if you get me in LD somehow god help you

(on a serious note just explain things well and everything will be okay)

bronx science 23, umich 27

add me to the chain: guybloom@umich.edu

If you think Pink Frosted Donut defeated Egg Roll in Food Battle 2012, strike me.

also, i am looking for a team to coach, so if youre interested please email me using the above address

Top Level

don't do one of the isms, obviously there's no clear threshold for what makes something round-ending worthy but i will use my discretion.

i don't think i'm very good at debating, and i think a lot of the people i've judged who are in high school probably could beat me in a debate round fairly easily. that being said, i do think about the activity and the way arguments interact a fair deal and i'd like to think of myself as a pretty competent judge for most things. i don't know very many things, though, and if your strategy relies on the inner workings of the courts or dense economic concepts that i would have had to take a class to understand, dumb it down a little. just make writing my decision easier. my debate relevant substantive knowledge kind of begins and ends in psychoanalysis (and i don't think i'm a huge expert in that either, though i do enjoy reading it for fun).

i like clean decisions and will try my hardest to formulate a decision which is a string of discrete yes/no questions rather than sliding scales. obviously, i almost always have to do some linear calculus with the risks of different pieces of offense, but i try to do this as little as possible. the MOST unsatisfying rfds to me were ones which followed the format "well, they were just ahead on this argument so i voted ____". instead, i'll try to say something like: "x argument was won by the aff, since y warrant was conceded which zeros the neg's response z." again, obviously, most defensive arguments do not ZERO the other teams offense, but i hope you get the point i'm trying to illustrate. deciding things like this makes the most sense to me, so if you use this type of judge instruction i will probably be more likely to vote for you.

in highschool i read mostly k stuff, but i would honestly say that in clash debates i find the policy side more convincing. regardless, i am confident that i can judge these rounds impartially.

read whatever you want. my senior year, i read a psychoanalysis aff, a hegel aff, and an aff that said we should kill babies because christianity is true. on the neg, we went for psychoanalysis, wipeout, and "high theory" stuff.

i very strongly believe that debate is a game and as such i will judge the round strictly based on my flow. i am willing to vote on arguments that could be defeated by a single well thought out sentence (and i have in the past). counterintuitively, this probably means i am better for the k than most because i am willing to jettison common sense and vote on arguments that are terrible and obviously untrue (which most answers to "only weigh links to the plan" and "extinction outweighs" unambiguously are). conversely, this means that if you are a team that relies on winning rounds in ways that do not involve my flow, i am not the judge for you. it's not personal; i simply would not know how to evaluate your performance and would probably end up voting against you if you debate an opponent who relies more strictly on the flow.

i'm not the best flower, but i try. start off a little slower and be sure to leave pen time for me. if you give me 5 subpoints in 8 seconds, i'll probably miss at least one.i honestly think most judges are much worse at flowing than they let on, and if pressed in the post round about something they didn't catch, will say something along the lines of "oh well i just thought it was too blippy" or "it was there, but not enough". i think this is cowardly. if i miss something and you ask me about it, i'll be upfront about how i missed it and tell you how it would have effected the round. i don't feel too bad about this, because some of the speeches i've heard are downright unflowable. record your blocks and try to flow them to alleviate this. i definitely make unforced errors sometimes, though, so if a line is very important or round ending worthy, make sure it's not just a second on point 3 subpoint c. to be clear, though, if it IS a second on point 3 subpoint c and i catch it, i'll vote on it. so do that at your own risk, i guess. i wouldn't advise it, since the chance your opponent catches it and i do not is orders of magnitudes higher than the chance that i catch it and your opponents do not.

adding this because it's really annoying me. picture this: the 1nc reads multiple advocacies, but 1nc cross ex does NOT clarify the status of the advocacies. the 2ac reads conditionality bad, says dispo solves, and perms every advocacy. the neg block, in this scenario, SHOULD NOT defend conditionality. it is a waste of time. you should instead say "we were dispo, you never asked, but it doesn't matter now since you've permuted everything". there are a few cases where this is not strategic, and where it lets the 1AR lock you out of a disad + case 2NR. but overwhelmingly this is not true, and the other potential 2NR is something like T.

feel free to postround, i won't take it personally. when i write decisions, i usually try to think of potential things i wouldn't be able to defend in the postround and write around that, and if i can't, i edit my decision accordingly. i think judges that DO care should probably put some more effort into their decisions and take the event more seriously, given that students give up their weekends and pay to attend tournaments (while judges give up their weekends and presumably GET paid to do the same).

all of the opinions i share below are just opinions that won't enter into my evaluation of a round.

Policy (aff) vs Policy (neg)

probably not the best here but i'm competent most of the time. explain acronyms.

cheaty counterplans are cool and i like competition debates. i enjoy clever perms.

zero risk is a logical extension of "dropped arguments are true"-- if you flat concede a piece of defense that the other team convincingly argues zeros your impact, i will give them that. i don't think this should be a controversial opinion-- it seems that most judges agree a dropped scenario starts at 100; this is just the inverse of that.

Policy (aff) vs T

i think ptiv needs an explicit counterinterp

limits seems to intuitively outweigh predictability. i think predictability is more of a yes/no question whereas limits are more of a sliding scale. this opinion is not widely accepted and as such i will default to both of them as a sliding scale.

Policy (aff) v K(Neg)

my honest opinion is that links to representations are an infinitely regressive standard that makes it impossible to be aff. this will have no bearing on how i judge debates.

framework is the first question i'll ask myself when deciding these rounds. i will NOT arbitrarily decide on some "middle ground" between the two interpretations; if the aff wins that the neg doesn't get reps links and the 2NR offense is a reps link, i will literally zero that link. conversely, if the neg wins that the aff doesn't get the plan, and the 2AR goes for only offense based on the consequences of the plan, i will not give it to them. i won't give a 1% risk of a link or a 1% risk of offense. i will ALWAYS decide a singular winner of the framework debate, and framework is not a "wash" unless one of the debaters says it is in their final rebuttal and i decide that they have won that it is.

i try to judge all debates like this ^, but what i've found is that i've overwhelmingly had to take a sort of "proof by cases" approach because framework is so hard to evaluate. for example, i'll find myself in the position of thinking the aff has unanswered fairness offense, the neg has unanswered epistemology offense, and there is no comparison done by either team, so i say to myself "well i know the aff wins if they win framework, but i also kind of think they win if the neg wins framework, so i vote aff and i don't have to decide who actually won framework". this almost always favors the aff because it is plausible for aff teams to win their representations are defensible and good, and in most cases it is implausible for the neg to win the link is a disad which turns or outweighs the case. so, my advice here is twofold. first, answer all of the offense and the defense on framework in the 2NR on point. spend time on framework, since you want me to be confident that you win it. second, outline very clearly why the link means you win under your model and why their offense doesn't apply. something like "even if they win securitization can be good, they have not won that it is epistemelogically valuable or beaten our argument that their specific form of securitization leads to interventions and more insidious forms of racism". or maybe, "even if their form of research is epistemelogically valuable, our offense uplayers that because we've proven that their performance in this round leads to psychic violence which you should unconditionally reject". just give me some delineation or distinction or something so that i can explain to the aff why they've lost and why their offense doesn't apply.

k tricks are cool. i dont think they're undignified or anything, and i won't hesitate to vote on a floating pik or "fiat is illusory" as long as its a developed argument in the block and not just a single line without a warrant.

i think in most cases, "links to the plan" are useless and don't get you anything. the perm double bind is just, like, true against these arguments. the one caveat to this isn't even really a "link to the plan", but if you generate mutual exclusivity off of the logical incongruence of the aff and the alt that's probably fine. i would be willing to vote on a 2NR on the setcol K that says decolonization solves the case PLUS some external impact, and it is mutually exclusive with the aff because fiating the plan necessitates the continued existence of the USFG. the reason i think this is a caveat is because it does not require winning the framework debate in any capacity; it is a competitive alternative that is more similar to a uniqueness counterplan than a kritik.

K (aff) vs Policy (Neg)

i think 1ac cross ex is crucial to establish disad links, grounds for impact turns, and counterplan competition.

most k affs link to cap good. 2as will gaslight you but having read a lot of "K" lit i can safely say that basically all of it starts with the presumption that capitalism is bad. that being said, policy teams should be a little less heavy handed with explaining this link. highlighting a line in their ev that says "capitalism" and some negatively connotated adjective is not going to be nearly as convincing as an explanation that uses the vocabulary of the 1ac and 2ac to explain how their theory of power condemns capitalism. this whole spiel is irrelevant if the 2ac bites the link, of course.

impact turns can be good because tons of K affs just say things that sound bad and assume theyre bad without any real investigation into why people say they're good. obviously don't cross any ethical boundaries or be bigoted.

K (aff) vs T (neg)

i'm pretty confident in my ability to judge these debates. i've been on the aff a lot more, but i agree with most everything the neg says in these debates, so i guess that evens out.

rewriting this part bc i think my views have changed a bit (but probably moreso that what was previously written did not accurately express how i felt). i think the approach to answering framework which relies on redefinitions of words in the resolution and a counterinterpretation is almost always incredibly unstrategic. no, the usfg is not an assemblage, and going for these types of arguments will make it incredibly easy for the negative to point out why your model is untenable. the 2ac can (and maybe should) read these arguments, but unless it is a technical crush it will be very hard to convince me that a more "open" or critical model of debate where everyone kinda just has to talk about something related to the resolution does not link to the limits disad. for this reason, i genuinely believe that for most k affs there is zero utility in defending a topic link. i think i'm in the minority there. i just think the impact turn to T is so much better than the middleground counterinterp and that, counterintuitively, defending a model in which anyone can read anything is probably easier than defending what i previously described (because the negative can easily win that the latter becomes the former, so you might as well just defend the former).

K (aff) vs K (neg)

framework is important to me here in terms of the sequence and filter i use to evaluate arguments.

no perms in method debates seems to overcorrect what is a very real issue. not giving the aff a perm feels nonsensical, but just letting them permute two mostly abstract ideas is obviously less than ideal. on the neg, i think its best to point out how their explanation of the perm might contradict the way the 1ac is explained during cross ex or the way the 1ac authors themselves describe how they think we ought to organize.

alt explanations should be a little more in depth here than they are in clash rounds because the perm usually matters a lot more in these rounds.

i think i'm in the minority here, but i think a lot of these debates are really neg favored. i mean, yeah, the perm is kind of hard, but also not really, and if you're reading a K which genuinely disagrees with the aff, there's a good chance the literature explicitly has answers to the permutation (and probably ACTUALLY disagrees with the aff, in contrast to a lot of Ks with policy affs). this won't really determine anything about how i judge debates but just a thought i have.

final rebuttals should have lots of framing and you should make it very clear what offense you're going for. impact calc is hugely important.

other stuff

dont clip

i think you can insert rehighlightings, if they misrepresent a card its their fault. if it's a part of the article that wasn't in the original card, you have to read it.

ad homs are not arguments i feel comfortable adjudicating. it complicates my role as a judge, and if the situation is so dire that it presents a safety or comfortability concern, i think going to tabroom or your coach is a much better remedy than making an argument about it. its not that im unsympathetic to these types of issues in debate, but i think that accepting the premise that my ballot is an endorsement of the character of debaters is a slippery slope which has some pretty terrible implications. this is probably the one exception i have to tech over truth. i do not care if you out-tech the other team on this position, i genuinely feel grossly uncomfortable writing and submitting a ballot on "this highschooler is a predator/racist/sexist". to be clear, this is about out of round issues. if someone is bigoted in round, im definitely willing to vote on "this rhetoric/performance is a reason to reject the team".

asking for perfect speaks will get you a perfect zero

I am a rhetoric coach, so I look for strong structure and clear arguments. Speed will not win you any points with me. This is a public address activity. Your arguments need to be understandable and substantiated. I will consider framework, but I will not vote solely on it. Make sure that you understand what your evidence is saying.

Congress - Be professional, Engage. Keep the conversation moving forward, Listen to each other. I would rather hear a few really solid speeches instead of a lot of long winded mediocre ones. Have fun!!

Debate - Keep it simple, please don't talk too fast, I don't want to miss your point. Make your Contentions and Points very clear. Be kind. be professional. Have fun!

Extemp - I look for a clever intro, stating your question, 2 to 3 points to answer your question with resources (source/mo/yr), your conclusion tied back to your intro. I'd rather have it short and clean, than rambling to fill 7 minutes. Talk to me not at me. Have fun!

Interp - Talk to me not at me. I love crisp pantomime and to see your personal passion on your facial expressions behind your topic. Have fun!

I have judged for Public Forum for years now, judging at the highest level in nationally regarded tournaments like Berkeley, Stanford, and the Tournament Of Champions.

Despite all of this, I strongly dislike spreading, value criterion arguments and the like. I believe in the good old Crossfire debate style that made Public Forum famous in the first place. Speak clear, loud, and well. Enunciate your words. Explain clearly why I should care about what you are saying. The better speaker you come across as, the more likely I will vote for you.

I have strong distaste for preposterous arguments. Your arguments should be backed up by evidence. The more evidence, the better.

I am new to debate. I will appreciate debaters to speak clearly and not to speak too fast.

he/him - georgetown - add me to the email chain: anmol.malviya0827@gmail.com and label accordingly (tournament, round #, teams).

tldr: I debated on the national circuit for 3 years at Oakton; I currently coach Langley (RC, SG, BG, LJ). traditional pf judge that's tech>truth, big on thorough execution of fundamentals (weighing, collapsing, efficiency)

Update for TOC

All of the below still applies, but some specific things:

1) My experience with prog this tournament has not been rewarding, and has reminded me that I don't think I'm the best judge to evaluate progressive argumentation. As always, I will try to vote on anything that is explained and warranted and this is not meant to discourage theory/make it seem unviable, but I do not think you should read progressive argumentation with me in the back unless it's an in round safety issue (think CW) where I will intervene!

2) Send case/reb speech docs. Traditional evidence exchanges are incredibly time consuming, this is not optional.

3) Full disclosure -- my ability to evaluate speed has definitely decreased as I've spent time away from the activity but spreading/speed in general is more than fine; as long as you're clear it shouldn't be an issue (I won't flow off of docs)

4) Time yourselves, I don't flow cross, and don't say "this argument is missing a warrant/reason/contextualization" on its own. Add any positive content - reasoning about why that factor's relevant, weighing, some example, connection to another point, etc.

non-negotiables

1. be respectful or L20 (be equitable, read anonymous content warnings with ample opt out time, nothing remotely _ist)

2. weigh and compare at every single level to resolve clash and minimize intervention

3. if an argument is dropped in the next speech, it's conceded, and if an argument is not extended, it's not there

4. i have minimal experience with progressive argumentation but am willing to vote on almost anything (no tricks), run at your own risk

other than the above debate how you want - i'll try and adapt to you

ask questions before/after round if you have them, and if there's anything i can do to try and make the round less intimidating/more accessible, please let me know before round or reach out to me via email

I am currently a Political Science student a the University of South Dakota, and was a Public Forum and Congress debater at Lincoln High School, with some experience in policy.

PF:

Speed is okay, as long as I can understand you, I will shout "clear" if I cannot. I don't like paraphrase cases, but I know most teams run them in pf, just don't expect me to write down all of the authors names.

When extending, please warrant your extensions and do not simply say "extend the Johnson evidence."

Please refrain from identity politics, I really don't think it is fair to use race/gender orientation as an advantage in the debate space, and those arguments generally take away from the core of the topic.

I generally give high speaks unless you are rude in round or don't fill up time/don't try.

Empirical evidence is best

Probability> Magnitude> Timeframe

If no framework is given, I will default to cost benefit analysis.

Congress:

I have the most experience in this field. More speeches do not necessarily mean higher rankings. I expect you to take the round seriously, and joke/meme speeches will reflect poorly on your ranking, as will being rude. Unlike other SD judges, I will value the PO highly if they do their job correctly. Ask questions. It is the best way to stand out in the round.

Content>speaking ability>number of speeches

If I happen to be judging you in novice LD, make sure you are clear on impacts and convince me what to vote on, as I have no experience in that area and will otherwise judge it like I would a policy round.

email: shafrir.p@gmail.com i'd like to be included in all email chains.

Hi, my name is Shafrir Pervez and I am currently a student at Lincoln High School in South Dakota.

I've debated PF all of highschool instate and out of state and i'm the antithesis of a lay judge. tech>truth

Make sure to...

-Be respectful

-Explain warrants for responses

-2nd rebuttal needs to frontline, if you don't I will consider it dropped.

-Impact weigh; establish why your impacts are superior, if neither team does, the decision will come to whatever is extended.

-Quality of arguments and impacts > number of arguments and impacts

-Contextualize evidence and turns, don't just read them

-I am a strong proponent of disclosure and feedback for both teams.

-don't waste time when providing cards, if you take longer than 60 seconds to find a card, I will start your prep

-if you begin working while the opponent is searching for a card, I'll start your prep, don't steal prep.

-as soon as you begin reading opponents' cards I start prep.

-evidence ethics are important, don't paraphrase or misconstrue evidence, if you get called out on it, say bye to your speaks.

-you can run theory but i don't have much experience with it.

I go by what is put down on the flow, when anything is mentioned, make sure to tell me where to look. Try your best to be specific so I can flow everything.

Let me know if there is anything I can do to make your experience better, I will try my best to help.

If you have any specific questions, feel free to ask!

Most importantly, have fun!!!

bronx

Hi Debaters,

I am a parent judge. I did watch the debates last year very closely and judged last year, so I am familiar with the format. This year with all of us being remote, it is really important to explain yourself slowly and clearly. If you go too fast, it would be really hard to understand.

Do

- Follow the rules and respect your opponents and their speaking time.

- Provide very clear arguments.

- Make sure the important arguments from your side are given both in the summary and final focus.

Don't

- Speak over your opponents

- Don't be rude.

All the best.

Hello!

I am currently a junior at Wake Forest University

chain - rylietorguson@gmail.com

Top level --

- I love good theory debates, especially when your reasons to prefer are specific to your strategy (this is definitely true for teams reading K lit) -

- I have no problem with speed, but clarity>speed always

- Big fan of presumption

- cx is binding, really enjoy good cx

- Unethical behavior will result in me voting you down. I'd prefer if you didn't read args that tell your opponent to quit/"get out" of debate - but besides that, do what you want.

-POLICY-

K debate--

- I have primarily read ks on the aff and neg. I'm most familiar with settler colonialism, cap, academy/university-esque critiques, IR etc. I'm fairly well-read when it comes to Wilderson, Moten & Harney, and SOME Baudrillard. Upon coming to college, I've started to read literature about logistics/counter-logistics.

- Although I'm comfortable with this type of debate, I am still unfamiliar with a lot of k literature, especially once you start getting into the more high-theory end of things. Don’t let this deter you from reading your k though, just explain your stuff and avoid only using jargon.

- k affs: I have a pretty high threshold for k affs when it comes to explaining the significance of voting affirmative - this does not mean you need to win spill-over warrants etc, rather set a standard for evaluation in the round, and explain your method of engagement. If I feel that this analysis is lacking, I will feel more inclined to vote on presumption. In k v k debates, k aff teams need to spend more time on the permutation.

- I would prefer if you had some relation to the topic, but that is something that can be debated out in the round.

FW: Tactics FW is underutilized in high school. Both sides should be making role of the ballot arguments. NEG - Although I read mostly K args, I am sympathetic to FW teams if your aff has no relation to the topic. With that being said, I will vote on FW if you have done the better debating and have won a sufficient warrant for why the AFF’s model of debate is worse for clash and education etc. I don’t think limits and fairness are impacts, rather internal links to them. TVAs should be carded. I am not a fan of a fairness only 2nr. AFF - I am not a fan of the “fw is literal genocide” type impact turns. I enjoy debates about the stasis, more specifically whether we should be centering the state or different tactics to engage the resolution. Most K affs should be set up to answer things like FW, so don’t underutilize the offense that already exists in the 1ac!! I love when the 2ar has a robust explanation of what their model looks like, i.e explaining what clash, limits, aff and neg ground look like under their model.

policy specific–

- I don’t have much to say here, so if you have any specific questions make sure to ask before round. I'm pretty comfortable with most policy args - it's been a while since I've read a straightforward policy strat, but as long as you have a clear internal link chain and are sufficiently weighing your impacts, I should not have a problem evaluating the round

- I wouldn't consider myself amazing at judging CP debates -- especially when it comes to very nitty gritty counter-plan texts with several planks, so make sure you are explaining in depth why it is capable of solving the aff.

-NOVICE PUBLIC FORUM-

Narrow down the debate in the last few speeches, don't go for too much. Give judge instruction, tell me where to vote.

Clash -- respond to your opponent's arguments. If you choose to debate about the quality of evidence in the round at least have some sort of detailed comparison (don't rely on args like this though)

do impact calc -- weigh your impacts and contextualize your arguments

Use prep and fill speech time -- these go hand in hand. It is not strategic to have all of your prep left for the last speech and then proceed not to use it

PLEASE do not just re-read one of your earlier speeches in the summary or final focus.

Speed is fine, if you normally speak fast there is no reason you should feel the need to slow down for me

don't be rude or problematic. unethical behavior in the round will result in me voting you down.

Lastly, enjoy yourself!

do what you want!

however, I tend to like arguments that are not silly or flippant (e.g. spark, most theory debating, contrived CPs) because I understand debate as a space for education. that does not mean those argument are unwinnable in front of me, it just means I will be slightly grumpy.

the caveat to this is that I like team or arg-specific hits, like for example if you know going in their 2AC on the DA is going to say something that totally proves they violate a normally terrible T interp, then i'm so down to hear you go for T (but in the case of T debates specifically, make sure you're walking me through stuff because I have always read either extremely topical affs of K affs)

Yes, I want to be on the chain: zinobzach@gmail.com

any well-placed anime references get an absolutely absurd, unfair, unethical boost in speaks.