged to be around 28.588, and across all of the seasons I have judged they are at 28.525.

I have been a part of 188 panels, where I have sat approximately 12.77% of the time.

What will Holden never vote on?

Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater (shoes theory, formal clothing theory, etc.).

Arguments that say that oppression (in any form) is good.

Arguments that contradict what was said in CX.

Claims without warrants, these are not arguments.

Specific Arguments:

Policy Arguments

"Well, for starters, they kick ass." - Louie Petit

Contrary to my reputation, I love CP/DA debates and have an immense amount of experience on the policy side of the argumentative spectrum. I do good amounts of research on the policy side of topics often, and coach teams that go for these arguments predominantly. I love a good DA + case 2NR, and will reward well done executions of these strategies because I think they're great. One of my favorite 2NR's to give while I was debating was DA + circumvention, and I think that these debates are great and really reward good research quality.

Counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive with germane net benefits, I think that most counterplans probably lose to permutations that make arguments about these issues and I greatly enjoy competition debates. Limited intrinsic permutations are probably justified against counterplans that don't say a word about the topic.

I am amenable to all counterplans, and think they're theoretically legitimate (for the most part). I think that half the counterplans people read are not competitive though.

Impact turn debates are amazing, give me more of them please and thank you.

I reward well cut evidence, if you cite a card as part of your warrant for your argument and it's not very good/unwarranted then that minimizes your strength of link/size of impact to that argument. I do read evidence a lot in these debates because I think that often acts as a tie breaker between the spin of two debaters.

Judge instruction is essential to my ballot. Explain how I should frame a piece of evidence, what comes first and why, I think that telling me what to do and how to decipher the dozens of arguments in rounds makes your life and my job much easier and positively correlates to how much you will like my decision.

I enjoy well researched and topic specific process counterplans. They're great, especially when the evidence for them is topic specific and has a good solvency advocate.

I default no judge kick unless you make an argument for it.

Explain what the permutation looks like in the first responsive speech, just saying perm do both is a meaningless argument and I am not filling in the gaps for you.

For affs, I think that I prefer well developed and robust internal links into 2-3 impacts much more than the shot gun 7 impact strategy.

Explanation of how the DA turns case matters a lot to me, adjust your block/2NR accordingly.

K's

Say it with me everyone, Holden does not hack for the kritik. In fact, I've become much more grouchy about K debate lately. Aff's aren't defending anything, neg teams are shotgunning 2NR's without developing offense in comparison to the 1AR and the 2AR, and everyone is making me feel more and more tired. Call me old, but I think that K teams get too lost in the sauce, don't do enough argumentative interaction, and lose debates because they can't keep up technically. I think this is all magnified when the 2NR does not say a word about the aff at all.

This is where most of my research and judging is nowadays. I will be probably know what you're reading, have cut cards for whatever literature you are reading, and have a good amount of rounds judging and going for the K. I've been in debate for 8 years now, and have coached teams with a litany of literature interests, so feel free to read anything you want, just eb able to explain it.

Aff teams against the K should go for framework, extinction outweighs, and the alt fails more.

My ideal K 1NC will have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a link to the action of the aff), an alternative, and some kind of framing mechanism.

I have found that most 2NR's have trouble articulating what the alternative does, and how it interacts with the alts and the links. If you are unable to explain to me what the alternative does, your chance of getting my ballot goes down. Example from both sides of the debate help contextualize the offense y'all are going for in relation to the alternative, the links, and the permutation. Please explain the permutation in the first responsive speech.

I've found that most K teams are bad at debating the impact turn (heg/cap good), this is to say that I think that if you are against the K, I am very much willing to vote on the impact turn given that it is not morally repugnant (see above).

I appreciate innovation of K debate, if you introduce an interesting new argument instead of recyclying the same 1NC you've been running for several seasons. At least update your cards every one in a while.

Please do not run a K just because you think I'll like it, bad K debates have seen some of the worst speaks I've ever given (for example, if you're reading an argument related to Settler Colonialism yet can't answer the 6 moves to innocence).

K tricks are cool if they have a warrant, floating piks need to be hinted at in the 1NC so they can be floating.

For the nerds that wanna know, the literature bases that I know pretty well are: Marxism, Security, Reps K's, Afro-pessimism, Baudrillard, Beller, Deleuze and Guattari, Halberstam, Hardt and Negri, Weheliye, Grove, Psychoanalysis, Scranton/Eco-Pessimism, and Settler Colonialism.

The literature bases that I know somewhat/am reading up on are: Accelerationism (Fisher, CCRU people, etc.), Agamben, Abolition, Bataille, Cybernetics, Queer pessimism, Disability Literature, Moten and Harney, and Puar.

A note on non-black engagement with afro-pessimism: I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. Particular authors make particular claims about the adoption of afro-pessimist advocacy by non-black individuals, while other authors make different claims, be mindful of this when you are cutting your evidence/constructing your 1NC. While my thoughts on this are more neutral than they once were, that does not mean you can do whatever. If you are reading this K as a non-black person, this becomes the round. If you are disingenious to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I am. This is your first and last warning.

K-Aff's

These are fine, cool even. They should defend something, and that something should provide a solvency mechanism for their impact claims. Having your aff discuss the resolution makes your framework answers become much more persuasive, and makes me happier to vote for you, especially since I am becoming increasingly convinced that there should be some stasis for debate.

For those negating these affs, the case debate is the weakest part of the debate from both sides. I think if the negative develops a really good piece of offense by the end of the debate then everything else just becomes so much easier for you to win. I will, in fact, vote for heg good, cap good, and other impact turns, and quite enjoy judging these debates.

Presumption is underrated if people understand how to go for it, unfortunately most people just don't know how. Most aff's don't do anything or have a cogent explanation of what their aff does to solve things and their ballot key warrant is bad, you should probably utilize that.

Marxism will be forever underrated versus K affs, aff's whose only responses are "doesn't explain the aff" and "X explains capitalism" will almost always lose to a decent 2NR on the cap k. This is your suggestion to update your answers to challenge the alternative on some level.

Innovation is immensely appreciated by both sides of this debate. I swear I've judged the exact same 2-4 affs about twenty times each and the 1NC's just never change. If your take on a literature base or negative strategy is interesting, innovative, and is something I haven't heard this year you will most definitely get higher speaks.

Performance based arguments are good/acceptable, I have experience coaching and running these arguments myself. However, I find that most times when ran that the performance is not really extended into the speeches after this, obviously there are some limitations but I think that it does give me leeway for leveraging your inevitable application of the performance to other areas of the debate.

T-Framework/T-USFG

It may be my old age getting to me, but I am becoming increasingly convinced that fairness is a viable impact option for the 2NR to go for. I think it probably has important implications for the ballot in terms of framing the resolution of affirmative and negative impact arguments, and those framing questions are often mishandled by the affirmative. However, I think that to make me deploy this in debates negative teams need to avoid vacuous and cyclical lines of argumentation that often plague fairness 2NR's.

In my heart of hearts, I probably am aff leaning on this question, but my voting record has increasingly become negative leaning. I think this is because affirmatives have become quite bad at answering the negative arguments in a convincing, warranted, and strategic manner.

Framework isn't capital T true, but also isn't an automatic act of violence. I think I'm somewhat neutral on the question of how one should debate about the resolution, but I am of the belief that the resolution should at least center the debate in some way. What that means to you, though, is up to you.

Often, framework debates take place mostly at the impact level, with the internal link level to those impacts never being questioned. This is where I think both teams should take advantage of, and produces better debates about what debate should look like.

I have voted on straight up impact turns before, I've voted on counter-interps, and I've also voted on fairness as an impact. The onus is on the debaters to explain and flesh out their arguments in a manner that answers the 1AR/2NR. Reading off your blocks and not engaging specific warrants of DA's to your model often lead to me questioning what I'm voting for because there is no engagement in either side in the debate.

Counter-interpretations seem to be more persuasive to me, and are often underutilized. Counter-interpretations that have a decent explanation of what their model of debate looks like, and what debates under that model feature. Doing all of the above does wonder.

In terms of my thoughts about impacts to framework, my normal takes are clash > fairness > advocacy skills.

"Fairness is good because debate is a game and and we all have intrinsic motivation to compete" >>>> "fairness is an impact because it constrains your ability to evaluate your arguments so hack against them," if the latter is more in line with what your expalantion of fairness is then 9 times out of 10 you are going to lose.

Topicality (Theory is it's Own Monster)

I love T debates, they're absolutely some of my favorite rounds to adjudicate. They've certainly gotten stales and have devolved to some model of T subsets one way or another. However, I will still evaluate and vote on any topicality violation. Interps based on words/phrases of the resolution make me much happier than a lot of the LD "let's read this one card from a debate coach over and over and see where it gets us" approach.

Semantics and precision matter, this is not in a "bare plurals/grammar means it is read this" way but a "this is what this word means in the context of the topic" way.

My normal defaults:

- Competing interps

- Drop the debater

- No RVI's

Reasonability is about your counter-interp, not your aff. People need to relearn how to go for this because it's a lost art in the age of endless theory debates.

Arbitrary counter-interpretations that are not carded or based on evidence are given significantly less weight than counter-interps that define words in the. "Your interp plus my aff" is a bad argument, nad you are better served going for a more substantive argument.

Slow down a bit in these debates, I consider myself a decent flow but T is a monster in terms of the constant short arguments that arise in these debates so please give me typing time.

You should probably make a larger impact argument about why topicality matters "voters" if you will. Some standards are impacts on their own (precision mainly) but outside of that I have trouble understanding why limits explosion is bad sans some external argument about why making debate harder is bad.

Weigh internal links to similar pieces of offense, please and thank you.

Theory

I have judged numerous theory debates, more than the average judge for sure, and certainly more than I would care to admit. You'll most likely be fine in these debates in front of me, I ask that you don't blitz through analytics and would prefer you make good in-depth weighing arguments regarding your internal links to your offense. I find that a well-explained abuse story (whether that be potential or in-round) makes me conceptually more persuaded by your impact arguments.

Conditionality is good if you win that it is. i think conditionality is good as a general ideology, but your defense of it should be robust if you plan on abusing the usage of conditionality vehemently. I've noticed a trend among judges recently just blatantly refusing to vote on conditionality through some arbitrary threshold that they think is egrigious, or because they think conditionality is universally good. I am not one of those judges.If you wanna read 6 different counterplans, go ahead, but just dismissing theoretical arguments about conditionality like it's an afterthought will not garner you any sympathy from me. I evaluate conditionality the same no matter the type of event, but my threshold of annoyance for it being introduced varies by number of off and the event you are in. For example, I will be much less annoyed if condo is read in an LD round with 3+ conditional advocacies than I will be if condo is read in a college policy round with 1 conditional advocacy.

Sure, go for whatever shell you want, I'll flow it barring these exceptions:

- Shells abiut the appearance and clothing of anoher debater.

- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, please don't do this

- Reading "no i meets"

- Arguments that a debater may not be able to answer a new argument in the next speech (for example, if the 1AR concedes no new 2AR arguments, and the 2NR reads a new shell, I will always give the 2AR the ability to answer that new shell)

Independent Voters

These seem to be transforming into tricks honestly. I am unconvinced why these are reasons to reject the team most of the time. Words like "accessibility," "safety," and "violence" all have very precise definitions of what they mean in an academic and legal context and I think that they should not be thrown around with little to no care. Make them arguments/offense for you on the flow that they were on, not reasons to reject the team.

I will, however, abandon the flow and vote down that do engage in actively violent practices. I explained this above, but just be a decent human being. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc.

Evidence Ethics

I would much prefer these debates not occur. Nor would I really prefer to adjudicate a evidence rules issue as a theory shell. If you stake the round I will use the rules of the tournament or whatever organization it associates itself with. Debater that loses the challenge gets a 25, winner gets a 28.5.

For HS-LD:

Tricks

I have realized that I need more explanation when people are going for arguments based on getting into the weeds of logic (think the philosophy logic, IE if p, then q). I took logic but did not pay near enough attention nor care enough to have a deep understanding or desire to understand what you're talking about. This means slow down just a tiny bit and tone down the jargon so my head doesn't hurt as much.

My thoughts about tricks can be summarized as "God please do not if you don't have to, but if you aren't the one to initiate it you can go ham."

I can judge these debates, have judged numerous amounts of them in the past, and have coached/do coach debaters that have gone for these arguments, I would really just rather not deal with them. There's little to no innovation, and I am tired of the same arguments being recycled over and over again. If you throw random a prioris in the 1A/1N do not expect me to be very happy about the debate or your strategy. if I had to choose, carded and well developed tricks > "resolved means firmly determined and you know I am."

Slow down on the underviews, overviews, and impact calc sections of your framework (you know what I'm talking about), Yes I am flowing them but it doesn't help when you're blitzing through independent theory argumetns like they're card text. Going at like 70% of your normal speed in these situation is greatly appreciated.

Be straight up about the implication and warrant for tricks, if you're shifty about them in cross then I will be shifty about whether I feel like evaluating them or whether I'm tanking your speaks. This extends to disclosure practices, you know what this means.

Tricks versus identity-based kritikal affirmatives are bad and violent. Stop it.

Phil

I love phil debates. I coach plenty of debaters who go for phil arguments, and find that their interactions are really great. However, I find that debate has trended towards a shotgun approach to justifying X argument about how our mind works in favor of analytical syllogisms that are often spammy, underwarranted, and make little to no sense. I prefer carded syllogisms that identify a problem with ethics/metaphysics and explain how their framework resolves that via pieces of evidence.

The implication/impact of the parts of your syllogism should be clear from the speech they are introduced in, I dislike late breaking debates because you decided to hide what X argument meant in relation to the debate.

In phil v phil debates, there needs to be a larger emphasis on explanation between competing ethics. These debates are often extremely dense and messy, or extremely informational and engaging, and I would prefer that they be the latter rather than the formr. Explanation, clear engagement, and delineated weighing is how to get my ballot in these debates.

Hijacks are cool, but once again please explain because they're often just 10 seconds long with no actual warrants.

Slow down a bit as well, especially in rebuttals, these debates are often fast and blippy and I can only flow so fast

For those that are wondering, I'm pretty well read in most continental philosophy, social contract theorists, and most of the common names in debate. This includes the usual Kant, Hobbes, Pragmatism, Spinoza, and Deleuze as well as some pretty out of left field characters like Leibniz and Berkeley.

I have read some of the work regarding Rawls, Plato, Aquinas, Virtue Ethics, ILaw, Particularism, and Constitutitionality as well.

I know I have it listed as a phil literature base, but I conceptually have trouble with people reading Deleuze as an ethical framework, especially since the literature doesn't prescribe moral claims but is a question of metaphysics/politics, proceed with caution.

Defaults:

- Comparative worlds > truth testing

- Permissibility negates > affirms

- Presumption negates > affirms

- Epistemic confidence > modesty

Trad/Lay Debate

I mean, sure, why not. I can judge this, and debated on a rather traditional LD circuit in high school. However, I often find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. If you think that you can change my mind, please go ahead, but I think that given the people that pref me most of the time I think it's in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, for your sake and mine.

NFA-LD:

Everything above applies.

Don't think I'm a K hack. I know my background may suggest otherwise but ideologically I have a high threshold for execution and will punish you for it if you fail to meet it. Seriously, I've voted against kritikal arguments more than I've voted for them. If you are not comfortable going for the K then please do not unless you absolutely want to, please do not adapt to me. I promise I'll be so down for a good disad and case 2NR or something similar.

"It's against NFA-LD rules" is not an argument or impact claim and if it is then it's an internal link to fairness. Only rules violation I will not roll my eyes at are ethics challenges.

Yes non-T affs, yes t - framework, yes cap good.heg good, no to terrible theory arguments like "must delineate stock issues."

Speaks:

An addendum to how I dish out speaks , any additional speaker points you get via challenges cannot get you above a 29.7, the other .3 is something you have to work for.

For speaker points challenges, those that know them can utilize them, this will be edited after TFA.

I don't consider myself super stingey or a speaks fairy, though I think I've gotten stingier compared to the rest of the pool.

I don't evaluate "give me X amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad then perform well or use the methods I have outlined to boost your speaks.

Here's a general scale I use, it's adjusted to the tournament as best as possible -

29.5+ - Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament

29.1-29.4 - Great round, you should be in mid to late elims

28.6-29 - Good round, you should break or make the bubble at least

28.1-28.5 - About the middle of the pool

27.6-28 - You got some stuff to work on

27-27.5 - You got a lot of stuff to work on

Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it

Coach at Heights High School (TX)
Separately conflicted with: Archbishop Mitty SM, Carnegie Vanguard KF, Cypress Ranch KH, Langham Creek SB, Woodlands SP
Judging at TOC for: Heights EP, Heritage WT

Set up the email chain before the round starts and add me. The 1AC should be sent before the scheduled start time, and the 1AC should be ready to start their speech by the start time.

If I'm judging you in Policy: heightsdocs.policy@gmail.com
If I'm judging you in LD: heightsdocs.ld@gmail.com

I debated for Timothy Christian School in New Jersey for four years. I graduated from Rice University, am currently a teacher at Heights, and predominately coach policy and LD: my program competes through the Houston Urban Debate League and the Texas Forensic Association.

Pref Shortcuts

• Policy: 1
• T/Theory: 1-2
• Phil: 2
• Kritik (identity): 2
• Kritik (pomo): 3
• Tricks: Strike; I can and will cap your speaks at a 27, and if I'm on a panel I will be looking for a way to vote against you.

General

• Absent tricks or arguments that are morally objectionable, you should do what you are best at rather than over-adapting to my paradigm.
• Tech > Truth
• I will try to be tab and dislike intervening so please weigh arguments and compare evidence. It is in your advantage to write my ballot for me by explaining which layers come first and why you win those layers.
• I won't vote on anything that's not on my flow. I also won't vote on any arguments that I can't explain back to your opponent in the oral.
• Not the judge for cowardice. That includes but is not limited to questionable disclosure practices, taking prep to delete analytics, dodgy CX answers, and strategies rooted in argument avoidance.
• It is unlikely that I will vote on a blip in the 2NR/2AR, even if it is conceded. If you want an argument to be instrumental to my ballot, you should commit to it. Split 2NR/2ARs are generally bad. Although, hot take, in the right circumstances a 2NR split between 1:00 of case and the rest on T can be strategic.
• I presume neg; in the absence of offense in either direction, I am compelled by the Change Disad to the plan. However, presumption flips if the 2NR goes for a counter-advocacy that is a greater change from the status quo than the aff. It is unlikely, however, that I will try to justify a ballot in this way; I almost always err towards voting on risk of offense rather than presumption in the absence of presumption arguments made by debaters.
• If you want to ask your opponent what was or was not read, you need to take prep or CX time for it.
• I'm colorblind so speech docs that are highlighted in light blue/gray are difficult for me to read; yellow would be ideal because it's easiest for me to see. Also, if you're re-highlighting your opponent's evidence and the two colors are in the same area of the color wheel, I probably won't be able to differentiate between them. Don't read a shell on your opponent if they don't follow these instructions though - it's not that serious.
• You don't get to insert rehighlighting (or anything else, really); if you want me to evaluate it, you have to read it. Obviously doesn't apply to inserts of case cards that were already read in the 1AC for context on an off-case flow.
• Not fond of embedded clash; it's a recipe for judge intervention. I'll flow overviews and you should read them when you're extending a position, but long (0:30+) overviews that trade-off against substantive line-by-line work increase the probability that I'll either forget about an argument or misunderstand its implication.

Policy

• Given that I predominately coach policy debate, I am probably most comfortable adjudicating these rounds, but this is your space so you should make the arguments that you want to make in the style that you prefer.
• You should be cutting updates and the more specific the counterplan and the links on the disad the happier I'll be. The size/probability of the impact is a function of the strength/specificity of the link.
• Terminal defense is possible and more common than people seem to think.
• I think impact turns (dedev, cap good/bad, heg good/bad, wipeout, etc.) are underutilized and can make for interesting strategies.
• If a conditional advocacy makes it into the 2NR and you want me to kick it, you have to tell me. Also, I will not judge kick unless the negative wins an argument for why I should, and it will not be difficult for the affirmative to convince me otherwise.

Theory

• I default to competing interpretations.
• I default to no RVIs.
• You need to give me an impact/ballot story when you read a procedural, and the blippier/less-developed the argument is, the higher my threshold is for fleshing this out. Labeling something an "independent voter" or "is a voting issue" is rarely sufficient. These arguments generally implicate into an unjustified, background framework and don't operate at a higher layer absent an explicit warrant explaining why. You still have to answer these arguments if your opponent reads them - it's just that my threshold for voting for underdeveloped independent voters is higher.
• Because I am not a particularly good flower, theory rounds in my experience are challenging to follow because of the quantity of blippy analytical arguments. Please slow down for these debates, clearly label the shell, and number the arguments.
• Disclosure is good. I am largely unimpressed with counterinterpretations positing that some subset of debaters does not have to disclose, with the exception of novices or someone who is genuinely unaware of the wiki.
• "If you read theory against someone who is obviously a novice or a traditional debater who doesn't know how to answer it, I will not evaluate it under competing interps."
• I will not evaluate the debate after any speech that is not the 2AR.

Kritiks

• I have a solid conceptual understanding of kritks, given that I teach the structure and introductory literature to novices every year, but don't presume that I'll recognize the vocabulary from your specific literature base. I am not especially well-read in kritikal literature.
• Pretty good for policy v k debates, or phil v k. Less good for k v k debates.
• I appreciate kritikal debates which are heavy on case-specific link analysis paired with a comprehensive explanation of the alternative.
• I don't judge a terribly large number of k-aff v fw debates, but I've also coached both non-T performative and pure policy teams and so do not have strong ideological leanings here. Pretty middle of the road and could go either way depending on technical execution.

Philosphical Frameworks

• I believe that impacts are relevant insofar as they implicate to a framework, preferably one which is syllogistically warranted. My typical decision calculus, then, goes through the steps of a. determining which layer is the highest/most significant, b. identifying the framework through which offense is funneled through on that layer, and c. adjudicating the pieces of legitimate offense to that framework.
• You should assume if you're reading a philosophically dense position that I do not have a deep familiarity with your literature base; as such, you should probably moderate your speed and over-explain rather than under.
• I default to epistemic confidence.
• Better than many policy judges for phil strategies; I have no especial attachment to consequentialism, given that you are doing technical work on the line-by-line.

Speed

• Speed is generally fine, so long as its clear. I'd place my threshold for speed at a 9 out of 10 where a 10 is the fastest debater on the circuit, although that varies (+/- 1) depending on the type of argument being read.
• Slow down for and enunciate short analytics, taglines, and card authors; it would be especially helpful if you say "and" or "next" as you switch from one card to the next. I am not a particularly good flower so take that into account if you're reading a lot of analytical arguments. If you're reading at top-speed through a dump of blippy uncarded arguments I'll likely miss some. I won't backflow for you, so spread through blips on different flows without pausing at your own risk.
• If you push me after the RFD with "but how did you evaluate THIS analytic embedded in my 10-point dump?" I have no problem telling you that I a. forgot about it, b. missed it, or c. didn't have enough of an implication flowed/understood to draw lines to other flows for you.

Speaker Points

• A 28.5 or above means I think you're good enough to clear. I generally won't give below a 27; lower means I think you did something offensive, although depending on my general level of annoyance, it's possible I'll go under if the round is so bad it makes me want to go home.
• I award speaks based on quality of argumentation and strategic decision-making.
• I don't disclose speaks.
• I give out approximately one 30 a season, so it's probably not going to be you. If you're looking for a speaks fairy, pref someone else. Here are a few ways to get higher speaks in front of me, however:
• I routinely make mental predictions during prep time about what the optimal 2NR/2AR is. Give a different version of the speech than my prediction and convince me that my original projection was strategically inferior. Or, seamlessly execute on my prediction.
• Read a case-specific CP/Disad/PIC that I haven't seen before.
• Teach me something new that doesn't make me want to go home.
• Be kind to an opponent that you are more experienced than.
• If you have a speech impediment, please feel free to tell me. I debated with a lisp and am very sympathetic to debaters who have challenges with clarity. In this context, I will do my best to avoid awarding speaks on the basis of clarity.
• As a teacher and coach, I am committed to the value of debate as an educational activity. Please don't be rude, particularly if you're clearly better than your opponent. I won't hack against you if you go 5-off against someone you're substantively better than, but I don't have any objections to tanking your speaks if you intentionally exclude your opponent in this way.

Email: vail.c.7777@gmail.com

Hey, I'm Vail. I debated for Strake Jesuit and graduated in 2022. I qualified to the TOC twice. I primarily read Kantian philosophy and theory. 

I will vote on anything that has a claim warrant and impact. I'm bad at flowing.

1 - Theory/T

1/2 - Phil/Tricks

3/4 - Larp/K

Theory: Probably what I'm best at judging. I default competing interps, drop the debater, and no RVI. I don't care how frivolous your shell is. 

Phil: I only really read Kant and its variations and GCB. I think I'm familiar with pragmatism, hobbes, contracts, and kind of Levinas. Over explaining always helps. TJFs are strategic. So is permissibility and presumption. I think religious philosophy is really cool. 

Larp: I only did it when I had to. Weighing is good. Assume I know nothing about the topic or any current events though. 

Kritiks: I only read semiocap and queer pessimism. I think I have an okay understanding of afro pessimism, psychoanalysis, disability pessimism, settler colonialism, and deleuze. I think K tricks are strategic. 

Tricks: I'm bad at flowing. Too many can be a hassle. When done correctly they are strategic.

tl;dr eh i’m tired and rusty

bc montgomery blair pz is a cheater here's my full paradigm

For Spring Break Special:

1. I have not judged in a while. I will most likely be able to keep up, but I may clear you.

2. I am apathetic what type of arguments you read, but I still deeply care about how you read the arguments you present. That means you can still read warming good, the Psychoanalysis K, three T shells etc, but you must explain and weigh those arguments.

bencortez92@gmail.com

Full judging record available here (Speaks + RFD)

Bio: Parli at UChicago. LD at Loyola '21. TOC (x2)

Top level: Tech > Truth. Strategic decision making > Pandering to me. Good tech will override any preference I have below. I'll only intervene if there are arguments of equal strength without weighing claims to resolve them. In these situations, I look to evidence first, then truth.

Misc: Sometimes emotive; always flowing (but not off the doc). Not a fan of one-line cheap shots. You have my consent to record, but ask others. I don't keep time. 100% fine with post-rounding (time permitting). Will only evaluate warrants highlighted.

Banned arguments: Death good, oppression good, and out of round things (besides disclosure)

Argument history: Affs defended a plan and mostly big impacts. Negs were almost strictly policy: sometimes 6+ off, sometimes 6 minutes of impact turns, but usually something in between. K when policy ground was scarce. Sometimes read wacky things like Trump good, consult UN, and riders.

DA: Terminal impact calc >> strength of link barring instruction. Topic disads are good. Politics and riders are fine, but I understand intrinsicness (Read This). Uniqueness puts the straight turn in a much better place. Zero risk on ridiculousness like 2014 midterms. I like it better when turns case is earlier. New 2AR and 2NR weighing always.

CP: Fine for anything with a net benefit. Competition and solvency are neg burdens. Lean neg on most theory. Lean aff on most competition (Read This). Judge kick requires instruction.

Case: Case debate, impact turns, presumption, analytics, and/or re-highlighting are appreciated. Read re-highlight for offense. Insert for defense. No preference between soft left and big stick.

T: Slightly lean against bare plural arguments for clash/predictability reasons. One aff a topic is a terrible model. Model/vision of the topic is more persuasive than "9 factorial affs" in a vacuum. A staunch believer that the neg needs definitions otherwise we get infinite T debates.

Theory: Save for literal double turns or technical drops from shells, not good for the condo 2AR. Easier to convince me the abuse is unreasonable rather than to use competing interpretations.

K: Better for teams that utilize K tricks than those that wax poetically about society. Read cap, security, complexity, abolition, and anti/post-humanism during my career. Roughly familiar with other meta lit and their answers. Imo neg needs either solves/turns case, framework, unsustainability/inevitability, or a robust external extinction impact to win. I'll probably vote aff on case o/w otherwise.

K affs: Skeptical about framework's ability to cause either genocide or grassroots movements. Affirmatives need a counter interpretation/model of debate. Negatives need to answer case. Affs gets perms.

LD specifics

Phil: Will evaluate fairly, but more experienced with the util side. Epistemic modesty makes sense.

Other Things: K Framework needs to be in the 1NC. Paragraph theory with education and fairness assumed is fine. Unqualified to judge (but will begrudgingly evaluate) tricks and frivolous theory.

Speaker points: Will not punish for humor, sarcasm, or minor cursing. Will disclose points if you ask. 28.8-7 breaking. Current [28.75] average.

Yes email chain

zacjudges@gmail.com

1/21/2023 Update:

TLDR: I’m a circuit flow judge who qualified to TOC twice as a debater, and has since coached 10+ debaters to the TOC reading LARP, Ks, Phil, and Theory. You can read pretty much anything in front of me, I care more about you doing it well then trying to appeal to my opinions. If you want to learn my opinions to see how I will err in close debates read on:

My paradigm is long but perpetually a work in progress, email me if you have any paradigm questions or better ask before round.

Despite my technical background, I wouldn’t assume I have topic knowledge on any particular topic, particularly policy acronyms, nor what affs are common/topical. So appeals to intuition like this aff is obviously reasonable are ineffective.

Also you should use your full speech times in 99.9% of rounds.

Paradigm from 2020:

I have lots of thoughts. I bolded the things that will mostly matter when prefing or judging LD, the rest only applies to 1-0.1% of rounds I judge. In most rounds I will have an easy ballot on the technical level, these opinions only come in when I am forced to resolve two competing truths that are relatively equal on the tech, they can all be overcome by giving better speeches. (The exception is in-round violence)

Why did I put them in then?

One of the most frustrating things to me as a debater was judges telling me per opinions on arguments in the rfd that could have been in the paradigm, if I judge you and you think I should add something from my rfd to my paradigm please tell me. This way we can avoid people losing on affs because I just don’t feel the aff’s don’t clear the presumption burden even though the aff did great debating etc.

How much I like the args/how much in favor of you I would unconsciously err in close debates probably

0- 0 off, the order is case.

1 – Good Ks, Good/Topic specific Phil, Great theory

2- Good Theory args (condo good/bad, pics good/bad), Good unique LARP (new politics scenario), Good unique tricks (I found Alphabet spec funny the first time I saw it, I didn't the fifth time. Be creative) , Generic Ks (cap k with generic links)

3- Tricky Phil, (your tricky northeast Kant frameworks from 7 years ago), Bad Larp

4- Bad Theory (shoes theory)

5- Bad Tricks (resolved apriori)

Biggest Influences in Debate:

SunHee Simon

Lila Lavender

Jessica Jung

I attended both Victory Briefs Institute and RKS at Wake Forest, and both shaped my perspective and education in debate.

Background:

CMC 2024, yes I’m a first year out, but I coached and judged a lot in high school and worked with camps such as interning at the Victory Briefs Institute. I would not recommend ordinal 1ing me even if you agree with my views, since I’m still learning.

My name is Zachary Davis. I did Circuit LD for 3 years and qualified to the Junior and Senior Year Tocs, with an even 3-3 record junior year, and Coronavirus ending TOC senior year (2020 generation). Before LD I did both Public Forum and Parli for two years. I also dipped into policy occasionally mostly in my freshmen and senior years. I’m choosing to coach rather than debate in college.

I mostly read Ks, but went for theory and larp positions as well. My ideal neg strats were one off k or nc, 2 off k + t, and 5 off k, t, theory, cp, da.

I’m a technical debater/judge, in most cases I’d rather judge a theory debate than a traditional debate. Despite this, many debaters don’t realize how incoherent pers are too spectators, so err on the side of overexplanation, especially in the 2nr and 2ar, if there’s no warrant I won’t vote on it. Concessions mean I evaluate warrants/arguments as true, but if there is no warrant, than there is functionally nothing to vote on and nothing conceded.

Despite this I think the broader community trend to emphasize an ideal position as a tabula rasa judge is both an impossible goal and a false ideal.

What do I mean by this? 1. It’s impossible for judges to leave past experience and argument biases at the door. 2. Tech matters but truth does too, just because I agree technical debate is important, I disagree with only tech mattering which incentivizes debaters to read blatantly false arguments that have good time trade-offs ranging from spikes to incorrect das, because pointing out the fallacies takes longer than reading. 3. However I do think the judge should attempt to leave all past opinions surrounding the topic at the door i.e. even if I think nuclear arsenals are really bad, I shouldn’t let that convince me to vote aff if the debate becomes a stalemate.

Why do I, the debater, care? It’s likely that this won’t impact 99% of rounds I judge since I will usually act as a tech based tab judge, and I won’t actively intervene i.e. reading articles of the cards you read, unless asked too. However this means I am more persuaded that the reading of false arguments doesn’t just mean those argument are wrong and go away, but can be won as a drop the debater voting issue. I won’t intervene and make those arguments voting issues though, and I think there are degrees of wrongness.

Personal Requests/Accessibility:

1. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round.

2. I strongly believe in trigger/content warnings, if you think there’s a chance your arguments would benefit from them, read them before your first speech, or the speech in which the content begins. Be prepared to read different args.

3. Do not misgender your opponents or judges, intentional or otherwise. I would generally recommend defaulting to "per" if you do not know someone's pronouns and to use "my opponent" “aff/neg” “person” etc. They/them isn’t gender neutral. I don’t want to debate or explain pronouns in this space either, post-rounding me on this issue specifically is unwise. I’ll publish a follow up at some point that you can check for my reasons.

4. Debate however makes you the most comfortable. I have zero preferences whether you sit or stand etc. I don’t care whether you ware shoes etc. My only clothes opinion is that schools should not force debaters to wear formal clothes. I don’t care what individual debaters choose to wear, and think policing debaters presentations is bad and as such want to work against schools doing so. I’m conflicted about punishing individual debaters because it’s not the fault of the debaters because of the school policy (so I’m not the judge for reading friv formal clothes theory against trad debaters), but I hope I along with other judges (such as Alan Fishman) help shift schools to change this opinion.

5. Don’t read identity positions if you aren’t of that identity. I will easily vote on arguments such as non-black debaters should not read afro-pessimism.

General Thoughts:

Usual Evaluation Flow chart looks like this:

1- Figure out the winning framing, use that framing to isolate which impacts matter.

2- Look through independent voters/arguments that attempt to uplayer the framing

3- Find Offense with warrants/full articulated arguments under the framing

4- (Take into account turns to see which way the offense flows)

5- Weighing between arguments, conceded arguments have full weight and often therefore outweigh, weighing arguments defense etc come in here.

6- If I can’t evaluate the debate on the above both debaters messed up and I start to account for implicit clash followed by my preferences/background understanding to fill in the gaps.

Do what you are good at, I’ll adapt to you, more than you should need to adapt to me.

I value framing more than average judge.

In round articulation is important, I’m going to evaluate your evidence how you explain it to me, if you explain it poorly I won’t grant you additional implications that weren’t made explicitly. Similarly don’t attempt to morph implications that weren’t there, every conceded argument in the 1ar is not a potential drop the debater 2ar (unless set up in the 1ar), so if you want me to vote on the 7. On the k it should have an implication in the 1ar.

I won’t vote on new offense in the 2ar and have a low threshold for 2ar responses to new 2nr offense absent circumstances in which I feel I must intervene i.e. slurs.

Risk of Offense>presumption, if your last speech only has defense you will probably lose the round. I will only vote on presumption if it is a major strategy, there is no offense in the round, or the round is a mess/I have no idea what’s going on anymore.

Cards vs Analytics, I value analytics and low author qualification evidence higher than average. I think unless your argument needs scientific evidence, or polling data etc. i.e. whether nuclear winter would cause extinction or whether Trump is predicted to win the 2020 election, it can be analytic. I don’t inherently value cards more than analytics in the way many judges view author qualifications meaning their opinions are somehow more legitimate. You don’t need to find cards to say every thing you want to say, you just need a warranted argument. In most cases analytic = card.

Offense>Defense, but defense matters it helps the weighing debate.

I default Epistemic confidence (aka I only evaluate impacts through the winning framework, not a mix of frameworks) , I have not heard a brightline that makes sense or a way too evaluate epistemic modesty that’s not just use my framework even if I lose, usually I think you would be better off spending your time winning framing or making arguments as to why your offense links under the opponent’s framework than going for epistemic modesty, but hey if you win a good brightline that makes sense I’ll use it.

Applying framing when responding or going for high layer issues i.e. ks, theory, and independent voters is good and makes decisions cleaner.

Weighing is great especially when it goes beyond impacts. Weigh between links and internal links, do evidence analysis and comparison, weigh between layers etc. Weighing clash is often what separates good debaters from great debaters.

People’s understanding of fiat is bad this article explains many of my thoughts https://www.vbriefly.com/2019/12/28/two-dogmas-of-fiat-by-jacob-nails/

Case:

Case first because case on top, and I value case more than average. Against an aff with 2 advantages, if the 1ar concedes two carded case turns one for each advantage, and the 2nr does a good job extending and warranting both of them, absent a higher layer I will be voting neg. The aff must win more offense on case then the neg, otherwise I have an easy neg ballot on case.

Specific case is always better.

Pick and choose what to contest well.

Terminal defense is a thing, but risk of offense is compelling when I don’t know the brightline.

Theory:

Default reasonability, but I prefer Competiting interps, I only default reasonability because debaters who don’t establish paradigm issues usually aren’t reading reasonable interpretations, or generate offense. If you want to win reasonability>competing interps you need a brightline.

Default Drop the argument>Drop the debater

RVIs are winnable but default no RVIs, I never went for RVIs as a debater and ld is getting more and more influence from policy so these seem to be on the outs, but 1AR is short and probably deserves a tool to beat back neg friv theory, if you’re going for this in the 2AR/2NR I think it’s strategic too commit hard and not just throw one in for 10 seconds.

I don’t evaluate intent that can’t be proven one way or another. I default that debaters intend to have good-will and be educational unless proven otherwise.

Paragraph theory – you can do it, it’s not an excuse to not have paradigm issues, I think having an explicit interp can be good for more complicated theory, but like condo bad is condo bad. I also only really think it makes sense in the 1AR, I think 1nc or 2nr should probably use shells, but do what you want.

Collapsing too one standard can sometimes moot most other responses on the theory flow, but sometimes it can’t, especially when debaters read two standards that relie on the same warranting i.e. if we have a condo bad shell with clash and time skew, clash relies on the assumption of time skew that the aff could not have engaged sufficiently in the neg positions, going for clash and assuming responses to time skew don’t apply can be dangerous. Generally I think if you are going for theory pay attention to every response on the flow, because conceding a one line response can often be damning in these debates.

I think condo’s bad I’m probably 60-40 aff on this debate, but also think condo bad theory time skews the neg. I also think both sides of this debate would benefit from innovation.

T

Default Drop the debater, all other defaults same as theory.

I think some larp affs are more non-t than many k-affs

I find the Limits concerns of Nebel T compelling (like 70-30 neg) and the semantics also flow neg but I don’t value semantics highly.

Tricks:

I don’t want to incentivize debaters learning how to beat back tricks, I don’t think it’s an educational skill

Neg kritiks:

I probably know your literature but explain it to me like I don’t, you can use jargon to refer to concepts that would take hours to explain, but do so at your own risk I recommend being able to win any round without relying on them.

Not a fan of root cause at the impact level, sequencing and prior question type arguments can be compelling when well warranted.

Links of omission can be links, they are the worst type of links but I’ll vote on them, especially if I have a good card or reason why these things are specifically omitted from discussions.

Specific links are good, but having a solid generic link with specific analysis is underrated.

Severence bad is a good arg, I’ll vote on it.

Aff vs the K

Default perms are tests of competition not advocacies, can be persuaded otherwise.

Please give a perm text

Put offense on the k and respond to framing and the k tricks.

K Affs:

Do whatever you want, reject the res or debate if you want or don’t. I mainly defended my affs as whole res general principle, and think those are the most topical versions of these affs.

T-fw vs K affs

Phil:

CPs:

Need a text

Not a fan of pics and word pics, but obviously will vote on them.

Trad Debate and Debating vs Trad Debaters:

Trad debate and trad debaters are repeatedly disrespected by circuit debate elitism. Don’t be an elitist prick, most everyone starts out as a trad debater, those who don’t are lucky enough to be exposed via an older sibling or teammate. Circuit debaters should be open and encouraging to trad debaters at circuit tournaments, especially relating to issues like disclosure.

For trad debaters if you pull up to an octos bid in varsity, I expect you to be able to beat opponents who can spread, I will not force circuit debaters to trad debate trad debaters, because that denies the hundreds of hours those debaters spend to develop circuit skills. That’s not to say trad debaters just should take the L, I think trad debaters can win these debates by focusing on their arguments and doing good comparative analysis and making intuitive responses. One of the best substantive debates I had on my Da Bomb psychoanalysis aff was against a traditional debater at Berkeley who made great intuitive analytic responses which were difficult to deal with.

Speaks

In my own career and as a judge I highly value pushing new arguments, types of debate, and reorienting both the form and content of debate, and reward clever innovative argumentation with higher speaks. This is usually done by performance and kritikal debaters, but this can be new da tricks with politics, or creating new voters on theory shells etc. At the same time, don’t expect me to vote on it because it’s new, please tell me how to evaluate it.

Collapse the debate to 2 flows max, when crossapplying tell me from what flow you are taking the arg and slow down if you want me to catch it well.

Make the most strategic choices, missed opportunities will be punished less than strategic mistakes, but please don’t read shoes theory when the neg is defending condo advocacies, pick better strategies.

Flashing analytics

Number analytics and name your arguments (i.e. analytic Das)

Having fun and making debate fun for your opponent

Being Funny

Having the email chain ready to go when you enter the round

Lying and rude behavior will reduce your speaks.

Being sketch in cx is a cx strategy, but fumbling or avoiding questions results in worse speaks, good answers increases speaks.

If you are unclear I’ll yell clear twice (maybe more if I’m feeling generous) and then stop flowing if you don’t get clear/slow down. Your speaks won’t be docked initially, they will be docked based on your response. There are degrees to being unclear, some will just result in lower speaks.

More random thoughts

I’m more down with shadow extensions than most, I’m not gonna treat them like full arguments but like if your opponent concedes 3 das that should count for something and you should still collapse to one. You can shadow extend to basically get the offense from the previous speech, I’d vote on it before presumption but it likely won’t factor into my decision.

Personal beef between debaters is better solved out of round, and uncomfortable too evaluate, that being said I’ve been in and seen other debaters in powerless positions regarding top down support and needed to take charge through per’s only medium – debate. As such if there are screenshots etc. of an opponents harassment I’ll drop them and attempt to resolve the matter according to the wishes of the one who experienced the violence i.e. whether that involves a conversation between the two debaters, or me lecturing the debater etc. The Debate community needs to stop ignoring this stuff otherwise it spirals out of control out of sight.

Flex prep is okay, you can ask questions during your prep time, you can also use your cx time for prep but your speaks will probably take a hit.

For Policy

TLDR: paradigm is mostly the same as LD, but I have explicitly judged, coached, and debated policy, and am aware of the differences, do what you want.

I know you're probably bummed you got an ld judge in the back, but it's not all bad, I unfortunately barely competed in policy at my school because I was the only one interested (therefore I initially did Lincoln Douglas because of the lack of the partner). However I was somewhat involved in the policy debate scene, and most notably attended RKS the Wake Forest Policy Camp and got to quarterfinals at the camp tournament there. Overall I'm going to evaluate these debates as close to policy as I can, but obviously I have some ld influences. You'll find I'm less open to frivilous theory than you may expect and some ld judges are, but have a lower bar for theory then you are probably used too. In general I probably have lower thresholds for warranting than most policy judges, although due to time I expect arguments to be better fleshed out in policy than in ld. Also you can still read traditional philosophy if you want too in front of me like Kant, but I doubt many policy teams will want to have those rounds.

For Public Forum

I'll evaluate these debates using my background, feel free to run progressive arguments in front of me, just don't spread against debaters who can't or try to actively make debate inaccessible. I did Public Forum for my first 2 years so I feel comfortable evaluating the more stock debates as well. Don't start a shouting match in cx or repeatedly cut off womxn.

Debated at Charlotte Catholic in LD and a semester of policy at Georgetown (2N).

Conflicts: Charlotte Catholic (alum), Ardrey Kell GS and SR (coached 20-21), Debate Drills (produced files 21-22)

Email chain me, please: 20dedwards02@gmail.com

Not judged/debated super recently, plus online debate, so please go slightly slower—like 10%. I’m also probably flowing on paper, so time to switch sheets (a second or two) is nice. Record speeches in case you drop the call. Asking what was read is prep. If more than a card or two are marked, send out a doc so we’re all on the same page.

I’d like to think I’m fairly agnostic about content so long as you read good, qualified evidence, make smart and reasoned arguments, and demonstrate that you care. I’m open to criticisms of what I might consider “qualified evidence” but would generally like to hear someone cited other than yourself. I have more experience in policy style debates than anything else, but I enjoy everything and you're always better off reading what you like than over adapting. I also read more critical stuff for my college classes (although I’m by no means “well read”). I default to kicking the counterplan for the neg. For LD: "If you'd enthusiastically describe your strategy as 'trolling,' don't take me." — Ishan. A well developed, philosophically grounded NIB or something can be fine but analytic word-vomit is not.

How to win: make comparative arguments, collapse, do line-by-line, clearly signpost, and actually respond to the other team’s argument rather than debating past it.

Hard no’s: being a bad person, cheating, death/oppression good, “inserting” evidence/arguments.

I’ll probably read evidence after the debate—if it’s really good I’ll raise speaks, if it’s egregiously bad your argument may lose weight. Highlighting coherent sentences is greatly preferred to 12 straight buzzwords without articles or verbs.

email: faindebate@gmail.com

‘24 State Update:

Speed < Clarity - I’ve lost hearing in my left ear so make my life easier by sending clear speech docs for every speech (don’t just arbitrarily decide to not send A2 docs you’ve compiled mid round).

Read whatever you want. I prefer theory over most args. I am not as involved with debate as I used to be so changes in meta or wording are going to go over my head.

I prefer theory to most args andgood clash makes my life easier. I am a firm believer that it is the debater’s responsibility to be both clear from a speaking perspective but also clear in what their arguments mean. Done are the days where I do the work for you and sweat over if my scim reading important philosophical texts is enough to understand complex concepts. Any phil based argument should be explained so that someone new to debate understands what it means.

Specific questions about how I judge should be asked before the round.

My threshold for voting on hidden tricks is really high now. Almost to the point where you’d have to spend 50% > in a speech collapsing to it.

I don’t disclose. I’ll write individual feedback and my email is posted if you have questions.

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

Final update - April 2024

Docs: speechdrop.net

Directing the DebateDrills Club Team for 2023-25 - here are incident reporting forms, roster, and MPJ/ conflict info.

Enloe HS '20 + UPenn '24. 2x LD TOC qual (cleared junior year/ skipped senior year) + 13 bids. I primarily read policy args + T/theory. I am fairly familiar with but do not particularly care for philosophy, tricks, or the K; however, I will not insert my preferences absent a poorly resolved debate - read what you feel comfortable with.

Debating

Debate is a competitive game that imparts useful life skills, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, speaks are my choice and not yours

Speaks boost for taking less prep and sitting down early if you've clearly won

You should disclose properly, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to "make changes" to the aff

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the badness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-loss given severity)

---Death/ suffering good (spark/ wipeout type stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ location/ etc (except disclosure screenshots)

---Arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

---Independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Defaults: fairness and education are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption, OCIs incoherent, perm theory is drop the arg

Tell me to read ev if you want me to

Judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context, and explain any insertions

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Consequences probably matter but perhaps you can convince me otherwise

Tricks tend not to have warrants in the speech they're introduced or in the speech they're extended in

Ks need to prove that the aff is a bad idea, affs probably get to weigh case and extinction probably outweighs

I seem to vote for Ks far more vs phil affs than vs policy affs

K affs need to do something but usually do not

I do not want to adjudicate personal survival strategies or callouts

T framework - fairness and clash/ research > skills/ movements

Things I shouldn’t have to say

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---Delineate and explain arguments and their implications throughout the debate

Cheating

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping 3+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article within the start/end of the card

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

In summary- I want to see the argument that you are best/most passionate about and hopefully learn something from your round.

I think debate is a communication activity. Your job as a debater is to convince and persuade your judge; having ethos and letting me know what to emphasize will carry you a long way with speaks and getting my ballot easier.

I feel that debaters never dive deep enough into the core topic literature. If you read a stock ac and nc and really know the topic literature and are able to effectively utilize empirical studies to out debate your opponent by straight up knowing the topic better than they do I will give you a 30.

Email: aditya.iyer1001@gmail.com

Intro

Hello. My name is Aditya and I debated for Village High School for 4 Years. I'll preface this paradigm by saying I am willing to vote on functionally anything ranging from tricks to non-t Affs to policy arguments. I've engaged in a lot of different styles of debate so I don't really care what you do. In other words read whatever. I don't have any argumentative preferences and if you weigh/make smart arguments you will probably get the result you want. If an argument is conceded my threshold for extending it is p low.

IMPORTANT READ

1] Although I'm mostly agnostic about content, I won't vote on Ad Homs like X person is bad outside of debate.

2] Also don't impact turn oppression

Speed

Speed is fine. A little slower on analytics would be appreciated.

Policy Debates (Plans, CP's, DA's)

1] These can be fun to judge at a high level. I'd appreciate explicit impact weighing and evidence comparison

2] You should have a pretty clear explanation of your advantage/DA scenario i.e. what unique internal links trigger the impacts, what's the brink, etc.

3] I don't cut very much LARP prep so err away from topic jargon but usually this isn't a problem.

Policy v K debates

1] Been on both sides of these so I don't really lean to a particular side. I default to the aff not getting to weigh the case vs the K but that can be changed w arguments.

2] Generic links are kinda annoying to judge but I'll obviously evaluate it and give you good speaks if you execute it well

3] I think leveraging the aff is super strategic and often times forgotten about when a K comes into the mix. DON'T do that.

K debate(General)

1] I'm relatively familiar with a decent amount of critical scholarship and have read or at least tangentially engaged with including but not limited to Wilderson, Warren, Rodriguez, Bifo, Moten, Hardt and Negri, and some Deleuzian scholarship.

2] Have a clear picture of your theory of power.

3] Alt solves case is massively underused and should be used more

4] Technical K 2NR's > Massive OV's and implicit clash

Note on reading Non-Black Afro-pess bad: Although I used to read a lot of warren when I debated, I will try to be as tab as possible on this issue. In other words, I will evaluate this argument like I would any other debate and am open to voting or either side regardless of what I've read/what the community consensus is. I think both sides should have an explanation for what your model of debate looks like in a world were afro-pess is true/not true.

Non-T Affs v T-FW

Been on both sides of this debate too so I'm not ideologically inclined towards one side. I've seen Non-T affs approach this argument in different ways so it doesn't really matter how you debate T-FW, as long as you do it well. I think an explanation for what your model of debate looks like can be beneficial. For T-FW, I've always thought clash was a much more strategic impact than straight fairness but obviously you should just read it the way you feel most comfortable

Phil debate

I can judge this. Didn't debate it that much since I was in Texas but I'll obviously just evaluate it like I do any other debate. In the past, my favorite positions to go for were I-law, Common places(Glissant), and Kant. That being said you can probably read whatever you are most comfortable for. Just err on the side of over explanation in these debates.

Update: a good majority of debaters I coach mostly just read phil stuff like pragmatism, agonism, civic republicanism, existentialism, etc so I'm a lot more comfortable at evaluating these debates then I initially thought I was.

Trix

These are fine too. Just over explain. Also, I'm prob gonna end up flowing the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR straight down in these types of debates because things get messy very quickly and flipping through flows becomes difficult.

Theory

I enjoy these debates the most. This shouldn't be an excuse to spam shells but I think these can be fun to judge when executed well.

1] I don't really understand the distinction between what constitutes a shell being frivolous and what doesn't. When I debated, judges that said they weren't "willing to vote on frivolous theory" annoyed me. I think that if an interp is truly frivolous or stupid then you should be able to respond to it easily. So yes, I will vote on any shell if it's won.

2] Weighing is what makes these debates resolvable. Please weigh

3] I probably give neg flex/aff flex arguments more credence than I should. If you clearly implicate the affirming/negating is harder debate then that would make it easier for me to resolve the debate. A lot of the time tho, debaters will just go for affirming/negating is harder without implicating it which leaves me with an argument that I have to do implicit work which I don't want to do.

4] Creative new disclosure shells are appreciated. My personal favorites were must disclose analytics, must disclose in cite boxes even if you open source, must disclose contact info, opensource, etc.

5] The new trend of reading like these k-ish theory arguments like T-Body Ptx or Race War side spec is p cool and I'm 100% down to judge em. Have a good explanation for what your model of debate looks like.

IVI's (Independent Voting issues)

When I debated I thought these were super strategic and were often times massive time sucks. This gets its own section because I have some opinions on this that I think should be clarified.

1] I have a higher threshold for explaining/extending IVI's when your negating since you have a 6 min 2nr and whatnot.

2] A lot of the time these are explained as some type accessibility based argument. Make sure you warrant, even if it's very quickly and only a line, why that's a reason to DTD.

3] I think that if my understanding of the IVI changes from the first speech to the next then I'll prob feel uncomfortable giving it to you. However, if I understand it in the speech that it's read in then some 2AR/ 2NR expansion is acceptable

4] If the 2AR goes all in for one of these and I think you decisively win because of the strategic collapse I'll bump your speaks a bit.

Evidence Ethics

If you stake the round and you lose L25. If you stake the round and you win W30.

Pls don't make me have to deal with this. I'd rather not intervene and stop the round so try not to do this. I think reading ev ethics as a theoretical violation and just defending it as shell would be more strategic honestly unless entire parts of a middle of a card are missing or stuff has been miscut. The one ev ethics norm I disagree with is penalizing a debater for cutting in the middle of the paragraph i.e. if a paragraph says XYZ and you start cutting from the middle of a paragraph at YZ, I don't think you should be penalized or that I should intervene if "X" does not contradict what the rest of the card says. Its prob better theoretically to have the whole paragraph so a theory argument would prob be easier to win I just don't think that's grounds for intervention. If however you do start at the middle of a paragraph and the lines before would contradict/go against what the authors conclusions are then I'd prob vote the other way if the round was staked.

I think the violation should have to be pretty egregious for me to intervene. Egregious violations can include miscutting or misrepresenting what your author says, taking parts of the middle of the card out, misciting stuff, clipping,etc. This shouldn't discourage you from staking rounds on Evidence Ethics by any means just be sure the violation is legit yk.

Things to do for higher speaks

1] If you read a creative new interp that makes me laugh (+.5)

2] If you read a argument that I haven't seen before thats innovative (+.3)

3] If you legit write my ballot for me/ have a good ballot story in the 2nr/2ar. This can look like delineating clear voters on specific sheets or literally at the top of the 2nr/2ar saying what my RFD should be. (+.5)

4] Make the debate as clean as possible (+.4)

5] If you show me that you have a very thorough understanding of the literature you are debating about(+.2)

University of Iowa | 26'

Valley High School | 22'

Update for Millard North: I competed for Valley for around two and a half years before stopping during online debate. I was familiar with most types of arguments, but am certainly a bit rusty and out of the scene. I'm not familiar with what arguments are within the meta, however still willing to vote on anything as long as its explained and warranted. Please err on the side of over explanation and around 75-80% speed.

Here's my paradigm:

email for chain: tknudsen77@gmail.com

General:

Tech > Truth

Willing to vote on just about anything as long as there is a warrant, but please explain your arguments and don't assume I know what you are reading. I will not be voting on anything I don't understand.

As a debater I had the most experience in framework, theory, and tricks. (so do with that what you will)

I will not vote on any argument that is sexist, racist, homophobic, etc.

Defaults: can easily be changed.

Drop the Debater

Competing Interps

No RVI's

Fairness and Education are voters

Presumption Affirms

ROB is Truth Testing

Specifics:

Theory:

Defaults are above

Default Layering: 1AR theory, T, 1nc theory

Prefer shell over paragraph theory, however both are fine.

I really enjoy a good theory debate, but bad theory debates can be the worst to watch

Weigh, Weigh, Weigh - this is especially important in resolving messy theory debates

You can read any theory shell, frivolous or not, but I have a lower threshold for responses for friv theory

Don't like disclosure theory - more often than not I am on the defensive end of this. If you feel like you have to read this please provide screenshots, but my threshold for responses are lower than most shells.

I think 1ar theory can be very strategic however it is often underutilized

I think reasonability is also underutilized - consider going for it but please provide a brightline.

Topicality:

Fine for this - don't go for it as often as theory but feel free to read it.

I have gone for Nebel T, T - fwk, T - plural, and T - eliminate.

If you are going for it the 2n - please go for it for the majority of the 2n and win why it comes first.

Policy:

Probably not your ideal judge for dense Larp debates

I read policy style arguments on the neg a lot. Generally one or two policy offs against a policy aff however I generally go for theory or an NC in 2n.

I like built-in turns case args against non-util frameworks and think they're strategic

DA's are good - don't know anyone who has an issue with these

CP's are fine but please explain their interactions with the affirmative (why it solves the aff and avoids the DA)

I won't read cards unless I am instructed to

1ar theory should probably be read against CP's - especially cheaty CP's (what those consist of is left up to the debaters)

Tricks:

I love a good trick and am willing to vote on these, but please win Truth Testing.

These debaters can also become very messy so please don't go for every single trick you read. Please layer and weigh to make these debates resolvable.

Willing to vote on any trick I understand, however I might not understand every super complex tricks - ask before the round for clarification.

Clever aprioris or tricks are really fun to watch and will result in good speaks, but stale overused ones can become boring. Still willing to vote for them

A lot of these arguments are ridiculous so just point out why - failing to do so can be devastating.

Going for these arguments poorly will result in lower speaks - but doing so well will result in very high speaks

Please slow down on skep triggers or other blips. Also, please be open in cx I find "what's an apriori?" very annoying.

Phil:

I go for Phil a lot and enjoy a nuanced Phil debate.

A well-warranted syllogism is really fun to watch, but okay with independent preclusion arguments.

Don't understand how to evaluate the round under epistemic modesty - you should provide a formula for evaluation if you want me to use this. I will default to epistemic confidence.

Ask before the round for familiarity - will most likely be able to follow your framework if it warranted and explained well

I think metaethics are very strategic to filter what frameworks are relevant.

Clever framework hijacks are awesome and underutilized.

NC/AC strats are the best strat and if done well you will receive high speaks

K's:

These debates are not my favorite. I don't understand a majority of the literature, but know the basics of some. If you want to ask for familiarity before the round that would probably be smart. If you don't and I have no idea what your reading is, you will probably not be happy with my decision.

Please err on the side of over-explanation.

I feel like a lot of kritiks are just random buzzwords thrown together, specifically high theory. But feel like I can somewhat evaluate identity K's okay.

Would prefer a LBL approach rather than long overviews

I don't think going for the alt is necessary and it oftentimes is more strategic not to. Going for the K as a turn or DA to case is strategic.

I don't really understand how to evaluate many K tricks like floating PIK's but please be open about them in CX

I think reading theory and winning theory first is generally a good strat.

Winning your ROB is generally a must.

Misc:

"Independent voters are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive." - Conal Thomas Mcginnis

Things like speech times are non negotiable

Compiling a doc is prep, but emailing is not

Make the debate fun for yourself - the ballot is yours I am just here to fill it out.

Hi, I'm Nelson! Debate is fun and educational, and I hope you think it is too.

Freehold Township '19, Brown '23

Conflicts: Freehold Township, Millburn JL, George Ranch NS

Pronouns: he/him/his

Put me on the chain, please: nelson_lin@brown.edu

---

Short version: I debated in LD for four years for a small school in NJ on the local/national circuits. I'm best with policy style arguments and the K. Unique and novel arguments make this activity worthwhile. I am not afraid to say I don't understand an argument – if you are confident in your argument explanation, I would love to judge you.

I read mostly Asian-American critical literature and policy-style arguments through high school. I haven't really thought about debate seriously since TOC 2020, and that was in PF. Please slow to like 50-60% of your top speed and spread clearly.

Paradigms I vibe with include those of Jack Ave, Kevin Li, and Charles Karcher.

---

“I don’t think there is such a thing as a tabula rasa judge because experience in debate affects how I view and interpret certain arguments, but I will listen to anything (with the exception of arguments that directly make debate unsafe and alienating.)” - Kevin Li

Tech over truth, but my familiarity with argumentation type will affect how well I’m able to judge. I was never too familiar with tricks/frivolous theory/phil debate, so read at your own risk. Slow down for analytics, please.

If your opponent is clearly less experienced than you, I’ll boost your speaks if you make the round accessible and educational –– this is especially pertinent if you're a circuit debater against someone debating traditionally. Just let me know (maybe instead of reading four off case or Deleuze just go for an NC and case turns instead) and that'd make me happy.

Disclosure is probably good. New affs should disclose an advocacy text.

High speaks for unique debates, kind debates, fun debates, educational debates, clear debates, wholesome debates. I disclose speaks, ask!

Feel free to reach out to me through email or Facebook if you have any questions :)

Add me to the chain: speechdrop[at]gmail.com

tldr: My name is Jonathan Meza and I believe that at the end of the day the debate space is yours and you should debate however you want this paradigm is just for you to get an insight on how I view debate. One thing is I won't allow any defense of offensive -isms, if you have to ask yourself "is this okay to run in front of them ?" the answer is probably no. I reserve the right to end the debate where I see fit, also don't call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Meza or Jonathan.

debate style tier list:

S Tier - Policy v k, Policy v Policy, Debates about Debate
A tier - K aff v Policy, K aff v Framework, Performance debate (either side)
B tier - K v K, Theory,
C tier - Phil
D tier - Trix
F tier - Meme/troll

about me: Assistant debate coach for Harvard Westlake (2022-). Debated policy since 2018 that is my main background even tho I almost only judge/coach LD now. Always reppin LAMDL. I don't like calling myself a "K debater" but I stopped reading plan affs since 2019 I still coach them tho and low key (policy v k > K v K). went 7 off with Qi bin my senior year of high school but not gonna lie 1-5 quality off case positions better than 7+ random shells.

inspirations: DSRB, LaToya,Travis, CSUF debate, Jared, Vontrez, Curtis, Diego, lamdl homies, Scott Philips.

theory: Theory page is the highest layer unless explained otherwise. Aff probably gets 1ar theory. Rvis are "real" arguments I guess. Warrant out reasonability. I am a good judge for theory, I am a bad judge for silly theory. Explain norm setting how it happens, why your norms create a net better model of debate. explain impacts, don't just be like "they didn't do XYZ voter for fairness because not doing XYZ is unfair." Why is it unfair, why does fairness matter I view theory a lot like framework, each theory shell is a model of debate you are defending why is not orientating towards your model a bad thing. Oh and if you go for theory, actually go for it do not just be like "they dropped xyz gg lol" and go on substance extend warrants and the story of abuse.

Topicality: The vibes are the same as above in the theory section. I think T is a good strategy, especially if the aff is blatantly not topical. If the aff seems topical, I will probably err aff on reasonability. Both sides should explain and compare interpretations and standards. Standards should be impacted out, basically explain why it's important that they aren't topical. The Aff needs a counter interpretation, without one I vote neg on T (unless it's kicked).

Larp: I appreciate creative internal link chains but prefer solid ones. Default util, I usually don't buy zero risk. For plan affirmative some of you are not reading a different affs against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K. as per disads specific disads are better than generics ones but poltics disads are lowkey broken if you can provide a good analysis of the scenario within the context of the affirmative. Uniqueness controls the link but I also believe that uniqueness can overwhelm the link. straight turning disads are a vibe especially when they read multiple offs.

K affirmatives: I appreciate affirmatives that are in the direction of the topic but feel free to do what you want with your 1ac speech, This does mean that their should be defense and/or offense on why you chose to engage in debate the way that you did. I think that at a minimum affirmatives must do something, "move from the status quo" (unless warranted for otherwise). Affirmatives must be written with purpose if you have music, pictures, poem, etc. in your 1ac use them as offense, what do they get you ? why are they there ? if not you are just opening yourself to a bunch of random piks. If you do have an audio performance I would appreciate captions/subtitles/transcript but it is at your discretion (won't frame my ballot unless warranted for otherwise). In Kvk debates I need clear judge instruction and link explanation perm debate I lean aff.

Framework: I lean framework in K aff v framework debates. These debate become about debate and models defend your models accordingly. I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate. I think fairness is not an impact but you can go for it as one. Fairness is an internal link to bigger impacts to debate.

Kritiks: I am a big fan of one off K especially in a format such as LD that does not give you much time to explain things already reading other off case positions with the kritik is a disservice to yourself. I like seeing reps kritiks but you need to go hard on framing and explain why reps come first or else the match up becomes borderline unwinnable when policy teams can go for extinction outweighs reps in the late game speeches. Generic links are fine but you need to contextualize in the NR/block. Lowkey in LD it is a waste of time to go for State links, the ontology debate is already making state bad claims and the affirmative is already ahead on a reason why their specific use of the state is good. Link contextualization is not just about explaining how the affirmatives use of the state is bad but how the underlining assumptions of the affirmative uniquely make the world worst this paired up with case take outs make for a real good NR Strategy.

speaker points: some judges have really weird standards of giving them out. if I you are clear enough for me to understand and show that you care you will get high speaks from me. I do reward strategic spins tho. I will do my best to be equitable with my speak distribution. at the end of the day im a speaker point fairy.

quotes from GOATs:
- " you miss 100% of the links you dont make" --- Wayne Gretzky -- Michael Scott - Barlos
- "debate is a game" - Vontrez
- "ew Debate" - Isaak
- "voted for heg good" - Jared

he/him, appleton east ‘19, wisconsin ‘23

matthewrmoorhead@gmail.com

wsdt update -

i am excited to judge your debates, please just do the following:

a. read my paradigm and please ask me questions if you have any - i would much rather be transparent than leave you with concerns over your strategy

b. share the evidence you will be reading to your opponent and myself before your speech starts - evidence quality matters and your opponents have a right to analyze the evidence you read

c. do impact calculus - rounds without good argument interaction require me to intervene which is always bad, the more work you do to write my decision for me = the better your decision will be

d. be nice, enjoy yourself, treat everyone with respect, and focus on improving every round instead - ballots aren't everything and you should take every round as a new opportunity to learn something new, take notes afterwards and ask questions about my decision if anything is unclear

paradigm proper -

1. tl;dr - not formally involved in debate anymore but judging is a privilege and i am plenty qualified to judge your round, i care about good debating and really nothing else, don't worry too much about tailoring towards my ideology from when i was a debater/coach

2. background - did ld and dabbled in policy at appleton east in wisconsin, i broke at the toc in 2019, led 3 summer labs, and have coached state champions and toc qualifiers - my main experience is with policy-style debate and kritiks, but i have extensive experience coaching, debating, and judging every style of debate at national and local levels

3. hard and fast rules - strike me if you don't disclose/flash your evidence or i will rigorously tank speaks, an arguments' risk starts at 0% and goes up based on the quality of it's warrant, evidence quality matters so i will read cards you reference in the 2nr/2ar, yes judge kicks but tell me to, won't vote for stuff i can't explain back to you which means winning arguments require a ballot implication, arguments that demonstrate your work put into debate are always better than cheap shots you grabbed from backfiles or had your coach explain to you pre-round

4. for high speaks - my avg range is 28.2-29.4, biggest boosts for ending the debate early/speeding things up and being casual/personable - have fun, make jokes, be technical, and write my rfd

WDM Valley '20, Williams College '24

As a debater, I did mostly LD and debated framework, tricks, and theory, but I will vote on any argument so long as it is not blatantly rude or offensive. I also have experience with traditional debate.

For online debates: Do not go your top speed! 80-85% is fine

Add me to the email chain -- bella.nadel@gmail.com

Framework>>>>>Theory>>Tricks>K's=LARP>>>High theory

***The only debates I do not enjoy judging are bad tricks debates. Also full-on LARP debates but to a lesser extent. So yes, I do enjoy watching/evaluating K debates, even though I am probably less qualified to evaluate them. I am the least comfortable with high theory positions***

General stuff:

1) I believe debate is a game with real-world implications for its participants, so have fun with whatever you're reading but be conscious of other people present

2) "The way to win is weighing, so weigh way more"

3) Disclosure theory = not a fan. It will make me sad :( Exceptions for very obvious violations like lying about the aff

4) I will say clear or slow if I can't understand you, but at I'll eventually just stop flowing if you don't make adjustments

5) Don't be rude. (Note: There is a fine line between being aggressive and rude. If you have to question which, you're probably being rude)

6) Defaults: no RVI, competing interps, drop the debater on T, drop the arg on theory, presume aff, permissibility negates, truth testing, theory > K. I will ONLY use these if there are no in-round arguments read one way or another.

Speaks:

1) Things that will boost speaks: a) not reading off a doc, b) NC/AC strats, c) good, substantive framework debates, d) otherwise clever, well-executed strategic decisions, e) quality puns, f) if there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent and you win the round in a way that they are able to understand and learn from--that shows strategic flexibility

2) Things that will decrease speaks: a) obviously pre-written 2n’s, b) being abusive in rounds where there is a significant, noticeable skill difference between you and your opponent

3) Things that will not affect speaks: in-round arguments telling me to give you high speaks

Just ask me any other questions before the round/over messenger!

updated for cal '24

email chain: nsaniruth@gmail.com

Aniruth Narayanan (He/Him/His), Berkeley M.E.T. '24, C. Leon King High School '20. Picked up a bid in LD, quartered at states, blue key, sunvite, and elims a couple places my junior year, took senior year off. Although it has been some time since I've debated, I have been judging varsity LD - Cal every year, Glenbrooks, Blue Key, Valley, etc - so I consider myself able to judge most debates. In the past few years it's been primarily LARP debates.

If you make good arguments with good strategy, you win. Go for whatever you're best at.

Prefs Shortcut

Phil/Theory/T - 1

LARP - 1/2 (used to be a 2, but all the debate I've judged in the past 2 years has been LARP so am more familiar with it)

K – 3 (explain warrants and taglines)

NonT/Performance - 4

General Stuff

I will listen to any argument except those that are exclusionary - if you find yourself asking "is this exclusionary?" it probably is. Explain complicated ideas well.

All defaults are super loose; the round is yours. I'm about as close to tabula rasa as you can get. I don't default to a side, do default to comparative worlds, layers can be weighed against each other unless you tell me why not, layers aren't a wash.

Strategy is important. Pick the right arguments to read and collapse well.

Tech > Truth if there is some semblance of truth to an argument (is that actually truth > tech? No idea. I never understood this anyway). No, this doesn't mean you can't read bad arguments, but they still have to be arguments. The worse the argument, the lower the threshold for response and the more work you have to do to justify it.

I will say "clear" and "slow" as many times as need be - but it might get annoying after a while. If you don't clear/slow when I say it, your speaks will reflect that. If it's earlier in the day, ramp up your speed. I flow by ear and I will not flow off the doc (though I will have it open).

CX is not prep, but prep can be CX. I don't flow it, but I do pay attention.

You can read a lot of evidence if you want, but I would prefer that you do comparative analysis with warrants in evidence.

Whatever you want to grill me on, I honestly don't really mind, but I'd prefer it (and I think you would too) if you just clarified the arguments in your last speech how you would after the round is over. The more you grill me, the more brazen I'll be.

When time stops, you stop.

Theory

No shell is "frivolous" to me. Some shells are just bad, others are very strategic because there's no offense to the counter-interp. Read the latter kind.

If a debater justifies competing interps, and the other debater concedes it but fails to provide a competing interp, I will assume (on their behalf) that they defend the violation.

I will vote on disclosure theory. I like creatively planked disclosure shells that make it really hard to justify that particular combination of actions - especially when someone violates their own disclosure interp.

Phrasing things as "voting issues" such as when reading condo bad need to be clear theory arguments for me to evaluate them as theory for uplayering - with a voter.

If paradigm issues (drop the debater, no rvi, competing interps, fairness/education - although you can add more by mention/warrant) are conceded, they don't need to be extended (I'll consider it implicit agreement).

Topicality

Variations of T are welcomed - like extra-topicality. Just make sure you explain as needed.

Spikes/Tricks

Creative tricks are good; bad tricks are bad. If someone catches you being sketchy, be upfront and honest about it. If someone asks you where tricks are i.e a prioris, and you respond with the nc you read and not the a priori you put in the truth testing section above where it says "now negate", I think your answer in cx is binding in the sense it makes me hesitant to vote on the a priori because of the way that it's framed in cx. Just be upfront. Winning arguments is cool. Being shady is not.

If you read a trick that implicitly relies on truth testing but then you don't justify truth testing, I won't justify it for you.

Clearly number spikes, space them, do whatever you need to.

Any argument asking me to grant new responses or evaluate the debate after that speech must be made at least in a speech prior to it (i.e. new 2n responses should be justified in the 1n, not the 2n). I default to evaluating the whole round (I can't believe this is a real sentence I'm writing).

Philosophy

This was my go to as a debater. I don't think as much about authors any more, so I've forgotten the nuances. Include how offense is filtered under a given framework (i.e. is it consequentialist? if not, what matters and why does it matter? when your opponent tries to implicate their offense under your framework, is that legit? why? etc.).

Fine with voting on skep triggers, also good with them being used as framework justifications. I like seeing metaframeworks, framework conditions, takeouts, hijacks, etc.

Kritiks

If you use big words in the tagline that the average high school teacher would not understand, I probably won't either. Give me clear overviews and go through the 2NR in a systematic and strategic manner for high speaks. The 2NR shouldn't be just an overview or a 6 minute blip storm; do a mix of both that responds to the arguments efficiently and in an organized manner. Extensions through ink make me sad, particularly when they're accompanied by a pre-written generic overview.

LARP

If there's a lot of cards in the round like the 1ar reads new cards and the 2nr reads a new card or two, make the weighing as clear as you possibly can. Ex. If you say author qual, make sure you tell me what that qualification is or if you tell me your evidence is more recent, something that changed that explains why the recency matters.

Do more than just strength of link weighing. Please. Include the warrants of why claims authors make are true.

I'm fine with analytics against empirics. This means I won't intervene and say, this person has a card and you don't so you must be wrong; it's just that I'll evaluate it. In my opinion, it normally is easier to win if you have a card since empirics probably do need empirical warrants, but sometimes causal analysis to beat back a card analytically if it misunderstands something is fine in my book as long as you warrant it.

If you say things like "this thumps the disad" include like one sentence of what it is you're meaning by that in plain english. I remember some things, but debate has changed since when I was debating.

NonT Affs

I'm good with these. Articulate a clear ballot story of why you should win the round. I list myself as a 4 however as I haven't judged these rounds and didn't read these myself but I'm not biased against these.

If something is an independent voter, do some work explaining why it is an independent voter and weigh it in the context of the round. Just (read: only) saying a phrase like "perfcon - it's an independent voter. It's pre-meditated murder" is the opposite of this.

Flashing/Emailing/Stealing Prep

Prep ends when the flash drive leaves the computer or when the email has been sent. Putting the document together is prep. Stealing prep is wack.

Speaks

I'll disclose speaks - ask me if I forget.

Strategy is the main factor. Creative positions will also get boosts. I still think debate is about making persuasive arguments, so the more persuasive you are, the higher speaks I'll give you. Using CX well will also boost speaks.

If you had a bunch of ways to win the round, and you pick a bad option (i.e. none of them) and give your opponent more outs than they should've gotten, I will still give you the win, but your speaks will reflect the missed opportunities.

Scale depends on the tournament, in general I'll (try) average a 28.5 but I'm very sympathetic to the screw as it's happened to me.

Edit for Yale:

Its been about 6 months since I've been in a technical/progressive round. Slowing down significantly and doing more explanation of your arguments would be super helpful, especially since I'm not very familiar with this topic.

Short Version/TLDR

Hi! I’m Amulya (she/her). I did LD for 4 years on both the local and national circuit (more often on the local circuit than on the national circuit) at Bridgewater-Raritan HS. I mostly went for theory and phil. That being said, I’ll evaluate any type of argument as long as it’s explained well. Speed is fine, but if ur extemping analytics at top speed, there’s a good chance I’ll miss something (esp for online tourneys), so maybe go 60-70% top speed. Also, please signpost, weigh, and collapse w a good ballot story!! Put me on ur email chains. If you have any questions before or after the round lmk

email: amulyanatchukuri@gmail.com

Extra stuff:

Defaults (these only apply if neither side takes a stance on these issues):

Tech>Truth (this won't change)

Epistemic Confidence

Comparative Worlds> Truth Testing

Competing interps, dta, no RVIs

Presumption affirms, Permissibility negates

Theory/T

I'm pretty comfortable evaluating these debates. Weigh between interps, standards, etc because I think these debates can get blippy very quickly. I don't care how frivolous the shell is-- I'll vote on it as long as you win it. Don't read reasonability with "gut check" bright lines- i don't know what this means to you.

Ks

I'm fine evaluating them as long as you have clear explanations. I'd rather see you spend more time on line-by-line instead of long overviews that implicitly answer the aff. If your explanation is just a ton of jargon, I'll prob be confused-- I'd rather see a clear articulation of your theory of power and why I should endorse your method/alt.

Policy/LARP

I mostly did policy/larp on the local circuit, so I'm not very experienced with the more technical aspects of larp. However, I'll still be able to evaluate it as long as you can explain it clearly (eg, don't just say " evaluate through sufficiency framing" -- tell me what that looks like on the flow).

Phil

I really enjoy good phil debates, and to an extent, smart phil tricks. I'm most familiar with kant, hobbes, and butler, but I'll evaluate any other types of phil as long as u can explain it well.

**PF Update

I primarily did LD in hs but did a little bit of PF as a junior so I understand speech structures, etc. Everything else in this paradigm applies to PF as well so ig u can refer to it for specifics. Other than that I think its a really intuitive event and I'll judge any kind of debate you want to have.

Hi I'm Ananya! I debated LD in high school, so I understand the nuances and norms of the structure. Don't expect me to be an excellent judge for a highly nuanced technical debate. However, I will try my very best to evaluate any type of debate you'd like to have.

theory, Ks, etc are fine, just explain them very thoroughly. Spreading is fine and I'll call clear/slow if needed.

if u have further questions abt my judging preferences, feel free to ask before round or email me (ananyanatchukuri@gmail.com)

parkjoanne17@gmail.com

Archbishop Mitty '20, Columbia '24

Coached @ Peninsula, Mitty, VBI '21, VBI '20, and NSD '20

I did LD for 4 years, qualifying to NSDA/TOC and winning a quarters bid. I read a little bit of everything, but haven't touched debate in a year, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.

Unless debated out, I presume neg unless the 2NR defends or relies on the defense of an advocacy (e.g., a counterplan I'm not asked to judge kick). For individual arguments, if debated evenly, I will err against the side who has the burden of proof (e.g., I err no link, not yes link).

Being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. is an instant L20. If you are feel uncomfortable or unsafe in round, please do not hesitate to email me (I'll be checking consistently throughout the round).

If you stake the debate on evidence ethics, I will stop the round and use that for my RFD. Otherwise, I let these debates play out as normal. If I catch clipping, it's an auto loss, but to make an accusation you need a recording. If you ask me to stop the round, the decision I am making is a. if an established rule on evidence is being broken and b. if the breaking of the rule, in all or most circumstances where it occurs, changes the meaning of the evidence.

Houston Memorial ’20

Andrewqin02@gmail.com for sdocs

Note for Harvard: I do not think about debate more than once a year and know very little about the topic.

I have also discovered that my threshold for warranting is way too low, so I will be increasing my threshold for warranting. If you plan to read blips and tricks in front of me, they MUST be warranted in the speech they were read, and I MUST understand the warrant. Saying the words "I am the GCB" is not a warrant, and I will not vote on it even if it goes dropped. Additionally, the sillier the argument (e.g. "Evaluate after the 1AC"), the lower the threshold for responding.

I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying to TOC my junior and senior years. I try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making.

Quick Pref Sheet:

Theory – 1

LARP – 2

Phil – 2

K – 3

Tricks – 3

General Notes:

· CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

· Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

· I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

· Lower threshold for 1AR extensions, though I’m a tad skeptical of straight-up new 2AR weighing. Case outweighs and theory vs K weighing should generally be in the 1AR.

· AD HOMS: I really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

· High speaks are received for technical efficiency, strategy, and clarity in spreading.

· Be nice to novices and traditional debaters.

· I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

Theory:

· Defaults: C/I, Drop the Arg, Fairness/Education are voters, No RVIs

· Friv theory and theory purely for strategy = 100% fine. I heavily prefer theory centered on round and disclosure abuse (spec status, AFC, CSA, disclose round reports, etc) as opposed to theory on clothing or Zoom styles (shoes theory).

· PLEASE WEIGH BETWEEN THEORY SHELLS AND STANDARDS! If there’s no weighing, I’ll default to evaluating on strength of link. I don’t know what it means for the “theory debate to be a wash” if both sides have offense, which means I do not default to presumption or substance if both sides have theory shells that aren’t weighed between.

LARP:

· I do not default to judge kick if it’s condo (this is just a default though and can be changed with arguments).

Phil:

· Understand most of the traditional LD canon – Rawls, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Levinas (somewhat), I-Law, Constitution, etc.

· I think I’d be fine in the back of most phil debates, but be sure to explain the phil well. If I don’t understand it, I won’t vote on it.

· Postmodern and critical phil like Semiocap – I probably am not the best at adjudicating these, but I’ll try my best.

· Default epistemic confidence.

Tricks:

· SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS AND INFLECT!

· Default: Truth Testing, Presumption/Permiss Negate.

· Explain and weigh the tricks well – The sillier the argument, the lower the threshold for the response. Not a huge fan of blippy aprioris and the like, but if it’s won, I suppose I’ll vote on it.

· Prefer you to be straight-up in CX with tricks.

K:

· I’m familiar with a decent amount of Ks: Queerpess, Afropess, Settcol, some Weheliye, Warren, some Deleuze, etc.

· Overviews are helpful, but please do good line by line work – I won’t cross-apply your overview to every possible argument for you.

K Affs:

· Never really understood these very much but I’ll try my best.

· I prioritize technical ability – This means even if the 1AR and 2AR have good overviews explaining your position, you need to explain how it directly interacts with 2NR arguments.

· If it’s a K v K (anything other than cap) debate, I will probably be lost unless the ballot story is very clear.

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

NDT 2x Qualifier back in my prime

Quick Prefs

1 - Tricks (I believe conditional logic to be amongst the truest of arguments)

2 - Disadvantages/LARP

3 - Kritiks (I am less familiar with Identity)

4 - Philosophy

5 - Impact turns

Strike - Impact turns to racism,sexism, etc

Dulles '21

Stanford '25

Email Chain: abhinav2002sinha@gmail.com

Hey, I’m Abhinav! I competed on the national circuit for three years, qualifying and clearing at TOC (2x)/TFA (3x), 10 bids senior yr, won some tournies (Bronx, Harvard RR, Grapevine, Strake, etc). I mostly read T/Theory, Phil, and policy style arguments.

I’ll try to be relatively tab – I will attempt to fully consider any argument that has a warrant as long as the argument doesn’t exclude debaters from the activity (No oppression good). However, I have debate preferences, though I will try not to let those preferences influence my decision-making. Although Tech>>over truth, I think a truer arg is easier to win

Quick Pref Sheet:

T/Theory- 1

Phil/Policy Args- 1/2

Trix- 2/3 (no blips please :(, cannot flow), also check trix section before reading

Ks- 3-5 (if you can explain it/be tech about it, I’m good)

Important Rules

- I'm bad at flowing soooo slow down for analytics like really slow down/OR JUST SEND (yes this is a rule like the be slow part)

- CX is binding – If you say something is Uncondo in CX and kick out of it in the 2NR, if the 2AR points it out, it’s an auto-loss with few exceptions.

- Evidence Ethics Claims (Clipping, Miscutting, etc.) stop the round and the challenging debater must agree to stake the round on it. Whoever loses the challenge gets an L-0.

- I have a higher threshold of warranting on independent voters. You can’t just say something is an “independent voter” for three seconds and collapse to it for 6 minutes in the 2NR. An independent voter needs clear warrants as well as clear reasons why it’s a reason to drop the debater. I am willing to not vote on a dropped independent voter if it had basically no warrant for why it’s a voter in the last speech.

- AD HOMS: I really really really don’t like ad hominem arguments that call out x debater for being a bad person out of round. If it’s won, I’ll grudgingly vote on it, but speaks WILL suffer, and I have a low threshold for responses.

- Be nice to novices and traditional debaters. I don’t like it when the debaters are just jerks to each other in CX. Prep can be CX not the other way.

- I don’t consider arguments about speaker points or double wins or going beyond the time given. Any argument past the timer is disregarded, and if you keep going, it’s an L-0.

-+.2 speaks per minute of speech not used

If you want to stop reading, you can stop here, everything below here is just argumentative preferences, but I thought it was useful to read what a judge thinks about various positions before preffing them, so read if you want.

More Info

Argument Defaults

- I default whats assumed in the round but if someone says x argument wasn’t made (i.e 2nr says no one said fairness is a voter, I will no longer default fairness as a voter)

- DTD, no RVI, CI, epistemic confidence, policy presumption cuz less arbitrary, theory>t>everything else, f+e voters, comparative worlds

Theory/T

- I love theory debate! A good theory debate is fun to judge and probably something I’m qualified to judge

-Flash interps/shells

-If paradigm issues arent contested I don't think you need to extend them.

-I got confused when judges would say I think x shell is “probably” true or not, I’ll vote on any shell thats won through the paradigm issues in the round. Bad shells obviously have true answers, so they are easier to beat back (font size theory, shoes theory, must label tournament name, etc.), but you still have to make the arguments to beat it.

-No new 2ar fairness/edu weighing

-Reasonability needs either a substance education bright line or something else-it’s probs true vs more friv shells, but again make the argument

Larp

- Did only policy debate my freshmen/sophomore yr and did quite a bit my senior year

- Spin>>evidence quality but good/bad evidence should be pointed out

-Smart analytics vs Pics/das/cps are all really important and can be collapsed to

-I probably wont read ev unless you tell me too, but you still have to do ev comparison

-Judge kick has to be justified

-I really like creative/well researched CP/DAs vs small affs

-PTX is fun, but have good cards or else you’re gonna lose to analytics

-Zero risk could be a thing

Phil

- Did lots of Phil debate, so I appreciate good ones

-Must weigh framework justifications in 1ar/2nr/2ar

-Familiar with most Phil lit, so read what you want but explain it.

-2nrs/2ars need to collapse

-NOTE TO UTIL VS PHIL DEBATES, to win extinction first you MUST win consequences matter or else I will be VERY hesitant to vote on it and phil debates must point out why consequences don’t matter. Ext o/w is a fine argument just win consequences matter and Phil debaters must beat consequences matter. Excluding consequences through syllogism>>calc indict

Ks

-I read/went for a couple of Ks my senior year, but please explain your K. Don’t try to win a round just because you don’t explain your position to your opponent

- LBL >>>>>> Long overviews

-Winning a theory of power or how the world works is important but you must explain how that applies to other flows.

-2nr NEED to explain links whether to plan (yay!) or not (boo!)

- I don't like doing work from overview to specific arguments, so do that work for me

-Aff/neg framework is usually hella important so both debaters need explain why winning their interp means they win/or why losing it doesn’t matter.

-T framework vs K affs: I think fairness 2nrs are great but skills 2nrs are also good, if you need to win a tva explain it, if not dont. As a non-t aff debaters I prefer creative answers and just pure impact turns(and flash analytics here cuz most people go way to fast for me to understand)

Tricks

- MUST EXTEND warrants for conceded arguments like for anything besides paradigm issues 1ars/2nrs/2ars need to extend warrants

- Do not like long underviews, plz don’t read super tricky affs, plz lol

- I like cool and innovative trix> recycled trix

- P/p is p important so explain it/how it functions in these rounds

- SLOWWW DOWN I CAN'T FLOW AGAIN(lol)

- I like cool logical trix >1 liner “no neg analytics”

- Don't be sketch in CX(like tell people apriori/implications)

Other Notes

- Yell clear twice before stopping to flow

- Feel free to ask me any questions before round!

-be funny and you’ll get higher speaks

Speak scale- based on in-round performance.

29.5+: expect you to win the tournament/really good speech

29-29.5: expect you to get to late outrounds

28.5-28.9: bubble/expect you to break/early elims

28-28.5: don't expect you to break

27.5-28: really don't expect you to break

Add me to the email chain -- 2121julia@gmail.com

Extend warrants.

Hey everyone. I debated for Marlborough from 2016-2020. I went to the TOC my senior year. I'm now a junior at Stanford, where I don't debate. I'm the most experienced w LARP/util debate as well as theory/T, although I do love a well executed Cap K. When evaluating rounds, I start on the impact level and work backwards.

Full disclosure: I've been out of the activity for a while, but I'm super excited to judge. Please slow down and clearly define topic lingo.

I think that debate should be devoted to the rigorous testing of ideas/hypothesis testing: while there definitely is a strategic aspect to the activity, I will be mad at you if you try and corrupt an educational opportunity by reading shoes theory or something else along those lines and sacrificing education to win in a ~hyper-strategic~ way.

Overview

Truth——————————X———Tech

1. Be nice to your opponent and the judge. If you are rude or mean to your opponent I will lower your speaks. I have a very low tolerance for this, especially if you're using it for some weird strategic leverage.

2. I have vivid facial expressions. Use this to your advantage.

3. You don't have to take prep to send the doc but don't be sketchy about it. I'm good at noticing when you engage in sketchiness and I will a) call you out for it and b) lower your speaks.

4. I'm fine with spreading but slow down for tags, authors, analytics, interps, etc. Don't go your full speed or I will likely miss something. I have minor hearing issues so you will probably like the result the round a lot less if you blaze through analytics (and don't send them in the email chain).

5. A lot of evidence in LD is really bad. Please have good evidence and call your opponents out for having bad evidence. I am unlikely to vote for evidence that is miscut or doesn't have warrants. I love evidence comparison and I will reward you for knowing the warrants in your ev.

6. Go ahead and read your nuclear war impacts -- I evaluate impacts by magnitude*probability unless instructed otherwise. BUT there are really great affs/disads that don't use nuke war impacts. I will be impressed by a unique AC or DA that is well-written, has great ev, and that is well-researched. On that note, please weigh and compare impacts and tell me what weighing mechanisms are the most important (e.g. should I default to probability or magnitude first?)

7. Extend warrants. If you don't, I'll have a hard time voting for you. The more rounds I watch, the more I get frustrated about the lack of warranted arguments in the 1ar/nr/2ar.

8. The NR/2AR should collapse.

9. A good CX will reward you with high speaks, especially if you know the warrants in your evidence (see the general theme here?)

10. I lean neg on non-T affs; I will vote for T-FW or the aff based on the debate that happens. I am most persuaded by predictability/argument testing args on framework.

11. I will drop you for reading arguments that are a form of moral blackmail (e.g. vote for me to get more women debaters into out rounds, vote for me or else I will be sad, vote for this person because he said xyz on Twitter, etc). If anything bad is happening in the debate, then I would feel more comfortable voting a person down, but I will not adjudicate a "person x said sexist things on facebook messenger 8 months ago" debate.

12. Speech times are set. Prep can be used for CX, but CX cannot be used for prep. Prep ends when you are done compiling the doc.

13. I flow CX. CX is binding.

14. Have extensions for your cases, but no need to extend individual cards unless they are very important. By an extension, I mean something <30 seconds for the AC, maybe up to a minute for off case negative positions.

15. I'm only interventionist on args that are obviously silly (e.g. must spec location of debater, must wear a hat, must only wear red) as well as tricks. If you're debating a trick, just say "tricks are for kids" and do a thumbs down, that is a sufficient enough response.

16. I will stop flowing when the timer goes off, not when you decide to stop 5-20 seconds after. I'll let you finish your sentence, but it has to be a quick conclusion, not a sentence with infinite semicolons.

17. People I agree with/have been coached by are Adam Torson, Hailey Robertson, Ben Rosenthal, Dan Miyamoto, and Michael O'Krent.

By arg:

FW: I am highly skeptical of Kant and other impact-exclusionary frameworks. However, I believe that under a consequentialist framework, zero percent risk is a thing. Also, truth testing is silly in my opinion — I definitely default to comparative worlds. I feel comfortable evaluating Hobbes, libertarianism, and variants of util. I can evaluate Kant, but I will be sad. I default to epistemic modesty, but can be convinced the other way if you win that arg. I am unlikely to vote on theistic frameworks, e.g. GCB. I also think that AFC args make no sense — this is a debate!

T/Theory: I think both education and fairness are voters, but one can be more important (prolly education>fairness), and one can be the internal link to the other. Impact out your standards and make sure I know why your standards outweigh their and how they link harder to voters. On this note, I dislike Nebel T and RVIs — make real args/plans are good. I lean pragmatics > semantics but if you win the inverse, then I'll vote for it. If you're about to give the 2ar and the NR went for T/theory, no need to extend case. If you're giving the NR and are kicking T, no need to go on this page if there's no RVI (which there won't be if I'm the judge, I hope).

The K: I'm pretty well versed in cap, fem, orientalism/anti-colonialism, and queer theory, as well as IR. However, you must have an explanation for these arguments to win them and you must explicitly spell out their implications to win those, too. I am fairly sure need to win your theory of power (whether that's based on ontology, superstructure, language, etc) to win the debate. Your alt/method also needs to solve — I have no idea what "breaking the structures of semiotic capitalistic linguistic indeterminacy through an embrace of the Real" means unless you explain what it looks like, who does it, examples of it, etc. I think that critical theory at times can be incredibly esoteric and that is bad praxis (comes from my view that debate should be a breeding ground for irl activism and policymaking) — if you can explain your alt/method at a 10th grade reading level I will be happy. I have some internal bias against pessimism, as I think any progress that materially helps oppressed people is good; however, you can win pess in front of me.

K Affs: Go ahead, but same stuff with explaining above applies. Make sure that you have a solution to a problem that has solvency. Disclaimer: I anticipate that in front of me, non-T affs are an uphill battle, but I will vote for T-FW or the aff based on the debate that happens. I am most persuaded by predictability/argument testing args on framework.

Util/Policy/LARP: This is what I love, this is what I did best. I get frustrated by untrue DAs, but I will vote on them. I love well explained, probably true DAs. Say disad and counterplan, a few more syllables to sound better won't hurt. I'm good for hard right stuff to soft left stuff — I've read both — just be prepared to leverage your ideology against Ks/NCs if needed. Also, I would prefer a bunch of clever, well thought out analytics to a dump of backfiles that say No China War from 2012. Don't have your disad link into your counter-plan. Do read perms that are smart and contextual to the specific advocacy.

CP: I'm fine with multi-plank counterplans, PICs, condo (1-2 is fine, 3 or >3 is pushing it) — however, I will vote on theory against these args. I will judge kick if instructed, this can be contested.

DA: To kick this, extend link defense. In the NC, please do not have a bunch of silly link args that are smashed together. If you're reading PTX, keep your uniqueness updated.

Preferences

Util/DA/CP/LARP - 1

Identity Ks, Cap, and Orientalism/Imperialism- 1

Topicality - 1

Basic theory (condo, PICs, etc) - 1 (note -- if you read friv theory or other arguments that are silly, I probably won't vote for them)

Funky theory - 2

Basic phil (e.g. Rawls, libertarianism, Hobbes) - 3

PoMo Ks and other Ks - 3

Funky phil - 4

Tricks/skep/etc - no, strike me please. I will not vote for tricks.

Speaks

These are always going to be subjective but I'll try my best to average at a 28.5. I will reward highly for good strategy, good quality evidence, pathos (to an extent), and compliance with everything outlined above. Also, clarity. I cap speaks at a 28 for asking for high speaks.

I will tank your speaks if you are trying to spread out/be hyper esoteric against a novice/trad debater — be nice and make the activity accessible.

If you're funny, be funny. If not, know I have a bad sense of humor.

Other

Be nice to each other and read arguments you enjoy.

I'll disclose who won and give a RFD.

Research Triangle '20

University of Georgia '24

Add me to the email chain: oliviastoneman20@gmail.com

About me: I read mostly LARP positions, with a few kritiks like cap and security, and topicality. I did some traditional debate too. If that is your thing, I will gladly listen to it but I prefer circuit debate. I can handle speed, but please slow down if you are making short analytics because otherwise I will probably miss them. Something to know about me is that I'm not a good judge for long underviews and tricks with arguments I can easily miss. I'm not flowing off the doc, and I'm only going to look at it to read cards after the round. I feel most comfortable judging LARP, topicality, and legitimate theory debates (condo, PICs bad, etc.). I will evaluate any argument unless it is offensive or rude. Also just a reminder to weigh and make clear which layers in the debate come first when I evaluate the round.

Also, I know nothing about this topic.

Defaults for how I evaluate rounds:

1) comparative worlds

2) competing interps > reasonability

3) no rvis

4) tech > truth but techy truth is fantastic

Traditional debate: I spent a solid amount of time doing this in high school. If this is your thing, go ahead and do it, but I prefer circuit debate. I often find these debates hard to resolve so please make it clear. Also, if you want to save time, no need to read a value if you don't want to please just debate the value criterions.

LARP: Personally love it. Quality of ev is important if there is any competing arguments that say opposite things. Also, I like the politics disad but please read recent ev if you are going to otherwise I will be sad :(

Topicality: I love a good T debate. Just make sure to weigh. I default no RVIs on T, and it will probably be hard to convince me to vote on an RVI.

Theory: Happy to listen to legitimate theory debates. Just make sure to be clear during analytics. Also, I am willing to listen to RVI justifications, especially if you are debating friv theory.

Ks: Happy to judge these rounds, but I'm not super experienced with a lot of the lit, so err on the side of explaining more if it's not generic.

Tricks/friv theory: Strike me or pref me low I will probably be confused.

Speaker points: I'll start at a 28 and go up or down as I see fit.

* Update for Jack Howe (and any tournaments after): please don't read eval after the x speech in front of me. These debates get very confusing since most debaters never articulate what evaluating the debate after x speech looks like.

*Update for Holy Cross: I did an extensive amount of traditional debate in my career, so I would consider myself a pretty good judge for traditional rounds. I am more than happy to listen to a standard v/vc debate. Also, if you are a traditional debater debating against a circuit opponent, please feel free to message me on Facebook or email me with any accommodations that you need. The National Circuit does tend to be elitist towards traditional debaters, so I want to do what I can to mitigate that environment.

Hey y'all! I debated for Mountain House High School for 4 years, one of them on the national circuit. Cleared at a couple of bid tournaments, Qualified to NSDA in Policy, and CHSSA State in LD.

add me to the chain - immanuel.j.victor@gmail.com

TLDR: you do you, and I'll evaluate accordingly. I'll vote on any argument with a warrant, given that it is not violent or oppressive (things like racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, etc.) - these arguments will result in an L20 potentially lower speaks. I will be recording rounds for the sake of clipping (with permission of course), and if there is a claim that someone in the round is clipping, I will look back at the recording and make a decision. If you are caught clipping, it's an L20, but if the accusation is false then it's an L20 for the accuser.

I average speaks at around 28.8. Things that will raise your speaks include good collapsing and good strategy (also humor! Debate is supposed to be fun!!). Things that will lower your speaks are overwhelming novices or just being unstrategic.

PF Paradigm's below the general one! If you want to read prog stuff, I have my general preferences in the PF paradigm, but more specific queries should be addressed in my general paradigm.

Pref Shortcuts

Phil - 2 (not excessive reliance on trix)

Policy/Theory - 1

K - 2 (never read one but trust me I'm really good at evaluating this)

Trix - 3 or 4

Things I went for: Policy and K affs (Speeced Plans and Agamben/Baudrillard), Phil NC's, Lots of 1AR theory and Topicality, CBW Disads on the JanFeb topic, Set Col (on the standardized testing topic), Truth-testing, A Rawls AC.

Defaults

TT>CW

CI>Reasonability

Yes RVI's (both sides get this)

DTA>DTD

Presumption flows neg

Yes 1AR theory

Theory>K

Any arguments will override my defaults.

Thoughts about arguments

I don't want to make this long, so I'll just list things that you should keep in mind while arguing K's and Trix in front of me (Policy args are p simple - just prove why the plan's a good idea, or why the plan is a bad idea).

K's - cool with K affs. I am a better sell for debate bad than you think. Explain your theory of power and what that means for the round. K tricks and Floating PIK's are cool, but theory on that is warranted. I will vote against a K on presumption if there's a warrant. Kick the alt of the K if you want, just tell me how to vote for you in that case. I definitely lean more towards k aff in a kaff v tfw debate, mostly cuz tfw debaters don't articulate their fairness impacts strategically.

Tricks - If you're shady in cross, you won't be happy with your speaks. Defend your aprioris and NIB's and win on them. I think theory against apriori's is fine, but I think TT takes out theory (you have to make that argument). Innovative tricks will earn you high speaks and a smile on my face.

Phil - Explain your syllogism and how it interacts with your opponent's framework/offense. If they don't get offense under your framework, explain why. Don't spam me with preclusion arguments, actually clash with the opposition framework. I'm a good sell for deontological frameworks and induction fails.

Ask me any questions if I haven't covered a topic you need to know. Good luck and let's have a fun round!!

PF Paradigm - NANO NAGLE RR AND OTHER TOURNAMENTS

I've debated a lot of PF on a local level and a couple of nat circ tournaments in my junior year. I would say that I evaluate PF in a similar fashion as LD with 2 major exceptions: No counterplans and a higher threshold on extensions (that being said, I'm open to reasons why counterplans can be in pf and my threshold on extensions is not too much higher -> I just want card extensions as well as a scenario explanation). Second rebuttal doesn't have to frontline, but it's much better. Anything I vote on has to be in final focus, and anything in final focus has to be in summary, so make sure everything important's in summary!

Prog stuff!

I think this is where the most questions will be so.... yes, I am very open to prog stuff. K's, Theory, even tricks and framework is cool in front of me. Just give me warrants and explanations for why that model of debate is good/allowed within the confines of PF. That being said, I'm not endorsing really bad prog debate - just cuz I'm your judge doesn't mean you should whip out that kritik you've never read before. I won't do any analysis for you, so make sure you warrant things well if you read prog stuff.

Logistics:

Please add me to the email chain: edmondywen@gmail.com

If you'd like to reach out to me for any other reason: edmond.yixiu.wen@gmail.com

Experience:

San Marino TW, Policy Debate 2017-2019 | San Marino EW, LD Debate 2019-2020

Coached by Joseph Barquin.

I have not been involved in debate for the past 3 years. Read mostly critical and performance arguments in high school.

Paradigm:

Misc

Be nice and do your best.

Please aim to have your speech docs sent out before ending your prep time.

Less is more. Slowing down to enunciate your tags/analytics/author names makes it much easier to follow your speech and piece together your argument. Spreading is fine, but my favorite speeches to listen to are the ones where debaters know when to slow down to emphasize key arguments in the debate.

Argument Preferences

Speed is fine, but accommodate for those who cannot understand spreading.

Nontraditional affs are fine, but be prepared to either defend their relevance to the topic or justify them in some other way.

I am not good for theory or tricks debates, but I will do my best to evaluate them.

I consider it a privilege to judge debate. I will return the favor and do my best to render a fair decision and provide educational feedback ^_^

Hi I'm Jalyn (she/her/hers), I go to UCLA and debated for WDM Valley in LD for ~7 years. I now coach LD at Millburn HS.

pre-PF TOC: i have very few paradigmatic preferences in PF, other than evidence must be carded, have proper citations (MLA is fine), and accessible to your opponent/judge should they ask for it.you should expect that i'll judge PF like I'm an LD judge.

____________

I honestly think that my paradigmatic preferences have gotten less and less ideological. I'll vote for anything that constitutes an argument. yes you can read policy stuff, tricks, and kritiks in front of me. i like phil but i'd rather judge anything else over bad recycled kant. I've left my old paradigm (written as a FYO) below as reference, cuz i still have the same takes, but to a lesser extent.

i give high speaks when you make me enjoy the round and drop speaks by like 0.3 every 30 seconds of a bad (read: unstrategic and not thought through) 2nr/2ar.

If there's an email chain, put me on it: wjalynu@gmail.com. In constructives, I don't flow off the doc.

TLDR - LD

Please note first and foremost that I am not that great with postrounding. To clarify, please ask questions about my decision after the round--I want to incentivize good educational practices and defend my decision. However, I really do not respond well to aggression mentally, so please don't yell at me/please treat me and everyone else in the round with basic respect and we should be good!

quick prefs (but please read the rest of the TLDR at least)

1- phil

2- theory, id pol k/performance, stock k

3- pomo k, LARP

4- tricks

for traditional/novice/jv debate: I'm good with anything!

i honestly do not care what you read as long as the arguments are well justified. less well justified arguments have a lower threshold for response.

I am fine with speed. At online tournaments, please have local recordings of your speeches ready in case there's audio issues/someone disconnects. Depending on tournament rules, I probably can't let you regive your speech if it cuts out, so be prepared. I will say clear/slow.

I rate my flowing ability a 6/10 in that messy and monotonous debates are difficult for me to flow but as long as you're clear in signposting, numbering, and collapsing, we shouldn't have any problems.

I view evaluating rounds as evaluating the highest framing layer of the round as established by the debaters, then evaluating the application of offense to it. In messy debates, i write two RFDs (one for each side) and take the path of least intervention.

i assign speaks based on strategic vision and in round presence (were you an enjoyable person to watch debate?). However, if you make arguments that are blatantly problematic, L20.

Many judges say they don't tolerate racism/sexism/homophobia/ableism/etc, but know that I take the responsibility of creating a safe debate space seriously. If something within a round makes you feel unsafe, whether it be my behavior, your opponent's behavior, or the behavior of anyone else present in that round, email me or otherwise contact me. I'll do my best to work with you to address these problems together.

LONG VERSION - LD

Ev ethics

- If a debater stops the round and says "I will stake the round on this evidence ethics challenge" I will follow tournament/NSDA rules and evaluate accordingly (generally resulting in an auto win/loss situation). However, I usually prefer ev ethics challenges are debated out like a theory debate, and I will evaluate it like I evaluate any other shell.

- I really am not a fan of debates over marginal evidence ethics violations. like i really do not care if a single period is missing from a citation.

Disclosure

- I don't hold strong opinions on disclosure norms. Disclosure to some extent is probably good, but I don't really care whether it's open sourced with green highlighting or full text with citations after the card.

- reasonability probably makes sense on a lot of interps

- I strongly dislike being sketchy about disclosure on both sides. Reading disclosure against a less experienced debater without a wiki seems suss. Misdisclosing and lying about the aff is also suss.

- disclosure functions at the same layer as other shells until proven otherwise

Theory

- I strongly dislike defaulting. If no paradigm issues or voters are read by either debater in a theory debate, this means I will literally not vote on theory. I don't think this is an unfair threshold to meet, because for any argument to be considered valid, there needs to be a claim, warrant, and impact.

- You can read frivolous stuff in front of me and I will evaluate it as I would any other shell, but more frivolous shells have a lower threshold for response. For more elaboration, see my musings on the tech/truth distinction below.

- Paragraph theory is fine, just make sure that it's clearly labeled (i flow these on separate sheets)

- Combo shells need to have unique abuse stories to the interp. generally speaking, the more planks in a combo shell, the less persuasive the abuse story, and the more persuasive the counterinterp/ i meet.

- "converse of the interp" has never made much sense to me/seems like a cop out, if you say "converse of the interp" please clarify the specific stance that you're taking because otherwise it's difficult to hold you to the text of the CI

- overemphasize the text of the interp and names of standards so i don't miss anything

- you can make implicit weighing claims in the shell, but extend explicit weighing PLEASE

T

- RVIs make less sense on T than they do on other shells, so an uphill battle

- T and theory generally function on the same layer for me but I can be persuaded otherwise

- Good/unique TVAs are underutilized, so make them. best type of terminal defense on T IMO

- altho I read a ton of K affs my jr year, I fall in the middle of the K aff/TFW divide.

- if you're going to collapse on T, please actually collapse. don't reread the shell back at me for 2 minutes.

- see above for my takes on defaults

K

- I am more familiar with asian american, fem, and cap (dean, marx, berardi), but have a decent understanding of wilderson, wynter, tuck and yang, deleuze, anthro, mollow, edelman, i'm sure theres more im forgetting, but chances are I've heard of the author you're reading. I don't vote on arguments I couldn't explain back at the end of the round. if the 1ar/2nr doesn't start off with a coherent explanation of the theory of power, I can't promise you'll like my decision.

- buzzwords in excess are filler words. they're fine, but if you can't explain your theory of power without them, I'm a lot less convinced you actually know what the K says.

- some combination of topical and generic links is probably the best

- i find material examples of the alt/method more persuasive than buzzwordy mindsets. give instances of how your theory of power explains subjectivity/violence/etc in the real world.

- floating piks need to be at least hinted at in the 1n

- idc if the k aff is topical. if it isn't, i need a good reason why it's not/a reason why your advocacy is good.

- you should understand how your lit reads in the following broad categories: theory of the subject, theory of knowledge, theory of violence, ideal/nonideal theory, whether consequences matter, and be able to interact these ideas with your opponent

Phil

- the type of debate I grew up on. NC/AC debates are criminally underrated, call me old school

- I'm probably familiar with every common phil author on the circuit, but don't assume that makes me more amenable to voting on it. if anything i have a higher threshold for well explained phil

- i default epistemic confidence and truth testing (but again. hate defaulting. don't make me do it.)

- that being said, I think that winning framework is not solely sufficient to win you the round. You need to win some offense under that framework.

- i like smart arguments like hijacks, fallacies, metaethical args, permissibility/skep, etc.

- sometimes fw arguments devolve into "my fw is a prereq because life" and "my fw is a prereq because liberty" and those debates are really boring. please avoid circular and underwarranted debates and err on the side of implicating these arguments out further/doing weighing

Policy

- Rarely did LARP in LD, but I did do policy for like a year (in 8th/9th grade, and I was really bad, so take this with a grain of salt)

- All CPs are valid, but I think process/agent ones are probably more suss

- yes you need to win a util framework to get access to your impacts

- always make perms on CPs and please isolate net benefits

- ev>analytic

- please weigh strength of link/internal links

- TLDR I'm comfortable evaluating a LARP debate/I actually enjoy judging them, just please err on overexplaining more technical terms (like I didn't know what functional/textual competition was until halfway through my senior year)

Tricks

- well explained logical syllogisms (condo logic, trivialism, indexicals, etc) (emphasis on WELL EXPLAINED AND WARRANTED) > blippy hidden aprioris and irrelevant paradoxes

- i dont like sketchiness about tricks. if you have them, delineate them clearly, and be straightforward about it in CX/when asked.

- Most tricks require winning truth testing to win. Don't assume that because i default TT, that i'll auto vote for you on the resolved apriori--I'm not doing that level of work for you.

- warrants need to be coherently explained in the speech that the trick is read. If I don't understand an argument/its implication in the 1ac, then I view the argument (if extended) as new in the 1ar and require a strong development of its claim/warrant/impact

TLDR - CX

I have a basic understanding of policy, as I dabbled in it in high school. Err on the side of overexplanation of more technical terms, and don't assume I know the topic lit (bc I don't!)

Misc. thoughts (that probably won't directly affect how I evaluate a specific round, but just explains how I view debate as a whole)

- tech/truth distinction is arbitrary. I vote on the flow, but truer arguments have a lower threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is round) and less true arguments have a higher threshold for being technically won (ex. the earth is flat)

- I think ROB/standard function on the same layer (and I also don't think theres a distinction between ROB and ROJ), and therefore, also think that the distinctions between K and phil NCs only differ in the alternative section and the type of philosophy that generally is associated with both

- I highly highly value adapting to less experienced debaters, and will boost your speaks generously if you do. This includes speaking clearly, reading positions and explaining them well, attempting to be educational, and being generally kind in the round. To clarify, I don't think that you have to completely change your strategy against a novice or lay debater, but just that if you were planning on reading 4 shells, read 2 and explain them well. It's infinitely more impressive to me to watch a debater be flex and still win the round than to make the round exclusionary for others.

- docbots are boring to me. I just don't like flowing monotonous spreading for 6 minutes of a 2n on Nebel, and it's not educational for anyone in the round to hear the same 2n every other round. lower speaks for docbots.

- I will not evaluate arguments that ask me to vote for/against someone because they are of a certain identity group or because of their out of round performances. I feel that oversteps the authority of a judge to make decisions ad hominem about students in the activity

- pet peeve when people group permissibility/presumption warrants together. THEY'RE TWO DIFFERENT CONCEPTS.

- i'm getting tired of ppl asking "what did you read" "what didn't you read" during cx/prep but ESPECIALLY after the speech before prep. like please just flow. it's kinda silly to just ask "what were your arguments on ___" for 2 min of prep cuz like just tell me you weren't flowing then!

- this list will keep expanding as I continue to muse on my debate takes

Hi, I'm Derek.

he/him

Put me on the email chain: djying2003@gmail.com

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

This is a bit disorganized, but I've ordered these sections based on importance (in my opinion).

Last major update was on Jan 14 2022 for evidence ethics rules clarifications and some more reasons to increase speaker points.

HOW I EVALUATE DEBATES:

I evaluate debates by isolating the most important issue(s) in the round, then doing more nitty-gritty flow comparisons to determine who is winning that issue. This method will inherently favor judge instruction and explanation: you will be more likely to win if you isolate said issue and explain why you're winning it before I find a different issue and decide you're losing. It also favors collapsing to a few issues and even fewer layers: extending all seven of your off-case positions or all three of your advantage scenarios in the final rebuttal is not going to be much of a winner.

Debate, at its core, is a game. However, the nature and meaning of that game is extremely malleable. This means two things:

1. Tech>Truth unless safety, evidence ethics, or other rule-breaking is an issue.

2. My ideological preferences otherwise will have no bearing on the round and you can and should do whatever it takes to win, whether that entails bracketing out consequences, impact turning the apocalypse, critiquing rhetoric, or reading a nine-point dump on why taking prep time destroys education.

WHAT I WON'T VOTE ON:

There are a few things I won't vote on or evaluate:

1. Arguments that are made outside of your speech time (e.g. during prep time or your opponent's speech time) or lack warrants. I think Rafael Pierry's definition of a warrant is correct and have pasted it here:

"My general guideline for a warrant is: could I explain this argument to the other team in a reasonable post-round and feel confident that it was said by their opponents? This explanation doesn’t mean I need to have a deep intellectual grasp of the position, simply that I could re-state it and the losing side would understand why they lost."

2. Ad hominems or any attack on an individual debater's integrity/character.

3. Anything about clothes (unless you're wearing something super messed up like a well-known hate symbol)

4. Things that are patently unsafe (for clarification: I will vote on things like spark, animal wipeout, or even just Ligotti-style "death good", but not something like "white supremacism good" or any other sort of explicit bigotry - you'll get an L0 if you read the latter and I will inform the tournament organizers, possibly coaches as well).

5. Stuff about speaks (e.g. "give both debaters a 30 for reciprocity")

6. Arguments that are "inserted". That means you have to read re-highlights. I'll grant an exception if you have only re-highlighted punctuation.

7. New arguments in the final rebuttal (unless they're responding to something read in the speech immediately preceding, obviously) or arguments that proactively justify such (e.g. "I get new 2ar arguments for timeskew"). I'll put another two Rafael Pierry quotes here to clarify:

"Dropped arguments are absolutely true, but an argument only consists of the words you said. Additional words, warrants, or evidence are certainly new and merit new responses."

"In a similar vein, cross-applications are never new. You can persuade me that the opposing team made new arguments while cross-applying something and I’ll likely grant you new contextualization, but I am extremely unlikely to disallow cross-application in a final rebuttal."

LOGISTICAL RULES:

If you blatantly contradict your case in cx (e.g. claiming you skipped an off that you actually read) your speaks will begin at a 26, though I will "accept" the answer (e.g. I will remove the off from my flow). If you lie about having read something you didn't that is equal to clipping and will be evaluated as such (see clipping section).

Give content warnings for sensitive subjects and death good - if you think it could be sensitive just err on the side of caution - if someone does get triggered because you didn't give a warning you will be dropped and speaks will be tanked.

Please time yourselves, and feel free to call out your opponent if they are taking more time than they should or stealing prep. I've been trying (and will continue to try) to time the rounds I judge but I often find myself forgetting to.

Prep time stops when the speech doc is sent, or when the thumb drive is removed. You don't need to take prep time for tech issues or bathroom breaks, just try to get things resolved in a timely manner.

You won't be penalized for not answering a question asked outside of CX.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

In general, I will not be particularly knowledgeable on the topic. You should explain particular nuances to me or else I will not get them. However, I will note down some things that I am aware of for each topic. This does not mean that you can avoid explanation altogether: If your opponent reads and wins something that completely contravenes my understanding of the topic (e.g. if they read "to strike means to hit" and it's dropped), then I am more than happy to vote on it.

Jan-Feb 2021: I know generally what the Outer Space Treaty says about national appropriation of space and the general consensus among legal scholars about what that means for private entities (spoilers: they can't appropriate space either! unless it's mining for some reason - and apparently building bases perhaps? International law is very strange).

Nov-Dec 2021: I know enough about the NLRA to know that just expanding its scope is clearly not topical.

Sept-Oct 2021: I am familiar with what the term "evergreening" means and the length of time it takes for a patent to expire under TRIPS.

LESS IMPORTANT THINGS THAT STILL SHOULD BE NOTED:

I'm not good at minesweeping so I'd prefer if you put tricks (if you read tricks) in the doc. At the very least, slow down if you are coming up with a prioris off the top of your head.

If you tell me not to flow you, I won't flow, but I also won't evaluate.

What you do with evidence is more important than the evidence itself. I don't intend to read a lot of the evidence after the round unless I find it suspicious (see ev ethics). Unintuitive claims require more evidence and/or more explanation.

I don't disclose speaks.

You can use CX as prep time. I won't dock points for it.

You can call me "judge" "Derek" "Mr. Ying" or anything.

If you open-source all of your cards (including the ones on case!!!!! and the 1AR!!!!!) and tell me before the round I'll give you +0.3 speaker points.

"Eval after...": I will flow the whole debate, but I can be persuaded to not look at certain sections of the flow. In other words, if "Evaluate the debate after the 1AR" is won, I won't stop flowing and immediately start writing the RFD after that speech, just that after the round is over I will be disinclined to look at anything past the 1AR. I should also note that if the "eval after" argument is made inside the speech the argument is telling me to evaluate after then I will accept responses in the speech immediately after (e.g. the 2NR can respond to "eval after the 1AR" if it was made in the 1AR and I'll evaluate it).

ONLINE DEBATE:

Having your camera on is preferable but not needed.

Keep local recordings of speeches on hand. If I don't hear something due to connection issues and no recording is available, I will have no choice but to assume nothing was said.

If my camera is off, you should assume I am not ready or even present at my computer absent an explicit verbal cue.

I currently live in the UK. If I am judging online you should be aware that I am between 5 (for east coasters) and 8 (for west coasters) hours ahead of you. If I make statements that seem incongruous with the time (e.g. "wow it's dark" even though it's noon where you are) or seem far more tired than would be expected this is why.

In addition, my residence is next to a very busy street which gets especially loud at night (on my end, it will likely be sometime closer to the afternoon for you). Feel free to ask me to repeat things as many times as you wish if you did not hear them.

EVIDENCE ETHICS:

I think that, for the most part, evidence ethics and quality should be debated in round - if a card is cut out of context or is highlighted to misrepresent authorial intent this seems more of an in-round issue than something you should stake the round on. I am open to theory shells that defend a norm outside of the actual evidence ethics rules (e.g. "no brackets ever" or "cite must have DOA"), but I will evaluate it like any other argument.

Originally, I had a section explaining the evidence ethics rules I personally adhered to, but after some consideration, I have chosen to defer to the NSDA rules, as they are the highest authority, whether I agree with their judgments or not. I'll reproduce the rules here, though they will be shortened based on how I interpret the text of the manual.

Evidence is anything that is directly attributable to a specific source. For example, quotes and cards are evidence because it can be attributed to a single author or organization, but something like "the population of Earth is seven billion" is not evidence because it is not attributable to any specific source, it is just some fact floating out there.

There are four evidence ethics "hard rules" that constitute a loss if they are violated. If a debater is found to have violated these rules, they will get an L0:

1. Words that are added to the card's body must be bracketed in, and cannot distort the author's intent.

2. Evidence must have cites, and they must be correct. If someone (correctly) points out that the cite is not there the debater has twenty minutes to find it and show it.

3. The argument in a card cannot have been written with the intent to disprove it. (e.g. if someone says "Some say that white chocolate is superior to dark. Here is why they are wrong." and the only part you read is "white chocolate is superior to dark" then that is a violation.) I personally interpret this to mean that the argument is introduced in the original article specifically and only so that it can be torn down with practically no merits left standing, not a light critique of the argument or a partial agreement with nuances or corrections.

4. Text cannot be removed from the middle of a card. Substituting removed text with an ellipsis (three dots) is apparently especially heinous for the NSDA. I believe using "they continue" is an acceptable substitute for making a whole new card, because it clearly demarcates when each section begins and ends, like a card tag would, even if not actually a card tag.

Violations of points 1 and 2 are reasons to be disqualified from the tournament.

These four points are the only ones that can a debater stop the round on. Wrong evidence ethics allegations will be punished with a loss. The rules don't define any speaker point penalties, so I will just give an L26. The "winner" of an evidence ethics dispute will be given a W29.3 (rules don't specify anything for the winner, so I'll just give a somewhat above-average speaker score).

There are other evidence rules, but the rules say that I don't need to take action if they are violated, so I won't, with one exception: If it's not published or otherwise available online, it's not evidence and I will not evaluate it. If you want to card your email exchange with a scholar, put it on a blog first.

CLIPPING:

I read along with cards. if I catch a debater clipping I'll let the debate finish (unless someone stakes the round, then I'll stop), then drop the offender with the lowest speaks possible. If you skip 3 or more words, it's clipping.

If you stake the round on clipping you should have a recording in case I didn't catch it, but if I did catch it then whether or not you have a recording won't influence my decision.

DEFAULTS:

I don't like having to use defaults for anything other than presumption or judge kick. Judge instruction will be rewarded with a less confusing and more "correct" ballot.

1. Presumption flows negative unless someone gives a warrant for why it shouldn't.

2. I don't start off with judge kick, but I will allow it if someone says that they should have it, even absent a warrant (unless it's contested, obviously).

3. When it comes to anything else, I will try to operate under the shared assumptions of both debaters. For example, if the 2nr collapses to theory and the 2ar collapses to an RVI but neither DTD no RVIs were ever justified or refuted (don't do this btw), I'll assume that theory is DTD with RVIs. This also applies to substance: If the aff's sole contentions are "plan prevents a nuclear war" and every neg argument consists of "plan causes nuke war" I would assume nuclear war is really bad and the only thing I should care about even if neither side gives reasons why.

SPEAKS:

I'm not going to put one of those speaks chart things because I know I won't be consistent with it. Just know that I will reward good, well thought out strategies and creativity with higher speaks and punish irritating/bad strategies with lower ones. Unfortunately, "good" and "bad" strategies are ultimately ideological, so I have clarified what I think here. However, just because I think something is bad doesn't mean I won't vote on it nor will it bias me against it (ideally).

Creativity: I like it when people demonstrate that they have kept up with the lit on a subject instead of simply relying on what are now basically ancient blocks. Kritiks and phil FWs with recent evidence, are proof of this, as are up-to-date impact turns or defense. Novel Ks and FWs, those that are outside of the established Kant/Hobbes/Baudrillard/pessimism "canon" are also very good, and such venturing into unexplored territory combined with recent evidence will make me a very happy camper.

I think also that arguments tailored to the arguments being read are also quite nice, like an aff-specific counterplan or K link. Some topicality or theory shells may also be somewhat aff specific, but obviously no shell will be completely germane to the aff, otherwise it wouldn't establish any real rules or limits. Combo shells are an exception, but in my personal opinion their interp texts are overcomplicated and could be simplified considerably into a generalized shell - they're only specific in name.

Specificity is also a good thing for on-case stuff. For policy stuff, answers that are specific to the advantage being read or some deficit to the specific plan text is always better than just reading generic impact defense constantly. For responding to a K or K aff, I should note that the lit used in Ks is by its nature controversial and thus, barring the field or idea being completely new (which is very unlikely), there will be a healthy amount of works arguing against it. I will enjoy responses that indicate you have actually gone across the library and read about why the specific author or thesis is wrong rather than a generic "politics is good" defense.

Speaking of Ks, I also like it when multiple different fields of critical scholarship are merged into a coherent argument. Exploring intersections between, for example, cybernetics and race, demonstrate a good grasp of the fields, though obviously it must be argued well or I will not be convinced you truly understood it.

Phil debate is weird to me not because of the tomfoolery it is associated with (which I will mention in the "bad strategies" section) but because it, in my experience, has had a lot of the specific argumentation I praised earlier - for example, answers to Kant tend to be only applicable to Kant - yet most of it is analytical. I think that there is potential for phil debates to center more around evidence and I will reward people who have more (good) cards: I think that much of the understanding of phil debate as a "blip-storm" would not exist had the style cited more scholars.

I enjoy weird counterinterps to T shells as long as they are backed up by definitions or some way of understanding words in the resolution. While this is mostly meant for K affs, there are many policy affs that push the boundaries of what the topic includes, and when those affs have viable counterinterps with definitions, they often are more impressive than the K affs. On that note, Nebel T is boring and I will look more favorably upon any T definition that can achieve a similar effect (that is, exclude nearly all advocacy texts save for one or perhaps two) without using the phrase "bare plural".

Theory (not topicality) is in a strange position for me. I think that right now theory debate is a bit too bound to fairness. While certainly theory debaters love to harp on about the value of the game and equity and such and such, perhaps some more creative (or perhaps more absurd, for theory's critics) interps can be revealed by building shells around standards like education (and its subtypes e.g. phil ed, critical ed, real world, etc.) or norm-setting, or some part of the game we call debate outside of raw procedural fairness.

Bad strategies: I believe personally that debate's competitive nature encourages the above things: creativity, novel scholarship, and good research in general. However, the need to extract concessions from the opponent, often also encourages some nonsense, like obscene amounts of non-topic-specific NIBs and a prioris (three's pushing it) and buzzword vomit extensions that explain nothing. I will dock points for such strategies. There are also some obvious blunders that I will decrease points for, like reading multiple disclosure shells or dropping something that clearly blows open your whole contention like a case turn.

Being an [redacted for tabroom] gets your speaks tanked and coach+tab informed. Debate's community is rather toxic as it is right now and I do not wish the problem to continue. Ethos is one thing, but harassment is another.

NOVICES AND TRADITIONAL:

If you are debating a novice or a traditional debater and you are not either of those you should try to make the round more accessible. That does not mean you should change your strategy significantly, but I will expect you to do the following or else suffer low speaks:

1. Send analytics and extensions. This is thousands of times more important than anything else. If you are reading something dense, you should send analytics even if you don't spread.

2. Be very clear in cross-x. Do not try to pull any "what's an apriori" stuff or other tomfoolery. Get to the point.

3. Explain things more and slower than you usually would. Make sure the round is educational. Ideally, the opponent should be able to understand what you have said, and, in theory, could beat it back. Is it Kant? Make sure they exit the round knowing what the categorical imperative is. Baudrillard? Both sides should get the gist of the hyperreal by the time everything's done. Obviously, this is wishful thinking but please try.

BACKGROUND:

I have put this second to last because I don't believe it is important - the only thing you should take away from this was that I dabbled in many styles but did not master any.

I debated in LD for Lexington from 2017 to 2021. I was a trad debater as a freshman, a phil debater as a sophomore, a policy/phil debater as a junior, and fairly flexible my senior year - I read Ks and K affs whenever I could with occasional policy, theory and phil strategies. As a debater, I leaned more towards high theory (e.g. Paul Virilio, Giorgio Agamben, Yuk Hui, Ingrid Hoofd) than identity, though I did read an identity aff my senior year.

It should be noted that "fairly flexible" does not mean "circuit success" - I was in fact a very subpar debater and rarely cleared.

I am not debating in college.

FOOD:

I never understood why people gave judges food, but I had at least one teammate who was given food by a debater they judged so I will note some things down if you decide to do this.

1. Usually, I am not hungry. I will reject offers of food under nearly all circumstances. Do not be offended if your offer is for naught.

2. I despise eggplant dishes, most soy products (e.g. soymilk, tofu, edamame, etc,), and apples. The latter two cause my throat to itch and swell up a bit (not anaphylaxis, just a minor, if very unpleasant reaction). I have never eaten the former without literally gagging.

3. My spice tolerance is absurdly low. Shin black instant ramen has made me cry before. I wish this was a joke.

Georgetown'24

Oak Hall'20

komi.zaidi@gmail.com

Some new musings for TOC:

1] Folks have been incredibly unclear over the past few years. I strongly believe that debate is an oral/rhetorical game as much as it is technical. If your strategy relies on reading a slew of analytics while simultaneously slurring every other word in an attempt to make up for a grave lack of speaking drills, I will be displeased and you will be too after the decision.

2] Get the chain started as early as you can, I don't particularly enjoy sitting around waiting for docs. If you are aff, you should be ready to start reading the 1AC immediately at start time.

3] I hate the new acronyms going around. "IVI" makes me physically contort.

Most of my philosophical views on debate are an amalgamation of (often contradictory) influences from: Marna Weston, Evan Cartagena, Nigel Ward, Carter Levinson, Josh Michael, Skyler Harris, Daryl Burch, Calum Matheson, Elijah Smith, Brandon Kelley, Tyler Thur, and Shanara Reid-Brinkley. That information may mean something to you, it may mean absolutely nothing. I wouldn't read too much into it.

My ideological predispositions have become more viscous over time as I’ve gained familiarity with a variety of different styles of debate, literature, and argumentation. What this means is that you should read whatever argument you think will provide you the highest chance of winning the debate. This is perhaps the most important takeaway from my paradigm. In some debates, that option might be T-FW vs a K aff, in another it could be process counterplan, psychoanalysis, Moten, a floating PIK, or China heg good. The point is that I don’t particularly care what flavor of argument you read. What I care about is execution and strategic choice. I cannot stress this enough, it frustrates me more than anything when debaters try to "adapt" based on assumptions about me or how you think I feel about arguments. Most of the time, those assumptions are profoundly incorrect. Do what you're good at.

Debate is ultimately a game of rhetoricians. So what you say is as important as HOW you say it. This is not a question of Tech or Truth but affect and packaging. Winning the room is how you get decisive wins, high speaker points, and perform like a top debater.

(Tasteful) Pettiness gets you speaker points. I’ve been coached and mentored by a series of incredibly petty individuals and I think it’s rubbed off on me.

Another note I think is important (from Carter's paradigm) -

"In order that you are not surprised should the following take place in your debate, I will tell you now I do not intend to vote on blippy arguments that side-step the real question of the debate. This will not apply against a category of warranted arguments that might be considered "must answer" or even "cheap shots" arguments that are, however, germane to the debate. Examples include but are not limited to floating pics, topical versions, truth testing, cp results in the aff. HOWEVER, If you like to hide a one-sentence ASPEC violation in a 2nc block or practice other forms of argumentative cowardice, I will be displeased and I expect you will feel similar displeasure as a result of my own.”

A dropped argument is a true argument. BUT, an argument requires a claim, warrant, and impact. This should clarify my threshold on cowardice.

FW vs K affs

I've been on literally every possible side of this debate as both a debater and a coach and don't particularly have a proclivity one way or another. These debates generally come down to impact framing and the ability to solve your offense best and mitigate the other side. Framework debates are fundamentally about models - I'm a little more persuaded/impressed by K affs that can articulate their own model of debate/its net benefits, doing so makes the debate much cleaner.

K affs: I'm fine with anything. You can impact turn framework, have a creative counterinterp/reinterp of the rez, or anything in between. The key to not losing this side of the debate is explaining how the aff/your model of debate can actually solve your criticisms of Framework. Otherwise all your offense will likely be non-unique. K aff strategy needs to be thought out beyond the very superficial level of “Framework is genocide!” Yes, I will be rather familiar with your K lit (brownie points if you read Negarestani and can muster a coherent explanation). But my familiarity can be a double edged sword since its rather obvious when you didn't read the books you're citing.

Framework: Don't have a preference between fairness, clash, Street-T, dogmatism, etc. You should decide what flavor of Framework you're going for based on the 1AC and what you think is the most strategic option to defeat it. I think a lot of framework teams let the aff get away with murder in terms of shallow impact turns or nonsensical counterinterps, however, framework teams rarely do a good job capitalizing on said weaknesses.

Case Debating

Impact turns in general are heavily underutilized in case debating. Death good, heg good, Interventions good, AI development bad, take your pick. If you have high quality evidence in those debates it’s a pretty simple win.

Case debating writ large is also underutilized. Neg teams let affs get away with absolute murder. Don’t just read impact D, people’s internal links are absolutely atrocious, if you can reveal that and sprinkle in some good cards you’re in a good spot.

Disads

DAs are fun - impact calculus is very important. Evidence quality is waning these days - you need to have a link to the aff... and you need to have an internal link to your impact. A lot of times neg teams just assert extinction or a link without good evidence to support it and I am highly sympathetic to an aff team that takes advantage of 1NC strategic errors.

Counterplans

Counterplans are fine - you need to be crystal clear in your 2NC/2NR what part of the aff is the counterplan specifically trying to solve. And you need to explain why the CP mechanism is distinct from the aff/solves a particular net benefit which outweighs any potential aff offense. Absent this, it will be rather easy for the aff to both poke holes in the solvency mechanism of the CP, and weigh unsolved advantage ground against the CP net benefits. Again here, evidence quality is key, please have solvency advocates that are 1) qualified and 2) actually talk about the CP text.

I'm not too well read on counterplan competition theory. I will vote on theoretical objections to cheating CPs and will likely be persuaded by them but I am comparatively worse at sifting through that debate as opposed to other styles.

Kritiks

Mostly similar to the K aff vs Framework section. I enjoy creativity in K debate and get bored by recycled arguments. You need a link to the plan that is not just a link to the status quo. K links need to be robust, preferably with quotes from the aff evidence. Please stop reading blocks straight down, its lame.

intro:

ld @ cypress woods high school '20, parli @ harvard '24.5. dabbled in worlds (usa dev '19)!

please time yourself

worlds:

ask me anything before round!

ld:

i qualled to the toc my senior year and taught at nsd flagship & tdc. if you have questions / for sdocs: angelayufei@gmail.com

shortcuts:

1 - phil/theory. i probably give more weight to k v phil interactions, phil v theory interactions, and k interactions in a truth testing paradigm than the average tx judge. i also enjoy interesting paradigm issue interactions on theory

2 - tricks/larp. i’m not familiar with the topic though, nor do i know what the principle of explosion is - you still need to explain things!

3 - k unless they're reps ks, which i read a lot of. i prefer lbl to floating overviews that im not sure what to do with.

speaks:

- have the doc ready to send ahead of time

- i enjoy a good cx

- i'll call slow and clear as many times as i need to but speaks will drop. im fine w ur opponent calling slow/clear too as long as it's not malicious.

- scripting the entire speech and/or big words without explanation is an ick - i have no idea what, for example, hapticality is.

- postrounding / being aggressive (esp against trad/novices/minorities) makes me sad

miscellaneous:

- you have to provide evi to your opponent/judge. that does not mean you have to disclose (you can have that debate) but should show them, if requested. evi contestation (clipping, miscutting, etc.) is evaluated however the debaters decide: theory shell, stopping the round, etc.

- reading problematic args (eg racism good) is obvs an L. however, the validity of death good, trigger warnings, etc. are debatable (at least in front of me)

- online rounds - record your speeches in case internet gets funky

- i think the ability to spin evi should be rewarded; having good evi helps but "call for the card" puts me in a weird position. do that weighing for me.

- send any relevant screenshot for violations

i don't want to use defaults but here they are for accountability:

- comparative worlds

- permissibility negates, the side with less of a change from the status quo under comparative worlds gets presumption

- epistemic confidence

- dta on theory, dtd on t, competing interps, no rvis

- no judge kick