put me in the chain pretty please: jbalanovsky@gmail.com

tldr: read whatever just explain why you win and don't be offensive. don’t make me cry :(

Background:

- upenn '26, atech '22 (policy in hs)

General things:

- tech > truth

- idc what you read

- don't be rude, none of the offensive -isms. i will vote you down for that type of rhetoric

- speed is cool just be clear, i am willing to clear you a few times (especially if the tourney is online) but I'll have to dock speaks if it becomes excessive. slow down a bit on tags/ things not on the doc ESPECIALLY ONLINE. 

- i don't want to give super low speaks so please don't make me do that

- write the ballot for me or I will cry

- partner cross is fine with me as long as everyone in the round is also okay with it. please don't have one partner ask/answer most everything because i will dock both your speaks for that.

- i'm fine with flex prep if everyone is okay with it too, but please still do significant cross examination.

- you don't have to take prep to send the doc (i feel you computer issues gang). stealing prep makes me cry, however.

Mildly Specific stuff:

Policy affs: irdc what you read just have good impact framing and calculus. your aff exists for a reason, use its strategic advantages to your advantage. i enjoy the use of 1ac cards to answer neg args when applicable.

DAs: please do impact calc or i will cry. i think turns case arguments are fun and compelling.

CPs: id prefer you to tell me to judge kick. explain perms. pics are something that exist in debate i guess.

Theory: i can vote for any theory arg if you win it, but your speaks will reflect if you go for a silly shell/go for a silly shell when you had so many other ways to win the debate. If you are extending a blippy or friv theory shell, do more work than you had done when you read the shell or I will cry. tell me why your arg matters.

Topicality v Policy: im a sucker for good t debates honestly. i default to competing interps unless instructed otherwise. i like hearing caselists for the good things you include/bad things you exclude. please please impact everything out and compare impacts. why does your interp being good for ground outweigh their definition being more predictable, etc etc.

General K things: i don't know some of the more obscure lit bases so please do extra explaining if you're reading something like that. i have primarily read setcol, cap, and security args in my career. please tell me what my ballot does.

Policy v K: specific links are good. impact out those links. if the framework debate exists, it probably matters. i am willing to vote on the link/impact level alone.

K v K: really fun debates. do that clash thing and you will be golden.

K v T/FW/whatever you wanna call it: just as cool with these debates as with k v k. prove why your model of debate is preferable or I will once again cry.

have fun! fr y'all you should be enjoying your debates.

here is my email: raymondbehnke4@gmail.com

I’m open to all types of arguments but I did got to RDI and Michigan Seven Week. I was never that great of a circuit debater but I know circuit arguments very throughly. I do also understand K's and I am not against them.

I will say that evidence comparison, warrant analysis, and framing of the ballot makes any kind of debate easier to understand.

Update for UNLV 24: I don't know anything about the topic.

Novices, please extend arguments and use evidence to your advantage - don't forget impact calc and always weigh case/da/internal net benefit.

I have been involved in speech and debate for 28 years. I did policy in High School and debated Parli in College. I have head or assistant coached for the past 22 years.

**I don't hold CX as binding (don't need to ask if I'm ready for...I'm not flowing it).

**I start running prep when you sit down from cross and stop it when you are up to speak again. Helps keeps rounds on time. The increase in prep was to accommodate filesharing, so you should be doing that during prep, not in addition to prep.

**Aff/Pro on my left (facing me your right)

Policy

I consider myself a Communication/Stock Issues judge with strong policy maker tendencies. I like to see REALISTIC impact calc and am likely to vote for the Aff if there is no risk of a disadvantage. Theory/K: I have only voted for 1 K. I think they are a great tool in college debate and usually high school students run them as a generic, underdeveloped off case. If you didn't personally cut the cards and write the K and if you can't explain the premise to your mom in 30 seconds...you probably won't win my ballot with it. CP: need to be able to prove mutual exclusivity and net benefit. IMO CP MUST be NON-TOPICAL. DAs: I really don't buy into ridiculous impacts like extinction and nuclear war and I hate moral obligation arguments. Risk of extinction is not something I weigh. Delivery: I can flow quickly and follow fast argumentation. HOWEVER--communication is important. Abnormal breathing will lose you points as will shotgun-style spreading. Develop deep arguments with claim, data, warrant. Tag Teaming: Don't make your partner look dumb. Time: Aside from the 10 second roadmap, the clock is running. Jump/file drop during prep or CX.

Curtesy and Ethics are a BIG DEAL!

LD

I am a traditional LD judge. I do NOT think Plans, CP, or K belong in LD. Keep to the V/C debate. Weigh your arguments. Should be more rhetorical (more your words, fewer cards) than policy. Judged heavily on presentation, argumentation and persuasion.

PF

Please wait to be seated until after coin toss. I need pro on my left and con on my right to help ensure the ballot is filled out in favor of the intended team. PF was made for LAY judges and I don't believe it needs a paradigm.

Congress

Yes...I have a congress paradigm...I like to see structured speeches that present NEW arguments or REFUTE arguments on the floor. Source Citation is important. Treat it like a good extemp. Presentation is important as is overall participation in the chamber. I have judged/parli at nationals for several years. I expect professionalism and good argumentation.

*TOC coaching affiliation: I am a coach for Break Debate. Conflict List---Barrington AC, Carnegie Vanguard LH, Durham SA, Flower Mound AM, Garland LA, L C Anderson LS, L C Anderson NW, Lexington MS, Lynbrook BZ, Lynbrook OM, Monta Vista EY, Oak Ridge AA, Sage Oak Charter AK, Scripps Ranch AS, Southlake Carroll AS, St Agnes EH, Seven Lakes VS.

*Please start the email chain without me - I flow without the doc.

Debate is a game that requires dropped arguments to be evaluated as true in order to function. That means I will vote on anything sans racism, sexism, etc.

—CX—

One of the most important parts of the round. I will shake my head if you ask about a card that wasn’t read.

—Ks—

2NR must explain why either the plan or plan focus is bad. Quotes from evidence, cx, and references to their performance are persuasive.

An offensive reason for why they shouldn’t be able to weigh case + a link to the affs reps is sufficient. You do not need an alternative because framework provides uniqueness.

If the link is to the plan, you do not need to win framework as long as you treat the K as a critical DA and CP. Link turns case prior to solvency, the impact to the link outweighs case, the alt solves enough of the aff for the link to outweigh the solvency deficit, etc.

Perm cards and generic DAs are unpersuasive. Spend that time doing contextual analysis, using the link to explain why the perm fails.

—Policy vs K—

2AR must explain why either their reps are good, or why plan focus is good.

Good affs have smart tricks vs the K: aff is anti-militarist, withdrawal inevitable, plan affirms sovereignty, etc. Use them.

Perm double bind.

Debate the links, don’t just assert the opposite - explain why their characterization of the aff is wrong. Links have three levels: link, internal link, impact. Answering any one of these is usually sufficient.

—K affs—

DAs to the negs model must be intrinsic - your offense should be about something their interp mandates, not arguments that can potentially be made under it.

Alternatively, you can read a DA that establishes why their performance in this round is a reason they should lose.

Most aff framework angles rely on winning debate shapes subjectivity - this is probably the most important argument in any debate where the impact is clash.

If the impact is fairness, affs should have reason for why debate is more than a game, alternatives to competition are possible, etc.

Ballot key?

—Framework—

The impact to fairness is fairness. However, it is your job to prove that.

2NRs should probably win that debate is a game and content is neutral.

Explain why their DAs don’t apply to your model. Explain why their C/I links harder to their offense.

Line by line their arguments with offense and defense. If clash is good, do it.

—Policy Vs Policy—

I should not be in the back of this. I understand substantive interactions but am not well versed in competition. However, I will do my best to evaluate these rounds as technically as possible.

—Phil—

I vote on it. Decent understanding of skep, intent-based vs consequentialist frameworks, etc.

—Theory/Tricks—

A dropped argument is a dropped argument no matter how silly. However, silly arguments are by virtue east to answer.

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

PF/LD in HS, former UT policy debater (2A/1N).

PSHS '20, UT '24

Conflicts: Plano Senior HS (Plano, TX), Jasper HS (Plano, TX), Clark HS (Plano, TX)

plano.speechdocs@gmail.com (Email for email chain)

Judges who I largely agree with:

Aryan Jasani

Vandan Patel

Pref Sheet for all Events (1 is highest, 5 is lowest)

1 - LARP/theory

2 - K

3 - phil

4 - tricks

5 - K aff, performance

Defaults

Theory - DtA, Reasonability, RVIs*

Presumption/Permissibility flows neg

Policymaking in the absence of a RotB and Utilitarianism in absence of an alternative framework

Note that these are just what I default to in the absence of arguments made for any of these issues, if any arguments are made on these I will obviously evaluate them.

*Check theory section if you do CX Debate

As a general note, my favorite rounds to judge are really solid LARP/theory/K rounds, but don't worry if that's not your strat because I'm fine with anything as long as you do a really good job of it. Good flow-oriented debate will always beat grandstanding and not flow-oriented debate.

TLDR if you are pressed for time: Debated LARP style and a little bit of K. Do your strat and I will do my best to evaluate it.

PF

- +0.5 speaks for disclosure on the NDCA wiki before round with proof

- just because you have a piece of evidence doesn't mean it has a warrant - make sure each card you provide in any speech has sufficient warranting

- second rebuttal should frontline offense in the first rebuttal

- defense isn't sticky in summary

- summary and final should ideally mirror each other

- weigh, weigh, weigh! good weighing will reward you in round

LD/CX

LARP - favorite style of debate. I really like smaller affs and specific case debate. Good weighing in the 2NR/2AR is a good way to get my ballot in a LARP round. Finally, please extend case in the 2AR if you want me to evaluate it at the end of the round. If case was conceded in the 2NR, a small 2AR extension at the top of the 2AR will suffice.

Theory - I prefer more fleshed out arguments rather than blips. I would also like you to go a little slower through analytics and on the interp text/counterinterp text. I will vote on disclosure theory but I think there is a difference between someone not disclosing at all and someone not adhering to every single little interp you have. I also probably won't evaluate disclosure on people who can prove in a verifiable way that their school policy prevents it. Other than that, I don't have any strong preferences on theory but I will say the bar to responding to friv theory is much lower. Good standard weighing and clear abuse stories are easy ways to get my ballot in a theory round. *CX Specific - theory/T are not RVIs, so don't try it.*

T - I only really ask that you have a TVA/caselist with any topicality argument or I will err more on the aff side of topicality. Other than that, anything is fine.

Tricks - I mean, I guess you can but I won't be too thrilled about it. Just delineate them, err on the side of overexplaining the arguments (like don't be blippy) and be up front in CX. I will not vote off condo logic - its a terrible argument (tbf all tricks are terrible but this one just is worse than the rest).

Phil - I'm familiar with Kant, Rawls, Hobbes and virtue ethics at a basic level but assume I don't know your lit and err on the side of overexplaining what the framework is and how the offense links under it.

K - I've only really read cap and security as a debater so assume I don't know your lit so err on the side of overexplaining the theory of power in the 2NR. I really like well done K debates, so please don't forgo the line-by-line for overarching overview answers and shallow explanations of the arguments that regurgitate buzzwords, that will make me sad. Including examples to explain the theory of power and/or alternative are also good. I also like specific links to the 1AC, generic links are fine but specificity will always better your chances of winning and/or getting good speaks.

K affs/performance - I don't really know the ins-and-outs of this style of debate too well because I never really debated in this style, but I will say I tend to lean on the neg side of T-framework just because I ended up on that side in a lot of debates.

Don't call me Judge, please call me Kim. Lay but open to prog if you're willing to explain it to me. It'd be cool if you could slow down on analytics. Clear 3 times, then I'm nuking speaks.

Email me if you run into complications: 004nguyen.k@gmail.com

Boba Tea Fan | TOC 21 | Stanford 25 | He/Him | BA Candidate International Relations | BS Candidate Economics

bwthomas@stanford.edu

Questions about anything? Ask me before the round.

Parli Section for Berkeley:

Hi all! If you're a Parli debater, you can safely ignore everything other than this paragraph + the next paragraph, since all of that is meant for policy, and policy requires...detailed...paradigms. I really enjoy debate, so as long as you give it your all, I will too. I am pretty ideologically neutral, so just make good arguments and you will win. What you need to know about me is that I was a policy debater throughout high school, so while I am not expecting you to line by line like this is policy, I will view the debate in a fairly technical way. Another result of this is that I do not care if you make claims that are unintuitive on face, as long as you win them. Finally, I think correctly identifying what arguments you actually need to win the round and throwing the rest to the wayside is a a sign of skilled debating, not cowardice, and I appreciate this. I currently compete in British Parliamentary and APDA, which has moderated my policy influences to an extent, but just remember that I love the flow lol

If you run theory you need a clear interpretation and you need to clearly explain the relationship between the interpretation and the impacts.If you just say buzzwords, you will lose. Your job is to convince me to literally intervene in a debate. My bar for intervention scales with the intervention you request. It will be hard to make me drop a team even if you go all-in on theory. Asking me to interpret fiat a certain way, by contrast, is pretty easy.

Important Things:

--Most judges do impact calc backwards. Your claim has 0% probability even after you presented it and your warrants and evidence build this up. Bad evidence and arguments have marginal impacts on this even if the other team drops them. This means I will vote aff/neg on even analytic defense if it levels the argument. I very rarely will assign an argument as true or false, instead I will assign a probability range to it and evaluate accordingly. If you need more elaboration about this, I basically agree with everything my dude Vincent Xiao has in his top level section, except I am fine with death good.

--I will read all of your evidence, but only evaluate the highlighted words. I also care who your authors are and if you do not make qual comparisons, I will. This means if you cut a blog post or an op-ed, I will not evaluate it differently than an analytic and I will reward you for cutting peer reviewed journals in the relevant subject area. Numbers and data are good. "X" author is biased or a hack is a real argument I care about, but only if you have reasons why they are wrong.

--CX is binding and underutilized. I will flow it. Being unable to explain how something links to an impact, what the alt actually does, etc. are all things that will count against you.

--Reasonability means that I determine whether the just the aff interp is good or bad by looking at the offense it generates versus the offense against it. Competing Interps means I evaluate the world of the C/I versus the world of the Interp. This means whether you win reasonability is significant in front of me, since it is not a gut check and if you read T blocks assuming reasonability is a gut check your offense will fall flat.

--More good is better than less good. This is the only argument required in most framing debates. Don't be scared to just use Util for impact calc. Most rounds you won't really win extinction without a concerted effort, so I care about impacts deeper in the chain. Do more people die becoming climate refugees than would die in the US-China war?

--You can read your K Aff and I am probably at least familiar with the lit. I am highly familiar with cap, semiocap, and biopolitics. See K/FW section for more detailed thoughts.

--Buzzwords are almost always an excuse for not explaining your argument. If you tell me X obfuscates Y or that Z is a libidinal investment I do not care unless you explain and implicate the argument. These are claims absent further elaboration.

--I will not evaluate things that happened out of round. You can talk about your identity, but not that of anybody else. If you do, it will be reflected in your speaker points.

--If you try to avoid clash by being sneaky, I will intervene to punish you because this is anti-educational and you're wasting everyone's time. If you hide aspec under T, turn a case card into a separate K, etc. and blow it up in the block I will just give the other team new answers. If you aren't sure if something falls into the sneaky category, it does.

-Clash gets speaks.

-I like debate, so my decision will probably take a while. Most judges will be lazy and go with their gut feeling. I will not. I will play close attention as long as the debate is good.

K Affs:

--I have not seen a K Aff I do not believe loses to presumption. Most K Affs make broad impact claims without any--or at best, an ambiguous--solvency mechanism. I will reward 2NR presumption pushes.

--I will punish you for explaining your Aff in the 2AC. Anything I can't clearly trace back to a clear 1AC argument will be evaluated as new and as analytic.

--Most K Affs are use deliberately impenetrable language to make simple claims. Explain and implicate your argument or I will have to do it for you.

--Nontrad is fine, but only in your speech. Don't go overtime or interrupt the other team. That is against the rules and I will just give you an L.

--Please do not spread poetry. It's actually just disrespectful to the poets. Additionally, performance for the sake of performance has proliferated in K debate. Absent reasons why your performance matters, I will just evaluate it as analytics and maybe give you some speaks if it was cool.

--State good is a convincing case turn against every K Aff.

--You get perms in methods debates, but only if they make sense given your 1AC.

FW:

--Clash of Civ Debates are stale from groupthink and a lack of basic critical thinking on both sides. If this is you, I will be frustrated, give you bad speaks, and you will probably lose.

--FW is about Models of Debate. The K aff does not garner offense from the 1AC, but from the model of debate generated by their C/I. Likewise, FW is not about whether the 1AC was debatable. Absent a clearly defined C/I that makes sense I will probably conclude you do not access your offense. If your counterinterp is arbitrary and does not have a resolutional basis, you will lose absent a highly effective impact turn to a resolutional stasis point. I am significantly better for Baudrillard-esque arguments than most other K affs.

--Theory precedes content. In a FW debate, the aff is no longer relevant. I will hold this line even with affs that claim to have in-round solvency, even if this is conceded. This becomes messy if cards are crossapplied as offense on FW, but in this case I only care about clearly crossapplied and explained elements. I will never vote on external offense if FW is lost. I will also never let you go for offense against the neg reading FW in the first place. You do not get to pick an aff that forces the neg into one hypergeneric and then say they can't read it. I don't care what your reasoning is.

--Because of the way I evaluate impacts, fairness FW is viable in front of me, but I think Miles (Cal FG) style FW with larger external impacts like movements or conflict resolution is a stronger argument.

Ks on Neg:

--Framework debates usually feel like a prescripted formality. I have the same concerns as with K Affs: does your counterinterp make sense? Frameworks that are clearly arbitrary and self-serving are non-starters (e.g., ROB is to align with Blackness). I can be persuaded by any variation of the epistemology FW interps, but winning the aff is good is offense under these interps unless the neg also wins consequentialism is bad. Affs should read epistemology offense. If your epistemology is realist and realism is good and I vote based on epistemology, then I should vote aff.

--Alt debate is a lost art. A good alt generates offense against the aff via mutual exclusivity. If you can't generate uniqueness with either FW or an alt I vote neg unless you have a specific link turns case scenario. Affs should use the world of the alt as offense -- if the alt destroys the state or capitalism and these are good and outweigh the K, the aff wins.

--2NCs should have cards. If I can't trace your arguments to evidence, that's a problem especially when you make incredibly broad claims.

--Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. We should destroy everything about the status quo and replace it? Your alt card needs to be fire. Structural claims, ontology claims, etc., need to be explained with structural or ontological evidence--X thing happened one time does not prove structures or ontology.

--Most kritiks are incredibly Eurocentric and international examples invalidate their claims. I am probably going to be a history minor, so calling out ahistorical claims that abound in K debate also goes a long way, especially the genetic fallacy.

--Perms should be specific and have clear ways they work.

--Specific links, especially with quotes, are great.

T:

--Unless T is contrived, I am a good judge for it.

--Caselists and explanations are great.

--T is actually a impact debate most of the time.

--Most T evidence is really bad. Use this to your advantage

CP:

--I love a CP that actually clashes with the aff. CPs that do the opposite of the aff are really cool.

--Cheating CPs are cheating. Please don't read them in the first place. I am easily convinced by theory and will be very forgiving of 1AR timeskew.

--I won't judgekick. If you read an advocacy, defend it or don't.

--Unlimited or arbitrary condo is probably bad. Go ahead and go for condo. X number of condo limits are unconvincing because they are never not arbitrary.

--PICS are cool but why not just read it as a DA? You can probably change my mind.

DA:

--A complete DA has uniqueness, link, (internal links) and an impact. Multiple of these can be in a card, but if they're not all in the 1NC you don't have a real argument. It's going to be difficult to go for that in front of me, especially in the 1NR.

--If you want extinction from nuclear war or climate change you have to earn it with real evidence and a clear reason you access it (why is this aff key to climate change broadly?). Reading Ng 19 with 15 words highlighted is not earning an extinction impact. However, if you win it I will reward you. Extinction is really bad!

--Extinction is not infinitely bad -- there is still value in the universe (unless you really make a push there is not) -- it is just [insert very large number] bad.

--Less buzzwords, more tell me why your DA matters more than the aff.

--Turns case is a lost art. Please spend some time on DA turns case.

Caddo Magnet 22'

Tulane 26'

email chain: ryanw9700@gmail.com

I did policy debate in high school for all four years. I did Zoom debate for a while, if possible, please have cameras on.

Tech over truth

Speak as fast as you want

More clash = better debate

Please do impact calculus

Good Line by Line will win you the round

Evidence quality matter a lot. I do read evidence after the round, and I see too often debaters power tagging entire arguments and getting a way with it. If the argument is dumb call it out. If you want me to read certain pieces of evidence after the round say it in speeches.

I read a variety of K and Policy oriented arguments in high school. I'm familiar with most critical literature bases. I do not have a strong preference towards either argument style.

What I like to see:

1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details

2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully

3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round

What I do not like:

1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies

2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it

1) collapsing down in the 2NR/ 2AR to the best points and explain warrants in details

2) Going away from blocks and engaging with the other teams arguments fully

3) Confidence, not arrogance, control the room/round

What I do not like:

1) Teams asking if X card was read or waiting absurd times for cut copies

2) Everyone knows you're stealing prep! So be slick about it

Topicality - go for it. If you are 2n, it should be all 5 minutes of the 2nr.

After hearing a lot of T debates on the NATO topic, I do not wanna hear T in the 2NR. This is not my preferred negative argument on the topic. Please feel free to read it though

Kritks: I love a good K debate. Links to the affirmative are the most persuasive to me. Other links are fine if explained properly. If you are not going for the alternative, you should win framework. If the framework page gets too messy don't expect me to do the work for you. I have a base level understanding of most literature bases. I read a K aff my senior year of HS. If you know your K then there should be no problem winning.

Framework: Debate is a game, but that is up to interpretation. Fairness is an impact. Clash is more persuasive to me. I think affirmative teams should be creative when responding to FW. I am more open to different models of debate than most judges. The 2NR shouldn't be five minutes of fairness comes before their arguments. Answer what the other team is saying.

I like K v. K debates. I can't promise I will flow perfectly in these rounds, so rebuttal speeches that clearly clarify the role of judge and ballot are crucial.

CP: I love a good CP debate. I can be convinced by any theory here. Unless it's condo its most likely a reason to reject the arg not the team.

DA: The best of the debates are with good impact calculus and resolved with good impact cal. Yes on impact turns. Link debate work is nice.

Speaker Points:

I give higher speaks than average. 28.6 is what I expect out of most rounds. If you are unclear and give bad, uncreative arguments, your speaker points will reflect that.

LD

- I end up judging lots of LD rounds. I have never done LD only judged rounds on it. I am best suited for LARP and K args. Anything outside of that I am probably not the best judge for you. I can handle a theory debate, buture.

Read my policy paradigm

1) LARP

2) Kritiks

3) Phil

4) Theory

5) Trixs

RVIs are dumb. I don't like voting on them.

just do impact cal

PF

Based on my experience, this event is a pain to judge. Please do not paraphrase. Please engage with each others arguments. Please do not send out a card doc if its just a bunch of quotes from NYT and Vox.

Mamaroneck '20, NYU '24

Put me on the email chain: ivanziabkin [at] gmail [dot] com

My pronouns are he/him.

I like to give a lot of comments -- if you have to leave shortly after the round feel free to interrupt me

TLDR

I like:

K debate, aff and neg

Contextualization

Interesting strategies and arguments (impact turns, esoteric ks, critical procedurals, etc.)
Clear signposting

Good cx
Performance, poetry, music, etc. etc.


I'm ok with:

Policy strats

Judge kicking

Condo, theory,T vs policy

T/FW vs Ks, "debate is/isn't a game" etc.

I dislike:
Blippy or incomplete arguments
Extreme lack of clarity

Stealing prep and/or repeated lengthy tech issues

Paradigm Proper

- Everything here is a suggestion rather than a rule. Don't do judge adaptation for me if you think it will hurt your chances of debating well. On most things I'm aligned with most other judges, what follows are quirks that are somewhat specific to me

- Online debate: I'll give you some leeway. If you suddenly disconnect in the middle of a speech let me know and we can figure something out. For me, I've found that using my camera on NSDA Campus produces a lot of crashes so I mostly keep it off. If I haven't spoken in a while and you're unsure that I'm still connected just ask.

- Tech over truth, I'm willing to vote on basically anything provided it's a complete argument with a clearly articulated warrant and impact. Dropped arguments are true, BUT there is still a burden on you to articulate those arguments in a way that has an effect on the round. Most rounds are decided by which side's conceded arguments work together best as a cohesive picture rather than a scoreboard of how many subpoints were dropped.

- I am fine with spreading, any speed, as long as it remains clear.

- I might read relevant evidence after a round for a close decision. You have some wiggle room in your explanation, but at the end of the day a card is an argument just like an analytic, so how faithful you are to the original warrant is very relevant in, for example, deciding whether an argument is "new."

- Please be organized and signpost clearly.

- I'm cool with alternative methods and models of debate that don't follow common norms e.g. performances, k affs (more on that at the bottom), poetry, do nothing alts, etc.

- I have minimal knowledge on any given topic since I'm not a full time coach. Please spell it out for me on names, abbreviations, what is considered core aff/neg ground, and so on

- If a rehighlight is readable, you should read it. If not, just insert and move on (e.g. a graph or a picture). The only exception I can think of is if the rehighlight uses problematic language and you are inserting to prove a violation, no need to read that out loud

- Tech issues: If you're a novice don't worry about it. For anyone else, you get a pass for short, isolated incidents, but I'll start to dock speaks if it takes up a lot of time.

- Irrational pet peeve of mine -- asking questions in or before cross like "what card did you get to" and/or answering arguments that were in the doc but skipped will cost you speaker points. The exception is if your opponent was very unclear or bad at signposting. If you really have to it's fine -- I'd rather you ask than drop arguments -- but the best solution is to actually flow your opponent's speech like your coaches tell you to.

Policy Stuff

- I love well-prepared impact turns. For similar reasons, I also like disads and cps that clash with central elements of the aff.

- Condo is valid imo but I'll let your theory rounds play out without intervention.

- I'm probably not the best judge for other ticky-tacky CP theory debates unless someone makes a big concession. I'll still do my best to evaluate those more contested rounds, but if that's what you go for every round maybe strike me.

- I'm more open to topicality. Still not my favorite rounds to be a part of but I get it, many policy affs are abusive enough to justify T

- Judge kicking is ok, but it must be explicitly articulated at some point in the 2nr. The 2ar is too late for new objections but objections based on existing theory flows in the round might be considered

Ks (Neg)

- K strategies tend to result in highly educational and interesting debates, so I encourage you to go for one. My personal lit base favs are the dead frenchies but I've read and faced a large variety of Ks and will likely be familiar with whatever you throw at me. If you want to discuss K lit feel free to come talk to me pre or post round! I enjoy these discussions and we might both learn something.

- Jargon is inevitable since K debate deals with more abstract power relations, but once you devolve into meaningless word salad I'm probably not doing the work for you to connect that to a ballot.

- I dislike Ks that are just a hodgepodge of different lit bases on a single flow with no real consistency. One common example is a bastardized academy k where you just compile the academy/communication links from a dozen different Ks -- a card from psychoanalysis, one from settler colonialism, another from Baudrillard and so on. Not good!

- What the alt is and how it solves are 2 different things. You can basically fiat a specific strategy if the aff doesn't press you on spillup but I won't let you fiat away your structure of violence without an explanation for how the alt makes that happen.

- Friendly reminder that contextualizing your link and impact analysis to the aff is incredibly important.

K Affs and Framework

- Points on the section above apply here too.

- I understand where both sides come from on the debate is a game/site for subject formation question having been on either side many times. "Debate is more than just a game" is a great argument for the aff, but "debate is not a game at all" can also be very strong.

- Some shiftiness is ok, as long as it's based on stuff you've said before and you are consistent with your story. Just be honest and you'll be fine.

- I enjoy KvK debates a lot. A K with fleshed out links is probably going to be the most convincing strategy against a K aff for me if done well.

- Performance affs (and Ks on the neg) are great.