Background: I debated LD for 3 years and PFD for 1 year at Acton-Boxborough HS in MA (graduated in 2015). I debated on the local and national circuits, and attended NSD for 2 years. I graduated in June 2019 from the University of Chicago. It's been 5 years since I've debated so I'm probably not the best person to evaluate super technical rounds. That being said, I'm fine with any argument you want to run, so don't worry too much about that.

STUFF I LIKE:
- WEIGHING! Though I’ll avoid being interventionist as much as possible, I need clear implications to extensions. Just having more ink on the flow won’t cut it if you’re not doing the work to convince me why your arguments are important and how they interact with the rest of the round.
- In general, try to weave a clear narrative as to how the round breaks down. You’ve all probably heard this enough times before, but the ballot really should write itself.
- Clever arguments and strategy, in general thinking on your feet
- Framework clash, unique arguments, topical critical arguments
- Signs that you’re enjoying the round! (though please don’t feel pressured to be funny or entertaining if that’s not your style as a debater! Just do you and be comfortable in the space)

Other Issues/Random Notes

Speed: Speed is fine with me as long as it's ok with your opponent - I'm not ok with speed being used as an intimidation tactic. In in-person rounds, I'll say "clear"/"slow" if I can't understand without docking speaks. For virtual rounds, please send me what you're reading either before or right after each speech.

Theory: As I said above, if theory is your main strat, I’m not your judge. I can evaluate theory, though, and am open to it in a case of actual in-round abuse. I default to drop the argument.

Offensive/Mean Arguments: I will not vote on these. Also, please don’t be mean to or bully your opponent, especially if you are clearly winning the round. I strongly believe that debate should be a more inclusive environment, and round should be fun and a great learning experience for everyone.

Policy Arguments: I’m fine with topical plans, CPs, DAs, etc as long as your impacts actually make sense with the topics. I’m really skeptical of and hesitant to vote on tenuous extinction links.

Speaker points: I 'll probably be adjusting my speaker points range throughout the tournament. For now, I’ll probably keep in the range of 27.5 – 29.5, with 30s for people who absolutely amaze me and 15 for any serious issues (offensive arguments, rape jokes, being mean, etc)

Please feel free to ask me any other questions you have! I’m not intimidating, I promise.

Email: vinamra.agrawalv@gmail.com

Traditional Flow Judge

FW

1) I'll use FW to evaluate impacts.

2) Winning the FW doesn't win you the round.

3) VC is more important than V

4) If there's no FW clash, then don't try to argue FW. This is primarily true for V. If you want to just give me a standard, I'm cool with that.

5) Conceding FW is fine.

Speed

1) I'm pretty decent w/ speed, but the faster you go, the less I'll be able to write down and then it doesn't count on the flow. (ie My flow > your flow)

2) Clarity > Speed

Prep

1) Calling for evidence is obviously fine (won't count against prep). With evidence arguments in rebuttal though, like with any other argument, you need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. If I don't hear an impact for "their evidence is bad" arguments then I won't care about them.

Ks/Theory/Other Offs

1) Not really a fan but if you really want to make the argument go for it, but like any argument, it needs solid logical reasoning and impacting. Don't just assume that saying the argument is enough w/o some kind of explanation and interaction.

2) If I don't understand it then I can't weigh it.

Other Stuff

1) I'm okay w/ any kind of arguments you want to make or anything on the flow that you want to do like overviews or kicking an argument, but obviously, if you kick an argument and your opponent turns it, you've conceded their offense.

2) Don't be rude. I won't immediately drop you for being rude (depending on how egregious it is), but I'll definitely drop your speaks and you'll make it way harder for you to win the ballot.

3) No Plans.

4) Dropped arguments are only as important as when they were initially made. If a dropped argument isn't important under the agreed-upon FW or lacks a clear warrant/impact, then it doesn't matter even though it was dropped.

Overview Stuff:

She/They

Hi, I’m Aphe Astrachan (Aphe pronounced aff-ee). I debated at Durham Academy for two years, and am currently a sophmore at Duke University. I experienced a fair amount of success on both the local and the national circuit, so although I tend to prefer more progressive forms of argumentation, I’m still open to your standard value/value criterion debate. Yes, I want to be on the email chain: aa424 at duke dot edu. I want to be on the email chain regardless of whether or not you’re spreading- it’ll save me time if I have to call for evidence, and it’s the only real way I have to see if you’re miscutting cards. Record your speeches, we're not doin speech redos. Also please stop saying stuff like "my time starts on my first word," it's annoying, patronizing, and makes you look like a dweeb.

March/April 22 specifics:

I am big fan of epistemological arguments on this debate, especially critiquing or supporting dialectically constructed standpoint epistemologies.

Quick Prefs:

Larp/Theory/Topicality : 1

Postmodernism K’s: 2 (with the exception of Baudrillard 1, and queer futurism/rage/pess : 1)(I've probably read your lit)

Non postmodern K’s: 3

Identity K's: 2

Phil: 2-3

Tricks: 5.

Cliffnotes:

Howdy folks. I try to be tech over truth in all instances, but that doesn’t mean I hold the same threshold of argumentation for everything. I have especially low thresholds for answering a-prioris, truth-testing, and anything which is clearly untrue. I’m willing to vote off of anything with the exception of racist/ableist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic… arguments. Also on this: Don’t read identity cases if you’re not the identity being represented in case (with the exception of you reading a card at the top of case which makes an argument for why you should be able to read it). My favorite form of debate while I was debating was LARP with healthy doses of theory and topicality mixed in: I’ll vote off of exempted or paragraph theory, but please send analytics if your opponent asks for them. Although it wasn't my favorite while I was debating, I think that introduction to critical literature is the most important thing which debate actually achieves, and thus value K's highly. I didn't run too many K's as a debater but I've read an extensive amount of postmodern theory and should be able to understand most arguments made in most K's. I default to a comparing worlds paradigm, and if you don’t present any framework in round I’ll assume we’re having a nice wholesome util debate.

ALSO

Although I love doing LARP debate, I think that problem of induction is a really good arg against it, and will definitely evaluate it. I highly encourage debaters going up against LARP cases that aren't running a LARP case themself to at least run it as a one off because it's currently a glaring hole in the middle of most debates that isn't paid enough attention to. Especially phil v Larp rounds please give it a shot, preferably not Hume's version :P

More in depth stuff:

LARP: Hell yeah. This is the good stuff right here. For most of my Debate career, policy/LARP arguments were my bread and butter. I love fun/spicy plans/counterplans, and will vote off of most any type of plan/counterplan. I have nothing against agent cps, delay cps, consult cps, or anything else of the like. If you’re running a plan aff, still be prepared to answer topicality. Just because I think it’s topical doesn’t mean you no longer have the burden to prove you’re topical. I really enjoy arguments that I haven’t seen before, and am always willing to talk about geo-engineering after the round. All of that being said, be prepared to answer argumentation that calls fiat into judgement, and I will accept that none of your plan actually occurs even post fiat given the proper argumentation.

Theory/Topicality: Also a huge fan of these forms of arguments. I’ve been known to extempt and collapse on theory, often going for what others might call frivolous theory. I’ll vote on anything with paradigm issues and voters, so make sure you tell me in the theory shell how I or your opponent should deal with it. Same thing goes for topicality. I’m not a huge fan of Nebel-T, but that hasn’t stopped me from winning rounds on it. Go for the RVIs too, those debates are often exciting and get into meta-theory really quickly, which I personally like. Yet again, I have a high threshold for arguments like “evaluate the ____ after the ______,” but won’t just drop them on face.

Tricks: Aight boiz, here’s where things get kind of tricky. Tricks, unfortunately, are real arguments, and I, unfortunately, will vote off of them. With that being said, if your form of tricks is running twenty different spikes layered throughout case, I’m probably not the judge for you. Spikes are ableist, and unless you say “spikes on the bottom,” and proceed to put spikes on the bottom, I’ll have a super low threshold for answering any of the spikes, and will heavily dock your speaks for it. However, I also think tricks can be really fun. Nail-bomb cases and fun theory or pre fiat offense is always fun, whether it be solving a rubick’s cube or doing Tik-Tok dances for the ballot.

K’s: Go for em, run ‘em. I’m most familiar with afropess/wake work/queer futurity/queer pess/queer rage/Baudrillard/Set-Col/Hauntology/Libidinal economy stuff/Necropolitics/Gillespie/Most epistemological or metaphysical applications on ontology and am currently reading D+G, but don’t let that stop you from running your K. Regardless if I’m familiar with your K or not, you still have to explain it fully in round. I won’t vote off of something that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. I honestly don’t really get what the difference between the role of the judge and the role of the ballot is, but go for it anyway, just explain it please :) (also K's have real world ramifications feel free to LARP about those if you want idc)(Edelman> Muñoz).

Phil: I enjoy philosophy a lot outside of debate, and am always open to talk about it. That being said, I’m not the biggest fan of phil arguments in round. Things can get really nitpicky, and people end up yelling at one another about how human evolution dictates emotion, and often stumble into making arguments that are perturbing at best and eugenicist at worst. Yet again, if you like em, go for em. Just explain them. I’m probably familiar with any philosopher you’re reading, even if it’s postmodern. Hegel is annoying. Locke and Kant are both ableist, and Kant is racist, but you can still run em if you want. Please read problem of induction against LARP cases its such a good arg that functions as terminal defense.

Speed stuff: I haven't debated in a hot minute, but I've been doing spreading drills every now and again just cuz. I should be able to understand you just fine, but if my comprehension skills are more rusty than I think, I will call clear twice before I stop flowing. That being said, you should be good for anything speedwise.

Speaks: I think I give decently high speaks most of the time, but also am not scared to give 25s because of violence in round. I start round at a base level of a 28, and go up or down from there. +.1 speaks for using pog in round B)

Misc. Im always down to talk about whatever before round starts if we're just waiting for something to happen, so here are some of my interests: Music (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7pdYJ8smYJSsOCMinuGEL4?si=111f1dc5e0a94d33), postmodern philosophy, drain gang, yeule, lamp, blue period, JJBA, communism, One Piece, bein trans. Also, if you ask me for my email im going to assume you havent read my paradigm, cuz its in here.

For email chains: danbagwell@gmail.com

I was a Policy debater at Samford / GTA at Wake Forest, now an assistant coach at Mountain Brook. I’ve increasingly moved into judging PF and LD, which I enjoy the most when they don’t imitate Policy.

I’m open to most arguments in each event - feel free to read your theory, critiques, counterplans, etc., as long as they’re clearly developed and impacted. Debate is up to the debaters; I'm not here to impose my preferences on the round.

All events

• Speed is fine as long as you’re clear. Pay attention to nonverbals; you’ll know if I can’t understand you.

• Bad arguments still need answers, but dropped args are not auto-winners – you still need to extend warrants and explain why they matter.

• If prep time isn’t running, all activity by all debaters should stop.

• Debate should be fun - be nice to each other. Don’t be rude or talk over your partner.

Public Forum

• I’m pretty strongly opposed to paraphrasing evidence - I’d prefer that debaters directly read their cards, which should be readily available for opponents to see. That said, I won’t just go rogue and vote on it - it’s still up to debaters to give convincing reasons why that’s either a voting issue or a reason to reject the paraphrased evidence. Like everything else, it’s up for debate.

• Please exchange your speech docs, either through an email chain or flash drive. Efficiency matters, and I’d rather not sit through endless prep timeouts for viewing cards.

• Extend warrants, not just taglines. It’s better to collapse down to 1-2 well-developed arguments than to breeze through 10 blippy ones.

• Anything in the Final Focus should be in the Summary – stay focused on your key args.

• Too few teams debate about evidence/qualifications – that’s a good way to boost speaks and set your sources apart.

Lincoln-Douglas

• I think LD is too often a rush to imitate Policy, which results in some messy debates. Don’t change your style because of my background – if you’re not comfortable (or well-practiced) spreading 5 off-case args, then that’s not advisable.

• If your value criterion takes 2+ minutes to read, please link the substance of your case back to it. This seems to be the most under-developed part of most LD rounds.

• Theory is fine when clearly explained and consistently extended, but I’m not a fan of debaters throwing out a ton of quick voters in search of a cheap shot. Things like RVIs are tough enough to win in the first place, so you should be prepared to commit sufficient time if you want theory to be an option.

Policy

[Quick note: I've been out of practice in judging Policy for a bit, so don't take for granted my knowledge of topic jargon or ability to catch every arg at top-speed - I've definitely become a curmudgeon about clarity.]

Counterplans/theory:

• I generally think limited condo (2 positions) is okay, but I've become a bit wary on multiple contradictory positions.

• Theory means reject the arg most of the time (besides condo).

• I often find “Perm- do the CP” persuasive against consult, process, or certainty-based CPs. I don’t love CPs that result in the entire aff, but I’ll vote on them if I have to.

• Neg- tell me how I should evaluate the CP and disad. Think judge kick is true? Say it. It’s probably much better for you if I’m not left to decide this on my own.

Kritiks:

• K affs that are at least somewhat linked to the resolutional controversy will fare the best in front of me. That doesn't mean that you always need a plan text, but it does mean that I most enjoy affirmatives that defend something in the direction of the topic.

• For Ks in general: the more specific, the better - nuanced link debates will go much farther than 100 different ways to say "state bad".

• Framework args on the aff are usually just reasons to let the aff weigh their impacts.

Topicality:

• Caselists, plz.

• No preference toward reasonability or competing interps - just go in depth instead of repeating phrases like "race to the bottom" and moving on.

Background Info

I have judged for high school debate tournaments for 10 years, and genuinely enjoy doing so. LD is by far my favorite event, because it is so beautifully structured, and requires significant thought and preparation and analysis.

In my day job, I'm a lawyer, but not a courtroom litigator. I'm not impressed by snarky CX strategies or ad hominem attacks during rebuttals. Your goal during CX & rebuttals is either to clarify information provided or to poke holes in your opponent's arguments, not to show off how clever you think you are. If you are in fact very clever, it will be evident to me based on your questions and arguments during the round.

Approach

I am a traditional flow judge. This should be a value debate. I want there to be a good clash, and I want each debater to have sufficient contentions to support his or her chosen VP/VC (so a kritik will probably turn me off). The evidence should be legitimate, and it should link to the contentions and then up to the VP/VC/resolution without me having to twist my brain sideways to figure out the links. Don't spoon feed me, but DO make sure it's addressed in your framework, because I won't assume a link exists if you don't mention it during the round.

The number of contentions is less important to me than the strength and validity of each one. It's possible to argue a winning case with only two contentions instead of nine, as long as they're well-researched and well-presented with great links to your value structure.

Also - even though I'm flowing your arguments, it's not an all-or-nothing round based on the flow. I'm definitely NOT persuaded by a debater who says "well, my opponent dropped my 4th contention so that argument carries through the debate and therefore I win the entire round" - because maybe your 4th contention was so worthless your opponent didn't see any need to waste time refuting it (for example). My point is, you won't lose just because you fail to rebut every single point your opponent makes; and you won't win just because your opponent fails to rebut every single point you raise. I'm flowing your cases, but my decision for each round is not limited ONLY to the specifics of the flow.

You will impress me much more with quick-thinking analysis of and response to your opponent's arguments than with a well-written constructive case (although the latter should be a given at this level of competition). I am not, on the other hand, going to be at all impressed by esoteric theoretic non-topical pollutificationism (although it can be entertaining, it won't win you the round).

I am able to understand extremely fast speech as long as you articulate your words clearly and remember to breathe. That said, IF YOU SPREAD - I WILL PROBABLY DROP YOU.

My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

Given that fascists are now doxing judges for their paradigms, I have removed mine from tabroom. My paradigm will not be publicly accessible until cybersecurity and digital access changes are made to protect judges and other members of the debate community. If you want to read my paradigm, feel free to email me at boalsj@gmail.com

Hello,

As a judge, I look for my debaters to be firm but respectful. Use the time to prove why you're correct and why your opponent is not. I expect the round to get heated at times, but respect for your opponent and judge is crucial.

I will keep official time, but participants are welcome to keep time as well. The timer will begin ON YOUR FIRST WORD after I have instructed you to begin.

Feel free to ask me questions at any point and I will answer to the best of my ability. Good Luck!

Experience: 2 years PF, 2 years LD

Preferences:

- speed doesn't matter as long as I can understand you. That being said, with online debates, clarity is sure to be dropped so please try your best.

- max 15 seconds over time before it will count against you.

- please signpost!

- no new 2AR arguments unless you are responding to your opponent's new argument

- dropped contentions flow through

How I decide on debates:

- framework: I will judge the round through the lens of the winning framework. This means that winning framework does not mean you win the round because your opponent can still prove why they win under your own framework. If there is no clear winner for the framework debate, explain why you would win under either framework.

- impact: a single won argument of great impacts weighs more than multiple won arguments of little impact. Make sure to explain the impact of your arguments and how they outweigh the impact of your opponent's.

- key voting issues

Grant Brown (He/Him/His)

Millard North '17, currently a PhD student in Philosophy at Villanova University^

Former Head Coach at the Brearley School; I am mostly retired now from debate

^ [I am more than happy to discuss studying philosophy or pursuing graduate school with you!]

Email: grantbrowndebate@gmail.com

Conflicts: Brearley School, Lake Highland Preparatory

Last Updates: 6/29/2023

Scroll to the bottom for Public Forum

The Short Version

As a student when I considered a judge I usually looked for a few specific items, I will address those here:

1. What are their qualifications?

I learned debate in Omaha, Nebraska before moving to the East Coast where I have gained most of my coaching experience. I qualified to both NSDA Nationals and the TOC in my time as a student. I have taught numerous weeks at a number of debate summer camps and have been an assistant and head coach at Lake Highland and Brearley respectively.

2. What will they listen to?

Anything (besides practices which exclude other participants) - but I increasingly prefer substantive engagement over evasive tactics, tricks, and theory cheap shots.

3. What are they experienced in?

I coach a wide variety of arguments and styles and am comfortable adjudicating any approach to debate. However, I spend most of my time thinking about kritik and framework arguments, especially Spinoza, Kant, Hegel, and Deleuze.

4. What do they like?

I don’t have many preconceived notions of what debate should look, act, feel, or sound like and I greatly enjoy when debaters experiment within the space of the activity. In general, if you communicate clearly, are well researched, show depth of understanding in the literature you are reading, and bring passion to the debate I will enjoy whatever you have to present.

5. How do they adjudicate debates?

I try to evaluate debates systematically. I begin by working to discern the priority of the layers of arguments presented, such as impact weighing mechanisms, kritiks, theory arguments, etc. Once I have settled on a priority of layers, I evaluate the different arguments on each, looking for an offensive reason to vote, accounting for defense, bringing in other necessary layers, and try to find an adequate resolution to the debate.

The Longer Version

At bottom debate is an activity aimed at education. As a result, I understand myself as having in some sense an educational obligation in my role as a judge. While that doesn't mean I aim to impose my own ideological preferences, it does mean I will hold the line on actions and arguments which undermine these values.

I no longer spend time thinking about the minutia of circuit debate arguments, nor am I as proficient as I once was at flowing short and quickly delivered arguments. Take this into consideration when choosing your strategy.

Kritiks

I like them. I very much value clarity of explanation and stepping outside of the literature's jargon. The most common concern I find myself raising to debaters is a lack of through development of a worldview. Working through the way that your understanding of the world operates, be it through the alternative resolving the links, your theory of violence explaining a root-cause, or otherwise is crucial to convey what I should be voting for in the debate.

I am a receptive judge to critical approaches to the topic from the affirmative. I don't really care what your plan is; you should advocate for what you can justify and defend. It is usually shiftiness in conjunction with a lack of clear story from the affirmative that results in sympathy for procedurals such as topicality.

Theory

I really have no interest in judging ridiculous tricks and/or theory arguments which are presented in bad faith and/or with willfully ignorant or silly justifications and premises. Please just do not - I will lower your speaker points and am receptive to many of the intuitive responses. I do however enjoy legitimate abuse stories and/or topicality arguments based on topic research.

Policy Arguments

I really like these debates when debaters step outside of the jargon and explain their scenarios fully as they would happen in the real world. For similar reasons, good analytics can be more effective than bad evidence - I am a strong judge for spin and smart extrapolation. I tend to like more thorough extensions in the later speeches than most judges in these debates.

Ethical Frameworks

I greatly enjoy these debates and I spend pretty much all of my time thinking about, discussing, and applying philosophy. I would implore you to give overview explanations of your theory and the main points of clash between competing premises in later speeches.

If your version of an ethical framework involves arguments which you would describe as "tricks," or any claim which is demonstrably misrepresenting the conclusions of your author, I am not the judge for you.

Public Forum

I usually judge Lincoln Douglas but am fairly familiar with the community norms of Public Forum and how the event works. I will try to accommodate those norms and standards when I judge, but inevitably many of my opinions above and my background remain part of my perception.

Debaters must cite evidence in a way which is representative of its claims and be able to present that evidence in full when asked by their opponents. In addition, you should be timely and reasonable in your asking for, and receiving of, said evidence. I would prefer cases and arguments in the style of long form carded evidence with underlining and/or highlighting. I am fairly skeptical of paraphrasing as it is currently practiced in PF.

Speaks and Ethics Violations

If accusations of clipping/cross-reading are made I will a) stop the debate b) confirm the accuser wishes to stake the round on this question c) render a decision based on the guilt of the accused. If I notice an ethics violation I will skip A and B and proceed unilaterally to C. However, less serious accusations of misrepresentation, misciting, or miscutting, should be addressed in the round in whatever format you determine to be best.

Hi, I'm Scott. My background is in policy debate (2004-2018) but I have primarily coached LD since 2018.

Debate is a communication activity - as such:

1) You do not need to include me in the email thread.

2) I will call for any evidence I may need to inspect after the debate has concluded. I do not refer to the speech documents until after the debate if necessary.

3) My primary source of information is what I flow from what you say in your speeches. I flow all the speeches including the entire AC, NC, plan texts, CP texts, perm texts, interpretations, advocacy statements, etc. I flow on a laptop in a google sheets template I created where I try to maintain the line-by-line and try to more-or-less transcribe the debate.

I am a great judge for technical, mechanical line by line debate. Clarity and judge instructions are axiomatic.

Debate is for the debaters. I will vote on any argument that has a valid reason and an explanation as to why that argument wins you the debate. I do not have a preference for how you debate or any particular argument, form, content, or style. I will leave the role of the ballot and the role of the judge up to the debaters to decide in the round. I will try my best to evaluate the debate using the least amount of intervention possible.

William (Will) Byerman— He/Him/His

Henry Clay HS (Lexington, KY) 2020, Univ. of South Carolina Political Science and Education 2023.

College student at the University of South Carolina, former middle and high school debater on local and national circuits in LD and Congress.

I’ll be flowing on paper throughout the round. Signposting appreciated. Kentucky, where I debated through high school, is a very traditional state so I will prefer rounds to be traditional in style, but I recognize that progressive debate is important and I will judge it fairly.

Be kind and courteous, especially while we deal with online tournaments. It’s something none of us want to do, but something that the times call for. The result of the round will be dictated by who submits a more effective and efficient argument, but being rude often times gets in the way of delivery.

To make things clear, I am a lay judge in progressive debate. Make theory and progressive tools (i.e. kritiks/counterplans) very, very clear.

The Affirmative must present a problem with the way things are right now. Their advocacy must reasonably solve that problem. The advantages of doing the advocacy must outweigh the disadvantages of following the advocacy. You don't have to have a USFG plan, but you must advocate for something.

Speed: Be clear. Be very clear. Do not spread. Slow down for analytics. If you are comparing or making analytical arguments that I need to understand, slow down for it. I want to hear the warrants in the evidence. Be clear when reading evidence. I don't read cards after the round if I don't understand them during the round.

Theory: Make it make sense. I'll vote on it if it is reasonable. Please tell me how it functions and how I should evaluate it. The most important thing about theory for me is to make it make sense. I would like for the debates about the debate to be interesting. I am not into frivolous theory. If you like running frivolous theory, I am not the best judge for you.

Evidence: Don't take it out of context. I do ask for cites. Cites should be readily available. Don't cut evidence in an unclear or sloppy manner. Cut evidence ethically. Do not take evidence out of context by cutting qualifiers like "might" or "maybe". Don't assume that I am familiar with the specifics of a lit base. Please break things down to me. I need to hear and understand warrants. Make it simple for me. The more simple the story, the more likely that I'll understand it. I won't outright reject anything unless it is blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic.

General Background:

I did S&D for four years in High School. I did PF, Congress, Extemp, Impromptu, and Duet. I competed on the national circuit in Congress my junior and senior years. I am the three-time Arizona Division II State Champion in PF 2016, 2017, 2018. I have coached PF, LD, Parli, and Congress. This paradigm goes in the order of PF, LD, Speaks, Congress. I went to Fordham University for my bachelor's in philosophy. I am now a 1L at the University of Nebraska College of Law.

This paradigm has been updated 11/20/20 to consolidate my preferences (so that LDers aren't looking at the PF section for some things -- they are consolidated to the general section) and present them more clearly. Speaks section added on 12/1/20. Change-log: 3/18/21 edited truth skep section for clarity and emphasis. 1/22/21 added minor tweaks to the LD and speaks section for emphasis and clarity, nothing fundamentally changed in evaluation. Updated 12/12/20 to reflect points I want to emphasize after Stanford. Updated 2/16/22, PF section for minor clarity in advance of Harvard. Update 2/19/22 PF section to emphasize points about impacts half-way through Harvard.

Updated 1/4/23 to reflect updated biographical data; new note on RFD/Ballot construction with arguments on presumption; clarification and organization in LD section.

Debate in general:

-I hesitate to say flat out "debate is a game" but I believe that at its core debate is an intellectual activity. Whether or not education is part of that is something to be established in round. Debate is like chess.

-Include content warnings where appropriate to make debate a safe and accessible space. Avoid sexism and other harms that have cropped up in the debate scene. I will vote off theory on this if its ran.

-I've previously had in this paradigm to try to say a full citation instead of the author's last name and year. This isn't necessary. What I want to stress is that I have a hard time writing down names quickly. The rate at which you say Kowalczyk should be slower than your normal rate (dare I say, 1/2 of your normal rate) so I can figure out how to bastardize the spelling when writing it on my flow. Some teams still are having a hard time doing this - If you need an example of what I expect let me know. I will handle any speed, spreading with a doc (add me to the chain: jcohen83@fordham.edu), I will give a verbal 'clear' if needed.

-I am not timing in the debate round. You cross-time. It is 100% up to the competitors for flex-prep and/or timed-evidence.

-I will give an oral RFD and disclose at the end of the round.

-OTRMs: If you are running something progressive that will require me to get another flow out, please let me know in a roadmap about the off. Otherwise, OTRMs waste time if its "going down one side then back to the other".

-I will not pay attention to crossfire/crossex. Anything that happens needs to be brought up in a speech.

-If you want me to read a piece of evidence, tell me to call for it in a speech. Anytime I ask for evidence I will want to see the cut card first, asking specifically for the full pdf if needed.

PF:

-Bringing LD into PF? Go for it; I like progressive argumentation. Just make sure it actually is justified/be prepared to argue the merits of the progressive debate should it come up.

-Don't extend through ink, and make extensions actually an extension. Extensions should have something new, or at least re-explain what was before. Don't give me "Extend the Worstall card" or "Extend the entirety of our C1" and leave it at that because that isn't extending. If your gonna do that the bare bones is to explain what the cards say. You should use the card names while extending because it helps me flow - but don't only leave it at the card name.

-If you are extending an argument in summary you need to include warrant, link, and impact level extensions where applicable. I can't buy the impact calc if the warrant & impacts aren't extended - even varsity teams have trouble with this.

-every argument has to pass a believability threshold. Even if it’s not refuted, if I am not convinced or I don’t ‘buy’ the argument, I don’t weigh it (See Truth>Tech). I get a lot of questions on this: Basically - you need a warrant. I'm a reactive/visible judge most of the time, you can use this to your advantage to see what arguments I'm nodding towards.

-Don't violate the nsda handbook.

-I most likely won't flow final focus. I never did as a competitor so I don't like to as a judge. I was a first speaker. What I am doing during FF is looking around my existing flow and circling/drawing lines/checking things off, etc. The reason for this is that nothing new should be in FF. Anything you are talking about in your final focus should already be extended through summary (this includes briefly mentioning the impacts while extending the case). Like if something is dropped by both teams I'm not just gonna pick it up in the FF. Most importantly with this, summary speakers needs to extend the defense. Defense is non-sticky.

-I prefer Voter Summaries over two world or line by line (with the rule change to 3 minute summaries this is less important but still helpful for my flow, just make sure to signpost well).

-I will truth>tech in PF, my truth is skep. I will not blindly flow anything you say. If you say the sky is green don't expect me to count it on my flow without any warranting. Similarly, if you don't tell me why an impact matters, i.e. terminalized, then I'm not going to be able to use it for the construction of my ballot. I start from a position where I don't know if war is good or bad and if you don't tell me and say "decrease risk of war" as an impact I'm not going to know how to construct a ballot around that. I'm not Tabula Rasa, I default to dropping every argument in the round. If you drop the warrant or don't terminalize, I drop the argument.

Want to be safe? Every impact chain causes death.

-If I end up dropping every argument in the round, my ballot and RFD will get flukey. Flukey as in I technically don't have any material anymore to construct a decision. This can go one of two ways and I've alternated between both of these approaches depending on how the round goes.

1) I relax a little bit on the flow and take non-terminalized arguments and "risk of advocacy" to make a ballot as in "this team was closer to making my ballot so they get the win"; or

2) Presumption, in which I generally will defer to SQUO unless told otherwise although this is not a guarantee or promise.

Therefore: teams, if you want me to do something specific within my ballot construction, argue for it. If you think (1) is better for you, then say I should do that and tell me why. If you think (2) is better, then give me a presumption argument telling me which way to presume.

LD:

If you're traditional, read the PF paradigm and:

If you are traditional please do not misrepresent philosophies. This is an area I am not tab. at all. If you say Kantian ethics justifies murder I will not weigh it. More progressive philosophies are less subject to this as I haven't studied critical theories as much as I have the basics of moral frameworks. I am very receptive to hearing post-structuralism and post-colonial arguments like if you want to run Baudrillard, CyberFem, Afropess, or something -- I will be more tech on those.

If you are progressive:

I am competent with progressive debate but you should keep in mind adaptation to a PF judge. I would rather have a progressive debate than a bad traditional one (read: please don't let the round have me concluding that PF is a more intellectual form of debate than LD).

I have no predisposition towards PICs. If you want me to drop because PICs are "abusive", you must argue that in round.

If you are running something super LD-y you should be watching my reactions to make sure I understand and explain more if needed, e.g. trix/tricks.

Some things, e.g. performance/performative args/Ks, you will need to clearly explain the path to my ballot and what the role of the ballot in relation to the advocacy is in the round. This includes a hesitancy to vote on theory - you will need to have it be explained as clearly as possible for me to vote on it - if it gets muddied where I don't understand why the theory is being ran I'm liable to not vote on it...

In general with Progressive LD is something where "I will get it and be able to follow along until I suddenly reach a point where I don't". In most rounds I've seen that go progressive I don't have any issues.

I wish I could give you like those rankings of what arguments I prefer like other LD judges, but in my experience, I don't really care as long as its argued well so that I can understand it.

Speaker Points:

I assign speaks in what I assume is a non-traditional (and harsh) way. I will not evaluate speaks based on your speaking ability or performance. Speaks for me are purely reflective of how I assess your technicality in debating relative to a varsity debater championing a tournament. Because of this, I will almost never assign a low point win; if you are technically better on the flow you most likely won the round (unless its a "good at everything but impact calc" vs "average enough to be able to win on strong calc" thing). I do not adjust speaks based on tier of debate I am judging. I do not refrain from giving lower speaks in fear of 4-2 screws. I view 30-25 as an A-F scale. I start from a position that 27 is an average debater who is making various errors in terms of addressing arguments and who is missing a lot of what I think could have been argued. Here is how I think the breakdown goes:

PF: 25-25.9 wow you really did some egregiously bad in the round or have missed so much of the fundamentals of debate that if I were teaching a class I would flunk you. 26-26.9 you missed a lot, you could have done something that was on the flow the opposite of what you should have done. You most likely are missing a lot of components of winning the ballot based on the flow. This is a 'D', my way of saying you aren't at the level of debate you are competing in. 27-27.9 is most likely the most common place for me to put speaks. You did things right enough to consider this an okay debate but I still desired a lot more to come out of it. 28-28.9 is the best I can give to a debater that neither stuns me nor shows something beyond normal technicality. In LD: I will almost never give above a 29/29.5 to someone who isn't running progressive arguments. In PF: above 29.5 means I think you are destined to reach far into elims and should be a contender to win the tournament. If your opponent is a 26.0 and you perform at a 28.5 because you couldn't express the technicality for a 29< due to a lack of substance to wrestle with that is a tough break (and perhaps the biggest flaw with my speaks standards -- but I would rather assign speaks this way [as that scenario is mitigated by power matching] to be as unbiased as possible -- away from any unconscious affects towards things you can't control regarding how you actually speak and sound to me).

Good way to get good speaks with me? Surprise me by doing something on the flow I wouldn't think of or don't see coming. Here is an example of something from a round that blew my socks off: A team got up for their rebuttal (2nd speaking) and read delinks/dewarrants to their own case, then full sent a bunch of turns on the opposing case. On the flow it made perfect sense and was a level of technicality I hadn't seen performed before. They even responded to theory challenging the abusiveness of the tactic. This was a team that was in deep eliminations at a national circuit tournament. It is the kind of of debate on the flow that affords above a 30.

Congress:

This is congressional debate, not mock congress or congressional speaking. Clash is the most important thing to this; without clash, congress isn't debate.

Know where you are in the round. On the topic of clash, nothing is more boring than a rehashed point on the 7th cycle of debate on a bill. Yes I get you want to speak but please follow the life-cycle of debate on a bill. If we're past the first two cycles, I want refutation, if we're getting late into the cycles I want to hear some crystallization.

By all means please caucus and plan motions together for efficiency, but don't exclude people from this activity because a select number of you have clout from the national circuit or camps.

Questions show if you are truly in tune with the debate or not. Asking questions isn't just more speaking time or to show your activity for the ballot. It's about leadership and continuing the clash. Questions are truly an extension of your speech and they will count toward your placement on the top 6 ranking.

For POs: Be quick and efficient. Your job is to get the most debate done in the fixed time we have. If you are fuddling around because you can't remember the process for an amendment that is a problem. Your charisma and leadership of the chamber are important to your efficiency. Don't expect a top 4 ranking just for POing. You earn that top 6 by virtue of how well you do as a PO.

Hello Everyone!

Thank you for taking a look at my paradigm! For the sake of clarity, I am listing everything below in bullet points, but please feel free to ask for more info if you need it!

* My name is Charlie Connell and I use she/her pronouns. You are welcome to call me "Charlie" during rounds. Let me know if your name, pronouns, or anything else needs to be changed. We're all about positivity here! :)

* I have participated in debate for nearly 12 years as of 2020. I started debate in 2008.

* I used to do parliamentary debate in middle school and policy debate in high school.

* I have judged and helped to coach LD, Public-Forum, Congress, and World Schools debate.

* I am okay with both philosophical and empirical arguments as long as they link.

* I prefer everyone/every team keep their own prep times, speech times, etc. Technology can be buggy so I feel it's most fair to let everyone time themselves.

* I typically weigh advantages versus disadvantages in any round. Prove to me that your side does the least amount of harm while producing the most benefits.

* Neg team, prove to me that the Aff team's side has little to no benefits. Essentially, is the Aff case worth the trouble of passing it?

* Kritiks are fine as long as you are polite and the evidence clearly supports your claims. K-Affs are still weighed against Neg's arguments if they link, just like any other case type. You'll need to clearly define standards, the resolution's violation of those standards, and your plan-text's solvency. If no clear links are present or the K is not supported by your plan-text, then I usually flow Neg.

* I do not disclose my RFD (written or otherwise) anywhere but the ballot. This is out of respect for all debaters in the round. I do not want the decision of one round to affect your focus in any of your other rounds. I want all debaters, not just my own team, to feel and do their best during competitions! :)

* Please do not be rude to one another (name-calling, mocking one another, excessive interruptions during CX, talking during other people's speeches, etc.). It's the *only* reason I would ever auto-vote for the other team...ever.

We're here to judge the worth of the case and its arguments, not you or the other team. All of you are essential and carrying on a great tradition that will serve you very well as you grow. I really thank you and your partner (if you have one) for all your hard work! Remember that right now, we need to be kind to one another more than ever. As long as all of you do your best, I will do mine! :)

If you see my pronoun listed as "judge," please note that it started as a joke at my expense. In the end, I've left it as a reminder to judge every competitor as an individual with dignity and without bias.

-----------------Big Questions-----------------

This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading. Your need to appeal to the philosophy of your position in a orderly efficient manner in important. Collegial discussion needs to be your manner to approach this and be successful. Please note, this is one of the few events where a judge can declare a forfeit without consulting tabroom (no true at nationals). You MUST remain topical. This is NOT an event to play games with kritiks and counterplans, etc. I have every expectation that you will take this event seriously. In doing so, you show respect for your team, your opponents, your judge, and yourself.

-----------------Speech-----------------

Do your best and be respectful of others in the room. Tell me if you want time signals. I will try and ask every competitor what they want, but it is the affirmative responsibility of each competitor to communicate what they want. I expect that you will know the rules and requirements of whichever league you are competing. Unless you are double-entered, you are expected to stay the whole time. If you are double-entered, please tell me before we begin, and do not interrupt a fellow presenter while leaving or entering. I will go in the order of the ballot. Give a warning if the piece you are presenting might cause anyone discomfort. If you need to leave for a necessary reason, please do so quietly. (You don't need to tell me why, but I may check to see if you're ok after. I worry a lot, sorry!).

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Honor your fellow competitors and yourself with being mindful of your surroundings.

-----------------Debate-----------------

For LD, if you are not talking, you're prepping.

There is one official time-keeper, the judge(s). You are welcome to time yourself using your phone or another device as a timer. Your timer should be silenced and not interrupting you or your opponent's speaking time. Please ask if you want notifications whether on prep or debating and I'll be happy to let you know. When your time is up, I will inform you quietly so you can finish your sentence.

From the 2022 NCFL Bylaws "The resolution is a proposition of value, not policy. Debaters are to develop argumentation on the resolution in its entirety, based on conflicting underlying principles and values to support their positions. To that end, they are not responsible for practical applications. No plan or counterplan shall be offered by either debater."

Be polite. Argue your case effectively and clearly. As the debater, you (or your team) will decide that method. Speaking more quickly will not help you case if you are not clear. As a judge, I will attempt to read up on your topic of debate ahead of time, but it is best to assume that I know nothing and provide definitions accordingly. Be sure to ask both myself and your opponent if we are ready.

Silence your personal technology devices. I would suggest using airplane mode to limit any visual notifications. Anything that interrupts your speaking time will count against you. Doubly so if you interrupt your opponent. I'd appreciate it, as a courtesy, if you are using a phone for notes, etc (if allowed for your style of debate) to warn me ahead of time.

Internet access is being allowed in some tournaments. The rules governing access can generally be found on the tabroom page for the tournament. I have every expectation that you will use network access honorably and ethically.

I have been asked many times if I have a preference for types of arguments or styles of debate and the answer is that it doesn't matter. You are are the speaker, not I. Progressive, traditional, plans, counterplans, theories, or kritiks, your job is to convince me that your side's position is the strongest.

Extemp Debate:

Be prepared to move quickly through the round. Reminder: The use of evidence is permitted, but not a focal point due to the limited time available to prepare a case for the round. We will NOT be sending cases back and forth (unless you truly want to use your limited prep and speaking time to do so. I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!) I would recommend that you not spread. If you choose to, you'd best be on the top of your articulation game. Again, I will be judging you exclusively on what you say out loud, so I don't recommend it!

Policy Debate (CX): (Feel free to do the 1950s version of a policy round. You know, before they developed spreading. Since this is unlikely....) If you are passing cards back and forth, give me no reason to wonder if you are appropriating prep time. If you are passing cards, do so expeditiously. (Why yes, I'd like to be on the email chain! My email is tim@squirrelnest.net) Be prepared with USB drives or another medium for sharing documents. Please note, this isn't supposed to be war of the USB drives. Taking more than a minute to transfer a file will add up. Out of respect for your fellow competitors and the tabroom, I will be urging you in-round to move forward expeditiously. Especially at the varsity level.

----World Schools & Parliamentary Debate ----

I'm not going to treat this as LD/CX Jr, honest. This is NOT an event that should be featuring spreading, and the speed should max out at the upper end of a standard conversation.

NO OFFTIME ROADMAPS!!!

Argument execution is important. Each speaker should communicate using an effective combination of public speaking norms. Namely conversational speech rate, appropriate pitch and tone, and confident body language. Eye contact is key, so limit what you're reading verbatim from paper. If you read from a paper in a monotone voice for 8 long minutes, you will put me to sleep as well as your opponents. Please don't do this!

Case construction should flow seamlessly and I recommend it be logically laid out. Evidence calls are not allowed generally. Check the tournament's rules. If you think something is wrong, well, that's what POIs are for.

Do NOT abuse POIs. I will heavily dock speaker points in the event of any abuse.

NSDA nationals note: No electronic devices!!! Everything is on paper! (Other tournaments: internet use will be allowed on a per tournament basis). Any timers should be silenced!

Use of knocking and tapping in the appropriate manner is encouraged. My timer will ding for protected time. Humor will never be amiss in any round I judge.

Ask me questions before the round begins.

cards, so if there is a technology problem, we will be moving forward. Be prepared!!!

-----Legacy Pandemic Rules-----

Pandemic edition: Tell me if you can't stand or if there is another environmental concern in your presentation area. I know a lot of you are in bedrooms and otherwise at home. Do the best you can. I will NOT being taking in to account your environment with respect to your rankings.

Upon entering the room, put the title of your piece in the chat window and list whether you are double entered. Time signals can be in the form of an on-screen timepiece or traditional time signals.

Parent of 5 year public forum debater. Between 30-40 rounds experience at local CFL tournaments in the Washington, D.C. area. Prefers slow, persuasive manner of traditional public forum debate. The emphasis should be on argument development through the round, effective refutation of case positions on both sides of the resolution, with effective crystalized final focus and summary speeches. Excessive card checks are not tolerated as it is expected that all debaters are cutting and reading cards using the highest of ethics in debate rounds. Excessive road mapping before each speech will also not be tolerated. Please help the judge and tournament stay on time. No Spreading!

Email: mccsong8@gmail.com Updated 3/9/24

About Me

I did LD and Extemp 2014-18, coached LD 18-22, judged occasionally since then.

3/9 edit: I haven’t judged in a while, so I’m not as quick with jargon and speed. I’ll attempt to update the rest but if I miss anything, please ask before round.

LD: I still think LD is supposed to be more philosophical/morals based, but I also enjoy policy, theory, and K debates. I don’t feel as though I judge performance rounds very well. I also expect good evidence, and will include the whole card and not just the highlighted parts as part of your evidence. I expect engagement on the actual merits of arguments. Debate is a game but at all ends of it are real people, so be kind.

Oh, also, if you say anything clearly racist/homophobic/sexist/etc., I will likely vote you down on the spot and give 0 speaks. That doesn't have any place in the educational space of speech and debate. Outside of being xenophobic, hateful, or spouting hate speech, say whatever you want, I guess.

If you have any further questions, feel free to reach me atmccsong8@gmail.com

MC

Hello

I’m a parent judge. Please run traditional rounds only and speak slowly so that I can understand.

Good luck!

My email is emilyxdan@gmail.com

Intro/Background - My name is Ryan Debish and I'm a member of the Forensics program at TCU competing in Parliamentary debate, extemp, and impromptu. I also debated CX and Parli in high school where I finished as a California state quarter-finalist in parli, so I'm fairly well versed in debate theory and procedures.

Debate

Speed - (If this is CX/LD or any other prepped debate) I'm fine with speed, but I'm not going to call cards at the end of the round to reconstruct your argument so make sure your speed is intelligible. (If this is Parli or any other limited prep debate) I won't vote you down for speed, but I'll most likely nuke your speaks as spreading in parli typically sounds bad. Remember if I can't hear your argument, I can't flow it, and then I can't vote on it.

K's - I'm fine with Kritiks, debate is an educational institution and K's have a valid position within it, so I am completely open to voting for a well thought out and delivered K.

Tricks - I will not vote based on tricks, they reduce the educational value of the round and thus I will not consider them on the flow.

Impacts - I'm generally hesitant to vote for high magnitude, low probability impacts i.e extinction. If you're going to go for these, you're going to need significant warrant. If it feels 50/50 on the flow between a low probability impact and a medium probability one, I'll go with the medium impact argument every time.

Tabula Rasa - I believe true tabula rasa does not exist. Everyone has their inherent biases, including myself. With that in mind, the flow sheet starts blank every round and I will vote based on the flow. I think an example I once read on another judge's paradigm illustrates my position well: "If both sides agree that Japan is a large West African nation, then I'll judge it as such. But if one side claims it's an Island off the East Coast of Asia, and the other side claims it is a large West African Nation, I will prefer the side that claims it's an island."

Style/Preferences - I'd like to be the judge I would want to see in round as a competitor. I will flow and weigh your arguments at the end of the round and determine a winner based off the arguments and impacts on my flow. "On my flow" being the key word. Please stay organized and signpost well so I can follow your claims. Clash is very important to me, so please directly engage with your opponents arguments. Please give me reasons (impacts) to vote on at the end of the round and really focus on weighing them against the alternative. Overall, have fun and make the round educational and respectful.

Questions - If you have any other questions about my style or preferences, I will be happy to answer them before the start of the round.

Speech/IE's

Timing - I will provide hand signals for timing, and I do expect you to be on time in your speech (I won't mark you down for finishing a sentence after time).

Style - When I vote I give content a much higher priority over speaking ability, especially in more evidence based events like Extemp. Your ability to deliver the speech in an engaging and concise manner is still incredibly important, but what your saying will be more important to me than how you're saying it.

Questions - If you have any other questions about my style or preferences, I will be happy to answer them before the start of the round.

Parent Judge,
I'm comfortable with most philosophical frameworks and feel free to read relevant critical literature. Moderate speed is fine but I need to be able to understand you (so no spreading). I will flow all arguments but make sure you weigh and explain everything well. The end of the 2NR and 2AR should give me a break down of why I should vote for you. I like clear and well thought out arguments that are logically consistent and extend throughout the round. Please make sure that all your evidence is well researched and credible.

Bennett Dombcik

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

My ballot will be determined by my flow. Technical concessions are taken as truth.

Some random things that may be helpful:

---you can insert re-highlightings, re-cuttings of things not present in the original card should be read.

---please locally record speeches/turn on your camera for online debates.

---line by line is helpful for the purposes of my flow but I will attempt to write down as much of your rant as possible.

---I am generally a fan of creative and interesting strategies.

---"I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that. I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so." - Rafael Pierry

update: Jan 2025

Email chain: chris@alterethosdebate.com

TLDR

Debaters ought to determine the procedural limits and educational value of each topic by defending their interpretations in the round. I ought to vote for the team that does the best job of that in the debate.

I mostly care about warranting arguments and engaging with opponent's through analysis and impact comparison. The team that does the better job justifying my vote at the end of the debate will win.

Debaters should not do any of the following:

Clip cards

Steal prep

Ignore reasonable things like showing up on time and maintaining speech times and speaking order.

Disregard reasonable personal request of their opponents. If you don’t wish to comply with opponent requests, you ought to have a good reason why.

Misgender folks

Say or do racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic or ableist things.

Read pessimism args from identities they don't identify as.

Argumentative Preferences

WARRANTS & EXPLANATIONS over blippiness.

Education > Fairness

Breadth = Depth ---> both are important please make warrants here.

K’s don’t need to win an alt to win.

Reasonable disclosure practices should be followed.

Analytic > Low quality evidence

Specific Stuff

Theory

Disclosing before the round is a reasonable thing to do. That being said, I come in with a slight bias against theory arguments in LD. Lots of frivolity in this space right now.

To adapt for this bias teams can read theory that actually has the potential to improve debates or read shells that will have clear and significant violations. Running theory as an exploit of tech judges makes debates less enjoyable for me and I am inclined to vote against them at the smallest of responses. Affirmative teams should feel comfortable reading fewer spikes and more substance.

t/framework

Neg teams ought to engage with plan free or non-topical affirmatives. Affirmative teams should advocate for some departure from the status quo within the context of the topic. The more an aff is steeped in topic literature, the less likely I am to vote against it as a procedural issues, so strong topic links are crucial. I generally think education is a more important element of debate than fairness and that an inability to prepare against an argument doesn't inherently mean that argument is unfair.

Topicality

I default to reasonability because I think it incentivizes innovative research by the aff and expands the limits of the topic in a good way.

Perf Con.

I'm good with multiple worlds but think perf cons make for less enjoyable debates and I am inclined to vote against 1NC's that read cap and the econ da in the same speech.

Counter Plans

If you have a solvency advocate, its legit.

PIC’s are generally good because they force the affirmative to more deeply examine their advocacy, I want them to be excluding something substantial and to have a solvency advocate of some kind.

Conditionality

Neg definitely gets to be conditional. Limited conditionality is the most reasonable interp.

DA's

I like topic DA's, and find most politics and econ based internal links implausible. But, I won't vote against them on face, I let your opponent make those arguments.

Presumption

Neg walks in with presumption. Neg teams should still make presumption analysis in the round though.

*If I haven't mentioned it here, ask me. It has been a minute since I've judged.

I was an LD debater for 4 years and am now majoring in Philosophy. If you want to whip out some super complex philosophical fw (stoic virtue ethics, neo-marxism, etc.) feel free. If you have some simple util/deon/gov legit. framework and you want to skip over some of the explanation to get to more contention level stuff thats fine I can keep up.

I prefer traditional debate but I can keep up with spreading, Ks, plans, etc.

I appreciate an entertaining CX.

You need KVIs. Framework is not a key voting issue, its the framing for the round. Defense is also not a KVI. Show me why you're winning under whichever or both fws in the KVIs.

3 years of CX

OES '2016

alexdgarten@gmail.com

TL;DR

I will do my best to be open to any argument and vote based on the flow.

Online debate update:

Your clarity is not as good as you think. Slowdown and enunciate. If you're not clear, I will say so twice, after that good luck.

I want to see clash.

I want to see good impact analysis and a clear reason to vote for you. The easier you make my job in evaluating the debate, the more likely it is I vote for you.

I have not been very involved in debate since 2016 so make sure to explain topic specific concepts and critical theory well.

Debate is a game and its rules are up for debate.

The speech document is not the speech.

If you have specific questions ask me.

LD

I have very little experience judging or participating in LD. I will end up evaluating the debate like a cx round.

I debated four years LD at Byram and am a first year out rn. hmu on facebook @lukegusty or my email ruprinator@gmail.com if you got questions.

Theory/T: I love theory debates because I read a lot theory, but that doesn't mean you should read it if that's not your thing.

Non Topical Stuff: they’re fine

K's: K>theory debates are fun to watch.

Phil: Some of the stuff you guys are reading can be dense so if it is plz flesh it out in your final speech.

Larp: it’s ight

Tricks: what's an apriori?

bracket theory: :)

edit: if ur reading high theory or super dense phil explain it to me rlly well

Contact:

Email Cayman1@gmail.com if you have questions. If the questions are about a specific flow, please mention the round/flight/tournament.  Please don't try to reach me via any social media you find me on; I'm not likely to check them in a time-sensitive situation at a tournament.

Online Judging:

Unless tournament rules say otherwise or both teams are sending actual speech docs over SpeechDrop, everyone needs to be on the Email chain. I'll still read evidence sparingly unless asked to, but it's important that everyone is on the chain to verify what evidence gets sent when (and that it was sent to all participants instead of accidentally choosing 'reply' vs 'reply all'.) Because these rules and norms are relatively new and still in flux, I'm inclined by default to drop the card and not the team if one side can't fully/correctly comply with an evidence request.

I probably won't be looking at Campus/Cloud/Zoom very much during speeches. My ballot/comments, timer, flow, and any relevant evidence are already competing for screen space.

Since automated flips are time-sensitive and inflexible, if you have any questions for me that may influence how you flip, I'll try to get into the virtual competition room early with time to spare. If you're in the room and don't see me there, Email me. Normally, I try to avoid answering questions about specific hypotheticals where one team can hear me and the other can't, but I'll make an exception under this ruleset if one team needs to know before their coin flip timer expires and then I'll make an effort to fill the other team in as similarly as I can before the round starts. Also before the round starts, I'll verbally confirm who won the flip and which choice each side made, in case it becomes relevant to mid-round arguments.

However fast y'all think you can go without sacrificing clarity is modified by both your microphone and your opponents' speakers. I'll let you know if you're unclear to me; if your opponents are unclear to you, either clarify in cross or err on the side of asking for more evidence from the last speech.

If you're waiting for a card to start prep, please don't mute yourselves until prep starts. Prep starts when the requested cards (if any) arrive in the Email chain (or when debaters are obviously prepping) and stops when someone from the prepping team un-mutes and says to stop prep. If your opponents gave you the wrong card, I'll reset prep to where it was when you started, but if you just want to ask for more cards, please do so all at once rather than constantly trying to pause and un-pause prep.

Should you feel compelled to run a theory argument, please make sure that the interpretation and standards take the current online format into account.

If y'all want to ask your opponents clarifying questions during your own prep time, you're welcome to do so, but it's up to them whether to answer.

Cross can get especially messy when feedback and dueling microphones are involved. Please be mindful of the technical issues that talking over each other can cause and interrupt sparingly.

Background:

• Policy and LD since 1998
• Parli and PF since 2002
• WSDC and WUDC since 2009
• Big Questions since it became a non-meme event*
• Coach for Howard County, MD teams (Atholton, Centennial, Marriotts Ridge, Mt Hebron, Oakland Mills, River Hill, etc.) 2007-2020
• Capitol Debate camps & travel team from 2008-2013
• James Logan Forensics Institute from 2012-2013
• SNFI Public Forum 2010-2019
• Bethesda Chevy Chase 2019-2022

J-V, NCFLs, NJFL, Round Robins, etc.:

• If I'm judging you in a format where you don't get prefs or strikes and judge assignments are random, it's more my job to adapt to you than your job to adapt to me. Issues with stylistic choices or execution are more likely to find their way into the ballot comments than into the speaker points.
• Do what you do best; don't second-guess yourselves and do what you think I want to hear if it's not what you're good at.
• Don't take your norms for granted. If you and your opponent have different ideas of what debate should be or how it should be evaluated, tell me why the way that you do it is superior, the same way you would with any other argument.
• If you have a panel, do what you have to do to win the panel. If the easiest way to win is to pick up the two lay parent-judges sitting on either side of me and doodling on their ballots while trying to look attentive, so be it. I won't hold panel adaptation against teams. Making me feel engaged and useful is not why you're here.
• Some leagues ban disclosure. Some leagues ban verbal feedback. Those rules are bad for education and bad for debate. If you have questions about your round, find me after the round and we'll talk about what happened.

Evidence:

• I don't like calling for cards. If I do, it's either because of a factual/ethical dispute between teams about what the author actually says, because the round had a total absence of weighing outside of the quoted impact cards, or for educational reasons that aren't going to affect my RFD. How teams spin the cards matters, as does how well teams seem to know their cards.
• I assume ignorance over malfeasance. If you think the other team is being unethical, be able to prove it. Otherwise, correct/educate them by going after the evidence or citation instead of the people.
• Smart analytics beat un-smart cards every time.
• If you haven't read the article or chapter or study that your evidence is quoting, you probably shouldn't be using that evidence yet. When I'm evaluating impacts, it does you no favors to add a second sub-level of probability where I have to wonder "But do they know that the evidence actually says that? If so, did they make X argument on purpose?"
• Saying the word "Extend" is not extending evidence. You're extending arguments, not authors, which means there should be some explanation and some development. Repetition is not argumentation.
• If you're using digital evidence, it's your responsibility to be able to show the other team. It is not your opponents' responsibility to own laptops or to bring you a flash drive. I'm fine with teams using Email to share evidence - with the notable caveat that if I catch you using internet access to do anything outside tournament rules, your coach and the tab room are both going to hear about it. "Can I Email this so I don't risk getting viruses on my USB?" is a reasonable question most of the time. "Can I get on Messenger so my assistant coaches can type up theory extensions for me?" is NOT an acceptable interpretation of that question.
• Prep stops when you stop working with the evidence: either when the flash drive leaves the computer or when you send the Email and stop typing or when you stand up with the evidence in hand.

Speed:

• I care more about clarity than speed. If I can't understand you, I'll let you know.
• If you can't understand your opponents, let them know in CX/CF/Prep. Deliberately maintaining an incomprehensible speed to stop your opponents from refuting arguments they can't comprehend is probably not a winning strategy especially in Parli and PF, where speech documents and wikis don't check.
• Quality > quantity. "Spreading" isn't some arbitrary brightline of WPM; it's when you're talking faster than you can think. Doesn't matter which event. Don't get discouraged just because your opponents are faster than you.

Event-specific stuff:

• CX:
• Check the judge philosophies Wiki.
• If your strategy relies on preffing only judges like me and then telling other teams they can't read their arguments in front of the judges that you've preffed, then please rethink your strategy.
• I've coached and run a wide variety of arguments. One of the easiest ways to lose my ballot is to be dogmatic and assume that because I've coached it, I like it, or that I think it's intrinsically true. If you have guessed an argument that I actually enjoy running and/or believe in, that still doesn't mean you'll be held to a lower standard on it.
• With the (hopefully obvious) exception of status theory, I'd prefer to be able to reject the argument instead of the team. You probably want to hedge your bets by telling me how the round changes if the argument is(n't) rejected.
• Kick your own arguments; don't leave it up to me to decide what should or shouldn't be kicked unless you're actually ok with either option.
• L-D:
• The majority of L-D I've judged in recent years has been fairly traditional/local; it's probably the event I judge least at bid tournaments on the national circuit, so it's probably best to treat me as a recovering policy judge.
• I try not to intervene on theory. If you're winning it, I'll vote for it, even if doing so makes me feel dirty, as long as it's warranted/impacted/developed like any other winnable argument. That said, my theory norms have been largely calibrated by the arguments' CX analogues., so if you think there's something L-D specific I should be aware of (no 2NC's role in disclosure, the absence of a second CX when determining whether answers are binding/whether clarifications are sufficient, the difference between neg block and NR in creating side bias, etc.) be explicit about it.
• In-round discourse probably comes before theory, T/FW probably come before other theory.
• I'm not convinced there's such a thing as a "pre-standard" argument. An argument might operate on a higher level of standards than anything else currently in the round, or on a mutually conceded standard, but it still needs to be fully developed.
• PF:
• I strongly prefer for the second-speaking team to adapt their definitions/burdens in their initial speech and frontline in 2RB to create clash. I won't auto-drop you for using the 2RB the same as you would have the 1RB, but you're not doing your partner's 2SM any favors.
• Deliberate concessions early in the round can get you a long way. Just know and explain where and why they're strategic.
• Cite authors when possible. The university your author went to / was published by / taught at / is not your author. The way to get around a dearth of source diversity is to find more sources, not to find as many different ways as possible to cite the same source.
• Teams that start weighing in RB typically have an easier time getting my ballot than teams that just spit out a bunch of constructive arguments and wait for reductive speeches to weigh anything.
• CF should be focused on asking actual questions, not repeating speeches or fitting in arguments you didn't have time for. "Do you agree", "Isn't it true that", "How would you respond to", and "Are you aware" are rarely ingredients of genuine questions. Good CFs will clarify and focus the round by finding where common ground exists and where clash matters.  If you think something in CF matters, mention it in your team's next speech.  If you or your partner have no intention of referencing something in your next speech, 
• SM cannot go line-by-line in most rounds. There's literally not enough time. There are more and less technical ways of looking at the big picture, but you do need to look at the big picture.  My standards for SM coverage (especially 2SM) have increased since the speech length increased 50%, so spending the extra time on comparing warrants and weighing is probably better than re-ligitating the rebuttal
• GCF is a hard place to win the round but an easy place to lose the round. Make sure that you and your partner are presenting a unified front; make sure that you're investing time in places that deserve it, make sure that if you're trying to introduce something new-ish here that you tie it into what's already happened this round.
• FF shouldn't be a notable departure from SM. Offense matters, especially if you're speaking first.
• Parliamentary:
• Naming arguments is not the same as making arguments. I can't easily vote on something that you haven't demonstrated intellectual ownership of.
• My threshold for beating arguments is inversely proportional to the silliness of the argument.
• "but [authority figure] says X" is not an argument. Especially in an event where you can't directly quote said person. I don't want to know whether Paul Krugman says the economy is recovering. I don't want to know whether Nietzsche says suffering is valuable. I want to know why they are right. Your warrants are your own responsibility.
• Intelligently asking and taking POIs is a big factor in speaker points.
• Most rounds come down to how well the PMR answers the Opp block. If the Opp block was much better done than the MG, there might be no PMR that could answer well enough, but that's rare. Parli seems to have much more potential for teams that are behind to come back than most other events.
• I'm generally tech > truth. In Parli, however, depending on how common knowledge the topic is and whether internet prep is allowed, a little more truth can beat a lot more tech. Don't be afraid to stake the round on a question of fact if you're sure it's actually a question of fact.
• I should not have to say this, but given the current state of HS Parli, if I am confident a team is lying and I already intend to drop them for it, I may double-check the relevant fact online just to make 100% sure. This is not me "accessing the internet on behalf of" the team I'm voting for; this is me going the extra mile for the team that I was already intending to vote against anyway. Suggesting that the losing team should be given a win because I gave them a second chance before I signed my ballot is asinine.
• If you have a collection of 2 or 3 Ks that you read against every opponent, I don't think that aligns with the intention of the format, but I can certainly be convinced that fidelity to that intent is overrated. That said, you should make an extra effort to engage with your opponents and show how your criticism creates clash rather than sidesteps clash.
• Limited-Prep
• Extemp - Source diversity matters. I will look ev up online if it sounds sketchy. I do care that you give a direct answer to the actual question you drew, but not every question is written in a way that deserves a definite yes or no answer: if you don't, your speech should still contain elements of nuance and advocacy beyond "...well, yes and no" and should show me why all the simple answers would have been wrong.
• Impromptu - I don't have a strong preference for one structure over another, but some prompts lend themselves more to certain structures. Not everything needs to be forced into a 3x1 or a 2x2 if it doesn't fit the procrustean bill. Recycled anecdotes and tropes are somewhat inevitable, but canned speeches defeat the purpose of the event.
• Interp/Platforms/Congress
• How did you end up with me as a judge? I'm so sorry. You're probably sorry too. Someone probably desperately needed a judge to stop the tournament from running grossly overtime, and all the other potential volunteers either ran faster or hid better than I did. We'll both make it through this somehow. It'll be a learning experience.

Background: In the dark ages of debate at the dawn of LD and before the creation of PF, I debated policy on the national circuit. So, I keep a flow but dislike policy-level speed. I have been judging high school debate for six years -- primarily LD. One of the reasons that I like LD is that it is not Policy. So, I am "flow judge" with great appreciation for the "lay" aspects of debate. Persuasion matters.

1. Framework in LD is important but not the only issue. You can lose the framework debate but still win the round with a good turn.

2. I vote on issues that you make persuasively. I care about persuasion that is used to explain your analysis, issues and evidence.

3. When determining speaker points, I care of course about analysis, evidence, coverage of arguments and all of the tech aspects of debate. However, in addition to the tech criteria, for speaker points, I also care about non-verbal communication, presentation, treatment of opponent, and persuasion.

4. I appreciate off-time roadmaps.

5. I expect clear sign-posting. If I can't flow it, I can't give you credit for it.

6. I expect Key Voting Issues in final rebuttals. Try to write my ballot for me. Tell me how I should evaluate the round. If appropriate, tell me how to weigh (please do this) your arguments. Tell me why you win the round.

7. I expect you to debate the topic more than arcane theories of debate.

8. I rarely call for cards. I strongly dislike paraphrasing.

9. Arguments that are racist, sexist, homophobic, anti-semitic etc are not acceptable. I will drop you.

10.I appreciate a strong cross examination that is tough but respectful. You should ask focused questions that expose weaknesses and/or set up your arguments without an abusive tone or insulting language.

I flow rounds. Alerting me to clear contentions and off time road maps assists me in completing my flows. I am absolutely not capable of flowing if you SPREAD, in fact, if you choose to SPREAD, I will stop flowing and listen. I prefer to hear you present your arguments verses reading your prepared material. The documents will provide me the name of your source when I review before making a final decision. I favor up to date resources as changes happen daily, when presenting your argument I focus on the year of the evidence to include in my flow. Cross fires should be civil. I generally look to typical speech characteristics when determining speaker points, such as speaking with clarity and articulation. I also consider the general characteristics of giving a speech such as how you present yourself through your demeanor both individually and as a team, as well as with your opponents.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

+0.2 speaks for starting early when possible

CIRCUIT LD PARADIGM

-Have a debate about the standard.

-Come up with and articulate your own responses against your opponent's positions rather than hiding behind cards, and don't be blippy.

-Be very clear. Your spreading should be clear. Your explanations should be clear. It should be very clear in your last speech what my RFD would be if I'm voting for you. A good final speech makes me sign the ballot immediately because there is no ambiguity about how the round is breaking down.

-Start doing argument comparison as soon as possible. When responding to an argument, explain why your response is better/makes more sense than the original argument (leaving all of this work until the 2NR/the 2AR will require judge intervention on my part to resolve the debate. Also keep in mind that argument comparison is different than merely weighing impacts).

-I don't vote on disclosure theory. I don't like the concept of everyone knowing the full content of everyone else's positions in advance -- I think it leads to pre-scripted debates and has turned LD into an activity that focuses too much on evidence as opposed to analytic argument generation, which was a skill that LD used to be very good at training.

-I also don't vote on any theory or kritik that only links because of something that happened outside of the round.

-There are some concepts from policy-style debate that I plainly don't understand. Textual and functional competition, germane versus non-germane net benefits, how process cp's work... Explain yourself, and don't use jargon.

-1AR theory: if you want to be able to go for it later, you have to invest time developing it and pre-empting the 2NR. I very rarely vote on 1AR theory, not because I'm opposed to it, but because the 2AR almost always sounds new.

-I almost never read cards after the round. If you say insert rehighlighting without reading the card out loud, there is a 0% chance that the argument will have anything to do with my ballot.

Speaks: I usually give between 28 and 29.

I did 2 years of Policy in HS and 1 year of NPDA in College, with some assorted LD and IPDA thrown in here and there. I ended up winning state policy with my partner, but I live in Idaho so that doesn’t mean much on the national level. I have run and enjoyed all different kinds of arguments, and am ok with pretty much whatever you want to read. That being said, I recognize I tend to be pretty intervention-y, so unless you want to gamble the round your rebuttals need to paint a very clear picture of what and why I’m voting for you. Watch my face, I’ll probably tell you if I don’t like an argument.

I used to be good with speed, definitely still better than your average mom but we’ll see how we fair when we get there. I haven’t touched debate in like 2 years, so I’m rusty at best. That frankly goes for pretty much everything, my debate brain is probably half of what it once was at best, so be nice to me. If you start yelling Deleuze at me without explanation, I'm probably shutting down and going into anaphylactic shock.

Specifically:

FW: Please use it, again I’m weird and dumb so if you want to win with me you should tell me how I’m supposed to evaluate the round. It’s a lot better for both teams if there is a clear consensus on how this round is being judged, or if the argumentation regarding that is clearly outlined in the flow.

T/Theory: I really like it, ran it a lot when I debated. That being said, I a. Need you to slow tf down when reading interps and b. Need you to spend time on the shell if I’m going to vote on it. Nothing makes me madder than a 25 second theory shell that I’m somehow supposed to care about. If theory is a big part of the rebuttals the debate also needs to slow down.

DA/CP: Probably what I ran most, always fun. Make sure to be good or at least cutting your own cards, I got really bored of hearing the same open ev Econ DA when I was judging consistently

Case: Clear impact calc helps avoid me messing with your W.

K: read what you want, framework matters here because I probably haven’t read what you’re talking about. I also won’t vote on links of omission.

K aff: I'm down with these, I really like when these are run with plans that were still kind of topical. I don't think for instance queer people asking the state to stop killing queer people is them affirming the state or whatever, and I super enjoyed listening to and used to enjoy running them. Totally non-topical affirmatives are also fine, while I probably lean neg on theory here by a slight margin, if you're better than the other team and/or have some really solid answers to T (which you probably have) send it.

Speed: I used to be cool with it, might have fallen off so ask in round

I've said this multiple times but I'll say it again. I've been out of debate for quite a while, and I've not judged any of the topics this year, so I'm not going to be familiar with the arguments. That means you cannot rely on me knowing what you're talking about just off the name of whatever obscure DA you're going to be running.

I graduated from Lafayette (Louisiana) High School in 1972. I was on the high school forensic team for three years and participated in debate for the most part, but also extemp and impromptu speaking. “Back in the day” it was only two-person teams, regular debate or CX. I am a clinical social worker and the administrator of a psychiatric hospital. I thought my judging “career” ended in the early 1980s. However, I came out of “retirement” in 2017 when my daughter joined her school’s speech/debate team as a freshman. She is currently a senior and her events are mostly extemp, debate and Congress. I have judged everything but my preference is forensic events.

The best way to get your argument through would be to approach me as what I would term an advanced lay judge. I am “old school”. I flow and pay close attention to CX. Spreading/speed … I don’t really like it, but can handle speed up to a certain point. If your words fuse together and become incomprehensible, you will lose me. By extension, if I am not able to get it down on the flow, it didn’t happen. I cannot judge what I cannot understand.J I pay attention to cards, especially the source. Dropped contentions/arguments are noted and graded accordingly. I appreciate clear logic and well explained analysis, smooth and organized speaking, and courteous behavior and respect for your opponent. Extend your arguments across the flow. My preference in LD is traditional style. I am OK with CPs, not so much with Ks. Unless required, I don’t disclose. You will have difficulty picking up body/facial language from me during a debate. I am pretty much expression-less and will have only intermittent eye contact. Please don’t mistake this as me not listening. My focus is on the words and the flow.

Update on virtual competition: Please be advised that LIVE online competition has its quirks. Before virtual debate, both competitors would often talk at the same time in CX. This was not a problem as both speaker's voices could be heard at the same time. This may NOT be the case in live online debate. Sometimes both speakers can be heard, but often the software allows only one speaker's voice to come through. In addition, with spreading or very fast speech, the software may not be as clear as in traditional live and in-your-face debate. In many instances judging virtual debates, spreading becomes garbled with static and skips ... as difficult as it is for a human in real-life debating to comprehend 500 words per minute, it seems that the software is even more confused. Just something to keep in mind and I'll try and remember to remind debaters of this before the round begins.

Put me on the email chain: Lawsonhudson10@gmail.com;baylordb8@gmail.com (college)

Cabot '19

Baylor '24 - 3x NDT Qualifier

From the river to the sea, Palestine will be free

TLDR: Do what you want and do it well. Paradigms can be more dissuasive than informative so let me know if you have any questions before the round. When debating I almost exclusively read K arguments so more judge framing in policy v policy rounds is very helpful. Depth over breadth, if your strat is 8+ off Im probably not the judge for you. I'll always read ev and be engaged in the round but it's your responsibility to tell me how to evaluate the round/impacts. Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity, if you want me to evaluate your args I need you to explain your warrants rather than just extending tags/card names. If there's disputes over what a piece of evidence says I'll read evidence but I shouldn't have to sift through a card doc to resolve a debate. If there's anything I can do to make debates more accessible for you, please let me know before round either via email or a pre-round conversation. Debate well and have fun!

I want to see and will reward with increased speaks the following: argument innovation, specificity, quality ev, jokes/good vibes, good cx, examples, and judge instruction. Please give me judge instruction. Write my ballot in the beginning of your final rebuttal and make sure to resolve the offense on the flow. I want to see clash, the more you clash with your opponents, the more likely you are to get my ballot. Regardless of my background, I really don't care what you read or how you debate; do what you do best and I'll do my best to evaluate the debate at hand.

K affs

Go for it. Affs that defend doing things in the direction of the topic tend to do better in fw debates but if your aff doesn't do that, just win why not doing that is good and you'll be fine. I'm honestly down for whatever. Whether your strategy is to have a connection to the topic and a method that results in topical action, or you read your aff to impact turn fw I've done it and will evaluate anything. I tend to thing presumption is a strategic strategy against k affs that at least forces teams to explain what they are defending. Tell me what my role in these debates is, what the ballot does, and what the benefit to debating the aff is. If you do these things, you're good.

T

Go for it. I think T is especially underutilized against certain policy affs. Contrary to some belief, I will vote for fw and will evaluate it like any argument. I usually evaluate fw debates through the lens of competing models of debate but can be convinced otherwise. For the neg, I find arguments about clash and advocacy centered on the topic generally more persuasive than arguments about procedural fairness. Especially on this topic, I think having offense as to why debating climate change is good would be beneficial for the neg. TVA's probably need to have at least texts, can be convinced they need solvency advocates too. I can be convinced affs make clash impossible, but if your only idea of clash is the politics da and the states cp I'll be less persuaded (I really like politics tho). In my opinion, the best way to go for fw is to win your interp creates a model of debate that is able to solve the affs offense (either through the tva or ssd). For the aff, its usually easier to win impact turns to fw but having a solid defense of your model/counter interp goes a long way in mitigating neg offense. I enjoy creative we meet args/counter-interps. New, innovative approaches to fw are always exciting as these debates can get very stale. I want to see ~clash~.

K's

These debates are where I have the most background and feel the most comfortable judging. The two biggest issues for the negative in K debates tend to be link application and alt explanation. Focusing on these areas along with round framing i.e. fw (for both the aff and the neg) will largely determine the direction of my ballot in these debates. Affs needs to explain how the permutation functions in the context of the alternative rather than simply extending a perm text as well as net benefits to the perm while the negative should equally spend sufficient time explaining why the aff and the alt are mutually exclusive. I don’t think the neg necessarily needs to go for an alt but if that's your thing you need to make sure you win the framework debate. Affs tend to do better when they engage with the actual content of the K and extend offense in addition to the case. If your aff obviously links to the K i.e. cap vs an innovation aff, you're probably in a better position impact turning the K than going for the no link/perm strategy in front of me. Aff teams would benefit from spending less time on framework/reading endless cards and more time engaging with the links/thesis of the K.

CPs/DA's

Make sure to explain how the counterplan is mutually exclusive with the aff and what the net benefit is. When going for the disad the negative needs to have a clear link, preferably reasons why the disad turns the case, and Impact Framing. Both the 2nr and the 2ar need to explain to me why your impacts outweigh theirs because I don't want to do that work for you.

LD:

While I've done LD, I have done exclusively progressive LD so I'm not familiar with some of the traditional LD norms. I'm fine with general theory arguments like conditionality and disclosure theory but if your strat relies on your opponent conceding a bunch of blippy, unwarranted statements that don't mean anything I'm probably not the judge for you. I'd much rather you see you win on the content of the debate than extending a blippy 1ar theory argument so you don't have to debate the substance of the case. Go as fast as you want as long as you are clear. I'm not likely to vote on tricks/spikes and long underviews in 1acs are annoying. If the 1ac involves reading 5 minutes of preempts with 1 minute of content I’m probably not the judge for you. I'm a policy debater at heart. I ultimately don't care what you do or say in round as long as it's not racist, sexist, ableist, or transphobic. Just make arguments - claim, warrant, impact - and tell me why you're winning the debate in the rebuttal speeches. I judge LD rounds slightly differently - I flow on my laptop. I first evaluate the fw debate which only ends up mattering when it does I guess? I then evaluate the 2nr/2ar to resolve key points of offense. I find LD debaters are often too defensive in their rebuttals and if that's you its not likely to work in your favor. Have offense. Be willing to impact turn your opponents position. I want to see ~clash~.

About myself: I'm a biology and environmental science teacher, while also an assistant speech/debate coach.

Email Chain: lizjames2010@gmail.com

I prefer a more traditional style of argumentation that is well supported with evidence. Please try to speak at a pace that allows me to understand you and take notes about your case (quality of cards over quantity). Please clarify arguments at the end and make evidence very clear on the flow.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a lay judge and am only familiar with traditional LD. Be a good speaker and tell me why your arguments are better than your opponents and weigh clearly. Good luck!

I am former Policy turned LD debater from 24 years ago. Since debating in high school I have spent a lot of time judging a variety of events here and there. I am currently a high school speech and debate coach. I like to keep things pretty simple - LD is ultimately a debate of values. Convince me that your approach to the resolution best upholds a value that you have defended as a value worth obtaining and you are likely to win.

Some things worth knowing - I do flow debates and get really annoyed by dropped arguments. I don't mind speed if I can understand you. I do place a large value on confident politeness. It helps you look in control and right. Rudeness or overly emotional debating implies you are losing control which shows you fear you are losing. If you think you are losing then chances are I might think so too.

I like well organized cases and responses with signposting to cue the organization and help me make sense of everything. I also really like explanations of evidence. If you tell me something will lead to more of something but don't say how or why that is a good or bad thing then it's a waste of evidence.

I will try to give thorough feedback to help you understand why I made the decision I made.

I have worked in World Schools for two years.  I like to see clash and will use the ballot as instructed.  

Joshua F. Johnwell (he/him/they/them/queer/josh/whatever)

NYU Policy Alumni (2016-2020)
Houston, TX / Nat HS Circuit (4 Years) @ Dawson HS
GDI (Gonzaga) Alum - 4WK, 5WK Scholars, 2WK

Email questions to debatejosh@gmail.com
or just ask before round, preferably. oh & YAS, EMAIL CHAIN ME

Current Affiliations: NYU
Past Affiliations: BL Debate (2020-2021), Success Academy HS (2019-2020), Dawson HS (2012-2016)

2024-2025 Update: (Wake)

• Hi, I've now been out of this activity for a hot-minute now. I'm back in school at Rutgers Law.
• Sans my paradigm, please do not ask me any personal questions, we're here for a debate round not to network/catch-up lmao, and I'm gucci with that.
• Y'all do y'all, and I'm just here making a decision lol. Read whatever you want. I dig creativity, a good sense of humor, and confidence (like, read them to filth, please).
• I make a lot of facial expressions; they're most likely about the round, and I dig eye-contact a lot.
• Speed = fine.
• I will yell "clear!", or post in chat (for remote), when I cannot understand your spreading.
• Please do not "steal" prep time; do not use offensive, racist, and/or gendered language; just don't act up in front of me, please. Like, leave the drama and all that noise outside of our round, thank you.

• I have no idea what the current topic is or what research has been done on it, nor the current norms; please do not assume that I do. This is my first tournament judging this season. Please be warned lol.
• Please take extra time explaining solvency and topicality arguments to me, also slow down for these arguments.
• I vote on T & FW, but fairness is meh. . .
• I read a lot of race and sexuality/gender nihilism/pess in HS and college, but I do not endorse any specific ideology.

my email for evidence and etc: esther.kardos@gmail.com

general rule of thumb.... i am now officially 4/5 years removed from pf debating and the format has changed a lot. i am super receptive to this change so if you're doing something especially out of the box it's totally fine with me, i just need a heads-up and you might have to do some extra legwork to teach an old pf-er new tricks.

spreading - yeah, probably. if you can't get through your speech without it, then i can follow until about 230 wpm. after that, maybe send over a copy of your speech to make sure i don't miss anything. i would encourage you to slow down toward the back end of your speeches, but up to you.

theory & beyond - i didn't have to deal with this a ton back when i did pf (pf used to be the "one format without theory" lmao not anymore!), but i've had enough exposure to T/K/plans/counters from judging that i can probably pick up what you're putting down. as a caution, i REALLY need to get persuaded by theory to vote on it, and if it's too complicated for me to understand i'll just default to your opponent.

flowing - make flowing easy for me! start each of your big points with something flashy like "my first contention is..." or "my second independent point is..." or even just "one... two... three...", and then clearly indicate to me the different branches of argumentation under that big point. you don't need to be as obvious as shouting "THIS IS MY WARRANT, THIS IS MY IMPACT", but be able to clearly explain why/how something is true and what's going to result from it, and especially why it matters more than whatever your opponent is saying. i listen to cross-ex but i don't flow it, so if you/your opponent say something important during cross, make sure you remind me during your next speech so it 100% makes it on the flow.

evidence/cards - evidence is only as good as the warranting, weighing, and impacting that goes behind it. i will never base my rfd on how well you were able to gather bits of evidence from the depths of debate's dark web, or if one really good point you were making had a link that couldn't load. instead, if the argument you're creating makes sense to me (with some informational evidence to back it up) because of the warranting, weighing, and impacting you put behind it, then i'll always be more willing to pick that up rather than just buy what the other team is saying because of some guardian article from 2004.

misc - i don't mind "offtime roadmaps" or whatever the kids are calling it these days, just let me know beforehand and plzzz keep them brief. if you're a novice (or even a varsity!!!) and you have questions during the round, please don't be afraid to ask me, i'll never look down on you for wanting to learn! i'm happy to give any timing cues, you just gotta let me know beforehand. be nice to each other, debate is temporary but building a habit of being a jerk follows you forever. and in case I haven't beaten this to death already, WARRANT AND IMPACT AND WEIGH.

if you have any more questions, let me know. i'm so excited to see what arguments you come up with!

Paradigm for LD at MSHSL Sections, State and Southern MN Qualifiers

Judging debates is inherently an interpretive activity, and your role as a debater is to persuade me that you won the debate. When judging, I try to start with the metrics that are set up by the debaters in their speeches while making my decision. That means that I tend to reward debaters who do strong framework debating, impact calculus and judge instruction. Debaters who craft their strategy by thinking about their win conditions and their opponents' win conditions will be successful in front of me.

The value and value criterion is generally where I start my evaluation of debates. I will determine which criterion is the winning lens for me to view the round, and then determine which side wins more offense under that criterion.

Speed of delivery: I have no problem with any speed of delivery, as long as you are clear. However, if your opponent requests that you speak at a conversational speed, I expect that you honor that request.

A note on "national circuit" arguments:

The role of the affirmative is to prove the resolution true and the role of the negative is to prove the affirmative false. I don't expect debaters at sections and state to be able to engage with "national circuit" style arguments like I would if this were a TOC-bid distributing tournament, given that it is not the norm of our circuit.

I'm open to any substantive argument that debaters chose to make. This means that arguments that function like counterplans and kritiks can be fair game if the negative debater explains why they fulfill the resolutional burden.

A note on evidence:

Per MSHSL rules, I cannot request to look at evidence unilaterally. Thus, if there is a dispute in the round over what a piece of evidence says, you should explicitly instruct me to read evidence so that I can call for it after the round.

Debaters have the right to examine evidence introduced by the other side. If you are debating off paper, you need to provide a copy of your evidence to your opponent if requested. If you are debating off a laptop, you should either be prepared to share a speech document with your opponent or give them your computer to examine evidence during prep.

Other argumentative notes:

The plain meaning of the resolution implies that the affirmative can fulfill its burden either by proving that becoming party to UNCLOS is desirable, or that becoming party to the Rome Statute is desirable. I am exceedingly unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that the affirmative must prove both.

Non-consequentialist frameworks are currently underutilized. More debaters should be taking advantage of this.

"No burden to prove solvency" is a silly argument if you are using a consequentialist criterion. If you are arguing that morality is determined by the consequences of actions, you have the burden of proving that you mitigate the problems that you are talking about.

Updated: Mar 2024

he/him or they/them - Former LD and Policy Debater 98-01. Former head coach in Oregon. Background in economics and data analytics. Just call me Jeff, please. Local and nat circuit judging experience.
Docs should be sent to koeglerj at gmail dot com.

LD Paradigm -TL;DR: Speed is fine. I am here to observe and evaluate your round, not inject my own beliefs, but I can't really disregard scientific reality. Solid warrants solve this issue. I like good theory and default to drop the argument. K's are welcome. LARP is good. Impact calc evaluation is generally weighted towards probability. Assume that I am familiar with the topic but not your lit. I seek the easiest path to a ballot.

Speed: Speed is fine. Don't spread the analytics, but you can still talk faster.

Argumentation:
1) I will vote on topicality. Words matter, so I consider linguistic arguments as valid T challenges. Aff winning topicality is necessary but insufficient for Aff to win the round. Neg T challenges should not be generic. Aff, my expectation for answers to T is limited to why the Aff position meets the topicality challenge, a line-by-line is not necessary. You don't need to spend 2 minutes answering. Disclosure is not an answer to a topicality.
2) For impact calculus, I weigh probability first.
3) Warrantless/impactless arguments are not weighed. Warrants can be evidence or analytics.
4) Extend and impact drops if they are relevant for you to have me include in my decision calculus.
5) Weighing arguments should be contextual and logically consistent. I favor consistent weighing mechanisms.

K's: K's must be thoroughly explained even if stock. Clearly establish a solid link. I may be the wrong judge for an Aff K.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) I default towards drop the argument, feel free to make a different case.
3) I generally don't buy into RVI's. If you go for "drop the debater", a W/L mandate for your opponent does open you up for RVI arguments.
4) I believe in being as objective and non-interventionist as possible. I feel that theory arguments tend to ask me to not be objective. In order for me to weigh theory, I need a clear bright line for meeting and violations.

Prep: No prep while waiting for the doc to arrive. Include me. koeglerj at gmail dot com.

Misc:
1) I'd rather judge good substantive debate than bad T rounds. If I feel like your bad T is stopping good debate, I will probably undervalue it.
2) Disclose, unless it is not a norm for this tournament.
3) I am probably a middle of the road speaks judge. 28 is average.
4) Pref list:
Plan/Value/Phil/LARP/Trad 1
K 2
Theory 2
Aff K 3
Tricks/Spike 5

Policy Judging Paradigm -TL;DR: Topicality is important. Impact calc evaluation is weighted towards probability, then magnitude. Theory and K's are welcome. Policy is more of a game than any other debate format. Tech first.

Speed: Speed is fine. Slow or differentiate your analytics a bit so I can detect the distinction without referencing the doc.

Argumentation:
1) I vote on topicality. Neg needs to present clear violations and bright lines. Aff only needs to answer why/how they meet or why/how the challenge is illegitimate. I consider this one of the only "rules."
2) I prefer high probability harms to infinitesimally improbable harms.
3) My ballot calculus typically includes weighing the biggest argument(s) in the round and the flow. Prefiat interests preempt all other weighing.
4) Tech over truth.

Theory:I like theory.
1) Theory doesn't have to be in a shell as long as you are organized and clear. I accept theory in a shell.
2) Instead of stacking your shell with 9 voters or standards, just give me the best one you've got.
3) I default towards drop the argument. Clearly intentional abuses identified by theory can change that.

PF Paradigm -Consider me an informed judge with debate experience, that may not be familiar with technical PF aspects. If the teams agree to something before the round (open cx, spreading, whatever) I will honor those agreements. I still consider PF a more accessible form of debate, so please don't make it less so.
1) Speed is fine, if everyone is ok with it.
2) I am ok with follow-on questions in crossfire so long as they follow the same thought process. Questions may be answered by partners, but it may impact your speaks if only one partner ever answers questions.
3) Be topical. This is rarely an issue in PF, but I will vote on it.
4) Impacts will be weighed by probability first.

K's:I've never seen a PF K. It must be thoroughly explained and have a solid link. Please don't assume I am familiar with the lit.

Parli Paradigm
1) Topicality is critical as it is the only way to show comprehension of the topic. Demonstration of comprehension of the topic is required to get my ballot. This means that K's will probably struggle to win my ballot.
2) Prebuilt cases/arguments are discouraged. Theory is still an appropriate way of drawing attention to potential norm violations. I want to see argumentation developed in the allotted time frame.
3) Speakers have an expectation to accept and respond to a reasonable number of questions during the allotted times in their speech. Generally speaking, 3 questions should be responded to (with exceptions). Failure to answer additional questions is acceptable if the speaker fills the remainder of their time with new arguments. You can expect to lose speaks if you don't accept additional questions and end your time with enough time remaining to have fielded those questions. Abuse of the questioning standard (rambling questions, failure to acknowledge questions, interruptions) will result in speaker point losses. Abuses can be used as voting issues.
4) Truth over tech. Arguments that are not factually correct will be undervalued in my evaluation. The earth is not flat.

Disqualifiers:

I will not tolerate racism, sexism, toxic masculinity, etc. If you leave me wondering what you meant, you might just lose speaks. If it is blatant, you lose the round. Opponents to people that use these things, you may ask me for your options between speeches off prep time. Options are 1) Ignore them, 2) engage them, call them out, make them voters, or 3) end the round and ask for a summary ballot. If I concur, you win, if I don't you lose. I am not here to steal your opportunity to stand up to these things, but I can understand needing someone to protect the safe space. Easiest way to avoid: treat every opponent as a person.

Evidence Ethics: If you feel like you are the victim of an ethics violation and want to pursue it, what you are asking me to do is end the round immediately. The burden of proof is on the accuser. I will vote on the spot based on the evidence of the accusation. I don't vote on intent of the accused, just the act of misrepresenting evidence. Accusations that I deem unfounded will be ruled against the accuser.

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 2

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed regardless of the reason.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. Not based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Speak clearly, make your arguments convincing, be a decent human.

I am a Parent judge, but my son has been debating in VLD for the past few years so I feel comfortable evaluating many different rounds. At the same time, please do not speak very fast and please be respectful of your opponent. I will evaluate your arguments with an open mind, no matter how intuitively false they are. Please try to build on your thesis and try not to miss refuting your opponent's key arguments.

30 SPEAKS IS DEAD AND YOU HAVE KILLED IT - search "30 speaks" in the rant doc for specifics

i have (not so) recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - i prefer to be called Eva over judge but say whatever you're used to/makes you comfortable. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating - I currently coach at Hawken. I primarily coach traditional debate, but have qualed kids to the TOC and my kids are very all over the place with what they read, so I've coached basically every style

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style - hacking is one of the worst things a judge can do, other than just not paying attention. i enjoy clash debates where each debater is going for their favorite or most comfortable strategy. i try to make the decision that operates the most logically under the paradigm/framing that has been most robustly defended throughout the round - if a round feels difficult to resolve I will lean towards arguments that I feel make the most sense, are the easiest to vote on, have the most instruction on them, etc. my strongest preference is against doing work for you - non-applied implications, explanations, etc. are things i will not do for you

IF YOUR ROUND HAS BEEN RECORDED FOR VBI AT ANY TOURNAMENT you can contact me with questions or concerns regardless of who recorded it - i can not upload it, change the visibility, etc.

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND, i'm a germaphobe.if there are covid/illness precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.) i'll always have masks on me if you want

Crawford Leavoy, Director of Speech & Debate at Durham Academy - Durham, NC

Email Chain: cleavoy@me.com

BACKGROUND
I am a former LD debater from Vestavia Hills HS. I coached LD all through college and have been coaching since graduation. I have coached programs at New Orleans Jesuit (LA) and Christ Episcopal School (LA). I am currently teaching and coaching at Durham Academy in Durham, NC. I have been judging since I graduated high school (2003).

CLIFF NOTES

- Speed is relatively fine. I'll say clear, and look at you like I'm very lost. Send me a doc, and I'll feel better about all of this.

- Run whatever you want, but the burden is on you to explain how the argument works in the round. You still have to weigh and have a ballot story. Arguments for the sake of arguments without implications don't exist.

- Theory - proceed with caution; I have a high threshold, and gut-check a lot

- Spikes that try to become 2N or 2A extensions for triggering the ballot is a poor strategy in front of me

- I don't care where you sit, or if you sit or stand; I do care that you are respectful to me and your opponent.

- If you cannot explain it in a 45 minute round, how am I supposed to understand it enough to vote on it.

- My tolerance for just reading prep in a round that you didn't write, and you don't know how it works is really low. I get cranky easily and if it isn't shown with my ballot, it will be shown with my speaker points.

SOME THOUGHTS ON PF

- The world of warranting in PF is pretty horrific. You must read warrants. There should be tags. I should be able to flow them. They must be part of extensions. If there are no warrants, they aren't tagged or they aren't extended - then that isn't an argument anymore. It's a floating claim.

- You can paraphrase. You can read cards. If there is a concern about paraphrasing, then there is an entire evidence procedure that you can use to resolve it. But arguments that "paraphrasing is bad" seems a bit of a perf con when most of what you are reading in cut cards is...paraphrasing.

- Notes on disclosure: Sure. Disclosure can be good. It can also be bad. However, telling someone else that they should disclose means that your disclosure practices should bevery good. There is definitely a world where I am open to counter arguments about the cases you've deleted from the wiki, your terrible round reports, and your disclosure of first and last only.

- Everyone should be participating in round. Nothing makes me more concerned than the partner that just sits there and converts oxygen to carbon dioxide during prep and grand cross. You can avert that moment of mental crisis for me by being participatory.

- Tech or Truth? This is a false dichotomy. You can still be a technical debater, but lose because you are running arguments that are in no way true. You can still be reading true arguments that aren't executed well on the flow and still win. It's a question of implication and narrative. Is an argument not true? Tell me that. Want to overwhelm the flow? Signpost and actually do the work to link responses to arguments.

- Speaks? I'm a fundamental believer that this activity is about education, translatable skills, and public speaking. I'm fine with you doing what you do best and being you. However, I don't do well at tolerating attitude, disrespect, grandiosity, "swag," intimidation, general ridiculousness, games, etc. A thing I would tell my own debaters before walking into the room if I were judging them is: "Go. Do your job. Be nice about it. Win convincingly. " That's all you have to do.

OTHER THINGS

- I'll give comments after every round, and if the tournament allows it, I'll disclose the decision. I don't disclose points.

- My expectation is that you keep your items out prior to the critique, and you take notes. Debaters who pack up, and refuse to use critiques as a learning experience of something they can grow from risk their speaker points. I'm happy to change points after a round based on a students willingness to listen, or unwillingness to take constructive feedback.

- Sure. Let's post round. Couple of things to remember 1) the decision is made, and 2) it won't/can't/shan't change. This activity is dead the moment we allow the 3AR/3NR or the Final Final Focus to occur. Let's talk. Let's understand. Let's educate. But let's not try to have a throwdown after round where we think a result is going to change.

James Lewis
Affiliation: University School

About Me: I did four years of Lincoln-Douglas debate way back when. (I'm old) Never accomplished anything of note. Competed in parli in college (accomplished very little of note), did grad work in American history. Now I teach history and I'm the head coach at University School (OH). Helped start Classic Debate Camp a traditional camp where I was the head LD instructor for a bit, left to get a life away from debate, then came back to teach top lab in 2020 and online in 2021. Stayed homeand played with my cats in 2022 instead of teaching at CDC in person.

WSD (Written for Delores Taylor 2024):

I've coached for our district's World Schools team for five of the last seven years. (We won and made finals the two years I stepped away, so make of that what you will. :) I love WSD, it's my favorite event! Even though I spend most of the year coaching LD, I work hard to approach WSD as an event sui generis and don't apply norms of LD to the activity. What does that mean?

1. I prioritize looking at the round in a holistic fashion thinking about how successful both teams are at advancing and supporting a narrative throughout a round. I'm not focused on "drops" and the "flow" as much as I am on who is doing the better overall job of debating. Don't try to go for every argument in a round if it's not strategically important.
2. One of the beauties of WSD (especially impromptu rounds) is that students are not expected to "card" every argument. While evidence is useful, especially in terms of examples and historical precedent, it is just as important for students to provide logical support for their arguments. Responding to logical arguments with "you don't have a card!" won't fly in a WSD round.
3. Presentation/Style is supposed to be a part of the WSD experience. I look for students to utilize persuasion, rhetoric and speaking ability to help advance their arguments. I coach my students to minimize jargon and look for ways to craft eloquent statements that will convince judges of their position. In my mind, WSD should be a much-needed oasis in the desert of spreading. (See, rhetoric! Try it!!)

LD Judging Philosophy (Edited for Durham 2023):

Edit for Durham 2024: I thought this was explicit in my paradigm, but it was not. DO NOT SPREAD. IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME. I DO NOT UNDERSTAND WHAT YOU ARE SAYING WHEN YOU SPREAD, I DO NOT INTEND TO FOLLOW YOU ON THE CASE DOC TO TRY TO DECIPHER WHAT YOU ARE SAYING. FOR EVERYONE'S SAKE, IF YOU PLAN TO SPREAD, STRIKE ME!!!!!!

Edit #2- While I'm giving the oral critique/RFD please do me the courtesy of giving me your full attention. Specifically, do not spend the critique furiously typing while I talking to you. Signal to me that you are engaged. If you're not particularly interested in my input, that's cool, just say so and I'll save my breath. (Seriously I won't be offended. It keeps things moving along quickly)

I think it's really important that you actually research, write cases about and debate the actual resolution. Please leave your tricks at home. I have no interest in hearing arguments about debate theory. I guess I'll flow them, but have a very low threshold for dropping the arguments. I'm not the judge to run a kritik on. I don't coach them, hardly understand them and have a very low threshold for being convinced to drop them. (Hint: Just say, "Judge, that is all well and good but can we please debate the resolution at hand?")

The one way I have changed is that I have become more favorable to LARPing in the debate. I used to be one of those "The rules of LD doesn't allow plans and counterplans!" But given that the resolutions given to us by the NSDA are so often rooted in concrete policy questions, it doesn't seem fair to ask debaters to resist the urge to craft plans or to preclude the NEG from the strategic advantages of a counterplan.

My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

I like not having to make a decision on my own about who won the round. Both debaters should prioritize a) giving me a standard (call it a criterion/standard/argument meter, I don't care) which I can use to decide who won the round and b) applying that standard to the arguments they have made in the round.

I believe that ultimately the purpose of competitive debate is to communicate and persuade. I tend to favor debaters who more effectively communicate their ideas and do a better job of presenting a coherent rationale as to why I should uphold their positions. In the end, my vision of a good debater is one who can take their opponents’ strongest arguments, treat them fairly and still show why their position is the more valid position. I tell my debaters to strive for "clarity" and "synthesis"

Obviously the use of evidence is important in that it substantiates analysis, arguments and conclusions. But I place a very high premium on analysis and argumentation. I don’t consider whether your opponent attacks every single “card” (Honestly, I don't flow every card you mention in your case.) Use evidence as a tool AND don’t let it obscure your reasoning.

PF Notes- My background is largely in LD but I've judged enough PF to know what I'm doing.

Edit for NSDA Opener: My threshold for buying extinction impacts is VERY VERY high. For me to believe that extinction is going to happen or is probable, you have to have a very strong link chain. Like very strong. Otherwise, I'm just going to drop that impact.

Edit for TOC 2023: Look, the calling for cards is getting excessive. At the point where you ask your opponent for "all the evidence that you read on X argument" I suspect that you're fishing for cards/not listening/now flowing your opponents arguments because you plan to just call for all the evidence later. Don't give me that impression.

I'll evaluate everything I hear in the round.

Emphasis on "hear" I HATE spreading. I HATE that debaters think that quantity is a substitute for quality and that a lot of "high level" rounds mostly consist of debaters spewing unwarranted statements + card taglines (and the cards in PF are usually miscut/misrepresented) + jargon. I don't even know what half the jargon y'all are throwing out there means. So if that's your game plan, please strike me for everyone's good.

I'll also try to intervene as little as possible in the round. I've been on way too many panels where oral RFDs consist of judges citing flaws with in round arguments that WEREN'T ACTUALLY BROUGHT UP IN THE ROUND. I despise this. My debate days are over. (And as mentioned above, I wasn't that good at it) I'll leave it up to y'all to do the debating. I'll probably express my displeasure with bad or messy argumentation in a round, but I won't factor it into my decision.

While I try not to intervene and to evaluate everything on the flow, I should note that there are certain kinds of arguments that I just don't find too convincing. So the threshold for responses to those arguments are going to be REALLY REALLY low. I think debaters should actually debate about the resolution. I don't have much patience for theory debate. If you want to debate about debate, go write an article in the ROSTRUM or get a PhD in rhetoric. So I'll flow your kritiks and your theory, but if you opponent gets up and says "Judge, this is kind of silly, can we please talk about the resolution at hand?" then I'll probably drop that argument. I have little patience for the idea that debate rounds are a mechanism for social change. I have even less patience for debaters who are trying to commodify social issues and the suffering of others for a win in a debate round when it is not particularly relevant to the round itself.

And for the love of all that is good and decent, would someone please take 30 seconds to establish a framework for the round? And actually warrant it? Even better than weighing is weighing that a debater can do in the context of their framework.

I am a parent judge. I have judged local tournaments since 2019 .

I have judged the following:

LD (7 local tournaments)

For LD, please speak keep up to consistency, and explain your arguments well.

This will help me to flow better during the round.

If I don't understand you, it is to your detriment.

I am a parent judge, and will try my best to be fair and evaluate the debate neutrally.

Elise Matton, Director of Speech & Debate at Albuquerque Academy (2022–present)
EMAIL CHAIN: enmatton@gmail.com

· B.A. History, Tulane University (Ancient & Early Modern Europe)
· M.A. History, University of New Mexico (U.S. & Latin America)

Competitive Experience:
· CX debate in NM local circuit, 2010 State Champion (2005-2010)
· IPDA/NPDA debate in college, 2012 LSU Mardi Gras Classic Champion (2011-2014)

Coaching Experience:
· Team Assistant, Isidore Newman (primarily judging/trip chaperoning — 2012-2016)
· Assistant Coach, Albuquerque Academy (LD & CX emphasis — 2017–2022)

Judging Experience:
· I judge a mix of local circuit and national circuit tournaments (traditional & progressive) primarily in CX and LD, but occasionally PF or other Speech events.

Note Pre-Jack Howe:

· Jack Howe is my 1st national circuit tournament in policy this season — I haven't seen or judged many rounds at all yet this year and definitely not too many fast/technical/progressive rounds on the topic. Do not assume I know Aff topic areas, core neg ground, abstract topic-specific acronyms, etc. Adjust accordingly!

General Notes (this is catered for policy and national circuit LD. PF notes are at the bottom).

· Speed is fine generally so long as it's not used to excessively prohibit interaction with your arguments. I do think there is a way to spread and still demonstrate strong speaking ability (varying volume, pacing, tone etc) and will probably reward you for it if you're doing both well. Go slower/clearer/or otherwise give vocal emphasis on taglines and key issues such as plan text or aff advocacy, CP texts, alts, ROB/ROJ, counter-interps, etc. Don't start at your max speed but build up to it instead. If you are one of the particularly fast teams in the circuit, I recommend you slow down SLIGHTLY in front of me. I haven't been judging many fast rounds lately, so I'm slightly rusty. I'm happy to call out "clear" and/or "slow" to help you find that my upper brightline so you can adjust accordingly as needed.

· Put me on the email chain (enmatton@gmail.com) but know I don't like rounds that REQUIRE me to read the doc while you're speaking (or ideally at all). I tend to have the speech doc up, but I am annoyed by rounds where debaters ASSUME that everyone is reading along with them. I flow off what I hear, not what I read, and I believe that your delivery and performance are important aspects of this activity and you have the burden of clearly articulating your points well enough that I theoretically shouldn't need to look at the docs at all for anything other than ev checking when it's requested. If someone who wasn't looking at your speech doc would not be able to tell the difference between the end of one card/warrant and the beginning of a new tagline, you need better vocal variety and clarity (louder, intonation change, inserting "and" or "next" between cards etc, etc.

· The most impressive debaters to me are ones who can handle intense high-level technical debates, but who can make it accessible to a wide variety of audiences. This means that I look for good use of tech and strategy, but ALSO for the ability to "boil it down" in clearly worded extensions, underviews, overviews, and explanations of your paths to the ballot. I strongly value debaters who can summarize the main thesis of each piece of offense in their own words. It shows you have a strong command of the material and that you are highly involved in your own debate prep.

· I believe that Tech>truth GENERALLY, BUT- Just because an argument is dropped doesn't necessarily mean I'll give you 100% weight on it if the warrants aren't there or it is absurdly blippy. I also have and will vote for teams that may be less technically proficient but still make valid warranted claims even if they aren't done formatted in a "Technical" manner. Ex: if you run some a theory argument against a less technical team who doesn't know how to line-by-line respond to it, but they make general arguments about why this strategy is harmful to debaters and the debate community and argue that you should lose for it, I would treat that like an RVI even if they don't call it an RVI. Etc.

· Use my occasional facial expression as cues. You’ll probably notice me either nodding occasionally or looking quizzically from time to time- if something sounds confusing or I’m not following you’ll be able to tell and can and should probably spend a few more seconds re-explaining that argument in another way (don't dwell on this if it happens — if it's an important enough point that you think you need to win, use the cue to help you and try explaining it again!) Note the nodding doesn't mean I necessarily agree with a point, just following it and think you're explaining it well. If you find this distracting please say so pre-round and I’ll make an effort not to do so.

· Use Content warnings if discussing anything that could make the space less safe for anyone within it and be willing to adapt for opponents or judges in the room.

Role as a Judge

Debate is incredible because it is student-driven, but I don't think that means I abandon my role as an educator or an adult in the space when I am in the back of the room making my decision. I believe that good debaters should be able to adapt to multiple audiences. Does this mean completely altering EVERYTHING you do to adapt to a certain judge (traditional judge, K judge, anti-spreading judge, lay judge, etc etc)? No, but it does mean thinking concretely about how you can filter your strategy/argument/approach through a specific lens for that person.

HOW I MAKE MY RFD: At the end of the last negative speech I usually mark the key areas I could see myself voting and then weigh that against what happens in the 2AR to make my decision. My favorite 2NR/2AR’s are ones that directly lay out and tell me the possible places in the round I could vote for them and how/why. 2NR/2AR’s that are essentially a list of possible RFDs/paths to the ballot for me are my favorite because not only do they make my work easier, but it clearly shows me how well you understood and interpreted the round.

Topicality/Theory

Part of me really loves the meta aspect of T and theory, and part of me loathes the semantics and lack of substance it can produce. I see T and Theory as a needing to exist to help set some limits and boundaries, but I also have a fairly high threshold. Teams can and do continue to convince me of appropriate broadenings of those boundaries. Reasonability tends to ring true to me for the Aff on T, but don’t be afraid to force them to prove or meet that interpretation, especially if it is a stretch, and I can be easily persuaded into competing interps. For theory, I don’t have a problem with conditional arguments but do when a neg strat is almost entirely dependent on running an absurd amount of offcase arguments as a time skew that prevents any substantive discussion of arguments. This kind of strat also assumes I’ll vote on something simply because it was “flowed through”, when really I still have to examine the weight of that argument, which in many cases is insubstantial. At the end of the day, don’t be afraid to use theory- it’s there as a strategy if you think it makes sense for the round context, but if you’re going to run it, please spend time in the standards and voters debate so I can weigh it effectively.

Disadvantages

I love a really good disad, especially with extensive impact comparisons. Specific disads with contextualized links to the aff are some of my all-time favorite arguments, simple as they may seem in construct. The cost/benefit aspect of the case/DA debate is particularly appealing to me. I don’t think generic disads are necessarily bad but good links and/or analytics are key. Be sure your impact scenario is fully developed with terminal impacts. Multiple impact scenarios are good when you can. I'm not anti nuke war scenarios (especially when there is a really specific and good internal link chain and it is contextually related to the topic) but there are tons more systemic level impacts too many debaters neglect.

Counterplans

I used to hate PICs but have seen a few really smart ones in the past few years that are making me challenge that notion. That being said I am not a fan of process CPs, but go for it if it’s key to your strat.

Kritiks

Love them, with some caveats. Overviews/underviews, or really clearly worded taglines are key here. I want to see *your* engagement with the literature. HIGH theory K's with absurdly complicated taglines that use methods of obfuscation are not really my jam. The literature might be complex, and that's fine, but your explanations and taglines to USE those arguments should be vastly more clear and communicable if you want to run it in round! I have a high threshold for teams being able to explain their positions well rather than just card-dump. I ran some kritiks in high school (mostly very traditional cap/biopower) but had a pretty low understanding of the best way to use them and how they engaged with other layers of offense in the round. They weren’t as common in my circuit so I didn’t have a ton of exposure to them. However, they’ve really grown on me and I’ve learned a lot while judging them- they’re probably some of my favorite kind of debate to watch these days. (hint: I truly believe in education as a voter, in part because of my own biases of how much this activity has taught me both in and out of round, but this can work in aff’s favor when terrible K debates happen that take away from topic education as well). Being willing to adapt your K to those unfamiliar with it, whether opponents or judge, not only helps you in terms of potential to win the ballot, but, depending on the kind of kritik you're running or pre-fiat claims, also vastly increases likelihood for real world solvency (that is if your K is one that posits real world solvency- I'm down for more discussion-based rounds as theoretical educational exercises as well). I say this because the direction in which I decided to take my graduate school coursework was directly because of good K debaters who have been willing to go the extra step in truly explaining these positions, regardless of the fact I wasn’t perceived as a “K judge”. I think that concept is bogus and demonstrates some of the elitism still sadly present in our activity. If you love the K, run it- however you will need to remember that I myself wasn’t a K debater and am probably not as well versed in the topic/background/author. As neg you will need to spend specific time really explaining to me the alt/role of the ballot/answers to any commodification type arguments. Despite my openness to critical argumentation, I’m also open to lots of general aff answers here as well including framework arguments focused on policymaking good, state inevitable, perms, etc. Like all arguments, it ultimately boils down to how you warrant and substantiate your claims.

MISCELLANEOUS
Flash time/emailing the doc out isn’t prep time (don’t take advantage of this though). Debaters should keep track of their own time, but I also tend to time as well in case of the rare timer failure. If we are evidence sharing, know that I still think you have the burden as debaters to clearly explain your arguments, (aka don’t assume that I'll constantly use the doc or default to it- what counts is still ultimately what comes out of you mouth).

I will yell “clear” if the spread is too incoherent for me to flow, or if I need you to slow down slightly but not if otherwise. If I have to say it more than twice you should probably slow down significantly. My preference while spreading is to go significantly slower/louder/clearer on the tagline and author. Don’t spread out teams that are clearly much slower than you- you don’t have to feel like you have to completely alter your presentation and style, but you should adapt somewhat to make the round educational for everyone. I think spreading is a debate skill you should employ at your discretion, bearing in mind what that means for your opponents and the judge in that round. Be smart about it, but also be inclusive for whoever else is in that round with you.

**PUBLIC FORUM**

I don't judge PF nearly as frequently as I do CX/LD, so I'm not as up to date on norms and trends.

Mostly when judging PF I default to util/cost-benefit analysis framing and then I evaluate clash and impacts, though the burden is on you to effectively weigh that clash and the impacts.

Final Focus should really focus on the ballot story and impact calc. Explain all the possible paths to the ballot and how you access them.

Compared to LD and CX, I find that clash gets developed much later in the round because the 2nd constructive doesn't (typically?) involve any refutations (which I find bizarre from a speech structure standpoint). For this reason, I appreciate utilizing frontlining as much as possible and extending defense into summary.

Impressive speaking style = extra brownie points for PFers given the nature of the event. Ultimately I'm still going to make a decision based on the flow, but this matters more to me when evaluating PF debaters. Utilize vocal intonation, eye contact, gestures, and variance in vocal pacing.

Grand Crossfire can be fun when done right but horribly chaotic when done wrong. Make an effort to not have both partners trying to answer/ask questions simultaneously or I'll have a really hard time making out what's going on. Tag-team it. If Grand Crossfire ends early, I will not convert the time remaining into additional prep. It simply moves us into Final Focus early.

I have a much lower threshold for spreading in PF than I do for CX/LD. I can certainly follow it given my focus on LD and CX, but my philosophy is that PF is stylistically meant to be more accessible and open. I don't mind a rapid delivery, but I will be much less tolerant of teams that spread out opponents, especially given email chains/evidence sharing before the round is not as much of a norm (as far as I've seen).

I am often confused by progressive PF as the structure of the event seems to limit certain things that are otherwise facilitated by CX/LD. Trying to make some of the same nuanced Theory and K debates are incredibly difficult in a debate event structured by 2-3 mins speeches. Please don't ask me to weigh in on or use my ballot to help set a precedent about things like theory, disclosure, or other CX/LD arguments that seem to be spilling into PF. I am not an involved enough member of the PF community to feel comfortable using my ballot to such ends. If any of these things appear in round, I'm happy to evaluate them, but I guess be cautious in this area.

Please feel free to ask any further questions or clarifications before/after the round!- my email is enmatton@gmail.com if you have any specific questions or need to run something by me. Competitors: if communicating with me by email, please CC your coach or adult chaperone. Thank you!

I am a parent judge who has been judging on the local North Carolina circuit for a year and a half. I cannot tolerate spreading at all--if you want to know if your speed is understandable to me, please ask before the round. I have absolutely no understanding of formal theory shells, but if you make a clear, jargon-less, explanation about why a certain argument is abusive, I will take it into account; however, it will NOT factor greatly into my decision. Do not use technical terms or esoteric philosophies because I will not understand them and will likely be distracted from your actual case.

The key points that I expect from a good debater are: 1) clear logic and well-explained analysis 2) smooth, organized speaking 3) courteous behavior -- debate should be fun and educational

Happy Debating!

Gabriel Morbeck

Debated at Strath Haven High School in PA 2014 to 2016

Debated at Emory University in GA 2016 to 2020

gsmorbeck28@gmail.com

Currently assistant director of debate at Emory University and a part-time coach at Woodward Academy.

If you're judged by me, here are the most important things for you to know:

1. I prefer affs that defend a topical plan. If they do not, I find framework arguments about fairness and limits very compelling. If you choose to not defend a plan, you have to play at least some defense on fairness/limits to make any education arguments compelling.

2. I'm very offense-defense. Really unlikely to vote on presumption.

3. How I evaluate your explanation is shaped by how much quality evidence you have. I think I care about evidence quantity much more than most judges. It's just how my brain works. The more cards you read on something the truer it feels.

4. Tech is important, but so is developing robust positions throughout the debate. My threshold for "complete argument with a claim and warrant that I'm willing to vote on" is pretty high.

5. I'm more amenable to conditionality bad than I used to be. Lots of 2Ns use conditionality as a shortcut to avoid debating the case or answering straight turns, which seems anti-educational to me. I won't judge kick unless the 2NR instructs me to do it. My views on counterplan legitimacy are shaped by evidence. If you have a card advocating for the counterplan it's probably legitimate. If you don't have a card from this topic advocating for a counterplan then theory is pretty persuasive. No theory argument that is not conditionality bad or topicality is a reason to reject the team.

6. Fine for T vs policy affs, but I also think substance crowd-out is true on reasonability. I will default aff unless the magnitude of offense the neg is winning is very big.

7. Fine for the K vs policy affs. At this point, I think I prefer debates about a substantive critique with links to the plan than most of the DA debates I judge. I default to the aff being able to weigh their 1AC, but I also think it's arbitrary to completely exclude the justifications for the 1AC from consideration.

8. Debate is fun! I understand everyone cares a lot about wins and losses, but I appreciate debaters who remember that they're functionally just playing a game with their friends on the weekend. I'll enjoy judging you if you enjoy being in the debate!

Some misc thoughts: lots of impact defense to warming on the college topic is basically climate denial and my threshold for rejecting it is very low, I love the agenda DA, I think qualifications debating about where an author/think tank gets funded from is very convincing and underutilized in policy debates, usually a try-or-die guy. I look at speech docs less and read far fewer cards in decisions than I used to, but I do subconsciously care a LOT about evidence formatting and doc organization.

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University, Canadian Policy Debate

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com

I would strongly prefer not to judge online, please strike me if you debate online. I understand and empathize with accessibility issues. I will of course not hold it against you if you do pref me but I also request that you please place other judges above me if you debate online.

Dropped arguments are considered true. If you aren't a very technical debater, then I am likely a poor judge for you. I am unlikely to be forgiving of technical mistakes and I am unlikely to dismiss arguments on your behalf.

"If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

I only evaluate arguments on my flow. I do not evaluate "rep", good debaters give bad speeches and vice versa, your past successes do not matter to me --- I only care how you debate on the flow. I dislike judges who give indefensible decisions and do not respect the efforts of debaters and care more about their perception in the community. Unlike judges who claim to be tech over truth but make exceptions for certain arguments, I do not bias against arguments just because of their content. I don't bias against arguments simply because are K or Policy. I do not bias against arguments like death good simply because they are immoral. I will not discount arguments like ASPEC if dropped simply because it is a "cheapshot".

Note that being technical is not an excuse to replace depth with blippy argumentation. I will reward quality arguments, judge instruction, and big picture round vision.

Please do explicit application of your overview/blocks and crossapplication of your arguments on the line by line. Otherwise you risk being upset at how I put the arguments together.

Gonzaga 2025 Update:

first time judging IP topic i don't know nor care about camp T norms

in a k debate you are better off generating ofdense than winning impact calc. imo the timesplit should be 85/15. i see many of you split your time 50/50 explaining why fairness comes first or why k offense comes first for half your speech and not nearly enough time actually winning the offense, explaining a turn to the other teams offense, or explaining defense. like in a policy debate would you spend half your time explaining why timeframe outweighs magnitude? feels like a waste of time and its a bit mind numbing. now for me judge instruction and impact calc does matter as i like to pretend im biasless but in fact i think other judges are likely to just bias to their personal preference of what impact should come first.

i don't want to listen to you complaining about arguments being stupid, i don't believe that policy debate should shame automatically exclude frivolous theory like aspec, random LD philosophy and tricks, process cps, fiat ks etc etc pick your hated argument. if an argument is stupid then it should be easy to refute.

i have a bit of time and im willing to coach one team willing to read the asian/buddhism k arguments primarily. email or messenger me if interested. sorry rates are nonnegotiable and im careful with my time, please only reach out if you're seriously interested and can commit to at least 1 hour a week.

Wake 2024 Update:

Please read fun arguments! I love debate because of intellectual freedom, which matters more to me than simply winning. I love creative positions, impact turns, random procedurals, & funny meme arguments. I will share three of my many meme arguments as inspiration. 1) I ended my career arguing that we should all confess our sins to the Christian God (I am a buddhist) 2) In high school I pioneered the wingdings CP --- read the plan text in wingdings with a variety of net benefits like secrecy good, baudrilliard, etc and argue that it textually competes and lol I somehow was 5-0 on wingdings. 3) Lastly, my favorite: in the spirit of Wake Debate, shoutout to Taj1.5Chips, who voted that Messi was a nuclear weapon.

Michigan 2024 Update:

Here is some more detail on my takes on arguments. Note that technical debating outweighs these.

• I have zero desire to judge anything not about the debate in front of me. Please no screenshots. Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.
• I have a lower bar for a warrant than the community. This means that I will vote on severance perms are a voter.
• Despite a low bar for a warrant, I am often persuaded by high quality arguments and evidence. I read along following the cards during the speeches.
• Inserting rehighlightings is fine.
• Well explained specific recent evidence > good spin & analytics > horrible evidence
• I flow CX --- I am easily persuaded that CX is binding.
• I rarely vote on zero risk, but I can be persuaded by developed framing. Usually try or die is quite persuasive. Usually fast DA, "live to fight another day" is also persuasive. I could also be persuaded that magnitude times probability framing is bad.
• In advantage vs disadvantage debates I care a lot about uniqueness. Generally if the status quo is doomed then I end up voting aff more often as most people in the try or die cult do. Vice versa if the squo is fine, then I am very persuaded by only a risk of a link framing.
• My pet peeve is laundry list impacts, be so fr. My bar is very low for analytic impact defense to these.
• I will vote on intrinsicness against politics. Be technical on this question, if you blow it off you can lose if properly executed.
• Turns case is very persuasive. Carded turns case is extra persuasive. However, I find accessing an impact is generally far more important, it is better to invest time proving the substance of your advantage or DA which you need in order to win turns case. Additionally, this is why I find arguments like 'link alone turns case' very persuasive, it lowers the burden of what you need to win.
• I often care about comparative risks. If the aff doesn't go for a solvency deficit and says that the CP links to the net benefit but the neg argues that the CP links less, then I would vote neg. Similarly I care a lot about whether the link turn outweighs the link and vice versa.
• I interpret sufficiency framing as judge instruction not to do work for aff solvency deficits. I would prefer direct comparison between the solvency deficit and the net benefit. Solvency deficits need impacts.
• I have to know what the CP does to vote for it, a complicated/vague CP text paired with poor explanation is unlikely to get my ballot.
• I am good for CP theory. I think well crafted interps are essential, for instance all CPs have a process. I understand but slightly disagree with the sentiment that theoretical objections are better expressed through competition, I find "this cp good/bad" theory arguments persuasive. I find textual and functional to be quite defensible. I think functional only is also fine. I can be persuaded that intrinsic permutations are justified. Note that I flow CX and can be persuaded of positional competition. Note that I am far less persuaded by taking lines from aff evidence to justify competition than CX. If you say the plan is congress in CX, then I am easily persuaded that courts compete. If you say the mandate of the plan must include a list of things, then I am easily persuaded by PICs out of one or more. However, you can avoid this with vague language or being explicit your response is a possible way the plan could be implemented. However, note that I am good for vagueness and specification procedurals.
• I don't judge kick unless instructed. My bar for what counts as instruction is low. If you say condo in CX I assume this means judge kick. I also assume dispo means judge kick. I also can be persuaded that judge kick is bad.
• Condo is about models. I don't really care about a particular number. I have no issue with neg terrorism and perf con but also do not bias against a condo 2ar.
• Regarding condo I find this part of Jordan Di's paradigm persuasive -- "It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR."
• I am easily persuaded that rejecting the argument remedies the introduction of abusive positions into debate. I am easily persuaded that condo is different because kicking no cost options is the warrant for skew.
• T is about models. Reasonability is best explained through arguments like arbitrariness or substance crowdout and not whining about why your aff is core of the topic. I do not care about camp norms.
• I am generally good for plan text in a vacuum. To win the opposite you need to clearly define and justify the alternative. For instance, I think generally CX is binding and can be persuaded that CX explains what the plan means. I am far less persuaded by use of random aff lines to garner a violation. Please be technical, introduce justifications for PTIV with LBL against criticisms and vice versa.
• I'm far better than average for specification and vagueness arguments. I think they can be reasons to reject the team and if properly technically executed neg teams can defeat many of the 2ACs to these off case positions.
• K v Policy Affs - FW & Kaffs - be technical. I have been on both sides. I do not care.
• I make no apology for voting on technical tricks like truth testing or overcorrect. I will vote for theory against the alt like utopian fiat/PIKs bad. I will vote for independent voting issues/CSULB style of K theory arguments, especially if dropped. So be technical if you want to win. Tech over truth.
• In K debates, I think generally impact calc matters more than big picture defense. In a Kaff v FW debate, realistically the TVA rarely solves aff offense and the CI rarely solves limits. Similarly, in a neg K vs policy aff debate, I view middling interps as unstrategic and mediocre defense to the other sides offense. Tell me why your impact matters more. However, note that while I believe big picture defense is not helpful, I am easily persuaded by specific defense to specific points made on the flow. I am also persuaded by top level impact comparison. I can be persuaded that impacts like racism rely on fairness. I can be persuaded that racism is procedurally unfair. Use offense, impact comparison, & specific defense to get my ballot. The more technical team will win this debate.
• Also 3 hot takes about K debate. 1) The perm double bind only makes sense against alts that are implemented. If you fiat a philosophy that disagrees with the aff then the alt would be mutually exclusive and "ban the plan" 2) False equivalencies are false. Nearly 50% of the time, the link to the plan is a stretch. If you are a neg going for the K just go hard on framework if you have a horrible link. If you are an aff against the K, point out that the link is incoherent. 3) The Cap K against Kaffs is very very horrible at least 50% of the time. Read something else in the 1NR. Look at the Dartmouth wiki on alliances for inspiration.
• Lastly my most important take. Ballot defense is overrated. If you want to win a clash debate in front of me, this is the most important thing you should read. Two thoughts: 1) Do more line by line instead. Spending all your time on explaining why the ballot can only solve fairness is essentially aiming for terminal defense to K offense, which is winnable, but you're hoping I don't conclude there's only a risk of K offense and you risk losing to try or die for K offense + impact calc, so you are better off doing more line by line to take out K offense. Vice versa, as a K team do more line by line trying to win your offense. Ballot defense is not the end all be all. As a policy team you don't need to go all in on debate is just a game and you can go for fairness and clash/other external offense together. It is not necessarily the case that the ballot does nothing or it does something. I can be easily persuaded that it is an "even if" claim. If the ballot does nothing, then fairness is all that matters --- but if it does matter, then impacts like clash matter. I think other judges vote far too often on ballot does nothing arguments. I can be persuaded that arguments like the ballot doesn't need to solve all racism, the ballot is a microaffirmation, the ballot can serve as accountability, & try or die "there is only a risk" of ballot offense. To be clear this is a winnable debate. I find arguments like alt causes to subjectivity shift, the ballot cannot reverse a harm/racism, and the ballot can only solve fairness persuasive. You can technically win that debate is just a game and the ballot does nothing. But this brings me to my second point. 2)You are much better off going for offense explaining why a ballot for the K team is actively bad. External ballot offense is very crucial to helping you win debates. If you are a K team, exploit external ballot offense like independent voting issues as a net benefit to voting for you. If you are a policy team, explain why arguments like oppression olympics, negating personal identity bad, judge cooption, & Taiwo apply to the K ballot offense in addition to having fairness as external offense. The team that has better external offense + impact comparison and does better line by line will win my ballot.

To the debaters,

I have three years experience with LD in Ohio.

I prefer a conversational style and speed of debate. If you spread, I will have difficulty in comprehension and you may lose points.

I decide my winner and loser based on delivery style and content, poise, persuasiveness, and persistence.

Although evidence is very important, I also give weight to a logical argument.

Good luck and I look forward to the competition.

Add me to the chain - Aidin123@berkeley.edu

ASU LD: Do what you do best. Though within progressive-based arguments, I have a better understanding of some arguments over others; below is a quick look for prefs:

1 - Policy/Traditional

2 - Theory, Common K's (Cap, Set-col, etc..)

3 - Phil, Whacky K's (Need more explanation for me to evaluate fairly)

5/Strike - Non-T K Aff's, Tricks, Friv Theory (I do not have the background that I think I need to have to evaluate all arguments fairly and to the quality that you deserve, and friv theory is just an incredibly annoying nuisance)

- Scroll to the bottom for some additional specifics about things

- I haven't judged fast debate in like a year so please please start slow and build into it I need to adjust back.

LD at the bottom:

Just call me Aidin

UC Berkeley Chemistry 23' GO BEARS! BOO PINE TREES!

LD Coach Park City (2020 - Present)

TLDR;

I'm a very expressive person if my face says I hate it. It means I hate it. If I nod or smile, I like what you're saying. Follow the faces

In not a fan of how extinction level impacts are run.I think they create lazy debating where there is a convoluted link chain that will never remotely happen, BUT UTIL!!! So you can run extinction just be careful with the link chain

Impact turns anything that isn't morally repugnant -- corruption, terrorism, oil prices -- because there are two sides to every story

I will say clear three times before I stop flowing altogether. Whatever is not on the flow is not going to be evaluated. PLEASE SIGNPOST!

Weigh, weigh, weigh, weigh a little more, and then after weighing, weigh again for good measure

Write the ballot for me in the last speech; the easier it is for me to vote for, the more likely you are to win

Utah Circuit: I debated a lot on the local circuit and now judge a lot. Have impacts and weigh.

- One rule: An extension is not an extension without an explanation and warranting behind it. I will not flow "Extend Contention 3," and that's it.

PF:

Follow my dearest friend Gavin Serr's paradigms for a more comprehensive look at how I would judge PF.

BIGGEST THINGS

- Don't steal prep - It's not hard to start and stop a timer.

- I default Neg. If there is no offense from either side, I'll stick with the status quo

- It's not an argument without a warrant

- A dropped argument is true, but that doesn't mean it matters. I need reasons why the extension matters. I'm not voting on something that I don't know the implications of it.

- Reading a card is part of the prep, without a doubt.

- If you want me to read a card indite, it's not my job as a judge to win you the round.

- If you will talk about marginalized people, framing and overviews are your friends.

- Please have link extensions in both the summary and FF

- Weighing requires a comparison and why the way you compare is better. Which is better, magnitude or timeframe? IDK, you tell me.

LD:

LARP

Solvency

DAs need to have solid internal links

Offense on the DA needs to be responded to even if kicked

Perms need to be contextualized

K's

A flushed-out link story is fabulous; do this every time you run a K.

line by line analysis is of the utmost importance

explanation and quality is better than quantity; I do not vote on things I do not understand, so take the safe route and spend a little more time explaining 5 arguments than dumping 15 that are all blippy

Use a framework and weighing case as your friend.

AFF - please extend and weigh case

Theory

I love the theory. Few caveats, however.

1) I hate frivolous theory. If you run condo bad on 1 or 2 off, I will likely drop your speaks because you're annoying. That being said, please respond to it, but the more frivolous it is, the lower my threshold for responses to it.

2) Disclosure is a MUST. Don't run disclosure theory if your opponent doesn't know what the wiki is. You don't need to disclose new aff's. 30 is enough time to prep.

3) Please WEIGH as much as possible I don't know the difference between an opponent winning time screw and another winning on the ground.

4) Competing interps - The less I intervene, the better for y'all, especially on the highest layer of debate where the round is won or lost. So I try to limit "gut checks" and reasonability unless otherwise told to in the round.

5) No RVI's default but can be changed with hearty effort

6) Please slow down on theory; it's hard to flow everything at top speed, especially if it's not carded and has 5 sub-points.

How I write my RFD's: “Sometimes I’ll start a sentence and I don’t even know where it’s going. I just hope I find it along the way.” - Michael Scott

How I give my RFDs: “I talk a lot, so I’ve learned to tune myself out.” - Kelly Kapoor

How I feel judging: “If I don’t have some cake soon, I might die.” - Stanley Hudson

What I want to do instead of judging: “I just want to lie on the beach and eat hot dogs. That’s all I’ve ever wanted.” - Kevin Malone

What happens when no one weighs: “And I knew exactly what to do. But in a much more real sense, I had no idea what to do.” - Michael Scott

Have questions about chemistry or Berkeley? Ask away

Debate is something to be proud of, win or lose, and have a smile on your face.

PARADIGM: Lincoln/Douglas

"Traditional" parent judge.

GOOD: You pick a few compelling points; thread them together rhetorically; respond in the moment to challenges; and thereby formulate an argument. Your even pacing and signposting demonstrate organization, clarity, and the understanding that your case and rebuttals must be compelling to the judge; not merely to you or your competitor.

BAD: Disregard for history. Remember, LD is named after two giants of American rhetorical practice, who squared off in a series of values-based debates on the most divisive issue of their time. Those debates occurred in the public square, with the intent of compelling voters to adopt a cause. Lincoln did not use K's. Douglas did not use Progressive Theory Arguments. And neither of them spreaded. (Speed-talkers in this event cannot or will not prioritize. Yes, you're operating within a time constraint. Use that not as an excuse to cram in more stuff and talk faster. Rather, use it to winnow out all but the most persuasive points.)

Good luck!

Email: spencer.orlowski@gmail.com

please add me to the email chain

New Paradigm 1/11/25

For PF - I am sick of seeing people read nonsense to win rounds. Please read educational arguments. I don't care if your opponent is wearing shoes and IVIs are getting really overused. There are obvious instances where you need theory, but I am sick of people using it to avoid learning anything about the topic.

Top level thoughts

I have voted on pretty much everything. I prefer depth and clash to running from debate. Engaging will be rewarded.

Don’t be a jerk to your opponent or me. We are all giving up lots of free time to be here. I won't vote on oppressive arguments.

I think preparation is the cornerstone of the value this activity offers. You shouldn’t rely on theory to avoid reading.

I don't think it’s possible to be tab, but I try not to intervene. Arguments must have a warrant or they aren’t an argument. This applies to all debate styles. (Ex. "6-7-4-6-3" is not a full argument)

I shouldn’t have to have background on your argument to understand it. I have read and seen a lot, but that will be irrelevant to my decision. I won’t fill in gaps for you.

I think most debates are way closer and more subjective than people give them credit for.

Collapsing is a good idea generally.

I will not flow off the doc. That is cheating.

Don’t let my preferences determine your strategy. I’m here for you! Don't over adapt to me.

General thoughts on arguments

Ks: My favorite literature. I have a fair bit of experience with most lit bases commonly read and I really enjoy clash and k v ks debates. I wish I saw more K v K debates. I dislike long overviews and super generic links. I think critical literature is great, but I think you should at least attempt to tie it to the topic if possible. Spec advantage links are great. I will vote on non-T affs and I will vote on T.

Policy Args: I have the most experience evaluating these arguments (I debated them for 8 years). I think comparing evidence and links is more important than generic impact weighing. Turns are OP, and I will vote on smart analytics. I only really read evidence if debaters don’t give me a good mechanism to avoid it. I tend to default to offense/defense paradigm, but I’m open to whatever framing you want to read.

Frameworks: I find phil frameworks interesting and fun. I wish these debates were a bit deeper and used actual phil warrants instead of just extending tricky drops. I think LD is a really great opportunity to get into normative ethics.

Theory – I find frivolous theory a bit annoying (despite what my pf teams might have you believe), but I flow these debates pretty thoroughly and evaluate them pretty objectively. I will accept intuitive responses even if they are light on proper terminology. (i.e not explicitly saying the word counter-interp)

Tricks – Lots of different tricks that I view differently. Things like determinism and skep are better than mis-defining words or 15 spikes. I find good apriories interesting. I have a fairly low bar for intuitive responses. I will probably not vote on “evaluate after x speech”. If I cant flow it I wont vote on it. Hiding one-line paradoxes in tiny text after cards is obviously a waste of everyone's time

For PF

2^nd rebuttal should collapse and frontline

If it takes you longer than a min to produce evidence, it doesn't exist. I think you should just send all cards before you read them.

If I think you inappropriately paraphrased, I will ignore evidence. Read cards to avoid me thinking your paraphrasing is bad.

Use email chains. Send cases and cards before you start your speech. Stop wasting everyone's time with outdated norms

TL;DR: I am a LAY JUDGE. I'm a recent traditional LD competitor, I'm mostly ok with speed, I flow pretty comprehensively, and I'm fine with any sort of arguments as long as they're clearly presented and weighed. However, I REALLY do not want to judge a round that's just card names, extensions, and line by line rebuttals. I really care about presentation, and, ESPECIALLY IN THE LATER SPEECHES, I would really appreciate it if you slowed down, stepped back, and gave some more big picture narrative/worlds analysis.

Experience: I competed in LD in Ohio for 4 years, occasionally competing at national circuit tournaments including nats 2018, as well as some local circuit PF. I graduated in 2018, and have been sporadically judging since. I also do American Parliamentary debate in college at Brown University.

Paradigm: The most important thing for me is clarity. I want both debaters/teams to have a clear understanding of how the round is breaking down, and then present a clear, weighed advocacy for their side. I want you to make the round as easy as possible to judge; do so by clearly presenting why you win your key arguments and why those points should win the round. Line by line rebuttal is important, but so is presenting a larger, more abstract idea of what your side is, or at least some analysis as to what is the most important thing in the round and why it weighs most heavily. I really appreciate good clear narratives.

Speed/flowing: I'll flow as fast as I can, and I should be able to cover everything unless you're really spreading. If you're too fast, I'll ask you to slow down. However, ideally, summary and final focus should be significantly slower than rebuttal.

Evidence: use it and call for it but also be sure to explain the warrants within it and impact it's use in the round.

If you have any questions, ask me!

boston latin academy '17

smith college '21

email: maryannepas@gmail.com (yes, pls add me to the chain!)

i am a senior in college and have been judging on and off since i graduated high school. i did policy debate, mostly reading k arguments. i have not done any research for this topic so i would really appreciate explanations of topic-specific minutiae & acronyms

TLDR:

do what you do best unless it is offensive. to get my ballot, all you gotta do is tell me how to vote, how to evaluate the round, and explain why you should win. your last speech should be writing a ballot for me. pick the arguments you are winning on the flow and explain/weigh your impacts, and dont drop anything important. please extend warrants, not just tags. i will also probably not do any work for you unless the debate is really close so i would much rather you explain the warrants of a card rather than telling me to read it after the round. most importantly, just have fun with it and be kind to each other.

LD

i have judged a handful of LD rounds, however, i never did LD in high school so I'm really not super familiar with it. as long as you explain your arguments though, I should be able to follow. if you go for theory, i really want to hear in-round impacts or scenarios. if you go for an RVI, make sure that it is reasonable.

Speed

slow down for online debates. please be clear or i will probably not be able to flow you.

K affs

i am absolutely cool with these arguments, and really appreciate well-written k affs. i love judging these debates, however, these affirmatives do require lots of explanation in comparison to regular policy affs -- explain your methods, your authors' arguments, why a rejection of the rez is important...

Ks

explain the alternative and tell me why the k outweighs the aff. i love a good link debate. don't expect me to be familiar with your k lit though, please explain your arguments, especially if you are reading high theory.

Topicality

do impact calc, compare interp evidence, and weigh your interpretation against the other.

Framework

tell me why your model of debate is preferable, why education offered through policy simulation on this topic is good, do impact calc. i appreciate a good TVA.

Theory

i haven't voted on theory a lot, but if you prove in round abuse and impact it well, you're golden.

Flashing

PLEASE keep it short and sweet. If you start taking too long to flash, I will start prep.

Feel free to e-mail me or ask me questions about my paradigm before the round! If you want to know more about how I think about debate, just read Moselle Burke's paradigm

Hi! I'm Kirtan, a Senior at the University of Michigan. I went to a small high school in Erie, PA and did circuit and traditional debate for 3 years.

Put me on the chain: kirtanp101@gmail.com

Do your thing: I'm down with all types of argumentation and I'll try my best to evaluate the debate. Go slower than your top speed because I'm not the greatest at flowing.

Quick prefs:

Larp/T/theory/stock ks/traditional/lay debate (I just oddly enjoy judging the latter two lol) -1

High theory ks/identity ks- 2/3

Phil/tricks-4 or worse

Just for some background for ks: I've run/semi well understand baudrillard, agamben, and deleuze. Doesnt mean u dont have to explain em to me. Plz explain things.

**Also a note- I prefer good traditional/lay debates over poor progressive debates!!! Don't switch up what your good at for me :)

Some predispositions: (can be convinced otherwise)

-Competing interps

-No rvis

-Drop the debater

-Judge kick good

-Presumptions goes to whatever side creates less change

Be nice to each other. No need to be condescending or mean in round. Your speaks will be lowered if you do this.

time yourself

Regular Speaks System:

29.5-30: Top debaters at the tourney

29-29.5: Pretty Good debaters at tourney

28.5-29: Good Debater

28-28.5- Average Debater Range

27.5-28- Need some work

27 and Below: You were mean and/or rude in round. If you are discriminatory at the tourney you will also receive this score

good luck and have fun

i am a lay judge. I am ok with moderate speed but do not spread. I generally default to util. Just make sure to stress your solvency and impact and why you outweigh.

I am a parent judge with moderate experience judging LD. Here are some guidelines for winning my ballot:

1. A moderately fast pace is fine but no spreading.

2. If you extend a contention, explain why it is important that your opponent dropped. Do not just say "I extend" and move on.

3. Rudeness to opponents will not be tolerated in any form and will result in deductions from your speaker points.

4. I appreciate signposting.

5. Running CP's and complex frameworks are fine, as long as explained.

6. Only non-frivolous theory if extreme abuse.

I prefer to have cases put in file share before round starts.

I am an LD debater from Strake Jesuit.

As a senior I got 3 bids to the TOC. I also cleared and made it to octos.

Add me on email chains: porterjoshua2002@gmail.com

I want to objectively evaluate arguments to determine who wins the round. For this reason, I give you a list of round scenarios and give you my comfortability in evaluating them.

1 = best (as in fairest evaluation on BOTH sides)

K vs K = 1

LARP vs K = 1

Phil = 1

LARP = 2

K affs = 1

Friv theory = 2

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity (clarity being the least important).

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/offensive (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

Email: bpowersbeggs@gmail.com

Background: I debated in LD, PF, and occasionally congress for Lewis and Clark HS (Spokane, WA) from 2014-2018, as well as competing in a range of speech events. Currently, I am a Materials Science and Engineering student at Case Western Reserve University (Cleveland, OH) graduating in 2022. This is my second year judging for Hawken, but I also have done some judging and coaching for Lewis and Clark HS since graduating.

Paradigm: Progressive or lay are both fine, but please don't go full policy on me. I am fine with speed (especially now that online school has me watching all my lectures on double speed), but I prefer if debaters leave spreading to policy because there is a risk that I won't understand you if you go too fast.

I'm generally down for any argument or interpretation of the resolution as long as it is well-supported.

Theory is OK, but I prefer it be used appropriately as a tool to improve the debate or the debate community as a whole, not just as an easy way to win by playing the a priori card.

My favorite part of debate is cross-ex, but make sure to bring up the relevant points gathered from it in your speech.

K's are fine but please explain them

I have a soft spot for counterplans as long as they don't steal all of the ground of the debate to the extent that it is unfair to the other debater.

I love impact calc and strategic debate. Don't be afraid to go all in on one or two points towards the end of the debate if they will win you the round (but you also don't have to collapse to one contention). Make sure to tie the arguments back to the weighing mechanism/framework/Values/VC's, or whatever you are calling it that round.

Please roadmap!

Cite sources with at least author and date

Treat your opponent with respect

TLDR: I'm a flow judge who is down for any argument but I want you to tell me why to vote for you at the end (KVI's!!!)

~Updated for Feb 2022~

FYI I have not judged in approximately a year and I have not interacted with debate in just as long. I would recommend taking this into account while prepping strats and speaking MUCH SLOWER than you usually would.

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Lexington, Hunter, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

Disclaimers:

Hello! This is ZOOM debate which means it is GLITCHY and GROSS pls SLOW down!

Used to be Yale 2020, now thoughts on e-debate in general: I'm tired, I am burned out, and I get very bored listening to badly explained Baudrillard Ks multiple rounds in a row. If you do pref me, know that double flighted tournaments make my eyes *burn* and I will be flowing on paper for most rounds if it's a double flighted tournament. I used to care a lot about the things listed below. To some extent I still do, but I haven't taught/intensely thought about debate since summer 2019 so at the moment I'm not very invested in specific types of arguments or up to speed with whatever is trendy this season. Judging over Zoom is exhausting and it's honestly pretty hard for me to flow that well with little voices screaming out of my laptop. Please, please, please, for the love of all things good, SLOW DOWN. At least for tags. I'm begging.

PLEASE TRIGGER WARN APPROPRIATELY!!! If you don't know how please ask!

Postrounding is a no <3. Questions about strats are fine, but you won't change my ballot.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is solid. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably okay at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. If you read T/theory the shell needs to have an impact. Disclosure and email chains are good. When you extend or make new arguments don't forget to implicate them! Tell me what comes first and why.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by Paloma O'Connor, CQ, and David Asafu-Adjaye. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record. Also -- I'm sorry, fairness is not a voter.

Kritiks/Non-T K affs/Performance

I mostly ran these as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. I really like hearing performance affs but you also need to be able to point to something the aff actually does.

That being said, don't read random Ks in front of me just because of my paradigm. I need to see a clear link and know what the alt does. Links of omission are ~questionable~ and I'm sympathetic to args against them. I'm also extremely picky when it comes to people reading and other kritiks relating to indigenous scholarship. I think a lot of authors are bastardized and commodified in debate and I see this the most with indigenous scholarship. Not uber familiar with all K lit, especially newer pessimism arguments.

New microaggression independent voter args that seem to be trendy and function on some sort of level between theory and K, but probably above policy?

Impact these out if you're reading them. I'm not going to vote off of a blippy one line claiming something is an "independent voter" or a "voting issue" and no implication of the argument. Also, don't just drop all the other flows because you think something is an independent voter -- I don't think this is very strategic; explain how it interacts with the other flows and which layer of the round it should be evaluated on. I don't really enjoy voting off these arguments...tbh they make me kinda uncomfy, but if they're warranted and impacted I will.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool, low key would like to judge more of them. Just be wary of super long link chains. I default to comparative worlds in most debates (esp when framing becomes murky) so this is probably the type of debate best equipped for that.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I generally do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so PLEASE make the abuse story very clear and SLOW DOWN A LOT.

Post Big Lex 2020 edit: I'm honestly starting to hate these arguments less. I'm not completely opposed to T and would probably be down to judge more non-T K affs vs T rather than bad/awkward K v Ks.

Yale 2020: Idk if this is a new thing but y'all aren't impacting your shells. Like great you just spent a minute reading T, but didn't tell me what to do about it. DTD or DTA, but if not idk what I'm supposed to do with the shell lol.

Blake 2020: If you read disclosure against a trad/small school debater who is not familiar with the wiki I will probably not vote on the shell,,, like bruh why?

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory

just no <3.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.5 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc to play catch up. Be strategic and don't be rude and you'll probably be happy with your speaks. Read: adapt to your opponent if they have considerably less experience than you. I am not afraid of giving a mean debater with a good strat a 26.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF because I don't think it's very nuanced/not well-structured. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

Hi! I am a lay judge with very little experience in LD debate. I primarily judge the I.Es and other speaking events, but have judged Lincoln Douglas debate once or twice on the local circuit. I do not want to hear any spreading because debate is an art of communication. I will take notes throughout the round. I do not disclose and I do not give oral critiques. Be clear with your framework, contentions, and tags. Most importantly, have fun!

Out for round 1 :).

I will be judging you primarily on your clarity, logic and rhetorical finesse. In addition, I will expect that you engage respectfully with fellow debaters and with your audience, including that you speak at a reasonable speed and provide clear transitions to mark the turnings of your argument and identify contentions accordingly. I will note especially how well you support your points with your research and specific examples and evidence. I am not a big fan of circular reasoning, broad generalizations and/or absolute statements or stereotypes that distort or discredit other cultures.

I debated policy in high school and college (Pitt), and coached college policy for ten years, but haven’t coached college level in a long time. Started coaching again for my kids in middle and high school. I also teach in a comm program (UMW). I have been working with my son's team for the past few years.

Email chain: rhetorrao@gmail.com

Pronouns: he/him

I am most comfortable with a traditional LD round, and I also like policy debates. The biggest problem I have seen in LD debates is not properly weighing and explaining how positions interact. I am not a fan of most K affs. As long as you are able to explain it with clear links to the resolution then I am open to it. On the neg make it clear.

I really do not like frivolous theory, and never enjoy when a debate ends with messy theory. Definitely not the judge for a tricks debate.

Make sure you are actually flowing, and not just relying on a speech doc. I am fine with speed- just make sure you are clear.

Finally, rude people are not fun to listen to, and I have little tolerance for a more experienced debater bullying or beating up on someone who is learning how to enjoy the activity. Make good arguments, test ideas, and have fun…

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
?'s: Preeves22@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier.

Random Thoughts:

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to follow along with your speech and the docs, not prep time or speech time. Just don't break the rules please.

- You will often do better if you debate your best rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my flow, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behooves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

- I have discovered that the more that I judge, the more that I tend to start from Offense more than anything when I make my decisions. It would benefit you greatly if you oriented the debate around your offense.

Policy:

- Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates for me. I will always start at what impact is bigger and then go from there. I thenmake everything else important as they flow out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

- You should say whether the Link or UQ comes first. Really give me a story or way to evaluate the DA. If you let me evaluate it for you, it probably be the way you want it.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best K AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

I am comfortable with all types of debate. Please run whatever you want. I will flow.

Tech > Truth

Impact Calc > nearly everything else

Definition debate < value-criterion debate (LD-specific) < everything else

Here's my email: jacksontridges@gmail.com

Hi! My name is Sierra, my pronouns are she/her/hers, and my email is sierraromero002@gmail.com for the email chain.

Bio: I've done 3 types of debate (ld, cx, pf), but most of my judging has been in LD. In high school, I competed at Albuquerque Academy and I got an at-large to the TOC in LD senior year. I also coached at Academy 2020-21 season and ISD summer 21. I'm a sophmore at Columbia prob studying math and african-american studies (idk), and I've done parli once.

Basics:

1. truth > tech. I have no tolerance for racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. and I will comfortably vote you down if these arguments are made. I also think that you should be mindful of the impacts you are talking about if you do not belong to that group of people. Debate has material impacts for the people in it, and winning tech arguments will not change that.

2. Layering sets up my ballot. The top of the 2NR/2AR should start with layering. Framing/ROTB is one of the best ways to do this. impact calc is also very important with layering

3. Speed- Please don't spread through analytics if you aren't flashing them (flash your interps too). Go with the speed your most comfortable with.

General: (these are somewhat in the order of what I prefer to evaluate)

Ks

I am most persuaded by links to the specific action that the aff takes. If the neg proves that the action the aff takes links to the K, then it makes it much harder for me to grant the aff a permutation. For the alt, I need a clear explanation for how it solves for the impacts of the K. Winning your theory of power/having a clear explanation of your lit is really important.

For K/performance affs, tell me why your interpretation/rejection/framing of the topic comes first. I also need to know what the world/methodology of the 1AC is for me to vote for it which entails a clear explanation of your lit. For T/FW vs K affs, it's most strategic to go for education as your impact in front of me. I don't recommend going for procedural fairness bc I will be very hesitant to vote on it.

For affs hitting Ks, win the perm debate and explain the world of the permutation. For me to vote on a perm you need to 1) win the link debate, 2) win impact calc on the perm. I am hesitant to grant perms on performances/methodology. The other route to go would be disproving the K's theory of power. If you are going this route, I would expect that you are very familiar with the lit in order to understand its specific problems.

Policy/LARP

I feel pretty comfortable with anything except theory debates (I am not the best judge to go for theory in front of). If you are going to read more than 4 off, don't do it for the time suck. I enjoy policy debates that are built with good strategy, where any off case position could be in the 2NR. Good DAs/CPs are some of my favorite arguments to hear. DAs should have a clear link to the aff and internal link story in the 1NC and good impact calc/weighing throughout the round.

T/FW

I am most persuaded by arguments that tell me why your model of debate is better for education. I love, love, love, impact turns on T, and I think that that is one of the most strategic answers to T. BUT you have to be winning the fairness debate for me to evaluate the impact turn or tell me a reason why your impact turn layers before fairness does on my ballet.

For T vs LARP affs, I need a very clear explanation for why your interp produces better clash and why that's better for education. In T/FW vs K affs, I want to hear why your model of debate is better and doesn't exclude the aff's education. If you want to go for T in front of me, make sure to warrant all of your arguments really well/sequence how I should evaluate the round (i.e. tell me why T comes first or smt).

Phil

I am not too familiar with phil authors, but a clear explanation of your author and weighing will make the round much easier for me to evaluate. This means that you have to be winning your framing, but also contextualize it to the rest of the impacts in the round. Tell me how to weigh specific impacts through your framing or why specific impacts come first.

Theory

I definitely have the least experience with theory/tricks. If you go for either of these in front of me, you need to tell me why procedural arguments come first (i.e. why does it come before fiat, pre-fiat, etc.). Please explain what the impact of your shell is and weigh it against the model of debate that your interpretation excludes (impacts are very important for me if you want me to vote on the shell). Lastly, if you're going for theory make sure to extend the entirety of your shell, meaning that you should extend your interpretation and violation, otherwise I won't feel comfortable voting on it.

Haven't judged debate in a minute, but do whatever you are comfortable with, and I'll do m best to evaluate.

Philosophy Updated 9-5-25

Nick Ryan – Former Assistant Director at Liberty
Stopped actively judging in the fall of 2023, I mostly tab tournaments know. Assume I don't know a ton of about your acronyms.

Please label your email chains “Tournament – Rd “#” – AFF Team vs Neg Team” – or something close to that effect. I hate “No subject,” “Test,” “AFF.” I would like to be included “nryan2wc@gmail.com”

Too often Philosophy’s are long and give you a bunch of irrelevant information. I’m going to try to keep this short and sweet.

1. I spend most of my time working with our “Policy teams,” I have a limited amount of working with our “K/Non traditional” debaters, but the bulk of my academic research base is with the “traditional” “policy teams;” don’t expect me to know the nuances of your specific argument, debate it and explain it.

2. Despite this I vote for the K a fair amount of time, particularly when the argument is contextualized in the context of the AFF and when teams aren’t reliant on me to unpack the meaning of “big words.” Don’t rely on me to find your “embedded clash” for you.

3. “Perm Do Both” is not a real argument, neg teams let AFFs get away with it way too often and it shifts in the 1AR. Perms and Advocacy/CP texts should be written out.

4. If neither team clarifies in the debate, then I default to the status quo is always an option.

5. These are things that can and probably will influence your speaker points: clarity, explanations, disrespectfulness to the other team, or your partner, stealing prep time, your use of your speech time (including cx), etc.

6. Prep time includes everything from the time the timer beeps at the end of the lasts speech/CX until the doc is sent out.

7. I think Poems/Lyrics/Narratives that you are reading written by someone else is evidence and should be in the speech document.

ADA Novice Packet Tournaments:

Evidence you use should be from the packet. If you read cards that weren’t in the packet more than once it’s hard to believe it was a “honest mistake.”

If you have any questions about things that are not listed here please ask, I would rather you be sure about my feelings, then deterred from running something because you are afraid I did not like it.

About me: I am a parent judge in LD, PF, and Parli. My professional background is in IT.

Basics:

• Tell me why and on what grounds you’re winning -- this matters a lot
• Tell me how I should evaluate the round. Give me the standards
• ALWAYS make comparative claims about the other teams evidence & arguments (in relation to yours). Direct clash is important
• Speed is good, but clarity is far better. Be efficient with your speeches. If you can’t speak quickly without slurring, don’t speak quickly
• LD and Policy Specific -- Favorite strats to least favorite. Respect this order, but avoid if possible.
• Politics/Case
• Impact turning the whole case
• Topic specific T
• Politics/Process CP
• PIC with internal net benefit
• Ks
• Be nice. I will not give good speaks to people who act inappropriately in rounds or to their partners/team. Being offensive is not funny. I refuse to accept abuse in round.

General

Performance/Non-traditional: I default to traditional.

Speaks: 28 is average. I doubt you'll get a 30. Try not to talk into your paper/flows/laptop because I won't say "louder" unless it's really extreme and I might be missing arguments. Speak clearly and persuasively.

Pretty traditional but if you say it I'll flow it.

PF Paradigm: I am an experienced PF judge and PF coach on the national circuit. I am a flow judge. I find real-world impacts to be the most persuasive. Of course, it isn't the magnitude of your impact alone that matters. You need to give a clear link story backed up with logic and evidence. Framework is important. Weighing is very important. It is better to acknowledge that your opponent may be winning a certain argument and explain how the impacts you are winning outweigh than it is to ignore that argument made by your opponent. Don't extend through ink. If your opponent attacks your argument you need to respond to that attack and not just repeat your original argument. I don't mind rapid conversational speed - especially while reading evidence, but I would strongly prefer no spreading. I will keep a good flow and judge primarily off the flow, but let's keep PF as an event where persuasive speaking style, logic, evidence, and refutation are all important. Although I will listen to any arguments that you present, in public forum, I find arguments that are directly related to the impacts of the resolution to be the most persuasive. Theory arguments as far as arguing about reasonable burdens for upholding or refuting the resolution are fine, but I don't see any reason for formal theory shells in public forum and the debate should be primarily centered around the resolution.

LD Paradigm: I am an experienced LD judge. I do prefer traditional style LD. I am, however, OK with plans and counter-plans and I am OK with theory arguments concerning analysis of burdens. I am not a fan of Kritiks. I will try to be open to evaluate arguments presented in the round, but I do prefer that the debate be largely about the resolution instead of largely centered on theory. I am OK with fast conversational speed and I am OK with evidence being read a little faster than fast conversational as long as tag lines and analysis are not faster than fast conversational. I do believe that V / VC are required, but I don't believe that the V / VC are voting issues in and of themselves. That is, even if you convince me that your V / VC is superior (more important, better linked to the resolution) than your opponent's V / VC that is not enough for me to vote for you. You still need to prove that your case better upholds your V / VC than your opponent's case does. To win, you may do one of three things: (1) Prove that your V / VC is superior to your opponent's AND that your case better upholds that V / VC than your opponent's case does, OR (2) Accept your opponent's V / VC and prove that your case better upholds their V/VC than their case does. OR (3) Win an "even-if" combination of (1) and (2).

CX Paradigm: I am an experienced LD and PF judge (nationally and locally). I have judged policy debate at a number of tournaments over the years - including the final round of the NSDA national tournament in 2015. However, I am more experienced in PF and LD than I am in policy. I can handle speed significantly faster than the final round of NSDA nationals, but not at super-fast speed. (Evidence can be read fast if you slow down for tag lines and for analysis.) Topicality arguments are fine. I am not a fan of kritiks or critical affs.

While I would technically be considered otherwise, I would appreciate it if you consider me a lay-judge. This means that I would highly appreciate it if you avoid spreading at all costs (I can only type so fast), make explicit links (I will evaluate based on what's on my flow), and attempt to be as pragmatic as possible. I rarely vote on the K, but I will entertain the idea if it is warranted and supported.

Justin.T.Smith@du.edu

704-408-3466

About me

I graduated from Charlotte Latin School in 2019 and now attend the University of Denver. I debated LD for three years both locally and nationally. I'm very flexible and will listen to just about everything. Keep in mind I'm pretty flow so don't drop anything you care about. Feel free to text me any questions you have or ask me in round.

My preferences

-I'm cool with any speed, just be clear

-Extend your arguments across the flow and give me some impacts please

-Love CP's and DA's if you wanna throw some in there

-I'm cool with K's just make your advocacy clear for me

-All theory is fine just do it properly if you are going to go for it

-Tricks/pics/etc. all cool if you have the warrants for them

-Try to make debate a fair space and shape rounds so that they are fun for everyone:) (don't read a non-top K against someone who doesn't know what a CP is;)

-And finally make sure you tell me how I'm supposed to weigh the round

Hi, I am a former policy debater: 4 years at Emory and 3 in HS. I have worked with Urban Debate Leagues in Atlanta, Chicago, and NYC. I have recently been teaching philosophy, so I am very familiar with ethics. Please discuss as much theory and critique as you want. Also, speed is not an issue if clear. I am also interested in science and religion (and the relationship between the two), but argue about what you are passionate about.

I have judged LD for the last 5 years. I prefer traditional arguments with logical analysis and strong evidence for PF and LD. Good Luck!

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. I think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time and that seems antithetical to education to me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

My primary coaching event is Congressional Debate. Don't freak out, I prefer the debate portion of the event as my high school background is in PF/LD.

For CD: I’ll always consider a balance of presentation, argumentation, and refutation. If you happen to drop the ball on one of those traits during a speech, it won’t ruin your rank on my ballot. I look for consistency across the board and most importantly: What is your speech doing for the debate? Speaking of which, pay attention to the round. If you're the third speaker in the row on the same side, your speech isn't doing anything for the debate. I definitely reward kids who will switch kids or speak before their ideal time for the sake of the debate, even if it's not the best speech in the world.

For both PF/LD: As long as you're clear/do the work for me, I have no preference for/against what you run/do in the round. I'll vote off of what you give me. With that, I really stress the latter portion of that paradigm, "I'll vote off of what you give me". I refuse to intervene on the flow, so if you're not doing the work for me, I'm gonna end up voting on the tiniest, ickiest place that I should not be voting off of. Please don't make me do that. Respect the flow and its links.

PF specific: I love theory. I don't prefer theory in PF, but again I'll vote off of where the round ends up...it'd be cool if it didn't head in that direction as a good majority of the time you can still engage in/ win the debate without it.

I don't time roadmaps, take a breather and get yourself together.

Speed isn't an issue for me in either event.

Avoid flex prep.

I prefer googledocs to email for evidence sharing (brittanystanchik@gmail.com).

Email for speech docs: alyssastokes19@gmail.com

I am a 6th-year lay judge, former parent from a very traditional circuit. I do have some experience on the national circuit, almost exclusively in lay rounds. I prefer a topical debate on the substance of the resolution. I like a value and criterion, but I don’t make my decision based solely on framework. I expect empirical evidence but don’t want a policy debate. If you are a progressive debater and aren’t willing/able to adapt, you’ll want to use a strike. While I wouldn’t drop you just for being progressive, I probably wouldn’t comprehend enough of your case to make a good decision.

I am comfortable with a lively conversational speed; do not spread. I am a flow judge, and if I can’t understand you due to excessive speed, I will put down my pen. (And you definitely don’t want me to rely on memory.)

Give me voters. If you can integrate them into your final speech, even better.

I suffer from social anxiety and therefore generally do not not disclose in-round unless the tournament requires it, but I will publish the results after I make my decision; my RFD and feedback will be on your ballot. I appreciate your understanding.

Be nice and have fun!

Affiliation: Jackson-Reed High School (DC- 2015-2020), Alice Deal Middle School (2012-Present)

Other Coaching positions: T.A. Edison High School (VA -1993-1997), W.T. Woodson High School (VA--1997-2000).

Former College NDT debater: Around the time that your parents were coming into existence.

Email: tim.stroud@k12.dc.gov. Please use the File Share function on NSDA Campus if it is available over an e-mail exchange.

Coach of 30+ years at the high school and middle school level. Coached debaters throughout the years who have excelled at the TOC, nationals, invitationals and a variety of other forums. I am a tabula rasa judge up until the point that the advocacy becomes unrealistic. Quite honestly, when I have to do more work than the debaters in the round, I am far less inclined to vote in a debater/team's favor. Simply put, the better debater is one who presents, defends, and ends their advocacy with a clear logical/analytical position based upon solid research and an understanding of the proposed resolution.

Avoid at all costs: Flex prep, tricks, non-topical positions, wasted time in rounds doing doc exchanges, long roadmaps, time suck arguments, cond args in LD /Policy. if the intent isn't to debate it throughout the round, then don't put it out on the flow. Generic shells with absolutely no links to the resolution--Baudrillard, etc. IF YOUR advocacy is to be disrespectful of the educational value of the activity in word or deed please change your tactics. I prefer to vote for the realistic rather than the absurdist post-modern ramblings of a 'philosopher' that no one other than obscure academics that the rambler works with understand. Simple rule: If you can't explain the depth of a philosophy in two coherent sentences then save it for when you debate in college.

Framework/Standards Debate--Set a standard for the round that makes sense in terms of the activity. If you are debating policy, a plan that is far more than a throw-away reiteration of the resolution. Instead, show all of those attending the round that you've thought and delved deep enough into the resolution to propose a viable change to the staus quo.

In LD/PF let's hear about the resolution. Tangential theory arguments that lack a clear link or purpose will not only cause a raised eyebrow, but it will require far more work on your part to win my ballot. suspect. I vote on whether to affirm or negate the resolution...not a critique on the consequential outcome of forced policy parameters. See comment regarding preposterous philosophy ramblings above.

Case Structure: Contentions should be carefully crafted, contain claims, warrants, and impacts and link back to the framework offered at the top of the round in order to provide a well-researched/reasoned case position. A case position that is founded upon theory arguments that is without research or evidence to support the basic claims are assertions and will be treated as such. If they are run and the opponent fails to point out the fallacies of such arguments, they are passing up an opportunity for an easy ballot. Same goes for warrantless case/plan spikes that are advocated for in the constructive and then neglected/punted for the remainder of the round which serve merely as a strategic time suck for the opponent. I am not a judge that will pretty much ever vote for tricks, time suck arguments, or spreading intended to overwhelm the opponent. If you are offering 6 off case arguments in LD then I am probably listening to poorly constructed, warrentless claims that don't have a chance of overcoming affirmative presumption. Yup, I've actually voted on presumption arguments offered by the aff in the last year.

Neg: if the only thing run is a structural security K or overly general CP shells then be prepared to prove and defend specific links to the resolution. Aff debaters who can chip away at uniqueness, internal links, impacts, or alternatives are greatly rewarded.

Speed--I can flow it if you can get it out...however, if it is unintelligible or full of debate jargon that doesn't either further the argument or advance your position then I will be far less compelled to write it down, understand it, or vote for it at the end of the round. Simple lines of analytics are not arguments...they should be explained.

Flowing--I do

Time--Feel free to time yourselves, but excessive road maps, getting set up, outside of CX card checks, and things that should have been accomplished in CX or during prep time are a waste of time. Unless there are a slew of arguments that need to be reorganized for some reason at the top of the speech, simply sign-post as you speak.

RFD: If the tournament allows it I will provide my decision at the end of the debate. It is based upon the debater that provided--throughout the round--a logically sound set of arguments that are presented in a cogent manner. I have little tolerance for high school students who continue their advocacy during the RFD. If you would like to engage in a dialogue about the round during breaks in the tournament feel free to approach me in the hallway or cafeteria.

Speaking: This is a communication activity that carries with it standards for decorum. If you are appearing before a judge for the first time, I coach my debaters to always put their best foot forward. That goes towards always defaulting toward the norm that the judge expects you to stand for CX, address your advocacy toward the judge, and show a level of courteousness that one might encounter in any professional work environment. Speaker points reflect all of these elements.

Oregon debaters: I will only evaluate arguments on the flow and not consider (eye contact, cx, speed, etc). I am capable of evaluating all arguments (plan, counterplan, theory, kritiks, etc) on a fair and technical level and am okay with spreading. Although I was a circuit-debater, please only read arguments and debate in a manner you are familiar with and do not over-adapt (e.g. saying "this is your nuke war impact" when reading a structural violence aff; spreading when you can't). I am not receptive to these arguments and will likely give you bad speaks.

(Should not have to say this but ...) Arguments that are not extended (either implicitly or explicitly) in the 2NR/2AR will not be evaluated - I need a coherent explanation about what the aff/neg does and the impact of it.

Prefs info (how I evaluate debates):

In 2019 I qualified to TOC with 3 bids - I'm familiar will all types of arguments (K's, Theory, Plan's etc). I judged for 1 year and have not touched debate in a few years.

I will evaluate all arguments fairly - shoes theory can beat Wilderson if debated better on a technical level, although if you win "reasonability" I will almost certainly view silly theory or framework tricks to be bad.

I am familiar with K-affs vs Topicality debate and will evaluate this argument fairly for either side.

Pre-round info (things to consider when debating in front of me):

I don't know any of the current topics.

Tags of cards MUST be read clearly. Even the worst flower on the circuit should be able to flow your tags without needing to look at a doc. This also applies to blippy, pre-written analytics as well. I will call "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing anything I can't understand.

*If you are debating a novice/someone with unfamiliar with circuit debate, win quickly (extend a theory shell and sit down after 30 seconds) OR make the round engageable for them (read a lay position). If you take full prep and speech times to read a K against a novice who drops all the links and makes 0 perms, you will receive terrible speaks.

.

The things:

Npiredebate@gmail.com

Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.

If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.

**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):

Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.

Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).

In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.

Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.

Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.

***

TLDR:

Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.

Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.

Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.

There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.

Additional thoughts:

-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?

-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.

-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.

-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.

-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.

-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.

-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.

More category specific stuff below, if you care.

Ks

From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.

I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.

Top-level stuff

1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.

2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.

My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.

1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.

2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".

Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.

CP

- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.

- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.

- Solvency comparison is rather important.

T

Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.

Reasonability claims need a brightline

FWK

Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.

I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.

Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.

Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.

Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.

Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.

Paradigm: LD

Traditional parent judge, was not a debater as a student but I work in policy communications and advocacy so I know a thing or two about how to put together a persuasive argument and appreciate well-crafted messaging.

Good:

Clear statement of contentions and clean construction of argument.

Crystallization points.

Moderate speaking pace and tightly-written arguments: pick your best evidence and state it clearly, rather than drowning me with irrelevant information just to pile on the cards.

Courtesy to your opponent and respectful demeanor.

Bad:

Spreading: if you need to speak too quickly it shows me you have poor command of the material and cannot choose your best points. More isn't necessary better, as long as you've been careful not to drop issues.

Absurdity: I appreciate cleverness and wit in debate, but don't appreciate you throwing out red herrings or engaging in gimmickry just to send your opponent off in an irrelevant direction. Try to win without doing things that are technically fine but actually ridiculous.

Good luck!

I am a parent judge. I expect you to demonstrate your knowledge and depth of the content as well as the ability to make a confident argument towards your stance.

I cannot judge what I cannot understand so clear and logical communication is key.

Also, keep track of your own and other team's speech/prep times.

Basically just be nice and enjoy your passion towards debate.

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.

Georgetown'24

Oak Hall'20

komi.zaidi@gmail.com

Things to Keep Top of Mind

1] Strategy is King --- 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. From high school through my short stint in college debate, I've read and researched arguments on all sides of the kritikal/policy spectrum. At this point, I have much more appreciation for strategy over style of argumentation. What this means is that you should read whatever argument you think will give 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, China heg good, or theory. The point is, 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 (often flawed) assumptions about how you think I feel about arguments. Do what you're good at, debate is a game for debaters.

2] Speaker Points --- Debate is a game of rhetoricians. Winning the room is how you get decisive wins, high speaker points, and perform like a top debater.(Tasteful) Pettiness gets you speaker points. But being a bum certainly won't.

3] "Instead of focusing only on extending and answering arguments, it would behoove debaters to begin their final rebuttals by clarifying what the comparative RFD for the Aff/Neg should be,identifying the key questions to be resolved in the debate, and then going through the process of resolving them. You can think of this asproviding me a roadmap for how I should approach adjudicating the debate once it ends."

4] 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.

5] Dropped argument is a true argument. HOWEVER, an argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. You must also explain the implications of an argument/how it relates to the rest of the pieces in the debate. New implications to extended arguments are fair game for new responses.

K Aff vs Fwk

I've thought far too much about both sides of this debate and don't particularly have a proclivity one way or another. I genuinely enjoy both sides of the debate and especially love new spins on arguments rather than a regurgitation of blocks.

K affs: I'm fine for anything, whether that be impact turns, counter-models, re-defining words etc. Please just think through the strategy beforehand its shocking how many 2ACs to framework are lazily slapped together these days. There's so much room for creativity in terms of what topical affirmation/negation looks like which is underutilized these days. If you put the requisite amount of thought into the construction of your K aff, I'm probably good for you. If your approach to framework relies on an impact turn, I would like to see some work definitively closing the door on why it is good/beneficial to abandon ANY notion of stasis etc in debate. Or at least have some mechanism of resolving your offense.

Framework: Go for whatever flavor of framework/impact scenario you want. Articulating a clear impact scenario is critical. A lot of debaters tend to spend sooo much time explaining why fairness/clash/competition etc matter, but remarkably little time explaining WHY the affs model/orientation to debate is unfair/bad. Framework teams very let the aff get away with murder in terms of shallow impact turns or nonsensical counterinterps, and I think a lot of that could be resolved rather easily. A lot of my recent thought's on what good framework debating looks like has been influenced by many conversations (and arguments) with Tyler Thur and BK, so do refer to those paradigms for additional insights.

Stealing this line from BK's paradigm as I think it's instructive: "I find "fairness" unpersuasive as a terminal impact. However, this is primarily a function of Negatives explaining it poorly, because I am extremely compelled by the argument that an axiomatic precondition for debate to operate is that the Affirmative must meet their burden of proof arising from the resolution, and that until they do so there is no logical basis for the Negative having any burden of rejoinder. All of which is to say: definitely feel free to go for fairness, BUT please take care to explain why it logically precedes everything else, AND to explicitly no-link the Aff's various lines of offense, rather than just making assertions about "procedural fairness."

For K teams --- the flipside of this is that I am extremely compelled by hyper-specific impact turns to the negs articulation of concepts like fairness in a world where they have not done the proper explanatory work for the fairness impact.

Misc Other Thoughts

1] Impact turns in general are heavily underutilized in case debating. Extinction good, heg good, Interventions good, AI development bad, take your pick. High quality evidence is essential.

2] Fine for CP competition debates

3] Heavily persuaded by reasonability style arguments on frivolous theory (LD).

4] Fine for Phil - I find myself quite enjoying phil vs policy/K debates.

full paradigm

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