Hey, I am Derek. I debated policy for four years at Truman High School in Missouri and formerly debated at Missouri State University.

Here are my random thoughts on debate

I am willing and ready to hear most arguments as long as they are not denigrating or discriminatory. These are prohibited!

Most of my debate career was spent going for policy arguments but the later end of my college career has been spent reading critical arguments. That being said I am experienced with hearing both and think there are educational benefits to both.

You should feel comfortable reading whatever argument gives you the best chance to win or the most personal satisfaction (the thing we forget most about debate is that it is supposed to be fun!). Although I may not be familiar with every acronym in your policy aff or buzz word in your kritik, I mostly base my decisions on the flow and how well things are explained. So please do a great job of explaining and contextualizing and you will like the outcome!

My decisions will revolve around the question of which team forwards a better version or understanding of the world. I am primarily tech over truth unless it is egregious (in most of these instances the argument is not worthy of response anyways).

Specific thoughts

Policy Affs: I like both large, heart of the topic affs, and smaller, left leaning affs. Internal links being specific as possible is good.

K Affs: Explain what it is about the topic you are critiquing and why that critique is good. Also heavily lean into the thesis level understanding of the kritik rather than smaller specific parts which is what I feel drives a good kritikal affirmative.

DAs: The more specific the better. Topic DAs are great too but contextualize it to the aff you are debating. I will be able to tell if you are reading the same generic link block you read your last four neg rounds. Impact calculus is where I will draw my conclusions if the link or uniqueness debates are a wash so turns case args are valued highly.

CPs: I am a fan of a great DA CP combo! Please have solvency advocate unless there is some specific reason you do not need one. Just win that it is theoretically justified, it solves the part of the aff it has to solve to win the debate, and a risk of a net benefit. If you solve all of the aff you do not need to go to case in the 2NR. Affs must win at least a solvency deficit that has an impact and some form of offense is great too! Your best bet is to minimize the risk of the net benefit and win a deficit (carded ones are great)

Ks: I love a great one off debate but a kritik also read with other off is cool too. The more you dive into the aff and their cards to prove your links, the better. Winning that your impact and impact framing outweighs is crucial. Above all else, give me judge instructions heavily. Tell me how to base my decision and how it should be different from how I normally frame decisions (this applies to all types of debates but specifically this style). You do not need to win an alternative but you should probably tell me if you are kicking it, if I should, under what conditions I should, etc.

T: You are probably more educated on how to win these debates than I am if you are going for it in the 2NR. I usually think teams that win these debates have long lists of cases that would be topical under the affirmative's interpretation that are not allowed under yours. This is good. You must win an impact above all else. Why is it important if a team is not reading a topical aff and how does it undermine your competitive incentive to debate.

FW: If you are going for FW you have to win the impact level more than anything else. Do not waste time reading definitions that get you no offense. You should also probably go to case to minimize impact turns that will most likely be there. To beat FW, make sure you have a solid counter-interp that is able to minimize all the limits and ground offense (or turn them) from FW teams. Win a large impact turn that outweighs the impacts of FW. Both teams should be telling me why their arg comes before their opponents (like "Theory before content" or "content informs theory")

Theory: Condo is usually good! I do not like contradicting condo positions but as long as they are multiple cohesive worlds I do not see a problem. PICs and PIKs are good so long as they are getting rid of a part of the affirmative. For whatever theory you are going for please have an interp!

Please be nice to everyone and have fun! I think I wasted away a lot of my debate career stressing and putting too much pressure on myself. Don't make the same mistake!

I wish to be viewing docs while I am judging so please add me to whatever evidence sharing mechanism you use! My email is derekallgood7@gmail.com

Good Debate!

He/Him

Experience: Former Missouri State NFA-LD debater for 4 years. 3rd in NFA-LD at NFA Nationals in 2019. 2ish years of judging college debate. Now work in think tank world.

TLDR: Do what makes you comfortable. Make sure you are keeping the debate accessible and educational for everyone involved. Be nice. I’m more knowledgeable and comfortable with policy debate than K debate but I want you to do what you feel good about. Go fast if you want. Condo is good and your theory argument probably isn’t going to be on my mind at the end of the round. Quality and depth of arguments > multiple shallow arguments. CP + DA =personal favorite type of debate.

A quick note about online debate

I would implore you to remember that we as a community are weathering this storm together and doing things that help make this process easier for everyone (including maybe going a little slower than normal because of low quality computer speakers). Keep your camera on while you debate please.

General thoughts:

At the end of the day, debate should be a game built around clever technical argumentation that enhances your education on the topic and relevant critical literature, while remaining open for as many people as possible. Tech>truth I think is key to preserving said game. I think speed is generally good but you should ask yourself if you are doing it because it is necessary to win or if you are being exclusionary. I do not think my ballot determines anything other than wins in losses in a casual game. Things that I feel are intentionally done to exclude people from the game will be held against you and could be a voter if bad enough (i.e. you made a racist/sexist/ableist/transphobic argument). You should disclose to your opponent before round and on the wiki.

Notes on different arguments:

Disads:

Disads are good. I don’t know what else to say really. I hope you spend time weighing the impact from the DA and contextualizing how it interacts with the aff rather than just saying “it outweighs”. I don’t think that should have to be said really but too many debates in NFA don’t contain that broader story and contextualization. I like a good politics DA a whole lot.

CP:

CP’s are very good for debate and your personal education. I think judge kicking a CP is pretty intuitive and I haven’t seen a great argument against it. PIC’s are generally good for debate and holding the aff to a reasonable intellectual standard. I tend to think that theory arguments are a reason to reject the arg not the team, BUT I can obviously be persuaded otherwise.

K’s:

I’m all for K’s...more so on the negative than the affirmative, but I’m open to both. I do have a few thoughts on what I need out of a K debate though. The first thing I want to specify here is that I really would prefer your alt to be more than a mad lib full of philosophy 350 jargon. I want to be able to walk away from the round with a fairly clear understanding of the action of the alt and a pair of contrasting worlds for me to evaluate. It’s fairly easy just to say “thing bad”, so I would hope for a little more substance than that. Second, I am familiar with the basics of a lot of K arguments (some more than others, I probably have a bit more background knowledge on islamaphobia or feminist theory than I do queer theory for example) but I was not a K debater and I have less and less time to read critical literature now that I am out of school. So while I am not entirely out of touch with the literature, I may need some high level contextualization at the beginning. Third, if you want to run K's on the aff I think that is fine but you still should find someway to contextualize your critique within the topic. I think this at least partially nullifies concerns over accessibility and education. I think people within NFA-LD have mostly gotten better at this over the last couple years but you occasionally still see a K aff that is so generic it feels like it was recycled from 3 topics ago.

T:

My general stance is that if you know deep down in your heart that your opponent's Aff is topical and you still want to go for T… you’ve chosen probably the least intellectually interesting way for this round to go. That aside I think T debates can be ok when done right and I'll vote on both proven and potential abuse. But would highly prefer proven abuse.

Theory:

I think theory arguments can serve as important guardrails against genuinely game breaking behavior but I also believe they are very abused by some debaters. I really dislike cheap, obscure two line theory arguments used as gotcha techniques. I think they are often used as crutch and end up harming the educational value of a round. That being said, I have voted for different theory arguments many many times over the years. I just need you to spend time on them and actually flesh them out into real arguments.

Speaker points:

Something I think uniquely plagues the NFA community is the lack of standardized and agreed upon speaker points. Some judges will hand out a 29.5 to anyone who strings a sentence together and others will give you a 28 for a round they said "blew them away". While I don't think I am necessarily going to solve that myself, I wanted to be transparent and clear about how I think this should work. So here are my breakdowns for speaker points in NFA-LD

25 or below: You said something offensive or mean to the other debater. Booo

25.1-25.9: You filled up less than half of your speech time or seemed to struggle to grasp the fundamentals of debate. I'll hand these out pretty sparingly.

26-27: You made some pretty significant mistakes in this round, conceded a major impact, and could use a fair amount of practice. You probably couldn't quite figure out how to utilize the arguments you were making or made a bunch of blippy arguments with no contextualization and they were never expanded upon later.

27-28: You did pretty ok. If I was tournament god I would not give you a speaker award, there were some clear areas of improvement that could be worked on, but it was a pretty solid performance otherwise.

28-You did pretty good. You had a solid path to victory at one point or another in the round and deserve a low speaker award.

28.5-29: I left the round with a very clear understanding of exactly what you were going for and why you deserved to win. You know what you had to do to win, and even if you ultimately lost, you were never truly out of the game. You contextualized exactly how your impact or framing interacts with your opponent's and pulled a few clever tricks.

29-29.5: Fantastic job. You deserve a high speaker awards and I would very much expect you to be in deeper elims. Not only were your final arguments well developed and weighed, but you were able to give me a legitimately deeper understanding of the competing worlds with specific warrants from each card and demonstrated you genuinely knew your stuff. You pulled out something neither me nor your opponent expected and had excellent round vision.

29.5-30: This speech should be shown to future novice debaters as an example of what to do.

Updated 11/2018

Email chains: jeffbess.debate@gmail.com

I debated at Missouri State for 4 years (2010-2014). Since then went to law school and now judging here and there.

I usually went for policy arguments but I am generally of the "do your thing" school of judging. Keep in mind that I probably don't know your literature base beyond what I've heard while judging/debating.

Final rebuttals are a time to make key strategic decisions and fortune often favors the bold. If you think you're behind but you've got an angle, go for it. If you leave loose threads, you may not like how I tie them up.

I flow CX and you should use that to your advantage.

I follow along with speech docs, but I only flow speeches (the only way to get what's in your doc "on the record" -- charts excepted) and I defer to in-round explanation over my own ability to re-read your cards after the round and re-construct arguments.

Bottom line: I will do my best to vote for the team I think won, without fear or favor.

Feel free to email questions before or after debates if you have them.

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

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

Prior Questions

Feel free to ask questions to me before the round starts although most of your question will be addressed here. I tend to update my paradigm when a debtor or judge does something that warrants it.

This model of debate is specific to college policy debate, college LD debate, and high school policy CX debate. However, this model of debate will be applied to high school Public Forum and LD debate --- refer to the very bottom of this paradigm for more Information.

Ethos

My BS is in Political Science with a focus in international affairs and comparative politics with a research specificity in the People’s Republic of China and Authoritative regimes, respectively. You do not have to spend anytime dumbing down arguments for me as I study these topics for a living.

I am a policy debater with three years of college experience in NFA-LD in open varsity and NDT-CEDA in junior varsity. Debate jargon is second nature.

Model UN, Mock Trail, make up other speech actions

General Orientation (for those of you that are in a time crunch)

Policy debate is the way to go. Critiques (in all cases), PICs (in nearly all cases) and consult/delay counterplans do not belong in policy debate and are fundamentally cheating. Debate is not about winning, it is about real-world experience in evaluating policy. Bear this in mind when seeking my ballot.

Contrary to most NFA-LD and NDT-CEDA judges, not all arguments should be flowed simply because a debater is reading it. There is a particular way and method of how debate should conducted, although this interpretation has leeway it is fundamentally static.

The best model of debate is the one you see in this paradigm and I will both defend and enforce it at will. All arguments are outlined and organized within this paradigm so make searching simple. I am under no obligation to do anything outside of this paradigm --- if you post round me, I will enforce this paradigm.

Table of Contents (for those on time crunch and want specific sections)

These are listed in order of appearence

1. Inherency

2. Solvency

3. Adv/DAs

4. CPs/PICs

5. Plan Texts

6. T

7. Framing

8. Framework

9. Critiques

10. Theory

11. Everything else

12. High School Public Forum

13. High School LD

Inherency

It is a waste of time to challenge the inherency of the affirmative. Unless the argument is dropped or is otherwise removed from the round – I will never vote neg on presumption here. The only exceptions is when the aff is actually non-u/q but in most cases progress in the squo is never equal to that of what the aff is calling for.

If the aff does have inherency issues which can make part of the aff non-u/q, the aff ability to solve for impacts is reduce the closer to the Squo the aff is. This is easier to do on domestic topics than international one (For example --- NDT-CEDA alliance topic does not really have inherency issues but the NFA-LD immigration topic does have serious inherency issues.

Don't run Inherency theory - in many cases the aff inherency is built into the solvency and link evidence and I will strongly defer to the aff on Inherency.

Solvency

Untouched solvency in the constructive means the affirmative has 100% solvency. Solvency arguments from the negative are given weighted percentages. A single card and a single argument is never capable of achieving a solvency takeout. If the chance the affirmative can solve 51-49, I vote affirmative. Solvency is a prior question, if the aff can’t solve – nothing else matters and I vote here. Solvency is won at the warrant level.

If there are different aspects of the plan (plan does two different things), the solvency for both is weighed separately. An example is if the aff limits three different visa categories; solvency for each visa category is weighted separately.

Fait is good, exists, and is the only way debate functions --- funding, personal, congressional votes, etc. are all faited by the aff even if their plan text doesnt' say it. The aff only needs to say, fait solves the link - and you meet my burden. If you read a card that says fait is bad, I will judge kick that --- don't waste your time. If you think fait is bad, debate probably isn't for you --- that's how critical fait is to the function of the game.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Need u/q, links, and impacts to survive throughout the round to have access. Disadvantages are weighted against the case unless there is a wash. Wash Adv/DAs are washes, it is unlikely I’ll vote on them unless they are the only thing in the round then it becomes a matter of warrants and offensive.

On u/q --- I dont think you can take out the DA/Adv on u/q, you can reduce the chance the adv/DA. One warrent alone cannot take it out.

Extinction impacts are given higher priority to structural violence impacts and that is just how it is (calling me a racist is not going to change that). There will be a lot of work which will need to be done to overcome the extinction impacts.

Impact Defense and impact turns are your friend.

War good, climate change good, and or any other extinction/death good arguments will result in a judge kick. This does not include heg bad or DeDev so long as it is not spun as death good; rather articulated as necessary for the betterment of humanity --- on war good specific, this is a judge kick since the act of striking first would kill untold millions of people. I won't reject the team, but the argument and will lean heavily against it. However this is an exception to my theory perpective - I will reject the team if given sufficient reason to do so and internal debate space impacts as to why running extinction good arguments are bad.

Adv/DAs are won and loss at the link level, if the aff or neg does not have the links to arrive at extinction then it doesn’t matter. And in case you are wondering, expansion of EB-visas which causes Chinese brain drain does not have links to result in war. There need to be – and I cannot stress this enough – a clear causation link change about how we arrive from point A to war and death. Use the rebuttals for this purpose. Warrants are your friend here.

There is always a risk of the Adv/DA. Very rarely would I vote on presumption --- even a 1% risk of impact, 1% risk of link, and 1% risk of u/q means I still evaluate the DA/Adv; although a higher risk of whichever means I err toward that.

Technical matters outweigh truth and moralities --- Bostrum is correct; moral uncertainly means I move to protect future generations to figure it out.

Link turns and impact turns are a good friend. If you claim DAs outweighs the case/Adv outweighs the DAs, I need to know why this is true. I will not vote simply because you have a more specific link, you still need to extrabuate on why your link is better at the warrent level. If you link is not as specific comparatively, then tell me how it is. That being said, arguments spillover and cross apply. One does not need to have specific arguments in against that specific card to win at the link level --- you just have to put in the work and tell me why this argument answers their arguments.

Offensive tends to o/w defense.

I will mention this again since it is very important, most of my ballets are cast at the link level.

For politics DAs --- post dating u/q isn't enough, preferring warrants as to why the bill will or will not pass in the squo. For election DA, the closer to the election we are the less effective the DA will be - I don't think you should be running election DA when their is like two weeks before. However, I will not judge intervene here - these warrants must be made if I strike down a DA for being non-u/q.

Counterplans

CP must have two parts to vote on them 1. CPs must have a net-benefit, if there is no net benefit you have no CP and I will vote aff on presumption (assuming no other DAs present). 2. They must solve for the aff (or part of the aff in the case of a adv-CP) and no link to the net benefit.

Condo is good -- this is a hard position, you would need twenty minutes of speech time to win condo. Mutilplank CP are good for debate, learn to multitask and defend you aff from multiple attacks – real world experience – get over it. The same is true for reading two or more CPs. Tie skew arguments on CPs are pretty bad. I will not ever vote on condo args, if the neg drops condo bad --- DO NOT extend it in the 1AR, don't even suggest it in the 2AC --- I will judge intervene to protect the neg's right to offer alternative solutions and defend the Squo.

CPs need a solvency card, I will not vote for a floating CP, even with a net benefit. I won't evaluate it and if I am forced to I will review the CP as highly suspect when weighing it against the aff - I may even judge kick and just weight the DA against the aff.

Perms are overcome by argumentation and net-benefits All aspects of perm theory are cheating. Using perm theory is a cheap and pathetic way to escape good argumentation, it is extremely unlikely I would ever vote for it. However, I will reject the perm as an argument if it is severance by linking to the net benefit. Which would then trigger a aff v CP/Net Benefit evaluation.

Solvency deficiencies are the best (and often the only) way to remove a CP. Explain why the aff mechanism are uniquely required.

All CP's have the same fait rules as the aff which include: Fait covers funding, personal, and passage though congress (or otherwise approved by actor of the CP), and the implementation of policy.

Adv-CPs are good and I encourage them, still need a solvency card. They give me a way out, especially if you are winning on the link level.

Agent/Agency Counterplans

Aff as USFG and normal means includes all branches and agencies of the United States Federal Government. Perm solves and I will err aff. The exception is non-USFG American government institutions. The neg can run 50 states CP, local government CP, or otherwise. However, the smaller the government reduces the ability the ability for the CP for solve for global, country level impacts.

CP has fiat to prevent args like council members votes no, etc. Fait also grants 50 states say yes - debating that West Virginia says no is bad for 2nd level clash and education. --- best approach for the aff is to question wether the CP can solve for global impacts.

International agent/acter Counterplans

I defer that CP should operate as an operator of the United States which includes agency and actors of the United States. However, I can be persuaded to accept international fiat good or international actor CP good and you can see more of that in the theory section.

Refer to International fait section in theory

Consult/Delay Counterplans

Consult/Delay CPs are straight cheating, they steal aff ground. I will intervene and judge kick them. To be honestly, I will think long and hard about rejecting you if these CPs are in the 1NC.

Consult Chase Counterplan

If you read this, you better know my IR takes pretty well. In the end, consult CPs are still cheating but you'd get some speaker points because I'd find the fact you ran this CP to be hilarious.

Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICs)

Refer to the CP section above, most everything applies.

I do not think you need a solvency advocate for a PIC specifically if the NB is a clear reason to endorse the PIC (ie. limiting plan scope to a region and having that region as a DA -- China PIC with China Brain DA). In addition, PIC tend to gain solvency of the aff cards anyways.

Solvency deficient to the PIC and/or straight turns to the DA are the bet means of winning against a PIC. Explain to me why the particular aspect the Neg is PICing out of is critical to the aff. Do just attempt to win the DA, since there is a chance that case arguments could produce a low risk impact evaluation.

Word PICs are probably good - we will have to see.

Refer to the theory section for PIC theory

Plan Texts

You aff does not reserve the right to clarify --- I should know with 100% certainty exactly what the aff does just by reading the plan text. If the topic resolution calls for certain words, then your plan text should include those certain words. You are just hurting yourself and the aff by not doing that. Right to clarify is a theory voter for T since it allows the aff to move the central point of clash.

Affs actor should be clarified in the 1AC plan text. --- if you want to run a congress aff (even though its not ever topical to do so) then you should be clearly stating that in your 1AC plan text.

If you forget to read a plan text in your 1AC for whatever reason, when asked about it in CX just read the plan text with during CX and if not, then read the plan text in the 2AC. The worst thing you can ever do is forget to include the plan text and then panic by declaring this a methods debate. I will vote you down so fast --- read a plan text.

Topicality

It is clear when a aff is topical and when it is not. Unless that is the case, I will almost always prefer the affs position on Topicality. The negative position is always over-limiting, topicality arguments do not have any affect in debate (unless maybe it’s elims). It is not reasonable to ever suggest that you lose topicality, and you are going to change your aff. Running topicality because you don’t have something to say is not an argument and I will not punish the aff because you cannot do research.

I have a pretty high threshold for topicality.

*****You can ask me before the round what I think about T towards a particular sub-set of the aff (this is critical on topics like criminal justice or immigration reform in which there are reasonably hundreds of different affs); although I will not comment on the aff specifical --- the aff can always find ways to spin their untopcial aff into why there are topical. Although, if the aff is actually untopical then the spin better be good.

With that being said --- I will vote on T for the neg if the following achieved.

1. Why I should prefer you intrep -- what makes your intep good in terms of limits, predictable, and fairness.

2. Why their intrep blows up the limits -- give me a concert example of affs that can be run if their def blows up limits.

3. If you are running T b/c the mechanism of the aff is untopical (For example: they remove visa restriction for a temporary class visa when the resolution calls for reform towards permanet visa class); you TVA will be significantly better if you provide a way for the aff to talk about the overall theme and their advantages under your TVA (using the above example: is their a visa category which can be reformed which meets your intrep and allows them to debate overall theme of their advantages).

4. Case lists are welcomed and advised, but not required -- and make your rebuttal T arguments significantly better.

5. Theory shells explaining why debth is better and cards supporting why your intrep creates better debate is critical in the rebuttals to reenforced the internal link to the voters.

6. impact out the voters -- why not voting on T makes debate harder.

Other things to note

- There is not such thing as RVI on T --- you are either topical or you are not. The neg reserved the right to test wether the aff is topical; the aff has the burden of proof.

- I default to competing interps, reasonability is arbitrary and there is no such thing as predictable --- the aff being on the wiki does not make your aff predictable. If the aff wants me use reasonability as the metric, then the aff will have some serious work on why not only reasonability in a vacuum is good but why you aff specifically is reasonable. The large the topic scope (ie. NFA's Immigration topic) the less convincing reasonability becomes.

- T occurs in a vacuum (as in the round itself); I don't expect the aff to change their aff simply because they lost on T; they will just fine better definitions. So, even a topical aff can be untopical if the neg has some pretty good cards.

- Proven abuse is extreme preferred and supercharges topicality --- I default to proven abuse, however can be persuaded to consider the potential abuse for future debates.

- I can be persuaded to allow a aff that is Topical in every sense expect the USFG --- more on that in the framework section.

- couching mechanisms in the plan text that are designed to no link is cheating and an voter for T --- a good example is when a debtor cites USFG in their 1AC but their mechanism clearly suggest the court are the acter. If you are going to cheat and adopt a specific mechanism in CX to move agency --- I will definitely vote on proven abuse.

- Performance and knowledge production on T ---- you are either topical or you are not, the neg reserved the right to test wether the aff is topical and the aff solely has the burden of proof. Challenging the topicality of the does not reenforce bad mindsets --- testing rules enforcement is a prior question to any possible prior questions. Their are not RVIs on T which includes DAs to T and if the neg decides not to carry T through, I will judge kick the aff's DAs to the T unless their are C/A to a flow outside of T. This also applies to T-turns or T-K turns. The aff does not get offensive on T only defense. I will not evaluate RVIs and offensive on the T and will judge kick the offensive if T is kicked or even if its extended.

- I will reject aff which are clearly not topical regardless of how good their definitions are. For example, under the 2020-2021 NDT-CEDA alliance topic; the Minnesota enlargement aff was vastly untopical and I will judge intervene and reject affs that violate the SPIRT of the resolution --- I really don't care how good your t definitions are - you are not cool; read a topical aff.

Framing (Extinction)

Extinction outweighs in most all cases and utilitarianism is often the only ethical framing. I have a very high threshold to any other intep. I have won many rounds during my career on framing alone v soft left affs and I will reward that. I honestly think soft left off are an attempt buy K teams to skirt FW and win rounds --- placing the game over the education benefits of policy. --- the kicker is that a DAs/Adv must survive as a NB to the framing.

If you go up against a soft left aff with structural violence impact --- then tell me not only why I extinction outweighs but you will be in the best position if you tell me why solving your impact makes things better for the other. A good example is a grid impact since improving the grid is not only a extinction level impact but can access the framing of your opponent.

There are DAs to the alternative framing which I will evaluate if dropped, most framing args are defensive so making offensive args on their framing puts you ahead pretty far especially if dropped.

If you are the one running structural violence impacts and framing --- you should be preempting args as the aff. As the neg --- you will have to do two to three times the amount of work to overcome extinction priorities. If your opponent accesses your framing, then you will have even more work to overcome. It is not enough to respond or simply state that I should prefer X group, but why I should reject: all values of life, consequences, and risk creating mass death in the name of saving X group.

Along with Untiliarisnism good; consequences are good, all life has value comparatively, scenario planning, and most of standards of policy debate are good. I can be persuaded to set those aside if the work is done, but the amount of work which must be done to achieve that makes the time tradeoff costly.

Framing (Lens of analysis)

Application of IR theory (ie. Realism, liberalism, Marxism, etc.) are the only means of evaluating debate. Although, in terms of international relations Realism and Liberalism best explain states behavior. I am not convinced when a debtor says that realism just empower violence --- given that as a theory its more of a observation of behavior compared to Marxism or Feminism which seeks to critique rather than explain observation.

Effective IR analysis will normally utilize a combination of realism, liberalism, and constructivism to explain state behavior.

Your Adv/DA/CPs are close to reflecting reality if and only if it uses realism, liberalism, or constructivism to explain state decision making. Any other lens of analysis is ineffective.

Since many of you have never really studied IR before, lens of analysis (ie. realism) serves to EXPLAIN state behavior in the hindsight, not in the foresight. Saying that realism is racist or justifies imperialism are not real arguments and they are poor attempts to discredit theories that actually explain the world. If you are running a critique, then you better be operating in the world of liberalism since it is the only way I don't reject immediately award the win to extinction outweighing. The only legitimate critique of the lens of IR analysis is its inability to effectively explain state behavior in the confines of the affirmative world. If you criticize realism and your author is not an IR scholar, I will just kick that card without hesitation. Too many scholars and debaters criticism arguments while knowing nothing about it.

Critiques (Top level and Proper)

Critiques (spelled correctly since we are not in Germany) is - put in the best way possible – C H E A T I N G. You have a better chance of winning Topicality than you do critiques. If you are running a critique and spelling "critique" incorrectly or refer to it as "the K" --- I will doc your speaks 0.2 for every time you do that rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Debate is about much more than just "forwarding rhetoric" and it is worrying that you have learned so little from participating in the academy.

The neg should not even engage with the aff --- it just needs to be framework debate (I'm not joking, don't even reward them one bit --- 9 minutes of framework in the 1NC and 15 minutes of framework in the block).

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism

Most importantly, the critique has the burden of proof on ALL MATTERS, not the other way around. The critique most prove that the aff u/q causes your impacts --- most of the time they don't.

War and violence turns the critique --- life can always be much worse compared to the Squo.

I have no issue rejecting the team on perfcon (ie. you link, you lose).

I reward debaters who bite the link and defend their reps effectively.

If you read the Consult Chase CP: I'll laugh, give you plus 1 speaking points, and then kick the CP because consult CPs are cheating.

Framework --- read real arguments

I will vote on framework almost 100% of the time --- A planless aff's model of debate is always terrible and self-serving. There is nothing worse than having a critical judge say they will vote on framework when they won't and vise versa. What you see in this paradigm is what you get. If you wish to strike judges who oppose your "perfect" worldview, it probably just means you are acknowledging your alternate will fail when it meets real opposition (because let's be honest with each other, critical judges are not going to provide you with any resistance).

Refer to the framing section for opinions on extinction.

I say the following with 100% seriousness: You must have a plan text and a clear actor --- the rise of soft left affs in recent history give you no excuse to no adopt a plan text with a clear actor.

I will weight the aff against the alt --- the critical team will have a lot of work to do in overcoming this interpretation since this is a hard position. Past attempts to explain why the critique comes before the aff have always been pointless and without merit.

There are no RVIs on framework for the same reason there are no RVIs on T --- refer to the T and theory section for more information. If you run DAs or turns on framework, I will judge kick them --- be topical; you are lucky I don't reject you right then and there. The team which choice to waste my time by running useless and pointless arguments have the sole burden of proof to justify why I should not punish you --- good luck.

You link, you lose is a voter, fairness is a voter, prior questions bad and infinite are a voter.

You education arguments will NEVER outweigh fairness --- you better fix your framework arguments because fairness to the resolutions is the only way clash happens --- which u/q produces education.

If the aff is cheating by being planless, the neg is completely justified in having a 20 minute 1NC and I WILL flow every single argument. If the cheating aff intervenes to enforce the time rules during the 1NC or the block, I will vote on framework; if the aff complains in any capacity during the 2AC or 1AR, I will vote on framework. If you follow every other rule in debate and you say rules bad, I will vote on framework. If the critical team attempts to enforce any rules, I will vote on framework right then and there. The exact same concept is true neg using 20 minutes of prep time or having a 5 minute CX. I will literally be the last judge to enter into tab just to prove a point, I do not care.

Debate is not theater nor is it philosophy class, all prior questions have been address at the start of the round. You better give me a comprehensive and extraordinary detailed reason why this is not true --- the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE CRITICAL TEAM.

Critique proper (perms)

Aff has major access to perm arguments – perm theory is bad for debate. Don’t say that perms are bad when you are literally cheating by hiding behind prior questions. Instead, prove to me why the perm is not possible through the application of logical within the real world. In almost every case, the alt can be manifested in the world of the state.

The aff is allow to perm any combination of the alternative, ontology and/or epistemology. If the permutation resolves significantly pieces of critique's solution, the critique's alternative is most likely not enough to resolve their epistemology in the first place.

If you say, "group the perms" --- Not only is that bad for you since each perm does is a different solution, but it is a sloppy attempt to engage in argumentation and I will not reward it. Answer the perms separately or I will doc your speakers points by 1.

Saying "we reject the state therefore the perm is severance" is not an answer to the permutation --- you must answer the specific warrant of the permutation.

In critique v critique debate, I will reject any aff permutation - I will judge kick all of them. I really don't care, if the aff wants access to the permutation then read a topical aff. Just have the boring and pointless method debate already; at this point you both are lucky I don't issue a double L.

Critique proper (links)

You must clearly link to the aff. I will vote on no link more than I will anything else. Vague links are a voter, given that Critiques are cheating, I want to see extremely clear links to make up for this. Your internal link must also link to the aff.

When I say link to the aff I mean quite literally --- your critique must link to the mechanism of the aff, the rhetoric of the aff, the impacts of the aff, and the aff specifically. If you link card is, in any capacity, generic --- I will reject it; no link arguments should be made more.

Your link cards should not from ten years ago; do some research --- it isn't really that hard and you don't have any excuse.

Critique proper (alternative)

This is the most important section of the critique --- most people accept that the world is racist, sexist, and violent to the other. How are you going to resolve said violence is the only question that matters. You need to spend more than 60 seconds on your alternative and it is sad that critical teams dedicated so little time to how systems of violence actually gets resolved.

Critiques must have solvency, links to the aff (or links to the resolution in the case of planless which are more than USFG bad), and an alternative. I have no problem voiding for vagueness. Critiques have long gotten away with vague alts and hid behind think walls of theory. This is bad for debate and is nothing more than cowardly behavior. The critique must have a clear and defined alt, if I am at all confused about what the alt does or is in anyway vague, I err against the critique. Nothing about the critique matter if the alt fails, if the alt fails, I vote here.

Vague Alternative and social change --- those advocating for social movements or social resistance should be able to address these most basic questions: how does the movement manifest, what does it leadership structures look like; what are the long-term goals of the movement; and what is the overarching mechanism the movement uses to bring change. If you alternative cannot address these four questions --- the alternative will most likely fail. Remember: you are not just pushing rhetoric, you are also suggesting a possible path of resistance which means you better have a developed alternative otherwise state inevitable arguments thump the alternative.

The critiques does not get access to fait unless the critique is clearly operating as a CP to the aff --- which then might as well weigh the aff against the alt. If the critique isn't a government actor, I will not give you fait. If you totalized a group in your alternative, I will view your "calls for movement" with extreme skepticism.

Just as the aff has to affect real world change, the critique has to affect real world change. Claiming the agency is the debate team and the critique affects on this round will supercharge every possible alt fail cards on the flow. If you alternative is reject the aff, you WILL LOSE --- seeing as that is nowhere close to resolving your epistemology.

If the alternative cannot resolve the epistemology, I will reject the entirety of the critique. You raised the question, you prove it: there is nothing worse than someone complaining about a problem and failing to offer a coherent policy or solution to solve said problem.

Scenario planning is the only way any movement will actually manifest change - especially if you are planning on taking organized military/revolutionary action against the state. Scenario planning is critical for every job, so unless you plan on working as a McDonald’s burger flipper all your life - buckle up and embrace scenario planning.

FxT is bad for debate --- your alternative must resolve significant portions of your epistemology. If you alternative calls for a movement of resistance, you will lose on epistemology wayyyyyy overwhelms the alternative. If you say, "the critique is a first step to resolve violence" you will lose for the reasons aforementioned.

Capitalism Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

You must solve for GLOBAL capitalism and utopia is not, nor will it ever be, the answer. Socialism does not end capitalism. Capitalism, socialism, communism are not more or less moral comparatively. Communism has never actually manifested in the traditional sense, you better be able to explain which variant of communist you are.

If you alterative simply calls for a social movement to resolve capitalism without outlining how that social movement will resist attempt to by the state to reassert itself --- might I suggest the following: 1985 MOVE bombing - Wikipedia

As alternatives go: Joining the communist party does not solve capitalism (and it's sad that I have to say that).

Libertarian Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solutions for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Just why? Why would you ever endorse the worst economic philosophy in history. You better have a damn good answer to why I should embrace a return to the mass violence and suffering of the Guided Age.

Queer violence turns, Anti-black violence turns, fem violence turns, ableist violence turns, trans violence turns, and set-col violence turns are absolutely going to be evaluated against the critique - you might as well run a racism good critique given the relationship between Libertarianism and violence against any minorities group.

The state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature. There is a reason why libertarianism have never been implemented.

Security Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

In terms of made up arguments, this one is pretty far up there. While threats are often hyped, they are real. US-Russia war will probably kills untold billions, same for all other forms of war and violence. Threat construction in itself does not directly lead to war. If it is true that a single speech act caused war, we would all be dead. The aff as a form of scholarship is just one part of the thousands of articles in the security studies --- this critique is quite literally the definition of non-u/q.

Speciesism Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented (ie. not a human) in the critique.

Human beings are superior in all possible ways and that is just objectively true.

There is no impact to "anti-animal" language. This is quite literally the most made up argument in the debate space and that includes absurd critiques in that evaluation (see below for what I mean).

Feminist Critique

Read real arguments

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism.

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is sexist, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Anti-Black Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is racist, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Anti-black critical teams spend far too much time on explaining why everyone is racist that their alternatives to resolve the structures of violence have been poorly thought out and constructed as an afterthought.

If you read the "consult black people" CP, I will laugh and vote for the negative since, as a black person, anti-black authors fail to offer effective solutions to resolve their criticisms or use flawed IR thought.

Hortense Spiller (an English professor), Jared Sexton (an African American studies Professor), and Frank Wilderson (a drama and African American studies professor) are not IR scholars which explains why their attempts to explain IR as a tool of black suffering are often half-hazard, ineffective, and the product of disorganized black rage. If you want to offer a critique of IR (which there are many of a field of study) you should pull them from actual IR professors.

Saying the N-word in round doesn't provide you with any ethos --- that word will always mean what it originally meant and reverse co-opt efforts have long failed.

Queer Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique. If your alterative is "be gay do crime" and you explain the members of those doing crime can also be non-queer, I will vote you down on allyship.

It doesn't matter if the state is violent to queer people, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Calling for "queer rage" is a terrible and poorly thought out alterative. Disorganized resistance against the state which is pointless and senseless will always fail.

Trans Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is violent to trans people, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Calling for "trans rage" is a terrible and poorly thought out alterative. Disorganized resistance against the state which is pointless and senseless will always fail.

Ablism Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is violent to disabled bodies, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

When answering this critical argument, do not behave or act in an ableist manner. The only thing that matters is the content of the argument for both debater. If you joke about how a debater physically conducts debate (ie. Hand movements, swaying, stuttering) are all links for your behavior and I will vote you down if called out. While I don’t necessarily expect you to change your aff, I do expect debater to adjust how they present their aff and laughing or calling out humans for how they physically present their arguments will earn you a sizable loss in position. It makes it easier to embrace the ableism alternative when the impact of voting you do will have action change - you’ll check your behavior in the interest of ballots but the USFG might now which is the entire social change section — policy debater need to stop justifying critical arguments and gross ableist behavior in debate all these absurd and cheating arguments continue.

Scholar Research Critique

Read real arguments

You cannot change or affect the debate space --- no matter what your ability to change overarching rhetoric used in the debate space is nonexistence. It leds to policy debaters doubling down. The origins of soft left aff is not the result of a change in policy debate but rather an acknowledgement that K affs fail.

Aff/Neg says no is a legitimate argument --- the critique in itself does not produce change, the change is the product of the opposition willingness to adopt the alternative; personal objections to the alternative are acceptable if contextualized.

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Scholarly research critiques do not belong in round – they are decided when the resolution was declared and you will not ever have any affect on change the scholarly research of a team. There are extremely few exemptions to this and if you ask me I will tell you.

If you cannot explain your alt you will lose. If you are running a research critique and are incapable of pointing out authors that the aff should run instead that fit inside the world of the alt, you will lose. The one phrase I never want to hear from the critique team is, "I don't know, that is your job to figure it out." You will lose.

High Theory Critiques (Top and Proper)

If you read a high theory critique, you are part of the problem. If you don't want to participate in the academy, then don't spend your weekends debating.

If the first question I hear in CX is "what is the aff meta-physical orientation towards the sun" --- not only will that result in an instant L, but I will doc your speaks by so much that any hope you had of being anywhere close to the top 90% of competitors will be gone.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Psychoanalytic Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Nihilism Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Baudrillard Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

You should not be reading authors which are so obviously racist and sexist.

Bataille Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Cybernetics Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Transhumanism Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Death Critique

Death critiques will result in an instant L for the same reason as extinction good arguments result in a L. --- I honestly don't even care if you win the round, I will not endorse the open embrace of death since it empowers the same logic behind bullies advocating for self-harm. I literally will not flow a single word you say -- all your ethos is gone.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

The pointless and the absurd Critiques

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Why are you here --- If you don't want to be here, if you don't want to do debate and benefit from what the academy has to offer; then why are you spending your weekend doing debate.

The following critiques will result in an instant L: Zoom critiques, ATLA critiques, do nothing critiques, ... (I will expand this list when I come across the arguments). If you think you fall into this category, you are part of the problem.

Any other Critique not included

Read real arguments

Theory

If its not in here then I haven't hit the theory enough to have a direct opinion on it --- but most of everything people run will be contained in there. There are two positions; Args that I think are good or bad for debate and I don't think I will every change my mind and args that I can be persuaded.

I have a pretty high threshold for theory arguments outside of my model of debate. The amount of work you would have to do is a massive tradeoff which is not worth it.

Condo is good --- the neg enjoys the right to test the aff from multiple angles. Aff still has access to perms and solvency deficiency. This is a hard position; if you are going for condo bad you will probably lose unless it was just straight dropped.

Muntiplank Cps are good --- the neg enjoys the right to test the aff from multiple angles. Aff still has perms and solvency deficiency. This is a hard position; if you are going for mutliplank bad, you will probably lose unless it was just straight dropped. There is no impact to kicking planks and it probably makes it easier to be aff if they do since it reduce one mechanism the neg has to solve the aff.

Multiple Condo is good --- the neg enjoys the right to test the aff from multiple angles. Aff still has perm and solvency deficiencies. The argument that multiple condo is bad is reduce if the CPs share the same NB. The neg can run an infinite number of Cps in the round --- although running like 20 off isn't really advisable. There is a bright line that can be established, running a CP for each advantage and a CP for the aff is reasonable. The more Cps the neg runs the more I can be persuaded to reject the argument. Rebuttals check --- if they run six Cps in the NC but then only carry though one or two, I will err neg on the theory.

New args in the rubbtal --- I do give a lot of leeway for debaters on both sides for new arguments; tangibly related is nominally enough. However, I can be persuaded to reject arguments but some additional sentence must be made as to why this particular argument skews your time. However, if you make this argument I will also reject new argument's made by you as well --- especially if you fail to contextual why that specific argument should be rejected over others.

Prefer ev over analytics --- Unlike most judges, I do not think debaters are idiots. I will weight analytics alongside carded evidence. While carded evidence is preferred, I will still not deprive a debate the chance to read it. You are experts on the matter, like the most of us. In all honestly, if a debater makes DAs entirely out of analytics, I will still evaluate it but will defer to carded ev. Debaters can analytically fill in the gaps for internal link issues. The farther away from common knowledge the analytic is the less weight I give it.

Fait theory is good --- it exists and is good, it is the only way debate functions. Fait covers funding, personal, and passage though congress, and the implementation of policy. "Fait solves the link is all one really need to say here" --- I defer to the aff on fait. Absent fait, the neg is extremely incentivized to just read ten cards about who these congressmen oppose. This is a hard position.

International fiat ---

International condo --- refer to international actors and condo theory section

International actors are good --- If the aff or the neg wishes to take a different government or state actor, then they may do so and I encourage it. Education in this regard outweighs fairness. I do think there is a bright line --- embracing a state is decently okay, especially if that state is a major actor on the world stage. That being said, you should have answers to framework and why we should be talking other states. Major actors on the international stage can include major global powers or international organizations like the UN (although, you would have solvency issues). Outside of talking about the state, I do think arguments of fairness start to become strong the farther away we move from the state. For example, taking a mutil-national corporation or small NGOs will probably lose you the framework debate --- in this case fairness does o/w education. If you want to adopt a different actor, you should justify your actions on the framework flow particularly how you don't blow up limits. Adopting middle power aff/CPs like Canada, Japan, or Sweden is also pushing the brightline.

It should be noted however, that I will gladly entertain a "framework" style debate as to why all CPs should be USFG. Much like against a critic, framework is a pre-fia question and if you can not justify why you get to run a non-USFG CP, I will reject the team on "framework".

Multiple International Actor Fiat --- refer to international actor and multiple condo section

Disclosure/New affs/New DAs and Cps --- There is no impact to disclose theory and in all honesty, disclose theory isn't really a thing. The aff enjoys all aspects of their infinite prep time including the ability to break new affs. That being said, disclose is good and is encouraged. Debaters should be posting rounds on the wiki. The neg also enjoys the ability to break without concern.

PICs --- I sit on the fence on PICs good or bad (leaning a bit more towards PICs bad). While they have a role in debate and can be good for argumentation; they do steal aff ground, moot the 1AC, and refocus the debate away from the 1AC to the 1NC which can kill 2nd level clash development. I can be convinced that PIC are good and that they can be bad --- when it comes to PICs I will be evaluating the context of the debate itself. It is pretty clear when the PIC deliberately refocus the debate (ie. you don't read any case cards) --- I'd probably punish you by kicking the PIC if its that bad. Most PICs exist in the middle somewhere, so depending on the arguments made in round and the context of said round determines if PICs are good or bad.

Floating PICs ---

Word PICs ---

Vague Alts ---

Using the rulebook is bad --- just why. Please don't be citing or enforcing the rules of the circuit or the tournament in round. You look like a fool and debate's outcomes are less about the top level rules and about judge interpretation of what the rules are of what they should be. This is a hard position. It doesn't really matter what the rules say, if a debate thinks something is bad than that judge will oppose you.

Inherency Theory is bad --- in many cases the aff inherency is built into the solvency and link evidence and I will strongly defer to the aff on Inherency. The rules only require that the aff identity barriers not that they have to be explicitly declared. In many cases, most issues do have inherency otherwise we would not be debating about them and people would not be writing articles about them.

Solvency Theory ---

RVI --- There are no RVIs for most arguments. RVI don't exist for T or framework (refer to the sections for more detail). RVI's do exist on framing but only in the capacity of offensive to the manifestation of ethical framing (refer to the framing section) and no on the ethical framing itself. If you make an RVI, even if dropped I will judge kick it.

Reasonability --- refer to the T section

Perm Theory (General) is bad --- Perms are overcome by argumentation and net-benefits All aspects of perm theory are cheating. Using perm theory is a cheap and pathetic way to escape good argumentation, it is extremely unlikely I would ever vote for it. However, I will reject the perm as an argument if it is severance by linking to the net benefit. Which would then trigger a aff v CP/Net Benefit evaluation.

Vague Perms ---

ASPEC ---

"As Per" ---

"Right to clearly" is bad --- refer to the plan text section

R-Spec ---

Sandbagging is good--- the 1NR is allowed to expand upon its arguments from the 1NC. Time skew arguments are unconvincing.

Judge Kick --- While you should properly kick out of argument, I do default to judge kick if debaters failed to kick properly. If you don't kick out properly, debaters are justified in using those args on other pages. Arguments which are dropped with only defense on the page and kicked. CP's that are dropped are also kicked. Although, if there is offensive on the page then I will not judge kick unless the opposition decides not to extend the offensive.

Multiple Worlds is Bad --- I don't think multiple worlds exist and are quite honestly bad for debate. It is better to have a coherent position than not. I will vote on a debater who double turns themselves.

Framework --- refer to the framework section

Pre-fia questions --- I default to evaluating framing, framework, and T as pre-fia questions to the 1AC itself --- those are hard positions. New sheets are pre-fia questions to your participation in the academy at large. I can be persuaded to evaluate other positions like theory as pre-fai. There are no other positions which are pre-fia.

Abuse standard --- I default to proven abuse on theory, but I can be persuaded to considered potential abuse. I default to potential abuse on framework. I default to potential abuse on topicality during the first few tournaments when the season norms are being established, proven abuse thereafter.

Links from outside the round --- I will not touching any inter-debate problems with a 400m pole. The only thing that matters is the confines of the round itself from the start of the 1AC until the 2AR.

Misgendering/Sexism ---We all must come to terms with out own perceptions of the world. For a while, I personally perceived limited impact here --- however, after witnessing the suffering that misgendering can have (both in real life with close friends and in the debate space); we do have an obligation to realign our internal perceptions away from identity destructions and attempts therein. I will rarely admit I was wrong, but I will here well because I was.

Misgendering does have an impact, the destruction of the personal identity of a debater. While, I can understand cultural and traditional internalizations die hard; you must make an effort to check your own perceptions and make an effort to develop strategies against your own internalized forms of violence. If it is made clear to you the identity of your opponent (either through the wiki, pre/during-round declaration, or next to their own names in the online debate form); you should integrate that identity into your debate. If you refuse to acknowledge and continue to behave in a manner which seeks to misgender and thus systematically destroy their identity without even attempting to acknowledge your mistake, I will vote you down.

Apology does solve, however there needs to be proven progress (ie. if you apology and then misgender, i will vote you down) --- I will probably judge intervene and vote you down. If the first line of the final rebuttal is "They apologize but continue to misgender" or some similar statement and you did continue to misgender, that's game and I will vote you down.

After witness several rounds between male representing teams and fem representing teams; there is a clear issues with how male representing debaters treat their male representing counterparts and their fem representing counterparts. If you talk over fem/otherized representing individuals during CX, not only will I not flow your CX - thereby rejecting any ground gained from that CX - and dock your speaks by a minimum of five points for the direct person responsible and three points for the teammate (this is increased to ten points for the direct person responsible and five points for the teammate if running a critique since it is reflective of the ethical framework the critique seeks to create) -- But I will reject the team if new sheeted in the rebuttals. I will judge intervene your speaks regardless if the argument is made or not. As someone who does mock trail/moot court/trial advocacy, there is a distinct and noticeable difference between controlling the conversation and violent aggression.

New sheets here are a prior question to your participation in debate, I evaluate it first and kick any attempts to use existing args in the debate space against the new sheet (ie. leveraging your critique to answer the new sheet); misgendering and in-round sexism comes well before the 1AC (ie. the 1AC/1NC does not exist in the world of the new sheet). Team who get new sheeted here will have a pretty high threshold to sustain their position and receive my ballet.

Might be wise to refer to authors as either they/them, "authors," or by their name, everything from above applies to misgendering of authors.

Language --- Calling one a racist, sexist, homophobic , etc. will not be tolerated and just looks bad on you for being incapable of maintain decorum in a formal event. Theory args indict debater behavior in round is acceptably acceptable to punish racist or sexist arguments. Depending on the level of racism, I may judge kick the argument. However, If extreme proven abuse in round (like use of the N-word as an expression of violence) I will judge intervene and reject the team without any new sheet.

Performance affs/negs are bad --- Performance does not belong in debate, you are not funny and I am not laughing. Debate is not theatre and there are always ways to make your point as an orator --- verbal communication is what you are being "evaluated" on. Narration is the single greatest waste of speech time.

Cross Examination

CX is a speech and I will flow you questions and answers. CX time also belongs to the teams themselves. If one team wants to use CX time to prep or ask judge questions then they may do so. However, if using CX time to prep then other team is kinda justified in just taking the three minutes for more speech time.

Your questions should be tailed to the overall picture of the debate, even before the debate starts most people have an idea of how the round will go --- the goal of CX should be to use it to its full potential and you will be rewarded both in speaker points and in positional advantage.

Prep Time

Do not steal prep time --- once prep is called, you should finish your thought/sentence and your hands should be away from your flow/computer. Stealing prep time hurts your speaking points.

Saving the doc and sending it does not fall under prep time. Tech issues and bathroom breaks do not fall under prep time.

I am keeping track of prep time but enforcing prep time is up to the debaters.

If you have to go to the bathroom, just go. Debate is stressful enough, we can wait.

Speed

Speed is fine and spreading is encouraged as a tactic. If this is NFA-LD or other forms of lay debate, especially if this is not open, you should really not be spreading. Does not apply to open and JV NDT-CEDA or other partner based policy debate at the open/varsity or JV level. If you opponent in any format request you to slow down for legitimate reasons (namely disabilities), you should do so - failure will harms speaks by 1 point. If they read ableism theory for your failure to adhere to a formal request, you will be in a pretty bad position. If you are spreading in novice in any capacity, I'll dock your speaks by five and note in your ballet that you do not belong in novice --- trophy hunting ruins the game.

Technology

Sending the doc is not included in prep time.

Online debate stuff --- if you are using terrible mics or AirPods, just stop and use your computer mic. I will not reward small drops if it is extremely likely it was missed by garbled audio. ALWAYS test your tech before using it. I know that online debate is hard, I give debater space to figure out tech issues --- tab is never on time anyways so it will be fine.

RFD

Speaks will start at 28.5 and go up or down from there based on performance - in many cases this system is arbitrary. As a result of that, unless something really bad occurs, expect to be within 0.5 points of each other. Clarity, name calling, effective argumentation, pre-speech prep, not stealing prep time, etc. could all reflect on possible changes in speech time.

I am a flow judge, my decision will be based on the flow - sign posting is key here. You do not want me to spend time trying to figure out where one arguments goes. The messy the debate, the more likely I will miss an argument - so bear that in mind. That being said, I will still review your evidence post round before making a decision, comparing the ev with the flow. However, you should expect my decision to still largely come from the flow. If its in your doc but not in my flow, I will not vote on it.

I will give RFDs and disclose even if its not the norm where you are, debate is a learning experience at its core and you cannot improve if you don't know what to do differently. If this is college debate --- then I will definitely disclose regardless of taproom or coach request. If this is debate involving minors (namely high school debate) I will disclose if asked by the one debaters; regardless of tabroom's rules. However, I will ask the opposing debater (if still present) if they want me to disclose. If both team say yes --- I will disclose. If only want team says yes, the other team is more than welcome to leave while I disclose to the team that wants to learn. This will be how I disclose at the high school/minor level regardless of tabroom, parents, or coaches desires --- the only one's who matter for RFDs are the debaters themselves.

High School Public Forum

High School LD

Refer to the solvency section above, everything applies.

Refer to the adv/DA section above, everything applies.

I will never vote on the moral issues and I think it is a waste of time to even extent the moral question. Focus more on your advs/DAs since that is where you will actually win the debate. After all, it doesn't matter what your moral framework is if you can't solve the issues you solve for.

Refer to the framing section above when deciding what I actually think about the ethical framing of the debate.

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

My email for the chain: kaevans97@gmail.com

I graduated from Missouri State University in May 2020 where I competed in NDT/CEDA as well as NFA-LD style debate all four years. I'm attending law school this year, so I have little to no specific topic knowledge, but a good torts or contracts joke will certainly get you a bump in speaker points.

TL;DR: It is your job as the debater to tell me how to evaluate particular arguments in the round. If you fail to do that, I will be forced to impose my own standards of judgement and I would much rather that I didn't have to do that.

In all honesty, I am more truth over tech, but if there is a drop I won't completely disregard the argument (even if I find it silly). That generally means that if you are reading a ridiculous argument that you created to confuse your opponents, you are already in an uphill battle with me. No, aliens will probably not kill us all. And no, the world is probably not just a simulation (if it is, then I picked the wrong one). Use that information as you will.

At the end of the day, debate is an activity that you compete in for a finite number of years. This competition is not the impetus of your life's achievements; please do not treat it that way. Be kind to everyone in the round and enjoy the experience.

CPs:

I personally think conditional advocacies have gotten a little ridiculous, but will entertain them if you give me a reason to. I find it unlikely that I will vote on theoretical objections as the sole reason for decision, but I can be compelled to use it as a reason to disregard a CP/Alt in the 2nr (given that the neg has not already kicked it). If your CP was pulled out of nowhere before the speech started, you will have to do a lot of work to convince me it is real (see above).

If you are aff, you will need a developed solvency deficit at the end of the debate unless you are going for offense on the net benefit. I know that seems obvious, but sometimes 2As forget.

DAs:

I don't really have any wild opinions here so I will be brief. The link is the hardest part of the DA to win and thus the most vulnerable to affirmative arguments. You should focus most of your energy there. If you don't have clear impact calc in the 2nr/2ar I will have a much harder time deciding what to do with the DA in comparison to aff impacts and that puts you in an awkward position at the end of the round.

Ks:

I have a love-hate relationship with critical arguments in debate. That is based mostly on how debate forces those arguments to morph from their original intent. That being said, the aff needs to win either a perm or an outweighs argument that is developed and does more than just repeat the same tag line repeatedly. The best critical debates on the neg engage key portions of the aff to prove a link to the aff either performatively in round or housed in the core premises on their literature. I am unpersuaded by vague links to USFG action or other actions that are so inherent to the status quo that I cannot differentiate between the two. I also personally think alts are generally underdeveloped and I have a hard time determining what to do when the neg kicks the alt and all that remains is a vague link.

Whatever my opinions, this is your activity. I want you to do it the way that is the most enjoyable for you. A well-run K is better than a half-assed policy round any day.

Topicality:

TBH, as a competitor I sucked at topicality debates. That doesn't mean I don't understand how they function or that I am unwilling to vote on T, but you will likely have to do a little bit more work to make sure I understand what your arguments mean for the decision. I apologize if that is annoying.

(For policy affs that are attempting to meet the resolution): I do not care if there is no explicit in round abuse. That is useful, but not required of a topicality argument. Honestly, if the aff is pretty topical (especially if it is arguably the core aff on the topic) I will have a hard time being persuaded by topicality. I guess prove me wrong.

(For anti-topical affs): Your TVA mustn't be perfect, but it must include core aspect of the aff's literature. Meaning you need to engage with the aff in some way in order to win the TVA. If the aff team puts a random DA on T, there has to be impact calculus for it at the end of the round, otherwise I will treat it as perhaps an example of your larger argument, but not an independent reason to vote aff.

Critical affs:

I am going to be honest. I am not your best judge. I am not inherently opposed to the concept of K affs, but I feel many are disingenuous and ask me to make decisions based off of claims I can neither verify or claim to know given my subject position. With that being said, if I am your judge in those rounds I would prefer that your aff intertwine in some substantive way with the topic. If your aff's only claim to the topic is that you used the word "climate change" in one card in one speech of the round, that is not an interaction with the topic. Now, if you have a whole narrative about what "climate change" means in relation to your subject matter, then I will be more persuaded by your answers to T. With that being said, I am not going to auto vote against a K aff.

I was a philosophy major, but I am not an expert in your topic area so you cannot assume I know the jargon specific to your literature. Obviously, at the end of the day, debate is a game and if you choose to play it without a plan then that is a choice you get to make and I will respect that. Have fun, be kind, and I will do my best to adjudicate the round in a (semi) competent manner.

Final comments:

If you feel I have made the wrong decision, I am sorry. My decisions are not intended to be disrespectful and I have no intention to harm or criticize a debater personally based off anything that occurs in round. I get that debate is hard and we all make mistakes. I hope that you extend that same understanding and respect to me. If you have any questions, I am more than happy to answer them before/after the round or in an email before/after the tournament.

(Go Bears)

*Plz pardon the typos I can't spell/ Grammar

HISTORY

I debated for 2.5 years in High School doing policy debate in Southwest Missouri- mostly a lay district. I currently debate for Missouri State University in NDT primarily. Not to flex but I got 2nd in extempt debate at NSDA that one time

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab School

General Stuff

Feel free to ask questions after the round I should have to defend my decision as much if not more then you defend your arguments.

My utopian form of debate is lay debate (that does not mean slow) with politics and K's with no alt lol

Be nice but dont be too nice

Please know who the secretary of defense is @EC

"Cold Conceded" is a real term

CX is my favorite part of debate plz use it and plz make a fool of ur opponent

Extinction is maybe possible????

+.2 speaker point if u want to make fun of Rupaul fracking applicable to the debate, -.2 if it seems forced and I don't laugh :(

DAs

Specific links r cool.

Like PTX alot.

Turns Case args are hot and underused imo PLEASE MAKE THEM

CPs

Perms are underutilized imo

Default to Condo good all the time

PICS are good

Agency CPs are good if u have a good solvency advocate

Consult CPs r Bad

I do not like judge kick: If the NEG looses a perm and that shields the link somehow or the CP links to the NB and it makes its way into the 2NR u should be scared

Speaking of which CP links to the NB is fun arg u should make

Ks

Ill be honest I am probably not the judge you want- I have limited experience on K literature so if you do get me as a judge it will help both of us if you describe early what your K is criticising as well as what the alt does. I am rather inclined to weigh the AFF, but that DOES NOT MEAN EXTINCTION OUTWEIGHS. I generally believe that the AFF should choose what they want to talk about and, controversial opinion, prefer K affs over generic Ks on the NEG. I think K AFFs that are in the direction of the topic are super cool 2.

Specific links here 2 plz

I love watching K rounds but doesnt mean I am ur ideal judge fs

Ks I know a little bit about: Puar and Virillio that's it, that's the list

T

Im VERY AFF biased with T so make sure u r winning it before u make it the 2nr. Default to AFF is topical on reaonability but wont vote for it if the NEG wins reasonability is bad or the AFF shouldnt be reasonable/ your offense outweighs. In round abuse is good but not necessary. I think complaining about how you couldn't read your favorite DA or CP against this one aff is not persuasive to me.

AFF/Case

I debated soft left senior year on the arms topic and loves it.

Specific case card> Impact D any day of the week

Should be able to defend every word in your plan text

I cant think of a single round I have watched where I even considered a presumption ballot

For K affs plz be very explicit in either the 1ac or very latest cx what the u advocate for.

idk what else to put here just know your AFF and what it does/ Advocates for.

Experience: 4 years of NDT-CEDA/2 years of NFA-LD at Missouri State, mostly reading policy arguments. 2 years of coaching NDT-CEDA/NFA-LD at Missouri State.

Currently: 2nd year law student @ University of Minnesota Law School

Contact: joehamaker [at] gmail.com. Put me on the chain. If you have questions about an RFD or my judging philosophy, feel free to reach out.

My goal is to resolve arguments made by debaters to form a coherent decision about the issue that the debaters have decided upon. I have predispositions but I will try hard to evaluate the debate outside of those because debate is for debaters. I list preferences below, but nearly all of them are contingent.

NFALD debaters read this

Frivolous theory. I do not want to vote on your spec arguments, RVIs, disclosure theory, solvency advocate theory, or similar gobbledygook.* I do not think these arguments have educational merit. This is an exception to my general inclination to be open to all arguments. Be warned: I might not vote on it even these arguments even if they are dropped by the other team, unless you make a serious time commitment and explain to me why your argument is different.

*This does not include: topicality, condo, reasons why specific types of CPs/alts are bad (e.g. conditions CPs, floating PIKs).

Other NFA stuff. Speed is generally fine but don't exclude the opponent. Arguing based on the rules is unpersuasive. NR should collapse and make strategic decisions.

Process

When I evaluate debates, I first identify nexus questions which the debaters have decided upon in the 2NR/2AR. Then, I determine arguments both sides have made on each nexus point and check my flow to assess whether they are sufficiently represented in previous speeches. Next, I evaluate the strength of the arguments of both sides. Often at this step, I will think through the implications of voting for both sides and the complications involved. Sometimes, this will cause me to reevaluate who I think is winning the debate. Finally, I determine who I think won the debate and write a paragraph (or more) of explanation.

It is difficult for me to decide debates which do not clearly identify nexus questions. When I have to determine them, it might work in or against your favor. This is a recipe for frustration for all involved; clear identification and engagement with the nexus questions is the best way to resolve that problem. I should also be able to explain, using language similar to that which is present in the 2NR/2AR, why I should vote for you and vote against the other team. If I cannot make that explanation, it will be more difficult for me to vote for you.

Incomplete list of advice/preferences/thoughts

- I (usually) flow cross-ex because it is binding

- Slow down on overviews and theory

- Tech > truth, but truth is important and doesn't always require a card

- "No perm in method v method debates" requires more explanation than most offer

- Zero risk of an impact is very rare but not impossible

- Stop taking prep outside of speech/prep time

- Make the implications of arguments and cross-applications clear, especially when they span multiple sheets. I should not have to do that work for you.

- Be swift with paperless

- Be caring of your partner and the other team

put me on the email chain: ahart2241@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University. High School coach for 4 years at Parkview (Missouri) High School, Graduate Assistant at Missouri State University.

Most of my experience in debate was very much on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base. Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v policy debates clash here is very important to me.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality specifically, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality. That ship has probably sailed. One other thing to note is that I will not kick the counterplan for you automatically. The negative will need to make a judge-kick argument (preferably starting in the block) to allow the affirmative opportunities to answer it. I think this is a debate to be had, and shouldn't just be something that is granted to the negative at the outset of the round. That being said, I am definitely willing to do it, if said conditions are met and you win the reason why it's good.

Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards. I will say that I am a little rusty, having judged at college/higher level high school tournaments sparingly in the last few years. On evidence I will likely be fine, but would appreciate going slightly below full speed when reading a block of analytic arguments/overviews.

Mika Hartter (She/Her) mikadebate@gmail.com

Debate Experience---

2016-2020 at Eisenhower High School (KS). Local and Natcir.

2020-2022 at Missouri State University (MO). NDT-CEDA.

I debated the following topics: China engagement, Education, Immigration, Arms sales, Alliance commitments, and Antitrust.

Political Compass---

Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Anti-consequentialism------------------------------X-Consequentialism

Reasonability------------------------------X-Competing interpretations

Disclosure----X---------------------------Non- or false- disclosure

Death good bad------------------------------X-Read what you can win

Important Stuff---

There's no such thing as tabula rasa, because all judges have certain biases; that being said, I try to remove my opinions from debates as much as possible. I will always judge the round in the way I'm told to by the debaters in the round.

I tend to evaluate debates from an offense-defense perspective. Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Incomplete arguments do not survive germane contest. I am willing to vote on zero risk, but this generally only happens due to missing internal links or expired uniqueness.

Please read whatever you find fun and interesting to read: really obscure k's, theory, death good, spark, first strike, etc. I would rather watch good debating on an argument I don't like than bad debating on an argument I do (that's not to say I don't like any of the above).

It will be harder to convince me to abandon consequentialist ethics than perhaps anything else. To me, consequentialism is as fundamental as "cogito, ergo sum." That being said, I'm no util hack. There are many kinds of consequentialism, deontology, and more nuanced frameworks. I like my moral frameworks as clear as I like my topicality interpretations—this applies whether your ethic is: as simple as "privilege probability," or as complex as "risk is probability times magnitude;" or as nuanced as "a is a variable of moral calculus but b is not, because c," as self-serving as "x is immoral and should come first because y," or as devious as "we are only responsible for intrinsic consequences." Both teams will be far happier with framework decisions when they invest the time to make complete arguments including impact comparison.

Addressing emails and disclosure last, please make the email chain subject line reasonable and distinguishable. Something like "[Tournament name] Round [n] - AFF [team code] NEG [team code]" (e.g., "CEDA Round 1 - AFF Liberty CR NEG Missouri State HW") would be fine. Try to have the 1AC sent no later than 5 minutes before the rounds posted start time, so we can actually start at that point. Lastly, I have a very strong preference for prompt and thorough disclosure. Debates are better when both teams are well-prepared. While I'm not going to excessively interfere for it—i.e., I won't vote on it if the 2NR doesn't go for and win it—my floor for winning "disclosure good" is far lower than my barrier to deontology is high. If your schtick is non- or false- disclosure, you should not pref me.

K---

Please don't read an overview so long I need a new page or even better just don't have an overview.

I'm ideologically apathetic about t usfg. Go for it if you must, but I'd prefer to see clash rather than an allusion to hypothetical clash. Speaking of which: stop saying "clash" in the 1NC without justifying why policy-focused debates are good. What kind of education does the aff prohibit and why is that education worth preserving in debate? Fairness is an impact, but a weak one absent explanation thereof. For the affirmative: I prefer smaller numbers of DA's which are explained in depth to a superfluous amount of indistinguishable ones. "I am sometimes frustrated by uniqueness arguments about kind used to elide obvious differences in scale ... that debate is unfair now ... does not mean that there is no impact to additional unfairness" - David Sposito.

I enjoy DAs and impact turns against planless affs, but I'd appreciate solidification of the link. A consistent and intuitive no link argument beats sloppy neg characterization. The best way to guarantee these links is probably by getting CX commitments, but even without such I'm willing to hear various justifications for the turn; though, if the aff is only defending "thinking in x way is good," you should probably go for topicality instead.

For k v. policy framework, I think the aff could generally benefit from more creativity and the neg from using the word "epistemology" less. I think both teams should try to structure their offense like they would on other theory/framework pages; e.g. frontload each da, each should have an impact and turns args, and you should probably have at least two (though that's more advice than a requirement). For the aff, make sure you're arguing for more than "weighing the aff," or I could end up doing that by favoring the neg's interpretation of what that means. Perhaps the debate should be "about the desirability of the plan" or something idk. For the neg, you probably hear this a lot, but please make sure I understand what debates look like under your framework. I'm a philosophy student, so I know what epistemology is and I don't need to hear it 15 times a speech. What I don't know is 1. what the resolution and fiat are and why they matter, 2. what the plan is and how it should be read, 3. the scope of my decision-making capability in terms of the influence it has on the world, debaters, the community, and debate as a whole, and 4. how I should evaluate impacts. Not every framework spin needs to have explicit answers to all of those questions, but without an answer to at least one I'll probably default to weighing the implementation of the plan via fiat.

Ask any questions necessary about specific literature, but I'm generally knowledgeable enough on common k's like cap, security, afropess, and setcol, as well as Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Nietzsche. In any case, you should not assume I nor your opponents instantly recognize highly academic terms or understand non-obvious examples. In general, I'm looking for the explanation of your thesis-level claims to include: claims about the world, exemplifying if not deductive proof of your claims, a connection between those examples and the 1AC/resolution, and an impact. If you must put those in an overview because of the sophistication of your particular K, fine, but keep it concise.

Theory---

Any and all theory can be a reason to reject the team. Any other take is cringe.

"We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. That said, I'm not one who believes an interpretation being arbitrary necessarily excludes it from consideration: two condo and twelve condo are meaningfully different in their effects and neither have any basis in the resolution.

In terms of my thoughts on specific theory arguments: PICs and process counterplans are generally valid, but delay, consult, and other plan-contingent counterplans are generally not. Condo is almost always good, but object and attitudinal fiat are almost always bad. I won't judge kick your CP unless you tell me I can and I expect to be told so before the 2NR. I think fiat and intrinsicness debates on politics are interesting and winnable.

Regarding the states counterplan, I have a strong negative reaction to uniform 50-state fiat, but I'm not going to reject it on face.

Topicality---

Topicality shells are a no risk argument for the negative. "We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. T debates are my favorite debates.

I'd really prefer to judge via competing interpretations; this is downstream of my feelings about consequentialism, but I also have no idea how to judge the "reasonability" of an interp, or how to compare different interpretations' "reasonableness."

I'd appreciate more impact comparison in these debates, particularly with precision and education. Regarding precision as an internal link to predictability, I feel it is far, far weaker than many suggest. Why should I sacrifice a good topic to some particular interpretation of a word chosen by the high school topic committee? "Interpretations that are the best for mutual debatability become predictable because they're good," - David Sposito. Precision for precision's sake is less than incoherent: debate rounds do not take place in a courtroom nor a legislative subcommittee, as such I only care about the precision of an interpretation insofar as it begets good outcomes. Education is far more complicated than "more ideas = better" or "deeper ideas = better." If you're going for an education impact, I expect you to analyze what kinds of education in debate are worth preserving (analytical skills, topic knowledge, advocacy skills, etc.) and what are the internal links to those are (pre-round research, third-level clash, etc.).

In general I prefer smaller topics with narrow, defined areas for innovation. A lot of resolution texts would not pass a Writing I standard for clarity, which will shape the way research is done about the topic. Thus, I want to hear more than "other words check" or "functional limits check" - a warrant would be nice.

Speaker Points---

Things that gain them: clarity, ethos, early argument development, "biting the bullet," and general niceness.

Things that lose them: unclarity, evading clash, long overviews, and being mean.

Pet peeves: calling me judge, perm walls, not being able to answer basic cx questions without your partner, and taking over your partners cx when they're doing fine.

Competed:

2011-15 – Lawrence Free State, KS, Policy (Space, Transportation, Latin America, Oceans)

2015-17 – JCCC, KS, NDT/CEDA (Military Presence, Climate Change); NFA-LD (Bioprospecting, Southern Command)

2017-20 – Missouri State University, MO, NDT/CEDA (Healthcare, Exec Authority, Space); NFA-LD (Policing, Cybersecurity)

Coached:

2016-17 – Lawrence High School, KS, (China Engagement)

2017-19 – Olathe West High School, KS, (Education, Immigration)

2019-22– Truman High School, MO, (Arm Sales, CJR, Water)

2020-Present– Missouri State University, MO, (MDT Withdrawal, Anti-Trust, Rights/Duties, Nukes); NFA-LD (Climate, Endless Wars)

2022-23- Truman State University, MO, NFA-LD (Elections)

2022-Present - The Pembroke Hill School, MO, (NATO, Economic Inequality).

Always add:

phopsdebate@gmail.com

Also add IF AND ONLY IF at a NDT/CEDA TOURNAMENT: debatedocs@googlegroups.com

If I walk out of the room (or go off-camera), please send the email and I will return very quickly.

Email chains are STRONGLY preferred. Email chains should be labeled correctly.

*Name of Tournament * *Division* *Round #* *Aff Team* vs *Neg Team*

tl;dr:

You do you; I'll flow whatever happens. I tend to like policy arguments more than Kritical arguments. I cannot type fast and flow on paper as a result. Please give me pen time on T, Theory, and long o/v's etc. Do not be a jerk. Debaters work hard, and I try to work as hard as I can while judging. Debaters should debate slower than they typically do.

Evidence Quality X Quantity > Quality > Quantity. Argument Tech + Truth > Tech > Truth. Quals > No Quals.

I try to generate a list of my random thoughts and issues I saw with each speech in the debate. It is not meant to be rude. It is just how I think through comments. If I have not said anything about something it likely means I thought it was good.

Speaker Points:

If you can prove to me you have updated your wiki for the round I am judging before I submit the ballot I will give you the highest speaker points allowed by the tournament. An updated wiki means: 1. A complete round report. 2. Cites for all 1NC off case positions/ the 1AC, and 3. uploaded open source all of the documents you read in the debate inclusive of analytics. If I become aware that you later delete, modify, or otherwise disclose less information after I have submitted my ballot, any future debate in which I judge you will result in the lowest possible speaker points at the tournament.

Online debates:

In "fast" online debates, I found it exceptionally hard to flow those with poor internet connections or bad mics. I also found it a little harder even with ideal mic and internet setups. I think it's reasonable for debates in which a debater(s) is having these issues for everyone in the debate to debate at an appropriate speed for everyone to engage.

Clarity is more important in a digital format than ever before. I feel like it would behoove everyone to be 10% slower than usual. Make sure you have a differentiation between your tag voice and your card body voice.

It would be super cool if everyone put their remaining prep in the chat.

I am super pro the Cams on Mics muted approach in debates. Obvious exceptions for poor internet quality.

People should get in the groove of always sending marked docs post speeches and sending a doc of all relevant cards after the debate.

Disads:

I enjoy politics debates. Reasons why the Disad outweighs and turns the aff, are cool. People should use the squo solves the aff trick with election DA's more.

Counter Plans:

I generally think negatives can and should get to do more. CP's test the intrinsic-ness of the advantages to the plan text. Affirmatives should get better at writing and figuring out plan key warrants. Bad CP's lose because they are bad. It seems legit that 2NC's get UQ and adv cp's to answer 2AC thumpers and add-ons. People should do this more.

Judge kicking the cp seems intuitive to me. Infinite condo seems good, real-world, etc. Non-Condo theory arguments are almost always a reason to reject the argument and not the team. I still expect that the 2AC makes theory arguments and that the neg answers them sufficiently. I think in an evenly matched and debated debate most CP theory arguments go neg.

I am often not a very good judge for CP's that require you to read the definition of "Should" when answering the permutation. Even more so for CP's that compete using internal net benefits. I understand how others think about these arguments, but I am often unimpressed with the quality of the evidence and cards read. Re: CIL CP - come on now.

Kritiks on the Negative:

I like policy debate personally, but that should 0% stop you from doing your thing. I think I like K debates much better than my brain will let me type here. Often, I end up telling teams they should have gone for the K or voted for it. I think this is typically because of affirmative teams’ inability to effectively answer critical arguments

Links of omission are not links. Rejecting the aff is not an alternative, that is what I do when I agree to endorse the alternative. Explain to me what happens to change the world when I endorse your alternative. The aff should probably be allowed to weigh the aff against the K. I think arguments centered on procedural fairness and iterative testing of ideas are compelling. Clash debates with solid defense to the affirmative are significantly more fun to adjudicate than framework debates. Floating pics are probably bad. I think life has value and preserving more of it is probably good.

Kritical Affirmatives vs Framework:

I think the affirmative should be in the direction of the resolution. Reading fw, cap, and the ballot pik against these affs is a good place to be as a policy team. I think topic literacy is important. I think there are more often than not ways to read a topical USfg action and read similar offensive positions. I am increasingly convinced that debate is a game that ultimately inoculates advocacy skills for post-debate use. I generally think that having a procedurally fair and somewhat bounded discussion about a pre-announced, and democratically selected topic helps facilitate that discussion.

Case Debates:

Debates in which the negative engages all parts of the affirmative are significantly more fun to judge than those that do not.

Affirmatives with "soft-left" advantages are often poorly written. You have the worst of both worlds of K and Policy debate. Your policy action means your aff is almost certainly solvable by an advantage CP. Your kritical offense still has to contend with the extinction o/w debate without the benefit of framework arguments. It is even harder to explain when the aff has one "policy" extinction advantage and one "kritical" advantage. Which one of these framing arguments comes first? I have no idea. I have yet to hear a compelling argument as to why these types of affirmative should exist. Negative teams that exploit these problems will be rewarded.

Topicality/procedurals:

Short blippy procedurals are almost always only a reason to reject the arg and not the team. T (along with all procedurals) is never an RVI.

I am super uninterested in making objective assessments about events that took place outside of/before the debate round that I was not present for. I am not qualified nor empowered to adjudicate debates concerning the moral behavior of debaters beyond the scope of the debate.

Things that are bad, but people continually do:

Have "framing" debates that consist of reading Util good/bad, Prob 1st/not 1st etc. Back and forth at each other and never making arguments about why one position is better than another. I feel like I am often forced to intervene in these debates, and I do not want to do that.

Saying something sexist/homophobic/racist/ableist/transphobic - it will probably make you lose the debate at the worst or tank your speaks at the least.

Steal prep.

Send docs without the analytics you already typed. This does not actually help you. I sometimes like to read along. Some non-neurotypical individuals benefit dramatically by this practice. It wastes your prep, no matter how cool the macro you have programmed is.

Use the wiki for your benefit and not post your own stuff.

Refusing to disclose.

Reading the 1AC off paper when computers are accessible to you. Please just send the doc in the chain.

Doing/saying mean things to your partner or your opponents.

Unnecessarily cursing to be cool.

Some random thoughts I had at the end of my first year judging NDT/CEDA:
1. I love debate. I think it is the best thing that has happened to a lot of people. I spend a lot of my time trying to figure out how to get more people to do it. People should be nicer to others.
2. I was worse at debate than I thought I was. I should have spent WAY more time thinking about impact calc and engaging the other teams’ arguments.
3. I have REALLY bad handwriting and was never clear enough when speaking. People should slow down and be clearer. (Part of this might be because of online debate.)

4. Most debates I’ve judged are really hard to decide. I go to decision time often. I’m trying my best to decide debates in the finite time I have. The number of times Adrienne Brovero has come to my Zoom room is too many. I’m sorry.
5. I type a lot of random thoughts I had during debates and after. I really try to make a clear distinction between the RFD and the advice parts of the post-round. It bothered me a lot when I was a debater that people didn’t do this.

6. I thought this before, but it has become clearer to me that it is not what you do, it is what you justify. Debaters really should be able to say nearly anything they’d like in a debate. It is the opposing team’s job to say you’re wrong. My preferences are above, and I do my best to ignore them. Although I do think it is impossible for that to truly occur.

Disclosure thoughts:

I took this from Chris Roberds who said it much more elegantly than myself.

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow/sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, or new schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are a few specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament, on a previous day, or by another debater on your team, and it is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off-case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in-round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. Emailing them so you have timestamped evidence of this is a good choice. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text and relevant 1AC advantages etc. before the round. If thats a local tournament, that means as soon as you get to the room and find your opponent.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

6) There are obviously different "levels" of disclosure that can occur. Many of them are described above as exceptions to a rule. Zero disclosure is always a low-threshold argument for me in nearly every case other than the exceptions above.

That said, I am also willing to vote on "insufficient disclosure" in a few circumstances.

A. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy your wiki should look like this or something very close to it. Full disclosure of information and availability of arguments means everyone is tested at the highest level. Arguments about why the other team does not sufficiently disclose will be welcomed. Your wiki should also look like this if making this argument.

B. If you are in the open/varsity division of NDT-CEDA, NFA-LD, or TOC Policy. Debaters should go to the room immediately after pairings are released to disclose what the aff will be. With obvious exceptions for a short time to consult coaches or if tech problems prevent it. Nothing is worse than being in a high-stress/high-level round and the other team waiting until right before the debate to come to disclose. This is not a cool move. If you are unable to come to the room, you should be checking the wiki for your opponent's email and sending them a message to disclose the aff/past 2NR's or sending your coach/a different debater to do so on your behalf.

C. When an affirmative team discloses what the aff is, they get a few minutes to change minor details (tagline changes, impact card swaps, maybe even an impact scenario). This is double true if there is a judge change. This amount of time varies by how much prep the tournament actually gives. With only 10 minutes between pairings and start time, the aff probably only get 30 seconds to say "ope, actually...." This probably expands to a few minutes when given 30 minutes of prep. Teams certainly shouldn't be given the opportunity to make drastic changes to the aff plan text, advantages etc. a long while after disclosing.

Debater at Missouri State University (4th-Year)

Pronouns: he/him/his

Email (if a chain happens, include me): zguylols@gmail.com

I do NDT debate in college, did policy in high school (and HI if you'd believe).

I've decided to radically alter my paradigm to use less words. You do you. I will flow what you say and will make my decision based off that.

My college wiki page is an absolute nightmare. I've been both a 2A and a 2N going for both policy arguments and critical arguments, though my later years leaned more towards the latter (particularly trying to bring faithful adaptions of Bataille to debate). I like discussions on ethics. I like discussions on wide disadvantages.

Active homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. are all very not okay. I am perfectly alright with handing out zeroes on speaks and auto-losses for discrimination at my discretion. The debate space is one for discussion - if you are intentionally making it hostile and dangerous, I will call you out for it.

That being said, I have seen way too many people take debate way too seriously. Don't be a jerk (even if you are good at debate). I've noticed a very sharp trend towards the community being toxic, especially in "high level" debate (whatever the heck that means). I've had opponents put "Be mean" in their 2AC document notes. I'll just copy/paste what fellow MoState debater and friend Gabe Morrison has written: "Intentional cheating, overt and persistent hostility, and discriminatory behavior will result in automatic losses. These are all pretty vague and dependent on my judgement, so to clarify: I think narcissism, self-righteousness, and downright juvenile cruelty are big problems in college debate and I will not hesitate to call people out on it. There is a qualitative difference between indignation, competitiveness, and malice, and if you are not sure which your intended action falls under, then you need to chill out."

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

T

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

Eric Morris, DoF - Missouri State – 29th Year Judging

++++ NDT Version ++++ (Updated 10-22-2019)

(NFALD version: https://forensicstournament.net/MissouriMule/18/judgephil)

Add me to the email - my Gmail is ermocito

I flow CX because it is binding. I stopped recording rounds but would appreciate a recording if clipping was accused.

Be nice to others, whether or not they deserve it.

I prefer line by line debate. People who extend a DA by by grouping the links, impacts, UQ sometimes miss arguments and get lower points. Use opponent's words to signpost.

Assuming aff defends a plan:

Strong presumption T is a voting issue. Aff should win you meet neg's interp or a better one. Neg should say your arguments make the aff interp unreasonable. Topic wording or lit base might or might not justify extra or effects T, particularly with a detailed plan advocate.

High threshold for anything except T/condo as voting issues*. More willing than some to reject the CP, K alts, or even DA links on theory. Theory is better when narrowly tailored to what happened in a specific debate. I have voted every possible way on condo/dispo, but 3x Condo feels reasonable. Under dispo, would conceding "no link" make more sense than conceding "perm do both" to prove a CP did not compete?

Zero link, zero internal link, and zero solvency are possible. Zero impact is rare.

Large-scale terminal impacts are presumed comparable in magnitude unless you prove otherwise. Lower scale impacts also matter, particularly as net benefits.

Evidence is important, but not always essential to initiate an argument. Respect high-quality opponent evidence when making strategic decisions.

If the plan/CP is vague, the opponent gets more input into interpreting it. CX answers, topic definitions, and the literature base helps interpret vague plans, advocacy statements, etc. If you advocate something different from your cards, clarity up front is recommended.

I am open to explicit interps of normal means (who votes for and against plan and how it goes down), even if they differ from community norms, provided they give both teams a chance to win.

Kritiks are similar to DA/CP strategies but if the aff drops some of the "greatest hits" they are in bad shape. Affs should consider what offense they have inside the neg's framework interp in case neg wins their interp. K impacts, aff or neg, can outweigh or tiebreak.

Assuming aff doesn't defend a plan:

Many planless debates incentivize exploring important literature bases, but afer decades, we should be farther along creating a paradigm that can account for most debates. Eager to hear your contributions to that! Here is a good example of detailed counter-interps (models of debate). http://www.cedadebate.org/forum/index.php/topic,2345.0.html

Impact turns are presumed relevant to kritikal args. "Not my pomo" is weak until I hear a warranted distinction. I prefer the negative to attempt direct engagement (even if they end up going for T). It can be easier to win the ballot this way if the aff overcovers T. Affs which dodge case specific offense are particularly vulnerable on T (or other theory arguments).

Topicality is always a decent option for the neg. I would be open to having the negative go for either resolution good (topicality) or resolution bad (we negate it). Topicality arguments not framed in USFG/framework may avoid some aff offense.

In framework rounds, the aff usually wins offense but impact comparison should account for mitigators like TVA's and creative counter-interps. An explicit counter-interp (or model of debate) which greatly mitigates the limits DA is recommended - see example below. Accounting for topic words is helpful. TVA's are like CP's because they mitigate whether topics are really precluded by the T interp.

If I were asked to design a format to facilitate K/performance debate, I would be surprised. After that wore off, I would propose a season-long list of concepts with deep literature bases and expect the aff to tie most into an explicit 1AC thesis. Such an approach could be done outside of CEDA if publicized.

This was too short?

* Some ethical issues, like fabrication, are voting issues, regardless of line by line.

Email: gabemorrison77@gmail.com

Four years NDT and NFA-LD at Missouri State

Four years CX in high school at Greenwood Lab

***About Your Judge***

Hi, you're probably here because I'm judging you. You have my sincerest condolences.

I was a 2N for 3/4 years in college. My usual 1NC consisted of Nietzsche (neither Der Derian nor "suffering good" nonsense) and several on-case turns, with the latter occupying slightly more 2NRs senior year.

I recently rewrote my old argument-by-argument paradigm because I felt that it poorly represented my judging tendencies and encouraged over-adaptation. I like creative, enthusiastic, and generally high quality debating more than I do any particular argument.

***Suggestions***

- Debate the best version of your opponents' argument.

- Case debate is neat. Smart analytics are sometimes better than cards (doesn't apply to CPs and certain Ks, although case analytics are still very helpful in the latter case). Case 2NRs are power moves.

- Clever impact framing > "role of the ballot."

- Make big decisions in the 2NR and 2AR. Focus on the impacts you actually need to win. Poor prioritization is the death of strategy.

- Define terms with multiple/ambiguous meanings. I like precision because I am pathologically obsessive. If left to my own devices, I will strive to interpret keywords in the least consequential manner, but you might not like the results.

- Honesty > "not one step backward, comrades"

***Requests***

- Don't remove FW interpretations & counterinterpretations from your documents. I'm bad enough at adjudicating T/FW as is and I am on the verge of docking speaks for failure to do so.

- Don't be self-righteous or holier-than-thou, but if that's just who you are, please be good at it.

- Don't pivot for an ableism strat because someone said idiot. The link is usually more ableist than its object, the alternative is non-unique, and homonyms exist.

- Be nice to one another.

- Try to have a good time.

***Dogmas***

- Zero risk is possible and usually occurs when arguments are completely irrelevant or missing internal links.

- The ballot does not represent anything more than "who did the better debating." Everything else is impact framing and development of your story's setting.

- "Ontology" does not mean what many debaters seem to think it means.

- Knowledge is a network of metaphors and metonyms that are taken for granted. Facts are what we call metaphors whose referents have been lost over time. Linguistically mutability does not imply the possible change in a concept, but a state of constant change. Most arguments that universalize adjectives are absurd.

- Fiat is not a verb. We do not "fiat" the plan (or alt) into existence. We suspend disbelief like people do with all hypotheticals.

- "Critique" does not have a K in it unless you are German or LARPing as a German.

- Floating PIKs are PIKs in the same way that the States CP PICs out of the federal government.

***Warnings***

- I don't care about Policy v K ideological battle lines. I don't care about PRL and CEDA bogeys. I will probably not be convinced to care. Sometimes an argument is just a cigar.

- If you spend your prep removing lots of analytics from the doc before you send it, I will interpret it as a lack of confidence in your own arguments and regard them with suspicion for the rest of the debate. Moral of the story? Make analytics up on the fly, get good at pretending you make analytics up on the fly, or flash your blocks.

- I was terrible at topicality and framework debate for eight years. I have voted for and against it several times, but I am not good at flowing it and I seem to view theoretical impacts differently than many other debaters. That does not mean "don't read T." I just may be a little less predictable and more likely to make mistakes.

- I find many ableism arguments patronizing. I will do my best to be open-minded and evaluate yours as an individual case, but I will still probably be a little biased. You can alleviate the impact of this bias by (1) not romanticizing disability, and (2) not excluding, authenticity testing, or in general not making hasty assumptions about the physical and mental faculties of your opponents.

***Theory***

- Theory lean: Conditionality? Good. PICs? Good. Perf Con? See "Conditionality?". Consult/Conditions? Evidence-dependent. International/Foreign? Probably bad. 2NC? Usually, but context-dependent. 1NR? I cast fireball.

- High threshold for conditionality bad. I do not understand why contradictions in a vacuum are imbalanced, even if you win that they exist. I have seen many contradictory advocacies and very few actually forced affirmative teams to debate themselves.

- Solvency advocates are unnecessary if the CP text is referencing aff evidence. CPs without solvency advocates are more a reason for affirmatives to get away with fewer cards and questionable permutations than for me to reject the CP.

- Judge-kick is context-dependent, but I will probably assume judge kick if conditional unless told otherwise.

- Rejecting the argument usually de facto rejects the team.

- Theory is not usually a reason to reject the team outside of conditionality. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that other reject-the-team situations are less common.

***NFA Folks***

- "I do not want to vote on your spec arguments, RVIs, disclosure theory, solvency advocate theory, or similar gobbledygook.* I do not think these arguments have educational merit. This is an exception to my general inclination to be open to all arguments. Be warned: I might not vote on it even these arguments even if they are dropped by the other team, unless you make a serious time commitment and explain to me why your argument is different." - Joe Hamaker

- Neg has a a huge side bias, y'all. 2ARs should accordingly focus on doing overviews, impact calculus, and generally framing the round, as opposed to delivering comprehensive line-by-line answers, as they will be near impossible against a competent opponent.

- NRs should collapse their offense to take full advantage of extra speech time.

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab, Kickapoo HS, Poly Prep Country Day School

Greenwood Lab (China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)

Minnesota NDT (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, Nukes)

3x NDT Qualifier

Octas of CEDA '24

Add me to the email chain: ask for it pre-round.

TL;DR: I care a great deal about debate and I will put all of my effort in adjudicating the next two hours. It frustrates me when I see paradigms that say "[x] is prohibited," but I feel the need to clarify some biases that might impact my judging. I generally am more persuaded by arguments that say AFFs should have plans, that the AFF will be weighed against the Kritik, and that the practice of conditionality is usually good. That said, I have voted for all types of arguments and am always amazed at the ways in which y'all continue to instruct and educate me as a judge.

My caveat to "nothing being prohibited" is that I will never vote on an argument based on something that happened out of round. I have no context, it feels too much like policing, and it is a shameful use of my ballot. Introducing arguments like this will be met with a 25, introducing arguments like this that pertain to an individual not present in the round (other debater on their team / coach) will be met with a 20. We will never be able to fully remedy issues in a debate round that is filtered through competitive incentives. Trying to rectify these issues out of round, where discussions are more than 9 or 6 minutes of screaming into laptop and the responsible admin and coaches on your team are present, seems like the best way to go. However if something happens in round, you can call them out or stake the debate on it. Also, if you use suicide as a form of "rhetorical advancement," read Pinker or Death Good, strike me. Goodness gracious!

If you ask for a 30 you will receive a 25.

I flow on paper.

Blake '23 PF Update: Evidence exchanges in this format are hoogely boogely to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.

---

Policy things:

Conditionality is generally good. I will judge kick unless told otherwise (starting in the 2AR is too late). This is usually the only argument that rises to the level of rejecting the team aside from an ethics violation.

T: Counter-interps > reasonability. I have yet to hear a debater persuade me to care about grammar as a standard. Having evidence with the intent to define and exclude is ideal. I am not great for T versus Policy AFFs unless the AFF is an egregious subset of a subset or some other nonsense that everyone should wag their finger at.

CPs: I lean NEG 51/49 on competition; but, "should" as meaning "immediate" has always seemed a bit silly to me. If your CP requires a robust theoretical defense for its legitimacy (Process CPs / PICs) and you win that defense, then more power to you. The same also applies to the theoretical defense of intrinsic permutations.

Bring back the lost art of case debate! Presumption pushes in the 2NR are underutilized; conversely, sometimes there is a huge risk of the AFF versus a small DA.

I am partial to AFFs that defend topical action the resolution dictates and read a plan. I have yet to be convinced that framework is violent and I find myself nodding along to a 2NR going for fairness. Clever TVAs are usually potent. I will be frank: if you have the shoddy luck of having me in the back while reading a planless AFF, the way to my ballot is going for an impact turn.

Ks? I am most familiar with Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis, Critical Disability Studies, and Berlant. Floating PIKs seem suspect and the 2AC should make a theory argument. I think link arguments have gotten increasingly interesting and should be answered more even when teams go for impact turns to the alt. I am inclined to weigh the AFF.

I very much care about the research aspect of debate, although debates will not be decided just on cards. At that point, why don't we exclusively send speech docs rather than speak? Yes, card doc.

I flow CX. There's a reason why it exists.

Ethics violations stop the round and will be decided based on tournament rules. If the accusing team is correct, they will receive a 29 / 29.1 W and the accused will receive a 25 / 25.1 L. If the accusing team is incorrect, those points and the win will be reversed. I think maybe our lives would be a bit easier if you give the team a courtesy email when you find a miscut / improperly cited card during pre-tournament prep while writing your Case NEGS / 2AC blocks instead of dropping an accusation mid-round.

Claws out, however you wish to debate.

I have a soft spot for local lay debate. I come from lay debate and I will defend lay debate until the day that I die. Only in this instance am I sympathetic to AFFs that indict the practice of conditionality, although my threshold for voting AFF versus a 1NC with 1 CP versus 2 is incredibly high. For Minnesota debaters: DCH has been one of the largest influences on the way that I think about debate. Take that as you will. Show me your flows and I'll give you +.1 speaks (if they're good flows).

---

"And he to me, as one experienced:

'Here all suspicions must be abandoned,

all cowardice must here be extinct.

We to the place have come, where I have told thee/

Thou shalt behold the people dolorous

Who have foregone the good of intellect.'"

4 years at BVSW

Current Sophomore debating at Missouri State

add me to chains: elidebate35[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

Tech>Truth

Not the best judge to have a planless debate in front of

Have done 0 research on the HS topic so keep that in mind

Competing Interps> reasonability in a T debate

Condo is good but its a debate to be had

K Aff/Framework:

I think that if you are reading a planless aff an advocacy statement should be part of the aff, I think it needs to be in the area of the topic and if it's not, I'm going to be very persuaded by framework. I think procedural fairness is an impact in the round and will be persuaded by it. I may be persuaded by structural fairness outweighs, but more then likely not unless very well done. The best chance a K aff has is to win a DA or a broader impact turn. If you do end up reading a k aff in front of me, I may not have a great evaluation. K v K has a decent chance of being completely lost on me unless it's a k i've gone for.

K's:

If the answer to the K is Framework and a perm, please go for it (Change due to KCKCC

I'm not deep in the lit so don't expect me to know the nuances of Baudrillard or arguments like that. I think that specific links to the aff are good and the more specific the better. I don't think links of omission are good and am very unlikely to vote on them. If you are a K team don't be deterred to go for what you feel comfortable going for but if it's really high theory explanations go a long way.

CP:

Cps should be textually and functionally competitive with the aff. This is what I have gone for in college and am very comfortable voting on them. you should make a sufficiency framing arg. I default judge kick if nothing is said in the round.

DA:

Great. I am ok with generic links but at some point in the debate you should make an arg as to why it applies to this aff specifically not just the topic as a whole. you should have impact calc in every block and in the 2nr as well.

T:

T's a voting issue and comes before most aff theory, RVI's are not

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@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'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- 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 keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

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

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- 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 paper, 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 behoves 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.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak 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.

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 AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

Colton Smith 

5 Years of High School Debate @ Tulsa Union HS 

Freshman NDT debater @ Missouri State University (Mo State SW)

Version 1.0 - Last edited 10-16-17

The closest thing that you can pin me to is tabula rasa. I have experience going for a cheating CP's with small net benefit to reading various K's sometimes all in the same 1NC. I was a 2N in high school if this helps at all. My favorite kinds of debates are ones where there is a small truthful policy aff with either the 2NR being a super specific DA (with or without a CP - doesn't matter to me) or a K with spec link lit. CAUTION - I like some K's but have a really high threshold for others. For example, I have read and debated Identity/structural K's frequently, but I do not have any experience with Baudrillard, Bataille, or whatever pomo person you have in mind. This can all be resolved with sufficient explanation so PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE HECK YOUR JARGON MEANS. That being said, I don't want the way I view debate to constrain what your strat is. If you think this is your A strat, then rep it and I'll be there to decide :). 

TLDR: I am good with about anything that you want to read in front of me, but you have to justify it words that I will be able to understand. Truth v Tech is a false dichotomy - a good argument should be able to have both. Speed is fine as long as you place clarity above speed. Prep ends when you say it does - do NOT abuse this privilege as it get annoying to wait three minutes to flash a speech doc. DO NOT STEAL PREP FOR THE LOVE OF gOD. The easiest way to my ballot is to sum up the debate for me. If you do an email chain, then you should put me on it at mc2turnt@gmail.com

 

Just a few random things that you might want to look into when debating with me in the back 

- evidence comparison - Debates frequently get out of hand and both sides win their own argument and it starts to look like two ships passing in the night. If you are doing comparative analysis with your evidence - PROPS! This makes for better debates and you might get a smile out of me if you do so. 

- Cross Ex - It is okay to be assertive, but rude it should never be. I think that people underestimate the value of CX in policy debate, and if you can use it effectively with me in the back it may result in better speaks. Sometimes the best thing that you can do is to be really nice in cross ex

- Marking Cards - I know that sometimes in a debate you have really long cards, but if I hear you marking every card in your 1NC, then there is a massive problem. One of the things that really can get under my skin is when you mark a lot of cards and try to extend them without reading that warrant. It's usually just a good idea to read the beautiful ev you have presented me. 

Onto the more specific things in life...

 

T/FW - I do not have many predispositions to this in any way. I am down for you to go 1 off fw if that's your planless aff strat. I will default to comp interps in a FW debate, but could be persuaded to default to reasonability if you warrant it well enough. I think for the negative to win these debates in regards to FW, you need to find a way to hedge back against their impact turns. This is possible and if I am in the back with this debate I could go either way, but I do appreciate teams that try to hold the line effectively. If the aff is policy and you want to go for T, then I think it might be the smartest to have a nuanced T violation. I didn't go for T very many times in my high school career, but I like to see them happen. For me to pick you up as the negative, you need to win why your interp/violation specifically generates abuse, and yes I can be persuaded that potential abuse is abuse. Also remember impacts are pretty important here too :) Do Not think that this is an invitation to only read FW in front of me. I like FW but I am not a hack for it. I like other nuanced and comprehensive strategies too and probably even more so.  

K - the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

Do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible - I am not the person that you want to read a 6 minute overview in the back of the room. You could be the best debater at the tournament, but if you drop long overviews - it will be hard to win the debate and your speaks will reflect that. 

you must find a way to weigh the aff and must have some defense to your method so that you have some justification for the 1AC. Think of the 1AC as a research project and you have to defend that research process. A good defense of your process specifically can be pretty devastating.

 I can be persuaded by extinction 1st and weigh the aff or just alt offense that is contextual to their research base, but the most important thing that the aff can do against K's is create 1 win condition and win it in the 2AR. A lot of teams get shook up trying to learn what the K means instead of creating a coherent strategy for the 2AR. 

I am an OK judge to do your K tricks with in the back, but you will need to explain their implications to the round itself. 

I am good with some K's but not all - if I look confused in the back, take a step back and explain what the argument means in my world. 

All in all K debates r fun ! 

CP - 

I like a good CP debate against an aff - I am the judge that will be down to hear topic generic CP's or super nuanced ones. Just win that the CP is theoretically justified, solves the entirety of the aff, and has a risk of a NB. 

I am okay with most CP's but you have to have a justification for the CP. 

I am a fan of most CP's. There are cheating CP's out there and a lot of them, but if you don't tell me why the CP is illegit then Ill let them run with it. 

The more spec the research is the better. 

YOU BEST HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE FOR THE CP TOO - unless its an adv cp and you tell me why there is not one that's needed VERY WELL. 

DA's - 

Yes Please

If you have a super unique DA that is spec to the topic and people haven't done their UQ updates then you as the neg have the right to exploit this. 
NEW DA's will be rewarded on level of prep 

I REALLY REALLY LIKE A GOOD DA DEBATE - but Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. 

PLEASE justify your internal links very well - I think this is typically one of the weaker points of da's in general. 

I also like generic topic DA's that have a unique flavor to them.

if you go for a DA in the 2NR please do a lot of COMPARATIVE IMPACT CALCULUS. This is something that I think is fun to watch and can be a wonderful point for clash. Also, your DA turns case analysis should turn the im pacts of the 1AC as well as the solvency mechanism of the aff - these args if developed well enough will make me want to vote for you. 

Theory - Cool with it - gotta have an interp that generates offense for you though.

 

Case - I am a sucker for good case arguments and impact turns. I like to see a good impact turn debate, but I also like a strat where you decimate the case page. I feel like case debate is extremely underutilized and needs to be revitalized. 

 

 

If you have any questions or are just confused about what I have just told you, then you can drop me an email at mc2turnt@gmail.com 

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014; 2023-present

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

Updated 1-29-2022

I did NDT debate at MoState

Email chains: michael.n.waggoner at gmail.com

I read policy arguments for the most part, but read the K plenty as well.

I think debate is a fun game that provides unique and useful education. Although, I am open to different interpretations of how I should view debate.

Please be nice to people, even if they do not deserve it.

Things I will not vote on: racism good, extinction/death good, personal/external to this debate round actions as links/reasons to reject the team, and I'm sure much more.

Affirmatives with a plan

I like these. I tend to prefer larger center of the topic affirmatives with good angles against core negative arguments, but do what you do best.

Affirmatives without a plan

I also like these, but I don't understand what they do most of the time. You have to explain how you depart from the status quo, but if you do that right, I find these affs fun to judge. I am not a T-usfg/framework hack, but I do think T is a good argument against these affirmatives.

Theory/T

I default to competing interps and would prefer if you explain what their version of the topic justifies and how that hurts you.

I will vote on almost any theory argument, but you should realize when your theory arguments are bad.

Conditionality is usually fine

PICs are a little less fine, but still fine

Perf cons are fine if they are conditional advocacies, otherwise they're not good for you

Object fiat is like always bad

The disadvantage

This is always a good option for the negative. Teams that explain why their impact outweighs and turns the case tend to win. Timeframe is a big issue for me because most teams win a large impact. There's always a risk of the link, but that can often be very small. I think people should not be afraid to go for a DA without a counterplan, these rounds are fun and competitive.

Counterplans

Also, very useful. I understand how sufficiency framing works, and it is my default way of understanding CPs. I can't really fathom another way of viewing CPs anyway, please do not re-explain this to me. I am persuaded by aff answers that identify key issues in 1AC evidence as solvency deficits. Permutations are convincing when they are very well explained.

Kritik

Happens to be my favorite and least favorite thing ever. When they are good, they are amazing. When they are bad, they make me angry.

I am somewhat familiar with the following literature: capitalism, security, most identity critiques, Nietzsche(although not 100%), Baudrillard(Kinda), and Bataille. If you're kritik did not land on this short list, please still read it, just know that you should make your explanations kinda simple for me. I would like for the alternative to very clearly advocate for doing something. Too many kritiks have useless alternatives.

Final thoughts

I like debate, please do not give me reasons to change my mind about this.

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan.  The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense.  Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.

I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world.  I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies.  Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.

I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it.  It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really.  It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.    

I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.  

I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.

The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor. 

Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached.  Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here.  Have fun.

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

GTA @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki. TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Theory/Procedurals

I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.

Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...

Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns.

For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.

HS LD

I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.

T

RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.

CP

1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)

Theory

Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.