Damien Chuck Ballingall Memorial Invitational Virtual Edition
2020 — La Verne/Virtual, CA/US
Varsity Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Email chains and questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
About Me - Gunn High School '20 WUSTL '25 He/Him
General - Do what you want, Tech > Truth. Mostly judge policy but I've coached LD/judged Parli and PF.
Ks (on the neg) - Like em. Don't like long overviews, like line-by-line. Impact calc and turns case are essential if you're not going for FW. Perms should be explained past the tagline. Your framework interp should be very explicit. Case debate is super important. I default to judge kicking the alt.
T - Like good T debates. In-round abuse is irrelevant. You need a caselist. You need to extend a C/I to win reasonability on the aff. I default to competing interps.
DA - Yes. Don't waste 30 seconds on the top reexplaining the 1NC. Both 0 risk and 100% risk exist.
CP - Double yes. Nothing's off the table until the aff reads theory. Condo is probably good. I default to judge kick.
Case - Do it. Impact D is your friend and case turns are viable 2NR options.
K Affs - Go for it. Counterinterps > impact turning everything. On the neg, case is underrated and can be your 2NR. I will vote on framework.
Theory - Needs to be well-developed and explained. 95% of violations have no real reason to reject the team and should be answered as such. RVIs don't exist.
Impact Turns - Like em. Don't read disgusting turns like "sexism good" or "racism good". For borderline stuff like wipeout and death good, unless it makes the other team uncomfy I'm OK with it.
Speaks - Average around 28.7 for a good debate. Below 28 there should be something specific for you to reevaluate.
Misc. - No inserted rehighlightings BUT yes inserting perm texts. If you have any questions about my paradigm, feel free to ask before the round. If you still have questions after a debate, email me.
Current 4th year debater for Notre Dame High School in Sherman Oaks, California. I have ran plenty of different things from reading the Horse-trading DA and the Courts CP to a Moten K aff throughout my competitive career. (Notre Dame AK, Notre Dame AY). That being said the way I develop arguments has been heavily influenced by my coaches/judges that I have received feedback from, which includes Christina Phillips (Tallungan), Joshua Michael, Aron Berger, Raam Tambe, Nate Graziano, Maddie Pieropan, and many more.
I prefer the pronouns: he/him/his
My email is: email@example.com
My internet is not the best so my camera may be off. That means it is your responsibility to ask for verbal confirmation that I can hear you and that I am ready to flow before you start speaking. This is good practice anyways.
Speak slower online. You already know this.
I will clear you twice, and if you still are mumbling at 67230864 words/min, I probably will not flow anything substantive and give a lot of leeway to the other teams answer.
Don't call me judge -- my name is Luka.
This is a huge topic that makes me very sympathetic to innovative T violations. This doesn't mean you can get away with reading bad definitions.
Caselists are important.
I like specifc/adv CPs.
If you know Brian Snitman you know how process CPs have been an essential part of my learning of debate. With that being said process counterplans are most likely cheating, you just have to do the work. 90% of teams don't do line by line on the theory debate which is frustrating for me to sort out, most of the time resulting in a negative ballot.
I will not judge kick unless instructed to do so.
Specific links > Generic links -- sometimes that's not possible when politics sucks, but I will be more happy when your link is specific to algorithmic assessments of race or how Joe Manchin perceives native policy.
Lots of my neg rounds sophomore, junior, and the last half of senior year were critical arguments. A few that I have gone for are Settler Colonialism, Security, Marx, Agamben, Conquest (Tiffany King). That being said, don't presume I know what your specific theory of power means and how you articulate your specific kritik.
Explain your alt. If it changes too much I will be unhappy.
A dropped floating pik is game over, but I lean towards f-piks are bad.
I will not judge kick the alt unless instructed to.
I read one for a little bit. I feel they can be very strategic as long as you have robust defense to topicality. Again, don't assume I am versed in your lit-base.
FW vs K-Affs
Debate is a competitive activity in which teams strategically research and strategize in order to perform well in a competitive sense.
I presume fairness is an internal link unless and until you explain it as an impact -- what that means is it should be impacted out in a thorough enough way to where I feel comfortable feeling that the affirmative reading a non-topical aff is bad.
Do line by line always, but especially on FW -- If you lose me because you are jumping all over the place I most likely will not catch everything you say.
Condo is a debate to be had. Don't make your interp arbitrary, but I'm open to anything.
If ASPEC/whatever SPEC arg is an incomprehensible blur in the 1NC and/or you didn't ask for the actor in cross-x this is not a voter. If you have a shell with impacts and warrants, then I will be more sympathetic.
Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the arg, not the team, but you can convince me of cross applications and what these theoretical violations justify for other aspects of the debate.
Be respectful of people's preferences in terms of gender/sexuality/identity/etc. If not your speaks will suffer.
Don't clip. Cheating is bad and makes debate worse for everyone. If you have evidence of clipping/if I catch it, I will take appropriate action.
Make fun/reference my friends if you know them. I will be disappointed if you try and fail. If you do a good job I will be happy.
2AR/2NR judge instruction is paramount. It makes the decision faster and I have to do way less work finding ways out for both teams, and will noticeably improve your speaks.
Sophomore at GW, debated for Peninsula for 4 years
Add me to the email chain:
An argument requires a claim, warrant, and evidence to be considered. Partial arguments are not arguments.
Offense defense paradigm.
Tl;dr: I'm a younger, more naive version of this guy -
Also, Shree Awsare's perspective on debate is something I firmly believe in and subscribe to, and is something I think all debaters should be aware of:
"My ideal debate involves two teams who read well-researched positions, engage in line-by-line refutation of their opponents’ arguments, and demonstrate strategic choice-making and vertical development of arguments. Not all debate is good debate. It is my firm belief that any model of debate (whatever the content) that disincentivizes any of the aforementioned qualities is an inferior product that is simultaneously less rigorous and less enjoyable."
I very much enjoy and privilege good case debating - something that I think is getting rarer to the detriment of the activity. When I see it, you will find it reflected in speaker points, and probably the ballot too. Note: the best case debating doesn't usually require a lot of evidence. Writers on the internet publish a lot of very questionable material that, given a little world knowledge and fast research skills, you should be able to easily dismantle. 1ACs are often constructed very poorly, so take advantage of this.
2As: I get it, I was there too - you have a lot to get through and very little time. Being clear and concise, though, will benefit you a lot more than reading the 17th card on the politics disad.
My favorite kind of debate. Tricky or smart CPs earn extra points. Backfile CPs like consult NATO that don't require topic knowledge won't earn extra points.
"Sufficiency framing" against affs with linear impacts gets really annoying. Spend time explaining why the counterplan solves most or all of the aff, and why the risk of the DA outweighs the rest of the aff the CP might not solve.
Don't forget to explain why the counterplan solves the specific impacts of the aff (especially if it has a lot of planks), and explain why its a net benefit.
Condo is good. Like most theory, I have a high threshold for going for it in the 2AR (barring dropped theory, CPs that steal the aff, etc)
Default to judge kick.
Disads with specific link evidence are great. Disads with mostly just spin are fine. Disads with evidence and spin are fantastic.
Turns case and solves the case are really important on DAs, especially if they are dropped.
Impact comparison wins debates. Please don't say: "magnitude - extinction! timeframe - its happening now! probability: its happening now!"
That's not to dis extinction impacts, I love them, I just have higher standards than the example above for impact calc.
Impacts and uniqueness don't matter so much to me when evaluating the probability of a DA as the link. If the link doesn't exist, the DA doesn't exist. Good debating on this part of the DA is crucial.
I'm fine with any kritik as long as it indicts the thesis of the aff. If it doesn't, then it will be hard for you to get my ballot. Good links are really important - rehighlight evidence from the 1AC. The negative cannot just prove the world is bad, but that the aff is bad. Similarly, state bad is not a link.
Role of the ballot = roll of the eyes.
Too often, debaters assert that the kritik link exists without ever referencing a single piece of 1AC evidence or explicitly quoting lines from the affirmative. This is lazy debating. Asserting the link and then reexplaining it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the affirmative links to the kritik! (e.g., X evidence says we have a libidinal desire to do Y, therefore the aff also has a libidinal desire to do Y = lazy) You have to provide evidence. If you're extending a kritik, you should explicitly quote the aff, rehighlight aff evidence, or do explanatory work of equivalent evidentiary caliber, or I'll assume evidence for the link doesn't exist, and a simple aff response of "no link, they don't have any evidence, didn't say the aff is a bad idea" with an extended permutation explanation will be enough for me to vote affirmative.
Some may say this is a high burden, but you wouldn't vote for a disad if you didn't have evidence specific to the aff (or at least explained/spun in a way to demonstrate that the evidence does in fact describe the aff!), so it seems to me to be a good standard to filter out kritiks that aren't actually relevant to the debate. If the aff really does link to the kritik, you should be able to prove it.
The affirmative gets to weigh the aff - but needs to defend the assumptions of the 1AC. Its really easy to use framework to prove that the neg should get an alt, it is going to be really hard for you to prove the aff shouldn't get to weigh the consequences of hypothetical implementation.
I am fine with T. You should go for it like you would a CP and a DA, with standards as your offense. The aff needs offense and explanation as to why that turns the neg's standards. A strong argument that impacts out limits will go a long way to getting my ballot. Whatever side you are on you need to paint a picture of what the topic looks like, preferably with caselists, and a quick explanation as to why these cases matter.
Topicality v K affs:
First, you should probably read a plan.
The world is bad is aff ground.
Debate is a game and fairness is the best impact. I've come to think that some amount of debating about the norms of debate is alright, maybe even slightly good. Debaters need to understand and learn why the norms of policy debate are how they are.
What makes policy fundamentally different from other types of debate is 1) its depth of research and 2) its in-round and out-of-round strategic decisionmaking, which derives from the competing role-based obligations of the affirmative and negative. T vs K aff debating, I think, often misses this, and the value of policy debate as a game, and thus a kind of play that has rules, necessitates restrictions that guide the process of our research and hone our strategic thinking. If debaters focused more on how their vision of debate impacted those two fundamental parts of policy debate - on the impact and the internal link level - I think these debates would be a lot more interesting and engaging.
This is both for those who appreciate the movie Ratatouille and for those who are reading innovative and creative arguments:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends."
I really love to watch debaters argue something they really buy into themselves. Please, if you have an argument you absolutely adore them run it!!
I base speaker points solely on decorum and presentation. I will distribute points based on how well you seem to understand your argument, how your CX rounds go, your cadence and tone during your speech, etc. I’m dyslexic and I hated when I was judged based on my spreading when I was in debate, so I do not care whether or not you spread. Spreading is fine so long as everyone is doing it (for the purpose of fairness). Debate is supposed to be a fun activity, so please have fun with it! Don’t take it too seriously and don’t be TOO aggressive (a little bit is fine, after all it is CX). Like I said above, I really look for whether or not you understand your own arguments. I don’t want you to just read me evidence and tag lines. In every speech (except maybe the 1AC) I should be seeing analytical arguments.
I like policy arguments (especially during highly contentious political times like these) and think the round should have some focus on policy (since it is ~policy debate~).
Kritiks: With that said, I enjoy listening to Ks and other more “out there” arguments so long as they link to the case and the framework is explained well. If you do choose to run a K please keep in mind that I do not know a lot of the literature myself and it’s better to err on the “explain like I’m 5” side of things. Please don’t take this as a “I should not run a K” if that’s your bread and butter as a debater. If you’re going to use an more uncommon K then it might be a good idea to slow down your spreading for better comprehension. If you do make the decision to run a K, do not do a 1off in the 1NC. You either need to attack the case directly or a disad or something. Please do not do 1 argument speeches.
T/Thoery: I don’t like topicality arguments as in my experience they’re usually used for filler and as a time suck. If aff truly is not topical then it’s fine to run T, but I usually just don’t care for T arguments. Basically, if you run it I will listen but it’s not as important to me as other arguments. I feel the same way about theory.
Counterplans: it’s really important to me that CPs have some sort of net benefit, even if it’s minor. Too many planks can get to be really overwhelming and hard to keep track of for everyone so please be judicious with that.
Disads: disads really come down to an impact calculus at the end of the debate. I LOVE a well thought out, detailed impact calculus in the rebuttals. I absolutely hate hearing “we save more lives” or “neg can’t link”. Explain EVERYTHING!! Even if you think it’s obvious!! Debate is a communication and critical thinking exercise, and I do not want to hear lame, general statements like that.
Overall, please don’t throw arguments, try to stick to the flow, and make sure you tell me what I should be voting on. I will not vote based off what I think- I will vote on what YOU convince me to vote on.
If you have any other questions then please do not hesitate to ask me!! I really love debate, and I’m always thrilled to talk to debaters when I judge. Good luck everyone :)
FOR LD/PF/Speech/Prose/EXTEMP/ETC.: I have judged these events before, but have never competed. I look for confidence in your arguments/speech, tone, body language/gestures. If you don’t seem convinced of your argument then I will not be either. Show me the value of your argument through all of these things.
Damien High school 22' , 3rd-year varsity debater
put me on the chain @ - JJBartholomew22@damien-hs.edu
Respect the judge and opponents
I'm cool with spreading just don't go warp speed through blocks and always emphasize/signpost, ill shout clear if you're going too
fast. thoroughly extend warrants, shadow extending sucks. Better analysis is better than card dumping and
don't leave it up to me to do the work for you. Good speaks for comparative analysis. I'm pretty familiar with
the topic but don't assume I know the entirety of an arg.
Theory cool and ill vote on it, unless there's an obvious answer. I generally think Condos good but ill evaluate it if the
other team mishandles it. No aspec, cross-x solves. The same condo rules apply to all theory if its argued well and its
mishandled ill vote. Individual off case violations are a reason to reject the team unless told otherwise.
Love good CP's and DA's
Thoroughly explain how the CP interacts with the DA,
The permutation usually solves and every counterplan needs a specific reason why the perm can't function or is bad
Neg: I don't have a high threshold for DA's, especially on this year's topic, ill vote on it if it's not likely as long as you
frame the debate properly. Don't shadow extend if you're going CP DA, thorough explanation of how the CP
doesn't link or resolves the NB. Decision/impact calc is important, I won't do the work for you unless the aff is lacking. 2NC cp's
Aff: I'm not a fan of the solvency deficits that x actor can't do x plan because of authority unless there's a solid impact. Not all
Solvency deficits need a major one but at least a good reason. I'll side with the affirmative on judge kicking unless im
told otherwise and evaluate DA's vs the squo. Perms are your friend and you should use them, they're usually the best way out of a
I'm a big fan of T on this year's topic
Neg: I'll vote if explained well, author quals and intent to define/exclude is important. Competing interpretations is usually
good, must be explained or ill default to reasonability. Good explanation of how each component interacts with one
another. Thoroughly extend the interpretation and compete off of it. I generally don't like T but its definitely viable given the topic.
Aff: Don't just read a generic block, genuinely answer it. I usually don't like reasonability unless it's expanded upon
but not just if I think the aff is T. I'm not a huge fan of the SCOTUS aff's so watch out for T.
Neg: not my favorite, don't assume I know all of the literature but I'm pretty familiar,
no votes for no explanations, let me know if I need a new flow for the overview, good link works win, decision calc for
filtering my decision, read a plan
Aff: must be effective on the case, don't undercover it to answer the K, ill vote on perf con if its a major contradiction. Perms
usually arent your friends here. Perf con justifies severing reps. I'll usually let the aff weigh case.
Aff: be efficient in case, don't spend the whole 2ac on it. Explain the aff well.
Neg: don't card dump and expect to win, DA turns case arg's are good, good impact on both sides of the debate is important. Im
willing to vote on presumption if there are major concessions and I'm effectively told so
I debate currently at CSUF Until further notice
I debated for around 5.5 years and my background is mostly K args, but dont be afraid to run policy, I’m cool with both
Keep me on the chain por favor – firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any questions for after the round or just need some help feel free to email, I’ll try to get back
- I will distribute speaker points based off the accumulated performance from y’all, I like hearing arguments more if you truly believe in what you’re saying, especially debating Kritiks, be funny tho I’ll probably laugh, try to have fun and be the chill ones, try not to be toxic and even more so do not be violent, no -isms
- I will try to keep up on the flow but do not hyper-spread through theory blocks or any block for that matter, I will most likely not catch it
- be chill with each other but you can be aggressive if thats just your style, try not to trigger anxiety though in other debaters if you’re going too far
———- some more specifics ———-
I run and prefer Kritikal arguments, I am more comfortable listening to Settler Colonialism, Afro-Pessimism and Marxist literature, but that does not mean you can just spew jargon and hope to win, explain what your theories mean and your arguments, it will go a long way for your speaker points as well
Speaking of, i will be in the range of 27.5 - 29.9 for speaker points, I will try to be objective as possible but you do you, if you can do that well the speaker awards will come too
On T/FW, please make sure that your standards are specific to the round and are clearly spoken, I am substantially less convinced if you do not argue how that specific aff loses you ground and/or justifies a bad model of debate, but I will not vote it down for no reason, argue why those skills are good to solve the aff or provide a good model that sustains KvK debate in a better way than the aff justifies. Just don’t try to read your generic 2NC blocks, it gets more obvious the longer the debate goes on, do it well.
On Counterplans, try to have a net benefit, be smart with it, try not to have a million planks, having a solvency advocate is cool too, not much here.
Disads - do your link work as usual, I will vote on who does the better impact framing, just make sure you still got that link :) p.s for affs, just dont leave it at the end of the 2AC with a 2 second “they dont link isn’t it obvious”, please explain your answers and divide up time strategically
on K’s, I love good 2NC/1NR link stories, try not to just extend some evidence and answer 2AC args, evaluate why your links implicate the aff and how their specific aff makes something problematic. I dont mind a 2NC only the K with no cards, just make sure you’re not reading prewritten blocks, please be as specific as possible
Please stick to your arguments and embody them, just tell me what to evaluate at the end of the debate, I will very much appreciate if you can tell me how that happens, be revolutionary if you want to, I would probably enjoy the debate more.
Rowland Hall 20 ---> BC 24
Yes I want to be on the email chain: email@example.com
I debated as a 2n for 4 years in high school and was nationally competitive for 3 of those years. I am not the fastest at flowing and especially with online debates so I want you to slow down on analytics.
People I enjoyed having in the back: Chris Paredes(all-time ordinal 1), Whitt Whitmore, Kyle Joseph, Jasmine Stidham, Michael Obuchi, Graysen Stille, Grace Kuang, Christina Phillips.
-Tech>Truth (obviously no racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism good in front of me or in general).
-Debate is a competitive activity where the ballot grants a win or loss based on the quality of debating instead of the arguments or debaters presented.
-I think fairness is an impact but I do not think it is the best nor a good impact in every scenario.
-I like and will reward bold moves.
Quick and dirty:
not your Baudrillard -----------------------x---your Baudrillard
fw -----x------------------------k/other strat v k aff
policy aff-----x--------------------k aff
condo good-----x--------------------condo bad
quality ev-----------x------------------quantity ev
ptx good---------x----------------------ptx bad
generics-------------------------x-------case specifc strat
process CPs good---------x-----------------process CPs bad
reasonability ------------x-------------------competing interps
reject the arg -----------x------------------reject the team
Ks: I have not personally read much kritikal theory nor did I read Ks in high school, but I would say about 70-80% of the aff rounds I had my junior and senior year were against ks. I like to think I hold aff teams to a high standard against the k. Fw is super important, don't just always read a generic shell. I have the least amount of practice with anti-blackness arguments and I am probably not the best judge for these rounds. It's definitely your Baudrillard. One note, please don't read satire in front of me, nobody but you will have fun and your speaks will make you less than happy after the round.
Planless Affs/FW: As I said above I think debate is a competitive activity and I think that fairness is an impact but I do think we can gain something meaningful from debate whether that's portable skills or something else. Planless affs are very strategic and if they are what you usually read then you should read them in front of me. I will hold negative teams to a high standard on FW and I would happily vote for a k aff. However, I do think that I tend to lean neg on the majority of the questions in FW rounds. I think both teams need to slow down substantially in FW debates, especially 2as (don't just throw out a bunch of DAs and expect me to know what they mean).
Planless Affs v Ks: If this is what you do best then do it and I will do my best to adjudicate the round. That being said, I am already not the best with k debates and I don't know enough kritikal theory to be able to effectively judge them against each other. In general, I think planless affs don't get perms but you have to make and defend that argument.
Planless Affs v DAs: I like these strats. These aren't super strategic but don't think you have to read a K against a planless aff because you have nothing else to read. I am willing and ready to pull the trigger on a mishandled CP and/or DA against a planless aff.
DAs: Some of my favorite arguments in debate. I almost exclusively went for DA and case against policy affs my senior year. I think negative teams need to do more than just card dump in the block, and they must have a big case push in both the block and the 2nr. I think defensive arguments are undervalued. Smart affirmative teams will have a specific strat against each DA with offense and defense. I think LTs are especially convincing against most DAs. Unlike most people, I am a big fan of politics DAs.
CPs: This was my favorite argument my junior year. If you go for a solvency deficit against the CP and the neg goes for a solvency deficit against the aff, weigh their relative impacts against each other. the literature around the cp determines its fairness. I will always default to judge kick unless instructed otherwise.<3
Topicality: I was never great at T debates and I have little to no topic knowledge so this probably shouldn't be your A strat in front of me. I think limits is really convincing on the negative and I think reasonability is very convincing on the aff. I default to competing interpretations.
Theory/Process CPs: Dropped theory is a voter. I lean negative on condo, generally, I think negative teams get infinite condo, but I can be persuaded otherwise. I don't like aspec but if they drop it I'll vote on it, however, I think a 1ar answer, even when dropped in the 2ac, is usually enough to convince me to not vote neg on a theory violation. I tend to lean more towards reject the argument not the team in most actual theory debates and I don't ever think it should be your main strategy. No RVIs should go without saying.
If you shout out Alexa Tsai in any capacity in any speech you will get +0.1 speaks
+.1 speaks if you open source
don't be a dick
Updated October 2020
Note for Online Debate: Please check your internet connection, your audio clarity, and your volume levels before the debate starts. This can be as simple as doing a 2 minute speed drill for your partner in a separate chat. I don't want technology to become your biggest opponent in a debate. I will usually use a thumbs up to let you know I'm ready before speeches, so watch for that or let me know if you need a verbal response.
Yes I know my philosophy is unbearably long. I keep adding things without removing others, the same reason I was always top heavy when I debated. But I tried to keep it organized so hopefully you can find what you need, ask me questions if not.
For the few college tournaments I judge, understand that my philosophy is geared towards being of use to high school students since that is the vast, vast majority of my judging/coaching. Just use that as a filter when reading.
Seriously, I don't care what you read as long as you do it well. I really don't care if you argue that all K debaters should be banned from debate or argue that anyone who has ever read a plan is innately racist and should be kicked out of the community. If you win it, I'm happy to vote for it.
***Two Minutes Before A Debate Version***
I debated in high school for a school you've never heard of called Lone Peak, and in college for UNLV. I coached Foothill High School and currently coach Green Valley High School, as well as helping out as a hired gun at various institutions. I have debated at the NDT, was nationally competitive in high school, and coached a fair share of teams to the TOC if those things matter for your pref sheet (they shouldn't). I genuinely don't have a big bias for either side of the ideological spectrum. I seem to judge a fairly even mix of K vs K, Clash of Civs, and policy debates. I can keep up with any speed as long as its clear, I will inform you if you are not, although don't tread that line because I may miss arguments before I speak up. If you remain unclear I just won't flow it.
Sometimes I look or act cranky. I love debate and I love judging, so don't take it too seriously.
My biases/presumptions (but can of course be persuaded otherwise):
- Tech over Truth, but Logic over Cards
- Quality and Quantity are both useful. Quality increasingly so as the debate progresses.
- Condo is generally good
- Generic responses to the K are worse than generic K's
- Politics and States are generally theoretically legitimate (and strategic)
- Smart, logical counterplans don't necessarily need solvency advocates, especially not in the 1NC
- 2NC's don't read new off case positions often enough
- I believe in aff flexibility (read: more inclusive interpretations of what's topical) more than almost anyone I know. That is demonstrated in almost every aff I've read or coached. *Edit for CJR: This seems to be less true this year, as I find myself thinking about 50% of aff's I hear are untopical for one reason or another.*
- I'll vote for "rocks are people" if you win it (warrant still needed). Terrible arguments are easily torn apart, but that's the other team's duty, not mine.
A Few Notes You Should Know:
Speaker Points: Firstly, I compare my speaker points to the mean after almost every tournament, so I try to stay in line with the community norm. I have had a dilemma with speaker points, and have recently changed my view. I think most judges view speaker points as a combination of style and substance, with one being more valuable than the other depending on the judge. I have found this frustrating as both a debater and coach trying to figure what caused a judge to give out the speaks they did. So I've decided to give out speaker points based solely on style rather than substance. I feel whichever team wins the substance of the debate will get my ballot so you are already rewarded, so I am going to give out speaker points based on the Ethos, Pathos, and Logos of a debater. Logos implies you are still extending good, smart arguments, but it just means that I won't tank speaks based off of technical drops (like floating pics, or a perm, etc) as some judges do, and I won't reward a team's speaker points for going for those arguments if I feel they are worse "speakers", the ballot is reward enough. Functionally all it means is that I probably give more low-point wins than some judges (about one a tournament), but at least you know why when looking at cume sheets after tournaments.
Debate is a rhetorical activity. This means if you want me to flow an argument, it must be intelligible, and warranted. I will not vote on an argument I do not have on my flow in a previous speech. I am a decent flow so don't be too scared but it means that if you are planning on going for your floating pic, a specific standard/trick on theory, a permutation that wasn't answered right in the block, etc. then you should make sure I have that argument written down and that you have explained it previously with sufficient nuance. I might feel bad that I didn't realize you were making a floating pic in the block, but only briefly, and you'll feel worse because ultimately it is my responsibility to judge based off of what is on my flow, so make those things clear. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.
(*Update: This is no longer true in online debate tournaments, I look through docs because of potential clairty/tech issues*: I don't look at speech docs during debates except in rare instances. I read much less evidence after debates than most judges, often none at all. If you want me to read evidence, please say so, but also please tell me what I'm looking for. I prefer not to read evidence, so when I do after a round it means one of three things: 1. The debate is exceedingly close and has one or two issues upon which I am trying to determine the truth (rare). 2. You asked me to read the evidence because "its on fire" (somewhat common and potentially a fire hazard). 3. The debate was bad enough that I am trying to figure out what just happened.)
Prep time: I generally let teams handle their own prep, I do prefer if you don't stop prep until the email is sent. Doing so will make me much happier. If you are very blatantly stealing prep, I might call you out on it, or it might affect speaker points a little.
Neg: I am very much in favor of depth over breadth. Generally that doesn't affect how I feel about large 1NC's but it means I find myself thinking "I wish they had consolidated more in the block" quite often, and almost never the opposite. If you don't consolidate much, you might be upset with the leeway I give to 1AR/2AR explanations. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate. Pick your best arguments and go to battle.
DA's: I love in-depth disad debates. Teams that beat up on other teams with large topic disads usually have one of two things: A. A large number of pre-written blocks B. A better understanding of the topic than their opponents. If you have both, or the latter, I'll quite enjoy the debate. If you only have the former, then you can still get the ballot but not as much respect (or speaker points). Small disads very specific to the aff are awesome. Small disads that are small in order to be unpredictable are not. I am of the "1% risk" discipline assuming that means the disad is closely debated. I am not of that discipline if your disad is just silly and you are trying to win it is 1% true, know the difference.
CP's: I have a soft spot for tricky counterplans. That doesn't mean I think process/cheating counterplans are legitimate, that just means I'll leave my bias at the door more than most judges if you get into a theory debate. That said, theory is won or lost through explanation, not through having the largest blocks. Generally I think counterplans should be functionally and textually competitive, that doesn't mean you can't win of yours isn't, it just means if it is then you probably have some theoretical high ground. I also think if you have a specific solvency advocate for the counterplan (meaning a piece of evidence that advocates doing the counterplan, not just evidence that says the counterplan "is a thing" [I'm looking at you, Consult CP people]) you should utilize that both as a solvency argument and as a theoretical justification for the counterplan. I am neutral on the judge kick question. If you want me to judge kick, say so in the 2NR/2NC, and if you don't then say so in the 1AR/2AR, that's an argument to be had. However, if no one makes an argument either way, my default is if the 2NR is DA, CP, Case, then I think there is an implicit assumption in that strategy that the squo is an option. If the 2NR is only CP & DA, I think the implicit assumption is aff vs. CP. Advantage counterplans are vastly underutilized. Logical counterplans probably don't need solvency advocates. Many Trump impacts (such as "Trump lashes out at China") can be counterplaned out of with "executive restraint", yet not enough people seem to do that.
T: I think the way reasonability is construed is sad and a disservice to the argument. I perceive competing interpretations as a question of whose interpretation sets the best standard for all future debate, and reasonability as a question of whether the aff harmed the negative's fairness/education in this specific round. Under that interpretation (Caveat: This assumes you are explaining reasonability in that fashion, usually people do not). I tend to lean towards reasonability since I think T should be a check against aff's that try to skirt around the topic, rather than as a catch-all. T is to help guarantee the neg has predictable ground. I've voted neg a few times when the aff has won their interp is technically accurate but the neg has won their interp is better for fairness/limits/ground, but that's mostly because I think that technical accuracy/framer's intent is an internal link, rather than an impact, do the additional work.
Theory: This is a discussion of what debate should look like, which is one of the most simple questions to ask ourselves, yet people get very mixed up and confused on theory since we are trained to be robots. I LOVE theory debates where the debaters understand debate well enough to just make arguments and use clash, and HATE debates where the debaters read blocks as fast as possible and assume people can flow that in any meaningful fashion (very few can, I certainly can't. Remember, I don't have the speech doc open). I generally lean negative on theory questions like condo (to a certain extent) and CP theory args, but I think cp's should be textually, and more importantly, functionally competitive, see above.
Framework/T against Non-Traditional Aff's: I have read and gone for both the Procedural Fairness/T version of this argument and the State Action Good/Framework version of this argument many times. I am more than willing to vote for either, and I also am fine with teams that read both and then choose one for the 2NR. However, I personally am of the belief that fairness is not an impact in and of itself but is an internal link to other impacts. If you go for Fairness as your sole impact you may win, but adequate aff answers to it will be more persuasive in front of me. Fairness as the only impact assumes an individual debate is ultimately meaningless, which while winnable, is the equivalent of having a 2NR against a policy aff that is solely case defense, and again I'm by default #1%RiskClub. "Deliberation/dialogue/nuanced discussion/role switching is key to ____________" sorts of arguments are usually better in front of me. As far as defending US action, go for it. My personal belief is that the US government is redeemable and reformable but I am also more than open to voting on the idea that it is not, and these arguments are usually going straight into the teeth of the aff's offense so use with caution. TVA's are almost essential for a succesful 2NR unless the aff is clearly anti-topical and you go for a nuanced switch side argument. TVA's are also most persuasive when explained as a plan text and what a 1AC looks like, not just a nebulous few word explanation like "government reform" or "T-Visas to solve patriarchy". I like the idea of an interp with multiple net benefits and often prefer a 1NC split onto 3-4 sheets in order to separate specific T/FW arguments. If you do this, each should have a clear link (which is your interp), an internal link and impact. Lastly, I think neg teams often let affs get away with pre-requisite arguments way too much, usually affs can't coherently explain why reading their philosophy at the top of the 1AC and then ending with a plan of action doesn't fulfill the mandates of their pre-requisite.
K's: These are the best and worst debates. The bad ones tend to be insufferable and the good ones tend to be some of the most engaging and thought provoking. Sadly, most debaters convince themselves they fall into the latter when they are the former so please take a good, long look in the mirror before deciding which you fall under. I have a broad knowledge of K authors, but not an in depth one on many, so if you want to go for the K you better be doing that work for me, I won't vote for anything that I don't totally understand BEFORE reading evidence, because I think that is a key threshold any negative should meet (see above), so a complex critical argument can be to your advantage or disadvantage depending on how well you explain it. I also think the framing args for the K need to be impacted and utilized, that in my opinion is the easiest way to get my ballot (unless you turn case or win a floating pic). In other words, if you can run the K well, do it, if not, don't (at least not in the 2NR).
Edit: I think it usually helps to know what the judge knows about your critique, so this list below may help be a guide:
I feel very comfortable with, know the literature, and can give good feedback on: Nietzsche, Wilderson, Moten (& Harney), Security, Neolib, Historical Materialism, Colonialism (both Decoloniality and Postcolonialism), Fem IR, Deleuze and Guattari (at least relative to most).
I have both debated and read these arguments, but still have gaps in my knowledge and may not know all the jargon: Hillman, Schmitt, Edelman, Zizek cap args, Agamben, Warren, Ableism, Kristeva, Heidegger, Orientalism, Virillio, Lacan, Anthro, Ligotti, Bataille, settler colonialism metaphysics arguments.
ELI5: Baudrillard, postmodern feminism arguments, Killjoy, Bifo, Zizek psychoanalysis, Object Oriented Ontology, Spanos, Buddhism, Taoism, your specific strain of "cybernetics", probably anything that isn't on these lists but ask first.
Bad aff teams wait til the 2AR to decide what their best arguments are against a position. Good aff teams have the round vision to make strategic choices in the 1AR and exploit them in the 2AR. Great aff teams have the vision to create a comprehensive strategy going into the 2AC. That doesn't mean don't give yourself lots of options, it just means you should know what arguments are ideally in the 2AR beforehand and you should adapt your 2AC based off of the 1NC as a whole. Analytical arguments in a 2AC are vastly underused.
Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I'm fine with these. They don't excite me any more or less than a topical aff. I think the key to these aff's is always framing. Both because negatives often go for framework but also because it is often your best tool against their counter-advocacy/K. I often am more persuaded by Framework/T when the aff is antitopical, rather than in the direction of the resolution, but I've voted to the contrary of that frequently enough. This won't affect the decision but I'll enjoy the aff more if it is very specific (read: relevant/jermaine/essential) to the topic, or very personal to yourself, it annoys me when people read non-traditional aff's just to be shady. Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.
Answering K's: It is exceedingly rare that the neg can't win a link to their K. That doesn't mean you shouldn't question the link by any means, permutations are good ways to limit the strength of neg offense, but it means that impact turning the K/alternative is very often a better strategy than going for a link turn and permutation for 5 minutes in the 2AR. I think this is a large reason why aff's increasingly have moved further right or further left, because being stuck in the middle is often a recipe for disaster. That said, being able to have a specific link turn or impact turn to the K that is also a net benefit to the permutation while fending against the most offensive portions of negative link arguments are some of the best 2AR's.
I prefer quality over quantity of arguments. If you only need a minute in the 2NR/2AR then just use a minute, cover up any outs, and finish. I believe in the mercy rule in that sense, rambling or being braggadocios won't help your speaker points. I've tried to keep up with community inflation of speaker points, and I think they're right near average. I will vote against teams that clip and give the culprit 0 speaker points, however I believe in the standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt", so be certain before levying accusations and make sure to have a recording.
I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. Both because it shows you care, you want to adapt to your judge, and maybe because I'm a tad narcissistic.
Things I like:
- A+ Quality Evidence (If you have such a card, and you explain why its better than the 3+ cards the other team read, I accept that more willingly than other judges)
- Brave (strategic) 1AR/2AR decisions
- Politics disads that turn each advantage
- If you are behind, I'd much rather you cheat/lie/steal (maybe not steal, and cheat within reason) than give up. If you ain't cheatin' you ain't tryin'.
- Neg blocks that only take 1-2 flows and just decimate teams.
- Controlling the "spin" of arguments (I'll give a lot of leeway)
- Red Bull/Monster/M&M's (Bringing me any of these will make me happy, me being happy = higher speaker points)
Things I don't like:
- Not knowing how to send speech docs in a timely manner!
- Debaters that act like they are of superior intelligence compared to their partner/opponents
- Reading arguments with little value other than trying to blindside teams (timecube, most word pics, etc.) Being shady RARELY pays off in debate.
- Being unclear
- Horses (Stop acting like they're so goddamn majestic, they're disgusting)
- Toasted Coconut
email - firstname.lastname@example.org
I'm a senior at Damien High School, where I have qualified to the Tournament of Champions twice, and made it to late elims throughout my career (mostly in LD). People who have heavily influenced my perception of debate include Brendan Tremblay, Zach Levinson, Chris Paredes, Tim Lewis, and Donny Peters.
TLDR: I'm better for plan debates, but I'll still vote for Kritikal affs and neg args. Tech > Truth unless you go for RVIs, and problematic/false stuff. DO NOT do something that is racist, sexist, etc. in front of me. Debate is a game, but whether it can be more than a game is up for debate. Impact framing and line by line matter a lot. I like counterplans with techy solvency analysis and disads specific to the aff. I am willing to vote on zero risk of anything. I do like dedev, China war good, and Russia war good, but not spark, wipeout, or death good kritiks. I like spin, but you should probably have ev that is in the direction of the spin you try to make. I only read ev when it becomes something I need to resolve.
If you do LD, just know I come from a policy-centric background. Don't try tricks, dumb theory args, the things you put at the end of the 1ac, or "high theory" that isn't a kritik.
I have a predisposition towards policy affirmatives, mostly since that is my wheelhouse. I tend to have a distaste for affs that have 1000+ terminal impacts with horrific internal link scenarios.
Soft left affs are alright, but please actually make sure to solve an impact. I really really really hate it when soft left affs try to solve extinction because the opposing team dropped a hyperbolic piece of ev that they don't really solve for.
My favorite type of affirmative are those that are barely topical and only are so because of some random court case in the early 20th century (obviously not that specific, but yk what I'm talking about)
If you are reading a kritikal aff, just tell me what voting for you does. As there are a very many variety of kritikal affs, I should at the very minimum
Fairness can be an impact or an internal link to education. Impact your internal links, and make sure to have internal links to your impact. Debate is a game, but can it be more than a game? I default to FW being about models of debate, not just whether or not debating is good vs debating the aff.
For a kritikal aff vs framework, use the aff as offense against their interp. Make sure you meet ur interp.
I like disads that have links specific to the aff. Politics is fine, just know that I give leeway to 2ar spin. Disads with links based on interpretations of fiat are not my favorite, but I won't outright reject it. Please please please debate internal links. Make smart analytics based on other parts of the debate (i.e. they have conceded x on uniqueness, which means you should evaluate the link in y way). Compare evidence.
I think I oscillate between an offense/defense paradigm and the possibility of assigning zero risk of things when it comes to disads. The way the debate plays out really helps me default to one frame.
I think that some counterplans are smart. I think that some counterplans are stupid. When you find yourself debating certainty and a perm that contests the intrinsicness of net benefits, you are probably in the latter. In these scenarios, I always give the aff better leeway on generating solvency deficits. This doesn't mean I will just let the aff get new solvency deficits, but just know its a more uphill battle.
The best way to prove a solvency deficit in front of me is to compare the solvency evidence from both teams and make a distinction. Delay, circumvention, conflicting statutes, etc. are examples of such comparisons that should always be made.
I always like counterplans that are recut aff cards.
PICs make sense when offense is generated from not doing a part of the aff. Having a solvency advocate will 100000% take out the theoretical aspects of going for a pic in front of me. If you don't have one, then win its legitimate in front of me.
if you still need help here are some other people for reference
opposite of this guy
more like this guy
also like this guy
add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Just a few things:
Ask questions before the round I am happy to answer them
Yes, email chain firstname.lastname@example.org. Disclose as soon as possible.
I currently debate for CSU Fullerton. I debated for two years in high school for LAMDL/ Bravo in policy debate.
-Don't be rude. Don't make the round deliberately confusing or inaccessible. Take time to articulate and explain your best arguments. If I can't explain what happened during the debate because of messy/ incomplete arguments, then that's on you.
-Spreading is fine, but be loud. I won't flow if I can't hear you (make sure your audio works prior to speech).
-Extend arguments, not authors. I flow your arguments and sometimes your author's initials & year.
-A dropped argument is true, assuming you substantiated, impacted, and weighed it.
-Sending evidence isn't prep, but don't take too long.
-In the event of a technical difficulty, I will try to be as reasonable as possible.
[AFFs] I think affs should have some reasonable connection to the topic and have some action. I will reward creative arguments. Win the likelihood of solvency + framing.
[CPs] CPs are cool as long as you have good mutual exclusivity evidence; otherwise, I am likely to be persuaded by a perm + net benefit arg. PICS are also cool if you have a good answer to theory.
[DAs] I really like DAs. Opt for specific links. Do evidence comparison for me. Weigh your impacts and challenge the internal link story. Give your framing a net benefit.
Also, I am more persuaded by impacts with good internal link evidence vs a long stretch big stick impact. Numbers are particularly persuasive here.
[T/Theory] I have a high threshold for voting on minor T/Theory violations when impacts are not contextualized. I could be persuaded to vote on a rebuttal FULLY committed to T/theory and it's well impacted (!)
I am more persuaded by education and skills-based impacts as opposed to claims to fairness. It depends on how the rebuttal spins it.
[Ks/K-affs] Ks are my favorite argument to hear. That being said, I am not going to pretend I know all your authors, so you are better off doing more work to explain your theory of power and links. Framing is everything. Explain why the alt is preferable.
k on the neg: I love seeing teams go 1-off kritiks and go heavy on the substance for the link and framing arguments. I wished k debaters would generate more clash on case and develop strategic rebuttals. Please impact your links and generate offense throughout the debate.
k on the aff: I like strategic k affs that make innovative and creative solvency arguments. Make sure I don't forget about the significance of the 1ac and give me reasons to prefer your framing to evaluate your aff's impacts and solvency mechanism. The 2ar needs to be precise on why voting aff is good and overcomes any of the neg's offense.
[FW] Choose the right framework for the right aff. I am more persuaded by education & skills-based impacts. Justify the model of debate your interpretation advocates for and resolve major points of contestation. I really appreciate when teams introduce and go for the TVA. Talk about the external impacts of the model of debate your propose (impacts that happen outside of round).
email@example.com is my email and I would like to be on the email chain
Morgan Park HS, Chicago UDL Debater 2004-2008
Program Coordinator Chicago UDL 2013-2016
Program Coordinator Silicon Valley UDL- 2016
Program Director Miami UDL- Current
Program Association Washington DC UDL- Current
Judged and competed in policy for 4 years in HS. Have experience judging PF, LD and Speech events as well.
I enjoy T and theory debates when there is something impacted.
Reading the generic Condo block doesn't do anyone any good unless your opponents have caused harm in the round and you're ready to put time and energy into proving it.
I enjoy policy vs. policy debates as well as the K and performance arguments.
Run what you want, just do it well!
I'm flowing so I'm only voting on arguments made, extended and impacted.
add me to your chains, email: firstname.lastname@example.org
i go by isaak or shinnosuke, he/him/his
note for policy & TOC LD: especially in the era of online debate, i ask you to please SEND ALL YOUR BLOCKS. no matter how amazing me or anyone else in the room may be at flowing, i can guarantee you whether it's audio problems or bad headphones or any other issues i and many other judges will be missing a lot of the stuff on the flow, so if you want detailed decisions and comments and speaks send everything you read.
debated for 3 years in high school with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League, currently debating at Fullerton College.
i'm a k debater with a background primarily in anti-capitalism, afropess (and related), set col, queer/quare theory, model minority and orientalism. that being said, i am plenty familiar with policy stuff having read a decent amount of policy stuff in high school early on.
do not be offensive/violent to anyone in the room. i know sometimes people make mistakes, but please try your best to not be an asshole. this means things blatantly racist, queerphobic, sexist, etc can result in significantly lower speaks and possibly me voting you down or stopping the round.
be very careful with spreading especially with analytics and rebuttals, make sure you are clear and heard. you never know who in the room it will benefit.
there are a few big things that i think about debate that have a big effect on how i make decisions and think about the round as a whole. here they are in no particular order:
1. competitively, i should vote for whoever did the better debating (duh). this means that winning on a technical level is important: strong analysis of the technical aspects of the debate (meaning things like dropped arguments and points of direct clash) you are having is a great way of getting a ballot.
2. educationally, i should consider what the debaters are actually getting out of the debate. are the debaters learning new things about the topic or about debate itself? are there skills of some kind being developed? are there things being talked about that can be applied outside of debate when y'all leave? these things are important to me as someone that has had the privilege of learning through debate, and it often means that teams who can prove to me they learn and teach things better than the other team are more persuasive to me.
3. ethically, i have an obligation to evaluate the knowledge being produced in the round. i have to consider if that knowledge is violent, if it is liberatory, and what those things mean for me as a judge. what that does not mean is that i will necessarily let my truths dictate what i vote for (unless you do some really bad shit like i said above), but rather that you all as debaters have the burden of proving that your knowledge is not violent and/or that it is liberatory when that is questioned. proving those kinds of things can win you the ballot.
if you have any questions that weren't answered by the stuff above feel free to email me or to ask me before round, i'll do my best to answer them
A quick guide to getting good speaker points:
-get to the point, and be clear about it
-"extinction" or "nuclear war" is not a tag
-a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
-Ks must pass the make sense test
-cross x is a speech-i figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points
Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:
While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity. 30 bad uniqueness cards that barely make a claim can not overcome the power of 1 well warranted, logical argument that is consistently applied to the onslaught of evidence. In short:
Where X is a good, warranted argument and Y is an illogical argument, and X, A, and Y are all positive integers:
X > A(Y)
Also, "extinction" is not a tag line. I don't even like tag lines like "causes nuclear war." I need complete sentences, with claims and warrants.
Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.
Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer
Calling for cards: I will do this, but I don’t like to read every card in the debate. If you opponent is making well explained arguments you should be very wary of just saying “extend our smith evidence”.
Arbitrary interpretations are one of the worst trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team.
Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact (in policy debate). Whatever your arbitrary counterinterpretation is that limits the neg to X number of conditional positions…..sorry, I wasn’t born yesterday. If conditionality is good it’s good.
While I'm fine with conditionality, I am persuaded by other theoretical objections (multi actor fiat, uniform fiat without a solvency advocate, etc). I also think that a theory argument that combines objections (conditional multi actor CPs) could be a reason to reject the team.
My personal belief is that the negative can only fiat the agent of the resolution, and that competition based off the ‘certainty’ of the plan (consult/conditions) is not productive. This does NOT mean I have a low threshold in voting aff on agent/actor cps bad, but it does make my threshold lower than most. To win these theory debates on the aff, see above point about cutting to the core 2-3 issues.
On topicality-you need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.
Counterplans: I spoke above about my theoretical beliefs on counterplans. I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.
Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.
The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc. Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to my meta-approach to debate-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.
I’m generally not compelled by framework against a Neg K-I think all Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.
In the 2ac, don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded. Perm do the alt is not a perm. Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.
Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.
T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.
These are great. Impact defense is kinda meh unless it's real specific. Solvency and internal link answers are where it's at. Make alt causes great again!
It’s all about probability-magnitude is ok but only when you’re discussing it in terms of “our impact causes yours”. Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction). Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.
Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.
I debated for four years at Olathe Northwest and one year at Kansas State. I was an assistant coach at Blue Valley North from 2014 to 2018 and a lab leader at the Jayhawk Debate Institute in 2018. I'm currently an assistant coach at Peninsula and attend law school at UC Irvine.
- I prefer policy-oriented debates, but I'm not terribly picky and will listen to most arguments as long as you can justify them.
- I don't pretend to be truly tabula rasa, as I believe that setting some ground rules (namely, that the affirmative team should defend the resolution and that the negative team should disprove the desirability of the affirmative) is a necessary prerequisite to meaningful, fair debate.
- Logic > tech > truth
- I'm far more willing vote for a smart analytical argument than a shallow extension of a card. Evidence should be read for the purpose of backing up your arguments -- not the other way around.
- On a similar note, my least favorite type of debate is the "card war". Don't just read cards -- make arguments.
- The technical aspect of debate is important to me. I'm generally willing to assign substantial risk to dropped arguments, but you still have to extend those arguments and their respective warrant(s).
- I love cross-x. If your cross-x is well thought out and used to generate arguments and understandings that are useful in speeches for important parts of the debate, my happiness and your speaker points will increase. [Credit to Nick Miller for most of the preceding sentence.]
- I enjoy a good joke (and occasionally a bad one).
The affirmative team must affirm the resolution in order to win the debate, and I believe that maximizing fairness and education (generally in that order) is good for debate. "The plan is reasonably topical" is not an argument unless the negative's interpretation is patently absurd; the neg's standards/voters are reasons why the aff is not reasonably topical. T is never an RVI. Conditionality is fine unless abused in an egregious fashion; for example, if your 1NC strat consist of 3 Ks and 4 CPs (I've seen it), you should probably go home and rethink your life.
I am not especially well versed in high-theory critical literature, so do what you can to avoid burying me in jargon. I am probably persuaded by permutations more often than the average judge, and I tend to be skeptical of alts that seem utopian and/or impossible. I'm not a fan of 2NRs that go for "epistemology first" as a way to remove all substantive clash from the debate. Additionally, I tend not to think that my ballot has any particular "role" besides choosing who wins/loses the debate. "Role of the ballot" arguments should be articulated as impact framework, and they require actual standards/warrants -- not just the assertion that "The role of the ballot is [to vote for exactly what our aff/K does]." I am extremely skeptical of the idea that an isolated use of gendered/ableist language is reason enough for a team to lose a debate round. Please avoid reading from dead French philosophers if at all possible.
Debates judged (CJR topic): 42
Debates judged (career): 325
- please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
- you do you and have fun!
- tech > truth
- clarity > speed, especially with online debate, but I'm fine with any speed
- clash is fun
- case debate is important and can win rounds so don't forget about it
- the smarter you debate, the higher your speaks will be
- don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, ableist, etc. or you will not be happy with my decision
senior at Damien
Put me on the email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
please be respectful of others
ask me questions before the round if you have any
I'm cool with spreading just don't go warp speed through blocks and always emphasize/signpost, ill shout clear if you're going too
fast. thoroughly extend warrants, shadow extending sucks. Better analysis is better than card dumping and
don't leave it up to me to do the work for you. Good speaks for comparative analysis. I'm pretty familiar with
the POLICY topic but don't assume I know the entirety of an arg.
[they/he] I debated for four years at Eisenhower High School. I'm attending the University of North Texas as a freshman, majoring in mathematics and minoring in linguistics. I tend to view debate rounds through a game-theory perspective and prioritize tech over truth (though every argument needs a justification and impact to matter). In high school, I ran policy affs and mostly went for policy strategies on the neg; though I feel comfortable with mostly every type of argumentation.
Add me to the e-mail chain: email@example.com
Please no overviews! If you have them, make them very short. If I didn't understand your argument the first time, I'm not going to understand it from you speeding through a wall of text. Everything can and should be on line by line.
These graphs will be about my preferences, while the rest of the paradigm will be about more specific thoughts on strategy.
Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt
(insert) Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun
Nothing competes-------------------------X------Summers 94
Conditionality good-------X------------------------Conditionality bad
Topicality is a procedural. It primarily comes down to impact calculus, in terms of limits, or some other neg standard, against game-playing-esque impacts of the affirmative. Other aff arguments (including we meet & reasonability) are just defense to the neg's impacts.
A true we meet arg means the aff wins the page; reasonability can be won and is best framed as a question of interpretations rather than a literal "reasonability" of the case. Grammar is an a-priori standard and an intricate explanation of the other team's interpretation not being grammatical or legally precise will earn high speaks.
Additional interps in the block can be very strategic.
A thorough case debate will result in higher speaks, as will a 2ac that's layered and efficient. A 1nc that spends a lot of time on case doesn't do much if all of their arguments are generic and answered well.
Collapsing the case debate in the block and reading the best literature for your arguments will usually put you far ahead of the aff, especially if you had a wide array of args on case in the 1nc. That being said, a 1ar (and often 2ar) collapse on case can also be very strategic.
Strategic concessions are underutilized on case, and can often take out entire disads.
Impact turns are fun, even large ones such as spark. "Oppression good" args are unacceptable. A block pivot to an impact turn will be rewarded.
Disads on case seem to be generally under-covered by the aff but have no less importance than a disad with a seperate sheet.
"UQ/link controls link/UQ" args don't make sense to me, but links tend to be the most important component. DA turns case args are very powerful (especially so if you have multiple), and they are even better if they are UQ or Link turns case rather than "war causes their impact." Timeframe is underutilized by the negative.
New 1AR arguments are unacceptable, e.g. a non-uq arg when there were none in the 2ac, and a 2n who calls them out as new will be rewarded. But an additional justification for an argument that was in the 2ac, e.g. a "DIB collapse inevitable--reliance on Congress" card is fine if you have any UQ argument in the 2ac; answering new block arguments is always fine.
An impressive 1nr on a DA will earn high speaks. Extending multiple warrants from each card for every component, having case-specific link walls, having specific cards against individual 2ac warrants, and being knowledgeable about the institutions and topic of the DA make it very difficult for the 1a.
Politics DA's (particularly horsetrading) are good, but "fiat solves the link--bottom of docket"-esque arguments can be persuasive.
"Cheating" counterplans are fine, but always susceptible to theory. Permutations can beat them too, but few people tend to make the correct perms against them. Perm shields link arguments aren't usually answered well, so don't be afraid for going for a perm and one or two other args if you're aff.
I default to "sufficiency framing," solvency deficits have to have impacts to matter. Judge kick might be an extension of condo, but it doesn't often win rounds. I can also be persuaded that it's bad (this argument has to be in the 1ar unless the block makes no mention of judge kick, of course).
Kicking planks and even combining counterplan sheets are fine, but there can always be a debate.
Internal net benefits are fine.
Kritiks are very powerful arguments. I am most familiar with Baudrillard, kritiks of capitalism and security, and psychoanalysis. However, any kritik is fine if you have a consistent thesis and explanation.
Links should turn case and have independent impacts. Alt should solve links, and alt solves case arguments can be very good. Even if the alt doesn't solve case, going for it as a "uniqueness counterplan" for an extinction level impact to a link is good enough to win even with little case offense if you win the perm debate and that the alt solves the link completely.
You don't need to go for the alt if you're winning FW and/or a link well enough. Permutations need to solve every link and must be theoretically legitimate and possible, i.e. negs should argue the alt cannot be accomplished because the aff engages in institutions that the alt makes obsolete.
Aff FW interps are usually not ambitious enough and should include more that factors the intangible internal link chains of the K out of the decision-making process, since the neg team is doing such against the aff. Basically one should say more than "let us weigh the aff", as an interp, but including that phrase isn't a bad idea. You can still lose if you win your FW interp, but it's far more unlikely. Incorporating the substance of the K into your FW interp can make it more powerful.
Link uniqueness is a good thing for the aff to push on, but the neg can solve it with claims about discourse or their alt solving the link. The aff should always contest the thesis of the K and the solvency of the alt, at least in the 2ac.
Dropping K tricks will lose the round against a clever 2n.
I don't have any qualms with these affs, but I also don't have any issues with T-USFG. Use the case to leverage offense against T; impact turns are the best arguments against it. Winning debate is a game, a TVA, or switch-side makes a negative ballot much easier.
Cap K against K affs is always viable. Good links in the block and theory comparison is crucial.
Case debate on K affs is not used enough by either team.
Can always be a reason to reject the team. However, "reject the arg not the team" will almost always suffice for anything that isn't condo. However, if you're losing a debate badly and the other team drops a theory interpretation, this could be your best path to victory, provided you have reasons they should lose the round.
If you don't want to go for theory, going for a 'remedy' can be useful and possible: e.g. "stick them with the counterplan", "don't evaluate planks that violate the interp", etc.
Condo offense typically doesn't increase with the number of condo they run. Qualitative reasons condo is bad are more persuasive, and even one condo can be abusive in the right circumstances. If you're going for condo, the 1ar should be spending significant time answering every neg standard, and the 2ar should be entirely condo.
You can go quickly in theory, but signposting is especially important.
Speed is not a problem, but you must be comprehensible. Clarity is more important, and efficiency can more than make up for pure speed. Have fun, and making me smile is never a bad idea. 28.5 will be my average points awarded. Being rude makes it worse for everyone. Let me know if I can accommodate you in any way.
Email:: firstname.lastname@example.org :: add me to the chain
Update 2020-2021: I haven't judged this year, or even looked at any topic literature. I'm not going to know your acronyms. Just be clear :)
Overview/TLDR: I was a 2N, but have also been a 2A. I've been in policy debate at Damien High School for 4 years (Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education). Currently attend Emory University, but do not debate. I went for T the majority of my neg rounds (including T-USFG). If I didn't, then I went for the PTX DA (Agenda PTX) or a K (Extinction K, Fiat K, Edelman). I’ve gone for big stick Heg Affs, and Settler Colonialism Affs. I will vote on literally anything (yes, even though I'm from Damien).
Theory: I put this first because this is an under utilized part of debate. Give me solid warrants. Actually clash. If you don't engage them well, don't expect me to vote for you. You should probably disclose on the wiki. (X)-SPEC is a real thing. However, O-Spec is not a thing and may be the only "Theory Argument" I fundamentally disagree with. I reward creative, new theory arguments (yes, you can do that) as well as carded theory debates (yes, those exists too). If you plan to go for Theory, I want comparative analysis on the interps and clear impacts to your standards. If Theory (Particularly Condo) is your aff strategy going into the 1AR, you're gonna need at least 3-5 minutes, unless it's dropped, in which case, 30 seconds - 1 min. Although I was a 2N who read multiple conditional advocacies, I think there is probably more pedagogical value behind 1 conditional advocacy. If you don't tell me your dispositionality standards, then you probably shouldn't have said you were dispositional. I'll just flow you conditional in that case. Otherwise, Dispositionality =/= Conditionality. Perf Con is probably bad. If theory arguments aren't well-articulated and/or are overly blippy, I'll simply dismiss them. Of course, you can always convince me you're right, even if I disagree with you - the flow almost always dominates. These are just some vague opinions to help guide your strategies. I'll vote on anything... Except O-Spec. That's still not a thing.
Topicality: It's the only "rule" of the game. Affs are rarely ever topical. That being said, I still have a high threshold for T debates. You need to execute well for me to vote on it. 40 seconds in the 1NR is not enough. Nothing is core of the topic, so stop saying your aff is - this isn't an argument. Legal precision, if you actually understand why your definition is legally precise, is one of my favorite arguments. Also, debaters underutilize "jurisdictional voting issues." If you don't know what that means, go learn it to do T better. Reasonability is a standard for a Counter Interp, not a "we reasonably meet." Topicality is a procedural, so don't pretend like you can make it a time skew. "Lol, they dropped T - vote neg" doesn't mean anything and I won't vote for you. It'd be a disgrace to T debates. I tend to evaluate T before other Theory, but can be convinced otherwise. Go for Framework like it's T... because it is. I've gone for 13 minutes of T in the block against an aff with a plan. I love a good Topicality debate.
Case: Why have these debates died? Seriously, a 2NC that can spend 8 minutes on case might deserve a 30. I reward good case debate. Make teams cry because you've researched their aff better than they have. Case debate =/= impact turns.
Kritiks: Look. No high schooler actually knows how to run a K. Y'all are lazy and reading your coaches blocks. I know, because I was a lazy K debater too. Still, don't expect me to know all your "buzz words". I'm open to your kritik, but I want a substantive alternative - not just reject the aff. No alt => no K => linear disad => see impact turns OR just lose the K. Also, the link debate should be clear. Don't have your blocks be written by your coaches and have the cards not support it, even if you are right in the grand scheme of the literature base. Also, Baudrillard sucks and the fiat K is the K of the damned.
Impact Turns: These always tend to be messy, or become the messy strategy of kicking the alt and going for the K links as case turns (which isn't that great, because the aff always has a small chance of solving something). Keep it clean and clear. 1-defense on top 2-links and internal links 3-terminal impacts. That should be the order of the impact turns every time. If you don't win defense, it becomes a DA that I can weigh case against. (Believe me, this is not a good place for you to be).
Disadvantages: I love complex DAs. Be clear on the impacts. Love the addition of impact scenarios in the block. Make it impossible for the aff to deal with, but still have a clear story. For the PTX DA in particular, this is both the worst and best DA in existence - if you can't explain the story of these DAs coherently, don't go for them. I personally don't think election based PTX DAs are good - I err on the side of the aff, since the uniqueness is shotty at best; polls have far too many problems and have too many uncontrolled variables. But I'll still evaluate the DA.
Counterplans: They must have a net benefit. They must have a solvency advocate. I love Advantage CPs, but only if they have a solvency advocate. Cheating CPs are cool with me.
K-Affs: K-Affs aren't my favorite, but I'll evaluate the flow - honestly, you do you. I think a lot of K-Affs think not reading a plan is a vital component. It's probably not. If it's a method v method debate, I tend to find that these round are always lacking clash and hard to evaluate. Try and make it easy and actually engage with the philosophical underpinnings of the aff/neg kritik. I tend to lean negative on the question of T-USFG, but it doesn't mean you have a guaranteed neg ballot. Or you can just read the Heg Good K against the K-Aff - thats probably an easy neg ballot, but still not guaranteed.
You do You! Just because I'm from Damien, doesn't mean I won't evaluate a K, K-Aff, or K v K Debate. Just because I'm from Damien, doesn't mean I ONLY vote for T/Framework, heg or (x)-war good. I want you to do what arguments you believe are best/true. The only thing I ask is: make an argument.
Help! I'm Aff!: straight turn DA's, exploit double-turns, have tricky Affs, and write my ballot in the 2AR.
Help! I'm Neg!: if the 1NC just throws bad options around to see what gets under-covered, you will most likely lose. if the 1NC is 1-off DA or PIC, and you're ready to throw down on an impact turn, more speaks.
Debate is a game, but it is also a place to learn. Don’t be racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, xenophobic, or Colin Coppock, etc. We are all friends, and you should always prioritize teaching your fellow debaters the best techniques for being successful debaters.
Blocks: DON'T JUST BLOW THROUGH YOUR THEORY/TOPICALITY BLOCKS! Slow down. Articulate the impacts. Make comparisons. Don't drop arguments. For you (lazy) K debaters, make sure you're tailoring your blocks and not just reading the generic stuff your coach gave you or the crap you find on CX.com. Specificity is your greatest weapon in debate.
Efficiency > Speed. There's a difference. Otherwise, just make sure you're articulating your words and not clipping. (Obviously). I won't yell clear. I just won't flow. Pay attention to your audience! Debate is a communicative activity. So if people can't understand you, why are you even speaking?
Tech>Truth or Truth>Tech: These are so useless. 1 aff card with a beautiful warrant can answer 30 negs cards with crappy warrants. And a dropped argument will [almost] always be flowed as a true argument. Judges who think there is a difference between Tech and Truth are doing it wrong. YOU need to tell us what matters... Also, "Spin is spin"
Depth over Breadth in terms of strategy. I'd rather see a 1-3 off debate that goes really in depth. I get you sneaky 2Ns have strategies. I did too. Predictable blocks are always bad places to be for the neg. But if you are fundamentally winning arguments, even if you don't spread the 2AC out flow wise, that's the sign of a great debater. Spread the aff out on one flow.
“My Aff is my Baby” logic is bad. Be courageous and kick the Aff to go for theory or an impact turn to a DA.
"Cheating" Counterplans? Hell Yah.
PICs are legit... PIKs are probably not legit.
A Few Quotes:
"I may not be a good judge, but I'm better than Sage Young" - Donny Peters
"Framework is like riding a bike" - Lincoln Garrett
"people should impact turn.... everything" - Ian Beier
"that was LITERALLY A LIE" - Elliot McMillan
"My gold standard for debates would have to be Abraham Lincoln vs. Frederick Douglass." - Alex Jeong
"maybe if i nod a lot during t then he'll go for t" - Martina Povolo
"I know this looks bad, but..." - Malone Urfalian
Notre Dame High School
Hi! Please put me on the email chain - email@example.com
Read whatever - tech>truth.
I do not have any strong thoughts about any particular arguments (except for what's below) - just make sure you're not being racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.
I primarily went for the K, so I probably have some idea of what your K is talking about. If your K revolves around some ontological, structural, or psychoanalytic thesis, then it is your responsibility to prove it. By the end of the debate, I should know through what means I should be able to come to that conclusion. If I don't think that it can be falsified, then I won't take it seriously.
If you are aff and debating against the K, you will be in a better spot if you have a substantive defense of liberalism, capitalism, realism, etc. instead of just retreating to the perm (unless, of course, your aff is really meant to win the perm). It will be very hard to convince me that the plan is the only thing that matters, but it will be very easy to convince me that all links should be filtered through the consequences of the plan.
My name is Veena Kittusamy and I am a junior at The Meadows School and I have debated policy since my freshman year.
I don't have a problem with spreading as long as you are clear and concise, I will interrupt if I can't understand what you're saying.
I have never voted for a K aff and am not the biggest fan of them.
Please be considerate to your opponents and don't be rude.
I will give extra speaker points if you're funny and keep me entertained, please do not make this a boring debate because it will not be enjoyable for any of us.
My advice is to try to be persuasive and present your argument in an understandable/organized manner.
Please put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
You need to time your own speeches, cross x, and prep. Stay organized and most importantly, have fun and do your best!
put me on the email chain <email@example.com>
Debated for University HS Irvine
Freshman at UC Berkeley
Qualifed to the TOC senior year
Don't have much knowledge of the CJR topic
-case debate is great debate and will warrant high speaks if done well
- I prefer if the aff's praxis is exportable. I "prefer" framework in order of 1) institutionality/infiltration 2) skills/deliberation/ssd 3) fairness/limits/predictability. By "prefer" I mean easiest to judge. I will vote on any type of framework including fairness.
2nc add ons are fine. Planks can be kicked if you want. Lean neg towards infinite condo.
love these a lot. The link wall should be explained really well.
Good K debate means no/minimal overviews. I am familiar with most identity oriented critiques and postmodern arguments. I prefer 2NRs with link specific analysis and case. Winning framework to bracket out the case also works, but it that requires you to be substantially ahead on your theory of power and winning the perm.
T (not t usfg)
meh - i don't really think the debate should come down to whether or not the aff was extremely topical, but if you must I will vote on any arg
I was a 2N in high school. I have little topic knowledge, so please explain stuff. Don't go for everything in the 2NR.
If the Aff doesn't read a plan I will most likely vote Neg. Fairness is an impact, but still needs to be weighed against their impacts.
If you're reading a soft left Aff don't rely on your framing to get out of responding to DAs.
Evidence quality is a good link to your impacts and usually what I base my decision upon, so have a good definition.
Fairness is an impact.
I'm fine for any counterplan, except ones that compete off certainty or immediacy, as long as you win the theory debate (if the theory debate devolves into both sides just repeating their arguments I will usually not vote for the theory).
I don't think I evaluate DAs very differently from others.
tech>truth, although if you skimp out on your coverage of some things (like a one line turns case argument) I probably won't evaluate it very much.
I'm fine for Ks as long as there is a link to the assumptions of the aff.
Most of my attention will be on the link and alt debate because most of the K doesn't matter without first winning those parts. The aff can weigh their plan against the K.
Don't kick the alt and go for the K.
Reject the aff is not an alt.
I'm two years out of high school debate and do not have in-depth knowledge of the topic. I debated for Notre Dame for 4 years and went to the NDCA and TOC.
I do not have a bias between traditional policy arguments and newer critical ones
Tech determines truth but truer arguments are easier to win so the importance of technical skill doesn't mean all arguments are equally strategic
Feel free to ask any me any questions before the round
Bottom line I know debate but not the topic and you should just do what you do best instead of worrying about adapting
hello my email is firstname.lastname@example.org (use this for any questions or to add me to the email chain.)
I am a LAMDL alumni and debated for stern MASS for three years and currently starting my second year debating for Fullerton College. I have been both the 2a and the 2n im honestly open to anything as a judge just be respectful to each other. Coaches who have influenced my debate ideas: Joseph Barquin, Joel Salcedo, Jeannette Salcedo
San Marino (LD) 2019-2020
Stern MASS (CX) 2017-2020
Port of Los Angeles GR (CX) 2020-
k affs and performance: Go for it. I have ran performances on both aff and neg and have read multiple kaffs. One thing I would add is to be accessible for example if you read a poem have a transcript for me and your opponents and etc. Affirmatives can be in direction of the topic or not it is up to you to still provide a justification and reasoning to why your model of debate is preferable. I buy counter interps more often than we meets.
framework: I don't lean aff on framework debates but there is definitely an above average threshold when competing different models of debate.
procedural fairness is an internal link although the competitive aspect of debate exist and a fair "game" is probably good. Good TVAs are good.
topicality: if you are going for topicality or any theory argument in the 2ar/2nr you need to extend interpretations, violations, and standards. Standards must have impacts fairness and education is not super persuasive and will probably lean to reasonability.
kritiks: Link contextualization is key no matter the kritik. Alternative contextualization is key too if at the end of the round I do not understand what your alternative does than I am probably going to lean aff on this flow. kicking the alt in the 2nr is not the most convincing strategy and I will most likely not judge kick the alt unless the neg tells me to and the aff drops it.
counterplans: I lean neg on conditionality 5-7 off is fine 8+ off is a bit questionable. make sure that your counterplans are textually competitive some of them are already cheaty enough. Well explained net benefits to the CP is a must.
disads: Link contextualization is key. specific links are even better. I love good impact calc debates. please explain the internal link chain.
Spreading: when people spread super fast I tend to get off track so please slow down especially in the beginning so I can get used to your voice. If I miss something important than I will probably wont count it in my decision.
truth ≥ tech
TLDR: Email me for any questions or if my paradigm had any typos. Take care and take a break from debate from time to time breaks are good.
LD: My thoughts on ld have changed after judging a couple of rounds. Tricks are super fun but please slow down when it comes to those arguments. I am a techy-truth debater but tech seems to play a bigger role in ld than in policy so in that case please flesh out your tricks/theory arguments I will vote on anything that is heavily impacted on my flow including tricks. I have ADHD when there is like 20+ rounds going on at the same time I get super distracted so please be clear
my vibes: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cymtep-XFLo
Hi my name is Alexanna Mouskondis and I am a junior at the Meadows School. I have been in policy debate since my freshman year.
I would like to be copied in on the email chain before the debate starts.
I do not mind spreading as long as you are clear and I can understand your arguments. If I cannot understand what you are saying I will say clear.
Please make sure to time and flow yourselves.
Be respectful to your opponents, especially during cross ex.
Remember to do your best and have fun!! Good luck :)
ps. If you're funny I will give you extra speaker points <3
Currently a Berkeley sophomore studying Genetics. I debated for Davis Senior and SUDL for 3 years in policy, qualifying to the TOC in senior year. I debated on the China, education, and immigration topics. I'm now a coach for SUDL and Folsom and a volunteer coach for LASA.
Please put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Feel free to contact me for anything before or after the debate.
Everything I have written here are opinions I have developed in my short time debating. I am learning along with you.
***Pls do not read this whole paradigm, your time is more important than that. find what you need to know!
ASU Update: I hope the DAs you're replacing senate elections with are good
I will judge anything: k, policy, clash of civs. read what you're most comfortable reading! My personal experience lies mostly in k debate but I have judged and coached on both ends of the spectrum. Regardless of your style, impact calc and framing are key. Other things: I avoid judge intervention like the plague. I generally don't give speaks below 28 unless you've done something obnoxious. I value good organization.
if you’re going to be obnoxious do it in a fun way, don’t make me square root your speaks
Note on online debate: please please please slow down. I am literally begging you. Feel free to spread cards as fast as you like because I can read along with you, but when it comes to your analytics, please slow down slightly so I can get all of your wonderful arguments. Keep in mind that I'm also having to flip between tabs to see you, your cards, and my flow as I type. I know it's not ideal, but it's even less ideal for me to get 50% of your arguments because I can't understand you. I will yell clear twice and then I will give up and do my best.
I live in a rural area with no consistent wifi, just cell reception. If I drop from the call, I will let you know the last argument I heard and the last time stamp I had. I promise this will not impact your speaks or your position on my flow.
If you encounter tech issues, please let me know ASAP and we will work something out!
Debate is an activity with an incredible amount of potential that probably has the ability to shape our perspectives to at least some small (but meaningful) degree. It means many different things to many different people and I am not here to change that. Please run whatever arguments you want to (with the obvious exclusion of racist/queerphobic/xenophobic/misogynist/ableist args). It is my job to do my very best to arbitrate your round, not to decide how you should be operating within that round. That being said, no one is completely unbiased. It is also my job to make sure you're informed of biases and opinions that I might have.
The best way to win in front of me regardless of style is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc important? Compare this importance to your opponent's arguments. What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important? Even the most disastrous debates can be cleaned up/won/saved through high-level framing. See the bigger picture and explain it to me in your favor for a clear ballot. This is, in my opinion, is the difference between “winning” debates on the meta level rather than “not losing” them on the line by line.
I am very expressive. My face will do a lot of things during the debate. This is not a judgement on you as a debater or person but it's probably a pretty good indication of how I think things are going!
Kritiks: If this is the only section of the paradigm that you're looking for, I'm probably a good judge for you. I've run almost exclusively kritikal arguments in my time as a (varsity) debater.
I am very familiar with: settler colonialism, fem (particularly fem IR), puar, other queerness stuff, biopower, cap, security, and chow. :) These are the Ks I ran during my time in debate, but I've also had rounds with plenty of other Ks and it's probably a safe bet that I'm at least somewhat familiar with whatever you're reading. Many, many of my rounds are k v. k debates. I rarely ran pessimism arguments myself but I do have a decent understanding of many of them from my time as a debater and now as a coach. I think pessimism can make for educational reading and even better debating. If this is your strat, please go for it!
Make your literature accessible for everyone in the room (by this, I mean understand if folks haven't read what you have, and avoid trying to obfuscate for a strategic advantage). Not everyone has equivalent access to the time/resources necessary to invest in critical literature, and their perspectives are still valid. Be respectful. This is especially true for those of you reading pomo.
If you're a traditional policy debater wondering how to best respond to Ks in front of me, I discourage you from reading "Ks are cheating" framework (not a fan, but I'll evaluate it if I have to), but I can be persuaded that you should be allowed to weigh the aff. I find that the most convincing policy affs do a great job of explaining why their policy making framework is the only pragmatic solution for solving any harms, or why their education is uniquely key within the round. Remember that impacts can function on a multitude of levels.
If you're looking to read a K in front of me, know that I am extremely open-minded about how you go for or read this argument. Do you need an alt? Up to you! Performance? By all means. Part of the beauty of kritikal debate is its flexibility. I encourage you to do you in these debates. I will flow performances unless told otherwise, just so I can be sure to remember them clearly. Anything can be an argument.
I am NOT familiar with bataille, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, or nietzsche, for example. I didn’t read any of this as a debater. Honestly, I'm just not a pomo hack. This doesn't mean I won't vote for these arguments or think they have no place in debate! This simply means more elaboration will probably be necessary. I was frequently exposed to these arguments as a debater and I still deal with this lit now as a coach. If I'm squinting at you in confusion, I probably don't know what you're talking about. It may pay for you to slow down and explain vocab/buzzwords. Please never assume I (or your opponents) know all of your lingo.
K Affs: Go wild. I was a 2A reading a kritikal aff throughout almost all of high school and I understand them strategically, practically, and structurally. Again, performance is great. Pessimism is great, optimism is great, anything in between is great. Anything that doesn't fit into these categories is great. Personally I don't care if you talk about the resolution, though I could be convinced otherwise if the neg takes a stance on it. I come into the round with 0 predispositions about the "role" of the aff because I think that doing so would be basically arbitrary. Tell me why what you're doing is important (or not important). Also, good case overviews are a thing. If you have one of these, preferably don't blast through it at a million wpm. There's valuable stuff in there.
K affs probably get a perm, but I can be convinced otherwise.
Neg: engage the case when possible! Lots of K affs don't really do anything and have trouble explaining defending their method under close scrutiny. Take some time to just think abt the aff straight up, your questions may also be my questions.
Framework: I understand the importance of framework and used it myself a few times in debate. That being said, be warned that I was a 2A responding to framework in most of my aff rounds. As a small school debater, I understand why it can be necessary, especially if you legitimately have nothing else to run and don't have coaches to prep you out against every aff. Structural fairness/education/subject formation etc impacts make WAY more sense to me than procedural fairness. I also think it can be extremely convincing to turn the aff with portable skills arguments, if you do it right. If you're from a huge school with 10 coaches and your main defense of framework is "we couldn't possibly prepare :(" then you're going to be facing an uphill battle. Your interpretation should be clearly defined and should probably be more than one "words and phrases" card. Like I said about aff overviews, neither team should be blasting through your framework blocks so fast that I miss all of your warrants.
If you're responding to framework, you better have a pretty good block for it. Have defense on their standards but offense of your own on their model of debate. I also do not care if you go for a counter interpretation or if you go for just a turn on their model of debate. If you do the latter, you should probably explain why that turn is important. Also feel free to do both.
Both teams should have a role of the ballot. Tell me why yours matters in relation to the biggest impacts in the debate!
Policy Affs: there are some super neat policy affs on this topic. Just like a K aff, you should have a defense of your model of debate when pressed on it. You should probably also be able to defend your subject formation. Slow down on your overviews and explain to me in detail how you change the world and why it's important that you do. If you're a big stick/heg/etc aff, you better be able to defend your reps! Explain in detail what the world of your impacts looks like/explain how we get there. "Storytelling" is important.
Having a role of the ballot is underrated.
Neg: Engaging the case on a deep level is underrated! Even if it's just analytics, I will absolutely evaluate anything with a warrant. Plenty of affs (policy and k) fall apart if you just read their evidence or point out issues with the link chains in the 1AC.
Topicality: Super fun lol. Go wild. I default to competing interpretations but can be convinced otherwise. Why do limits/ground/fairness/research matter? Also, caselists are underutilized and are important! And stop dropping reasonability yall. P.S. If you read an RVI on T, strike me now before I punish your speaks.
Disadvantages: Do what you do here, DAs are straight forward for the most part. Topic DAs are super important for neg ground but I also really appreciate creative, unique DAs. That being said, quirkiness shouldn't trade off with a good link chain. Contextualize. Not enough teams tell good stories of the disadvantage: block extension is just as key as 2NR. I wanna hear specifics in the impact debates pls, that's where all the fun is usually.
Counterplans: Good solvency advocates can be killer here. Have a good understanding of your mechanism. These debates can be extremely interesting. I don't have any predetermined notions about what kinds of CPs are abusive or not. That's up to you to decide. For the aff: explain the world of the permutation--"perm do both" means nothing without an explanation. Paint a picture, worldbuild.
Theory: I love a good theory debate. By good, I mean really in depth discussion rather than a blippy "floating PICs bad" sentence in the 2AC that gets extended in the 1AR and then becomes 3 minutes of the 2AR. Why is your model of debate important? Why does it matter? How does it implicate this round specifically, and potentially all others? Theory can be really strategic and also pretty true in some instances. I don't come in with any predispositions about any particular theory argument here except probably for RVIs. Don't do that.
Misc: if you get caught cheating and the other team calls you out with proof, expect an autoloss and the lowest speaks possible. Clipping, falsifying cites, texting coaches, etc.
I might yell clear at times. I have some light hearing issues and I don't wanna miss any of your great arguments.
Good luck and have fun prepping!
4th year debater at notre dame
2n/1a (I was a 2a/1n for my first 2 years of debate, but I probably have a more 2n mindset than I do as a 2a)
tech > truth BUT true analytic > shitty evidence
- I know it's hard on everyone, so as long as you explain your situation don't worry that I'll dock any speaks
- I won't be following the speech docs during your speech, so be clear when you're speaking
- If I can't hear you or if my wifi is bad, I'll verbally let you know
- my camera will be on when I'm on my computer, if my camera is off that means I went to the bathroom or I went to get a glass of water, but I'll also let you know in the chat that I'm leaving
I will dock your speaks if:
- you are rude/insulting to your partner, opponents, and anyone else
- you are racist/sexist or anything similar
Some trends I found when I gave high speaks:
- great impact calculus
- judge direction (written ballots in your speeches)
- warrant comparison
- tricky spins
- gutsy decisions
I'll evaluate the debate on what is said in the debate rather than my own preferences. When faced with opposing arguments, I'll look to the cards that you extend in the rebuttal speeches and read through them. However, when I'm unable to resolve anything in the debate, I'll default to my personal preferences listed below. Judge direction is always good and helps me evaluate the debate much easier. Have fun!
*Everyone asks this but I'm fine with tag-team cross-x, as long as you give the person who's supposed to question and/or answer the chance to do so
*Also if an argument is dropped, I won't give it weight unless you extend that argument. Don't just point out it's dropped
This is my personal opinion, but I think a lot of affirmatives don't really use their aff. You have 8 minutes of offense from the 1AC. Use it!
Framing is important it tells which impact I should prefer more, so even if you win aff solvency or the disad story, I'll vote on the impact linking to the framing story that's winning.
I really like gutsy and risky arguments (i.e. if the negative reads a new impact in the block and you impact turn it, and that's what you go all-in for in the 2AR) I'm all in and will probably give you high speaks.
I love a good impact story with some impact calculus and turns case. I give a DA more weight if the links are more specific to the aff
I like to see an explanation of both in-round abuse and how it destroys debate outside of rounds. I think that makes a strong and compelling argument.
debatability is the impact - limits, ground, fairness, education are all internal links UNLESS you give me a reason on why [xyz] should be an impact
case lists and TVAs are really persuasive to me
As a 2N, I love a good cheaty and shifty counterplan, so I'll consider it more than the average judge. Every counterplan needs a good overview though so I understand how the CP functions and what are the mechanisms behind it
*Ks I am familiar with -- Antiblackness, Set Col, Fem IR, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis
Honestly, you can read any K in front of me as long as you explain the story well
If you win framework, you don't automatically win the debate, BUT it gives you an extra 3 steps ahead. I evaluate all the arguments underneath the K by the framework given.
I really don't like fiat is illusory arguments where all your links are predicated off of, and I'll probably not vote on it unless convinced otherwise
I'm fine with floating piks but make sure you answer theory if given.
the aff [cumulative]
- i'm fine with them - the closer you are to the topic the better
- usfg is bad shouldn't be the only argument, I want more creativity and spin if you are reading a k-aff
- you get a perm
- debatability is the impact - limits, ground, fairness, education are all internal links UNLESS you give me a reason on why [xyz] should be an impact
- past voting history states that I'm easily convinced that procedural fairness is an impact
k v k
- love this - it's such a power move
- make sure you explain everything to me because these debates can get really confusing
what I would vote on
- counterplans with no solvency advocate
- >4 condo
- sometimes fpiks bad
- Basically, if dropped and exploded, I'll give it weight
- *perf con is a reason why you could sever your reps*
My name is Nishelle Phansalkar. I am a junior at the Meadows School and have been debating policy since my freshman year.
I've never voted for a K aff.
I don’t mind speed just make sure you are clear and coherent in your arguments. I will say clear if I cannot understand you.
Please be considerate of your opponents.
If you make me laugh, I will give you extra speaker points, so don't make the debate boring because that won't be fun for any of us.
Please copy me on the email chain and you need to time your cross x and your speeches. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Make sure to flow all the speeches and stay organized. Good luck and make sure to have fun :)
-3rd year at Notre Dame High School
-add me to the email chain: email@example.com
-tech > truth
-time ur own speeches please
-clarity > speed
-competing interps > reasonability
-fairness is the most convincing impact, but easily mitigated if the aff can leverage why their predictability offense turns limits or why their version of the topic is arbitrary
-i'm a little sympathetic to the negative when they complain about the CJR topic, but I don’t think it’s nearly as impossible as 2N’s like to claim it is considering the executive CP/courts CP solves every aff and process CPs are becoming acceptable...ugh (which 2A’s should point out)
-case lists are good
-50/50 on t-enact
-subpar ev is fine as long as there’s good spin, aff’s burden to point out that spin and why it’s flawed
-i wish 2A’s would 1.) impact turn more often and 2.) point out the flaws in 1NC link ev in the 2AC
-aff solves the impacts and link turns case are often underutilized
-i can vote on fiat solves the link
-impact calc will make my decision way easier
-courts cp/exec cp should solve almost all affs
-process CP’s and cheaty CP’s like “End the War in Yemen” are not my fav. the competition debates get messy. to avoid this, clearly signpost and utilize imbedded clash if needed
-new 2NC CP’s, new 2NC planks, international fiat, and con con, CP’s without aff specific solvency advocates are usually voting issues
-PIC’s, 50 State Fiat, etc. are usually fine
-if you debate well I can go any way on these theory args
-intrinsic perms - I lean aff if there's a clear justification and explanation for how it solves the links in the 1AR
-i won't judge kick the cp unless you tell me to
-gender, security, set col, abolition, and cap should be fine. Anything else requires extensive explanation. I hate when teams throw around a bunch of jargon and expect me to know what it is
-not the best judge for high theory(usually involves the MOST jargon without sufficient explanation)
-it is your Baudy, but i'll vote on death good :/
-i don't like long overviews
-not a fan of neg interps that don’t let the aff weigh their aff. affs should get to way their aff, but in circumstances like when DA’s on framework are dropped you can convince me otherwise as long as there’s a clear explanation of the DA in the 2NC and not a 5 second blip. I’d rather have framework debates with 3 well developed DA’s than 8 one sentence analytics
-i’ll be sympathetic to the 1AR if the 2AR makes strategic cross applications and justifies them
-links are almost never to the aff. 2A’s should point this out more
-the neg should use 1AC evidence, lines from CX, etc. to strengthen the link debate
-i don’t understand why some 2A’s don’t extend ontology examples when going for the perm
-“smaller” examples on ontology can go a long way
-alt debate is often underutilized and alt solvency is at a low threshold if not contested. if properly contested, I hold it to a high one
-floating PIKs are a voter
-vague alts aren’t usually a voting issue
-if debated well I can lean either way on these theory args
-perf con means you get to sever your reps.
-not the best judge for you. i usually find myself leaning neg on presumption args since it’s hard(not impossible) to convince me the aff can solve for broader impacts.
-i will vote for you though
-you should probably have some connection to the topic
-you probably don't get perms
-not the best judge for this. affs should defend the resolution, but I can vote aff as long as you do the work you need
-TVA's are good
K v. K
-not the judge for you <3
-one condo isn’t a voter. more than two condo, maybe. 5, i’ll def lean aff. the negative can mitigate this offense by explaining the limitless boundaries of CJR.
-the framing page is usually irrelevant. smart 2A’s know when to extend it.
-28.5 is average. Below means you did something wrong. tf you get a 29 or above then you’ve greatly impressed me.
+ .3 speaks if talk ab club penguin in your speech novi, i appreciate the effort but u can't just mention the words "club penguin". there needs to be an analogy or something like "nuke war is bad it would kill the puffles"
-don't steal prep when having "tech issues"
-don't be mean...this should be common sense
she/her. You can call me Carla, "judge" is tacky. Yes, email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated policy for four years in high school for Sage Ridge School. I coached Greenhill sophomores for the 2017-2018 season and now work with Gulliver Prep. I do not feel the need to detail my debate career.
Update for virtual debate: If you can, please turn your camera on, and keep it on for the whole debate. I totally get that it is not possible for some, so this is not required.
Above everything else in this philosophy, I believe that debaters must be humane to each other. I will not hesitate to vote against a team for using language that is racist/ableist/transphobic/sexist/homophobic/etc.
I'm not picky about a lot, but here are a few things that you should know.
TLDR: Read what you want. This is your debate, not mine. Do the better debating, and you'll get my ballot. That being said, too many of the rounds I judge are far too similar. If you are looking to try out a new or "risky" strategy, I will likely find that exciting and reward you with high speaks.
Ks: I love K debate. However, high-theory is not my area of expertise. I will listen to you, but you must explain your argument thoroughly in order for me to vote on it. Also, no death good arguments please.
T: I will admit I am probably not the best judge for very technical T debates. I think I am more sympathetic to reasonability arguments than most judges.
FW: If you are reading framework, remember that you are on the side of truth. So use it. Oh, and I actually like to judge framework debates. A lot.
Misc: The best final rebuttals write my ballot out for me. Make "even if" statements!! Tell me how to weigh one thing against the other. This is the easiest way to win my ballot and make my decision as clean as possible. Concessions happen all the time in high school debate, but you can't just say "they dropped this" and expect that to be the winning argument. You have to impact that out for me and tell me why that matters in the context of my decision.
LD judging update 01/09/21: I've judged LD a few times before and found that from my policy background, impact calculus is very, very important to win my ballot. Everything above still applies but the TLDR is you do you, and I'll be flowing.
PF judging update 01/09/21:
I've judged about 20 PFs debate as of this update, and I found that impact calculus is key to winning my ballot. Tell me why your argument matters. What are the consequences of a world where the pro/con does or does not exist? Why should I care? If you have any questions, feel free to email me.
UC Berkeley '23
Okemos High School '19
My name is Akash Rathod and I am a freshman at UC Berkeley. I did four years of Policy Debate at Okemos High School (Okemos, MI). I qualified to the TOC with 3 bids reading mostly kritikal arguments on both the Aff and Neg (Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Psychoanalysis, Deleuze, Baudrillard). However, don’t let that influence your thoughts on me as a judge. I have found many “policy” debates much more interesting/enjoyable than many “k v k” debates. Go for whatever you think is the best strategy to win the debate and execute it to the best of your ability – I will be happy regardless of the specific content.
There is no argument I am not willing to listen to. Debate is a space to explore your intellectual interests and be creative, so you should take advantage of that. So, if you like going for the politics DA, go for it. However, you should refrain from arguments that directly attack a person’s identity (such as racism good, sexism good, etc.). I am perfectly ok with listening to extinction good.
Tech > truth – as long as an argument has some warrant attached to it, it is true until addressed by the other team. I will do my best to protect the 2NR.
Topic Knowledge – I have some familiarity with the topic, however, it will benefit you to explain complicated nuances and to spell out acronyms (only once).
I flow on my computer and like being able to line arguments up.
My email is akashrathod2019 (at) gmail (dot) com. I would like to be added to the email chain. You can also email me if you have any questions about my paradigm or want additional feedback about the round.
I will try to keep speaks in the range of 28 – 29.5.
Speaker points will be determined by your persuasiveness, clarity, and strategic mindset. Smart debaters will always outspeak debaters who are just really clear.
I won’t hack for your K – you must do the work of explaining your argument.
I don’t mind a long overview, but I would prefer it if all relevant parts could be moved to the line-by-line. I would prefer it if links were done somewhere on the line-by-line (I don’t care where just don’t put them in the overview). Also, labeling links with cool names is good.
Specificity is key – if you aren’t doing the work to show why the 1AC specifically is bad (by pulling lines from their evidence and contextualizing your 1NC cards to the action of the plan), I am likely going to buy the perm solves. You don’t need links to the plan, but you should try to contextualize your generic links to the 1AC as much as possible.
You don’t need an alt, but you should spend time framing what my ballot means in a world where there is no alt to resolve the K’s impacts.
“K tricks” are fine but be smart with them – don’t just throw stuff at the wall and see if something sticks.
FW is important – you should very clear offense here as well as defensive arguments. Having good framing cards in the 1NC (especially if you are going one-off) is important. I can be persuaded that I shouldn’t evaluate the plan.
Demonstrating robust knowledge of your theory, as opposed to constantly reading blocks off your computer, will likely boost your speaks.
FW should never be “Ks bad.” Winning the FW debate for the Aff requires having a clear reason why your model of debate is good (e.g. fairness, political deliberation, etc) and making sure you answer all the neg’s tricks (e.g. Antonio 95, fiat is illusory, etc.). Being technical here is very key and I can be convinced to weigh only the consequences of plan action.
Perms should be thoroughly explained by the 1AR.
I think a lot of the common “policy tricks” (pragmatism, extinction first, etc.) make a lot of intuitive sense, but you still need to do a good job establishing them.
Coming into the debate with a strong understanding of the neg’s position will help you immensely, so you should be reading their cards and making sure you use cross-x to really understand their argument. It will make it easier to find their weak spot.
K v K Debates
I can be convinced not to give the Aff a perm, but a lot of the neg’s arguments for why I shouldn’t are usually quite silly, but must be answered by the Aff.
Both teams need to have a robust number of historical examples.
Links and net-benefits to the perm should be clearly labeled.
While I read a K-Aff in high-school, I am very persuaded by a lot of the arguments by FW teams. You can definitely go for procedural fairness as an impact. I also like arguments about truth-testing/argumentative refinement and research. Explaining the importance of each these in the context of predictable limits can make a very easy neg ballot.
I am not very persuaded by impacts like dogmatism or state good. While I think there is some merit to the dogmatism impact, I haven’t heard a very strong argument about why that would outweigh any offense the Aff generally goes for. I think truth-testing functions as a much more persuasive defensive argument to mitigate a lot of the Aff offense. State good is more convincing to me as a K of the aff’s refusal of certain forms of political engagement.
TVAs don’t need to solve the Aff but should somehow align with the Aff’s criticism of the status quo. Having a card isn’t necessary but would be cool.
I am perfectly fine with a short 1NC shell with no cards other than definitions.
Impact turn stuff and you will probably be fine.
You don’t need a W/M.
You don’t even necessarily need a C/I – but it will make it harder for you to win unless you go for debate bad, which is perfectly fine.
Slow down when explaining your DAs – teams often breeze through several 1 or 2 sentences DAs that I can’t follow. Your 2AC analysis should have a clear warrant as to why the neg’s interpretation is bad, what the impact to that is, and how your interpretation solves. Examples here are key.
Defense is important, don’t forget it.
You should be very clear and upfront about why the TVA or reading it on the neg doesn’t solve.
Not much to say here. Impact calc is good and should be done sooner rather than later.
I don’t have many thoughts about CP theory – so do whatever you like. Words pics are probably not cool, but if you want to go for it.
You should probably have a solvency advocate. Using 1AC lines to justify a cp will boost your speaks.
I enjoy a really good T debate. Both teams should be doing a good job explaining what debate looks like under different interpretations of the topic.
I love a good impact turn debate. DeDev, Heg Good, Heg Bad, Warming Good, Extinction Good, etc. I love them all. Especially, against K-Affs or new Affs they can be very strategic and should be heavily utilized.
I will vote on new affs bad – given the neg can explain a coherent impact.
Don't clip. I will keep my eye out for it. If I catch it, I will warn you (unless it was egregious). If I catch you doing it again, I will give you 0 speaks and the loss. I will also allow the round to continue to the end.
If you believe the other team is clipping, start recording them and present the recording to me after the speech. I will listen and decide. You won't be penalized for calling out another team for clipping, as long as you do so in a manner that allows the round to continue smoothly.
If you are reading unhighlighted cards, I will expect you to read the whole thing, unless you clarify before your speech. If you don't, I will consider that as clipping.
email chain - email@example.com
policy 4 years at the high school level
Currently debating at UCSB.
Zoom - Don't hesitate to mention any issues you are having, i'll do the same. Remember to be patient we never know what people might be experiencing. I would recommend sending analytics.
In general if you can debate it, I can vote on it. I'm fine with everything (I am not against voting on a troll.) I highly value good impact analysis. A good rule of thumb is to debate your opponents as if any argument they make is the best form of the argument. Debate is supposed to be fun!
Spread to your hearts content.
Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR. Overviews are great.
Don't talk out loud during your partners speech.
Tag-teaming is fine
Aff's - You do you. I'm fine with anything policy. Its the 1AC what are you gonna do. I am definitely kinder to soft-left AFF'S. Have proper framing
Non- traditional aff's- I've ran them. I am a little familiar with the language. I think they are great especially if they have a performance, that's a lot of fun. However, make sure to extend it, the argument is not "I danced, I win" rather what value did this performance add to this debate. Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does. I think these debates, for me, come down to f/w, as in whose model of debate I've been made to believe is best. Some of my K philosophy works here.
Topicality/theory- I would recommend running it if the Aff is actually not topical otherwise probably won't vote on it. I don't love hearing theory debates but I can vote on it.
Da's - Need to have good internal link work. I would love to see some "non- normative" DA's
CP's - Make sure its good, perms are the easiest way to vote here. I don't love specific CP's like Agent, consult, delacy CPs, but I will vote on them. Have a net benefit.
K's- I would say the I am more friendly to these arguments. Know some lit. I am very familiar with K literature, but don't throw jargon. I think that K teams can have a issues with throwing around arguments that they think have more weight than they actually do to judges. Explain your arguments. Links of omission are a no go. Have a really good link story and alt explanation. Frame debates through the K.
Cards VS. Analytics
I value both. I think cards are great but the personal aspect that an analytic brings, which could never be explained through an author writing about what they have never experienced, is inherently very valuable in debates.
Last edited 1/30/2021.
2020 Important Notice:
I graduated from Notre Dame High School in 2017 and have been 3 years entirely removed from debate. During my senior year at ND my partner Mikaela Appleby and I qualified to the TOC with 7 bids. Therefore, I while I know about debate structure and what constitutes a fully formed argument, I know little about this year's topic. So with that being said, make sure to extra-explain concepts or acronyms that are specific to this year's topic.
I've judged roughly about 25 rounds on this topic so far in the year.
My virtual debating policies:
You do not need to turn on your webcam! It is entirely up to you and I understand why some people my refrain for various reasons.
Technology never works when we need it to, I understand that. That being said, you should be taking active steps to ensure the speed and reliability of your computer when debating. That means:
-Completely shutting down and restarting your computer every now and then. If it's been a week since you last did this, that's why it's really slow.
-Having a lot of tabs open is a HUGE drain on your computer's speed. ESPECIALLY, if you're running google chrome. Close out of as many tabs as you can. If you have an older computer, I would recommend switching to a different browser like firefox (not sure if it's NSDA Campus compatible, you should check) as it is less demanding on the hardware of your computer.
-If you have a little extra money, invest in an ethernet cord if your computer has the ability to take one. A wired connection is infinitely more reliable than a wireless one.
IMPORTANT - due to the nature of virtual debate including lag spikes, or moments of being unable to hear the person speaking, I am far far less likely to vote on quick 5 second theory arguments that go completely dropped. I'm willing to blame the drop on poor video/audio quality. If you'd still like to run arguments like aspec or fiat bad yada yada, devote at least 10 seconds into it and have the analytics in the speech doc.
If you are a first year debater:
If you are a first year debater, read the arguments you are most comfortable with, regardless of what anything else in this paradigm says.
Above all else I want you to talk about what you know the most! I want to see good, clear arguments.
An argument is a claim, followed by an explanation of the claim, followed by some data to back it up.
You should try your best to stay organized, responding to your opponents' arguments in a "line-by-line" fashion.
Have fun! And if you have any questions before the round please don't be afraid to ask me.
I love the activity and if you're in it I think you're doing something valuable with your time. Which, means that you should do your best to include everybody in the community and be a good person overall. If you start being a jerk during the debate, and it gets excessive, I will step in and I will drop your speaks. Be polite y'all, it isn't too difficult!
I will not vote on "death good", I urge you to consider the effects of the argument in a high school environment where you are blissfully unaware of the mental health of other students in the activity.
You do you as long as you can explain it.
Tech > Truth
When it comes to topic areas I know the most about, those would be heg, climate, the security k, and Agamben. I have no idea how relevant those are this year, but if you're able to go for any of these arguments those are my favorite debates to judge!
I am sympathetic to framework generally speaking and believe that debate at it's core is a game with little out-of-round "real world" impact, but:
At the least aff's should defend some form of the resolution, and have an advocacy statement (not necessarily the usfg). Affs that make broad statements about bad stuff happening without a mechanism or explanation for resolving the bad stuff are generally bland debates and leave the neg with no non-offensive ground.
That being said don't be scared of reading your usual k aff, I will happily vote on it as long as you explain it to me. The most work you will need to do is explaining to me why my ballot actually means something.
Non-usfg k affs don't usually get to perm the k unless they explain to me why they do.
Love it. It's underused unfortunately, so if you do a great job at getting into the "nitty-gritty" details of what the aff actually does and how it does or does not solve, I will reward you with speaker points accordingly.
It is possible to win a zero risk of the aff and I will vote on presumption if the case debate is good enough.
Meh....I'm not a fan of it, I just don't find theoretical debates very interesting. I do however, understand the value of them. This means that if you have the ability to win on substance, you should probably just go for substance.
Slow down for the love of all that is holy when reading your theory blocks, because like most people, my hand can only write so fast.
Condo is good in moderation - the neg should probably get 1 k and one 1 cp, anything more than that leaves me open to condo bad being an acceptable argument...But it doesn't mean I'll vote on it unless the "abuse" seems clear.
The quality of process/consult/conditions cp's is determined by how good the ev is. If anything I lean more neg than aff on these due to being a 2n.
I lean neg on this question.
Explain to me what abuse has occurred, and why it has become impossible or unfair to be neg.
The argument should not be focused on the "content" of the 1ac, but rather that the way in which that their mechanism for doing so isn't T, and thats what makes it impossible to debate them.
Fairness is an impact.
Debate is probably a game.
I love me some evidence comparison. The less reading of your evidence I have to do after the round, the better. Tell me what your ev says and why it's better than what their ev says.
These are great, I love them.
Solvency advocates are important, if the aff sufficiently points out that the neg doesn't really have one, the cp goes away easily.
Kritiks I like are: Security, Agamben, Foucault, legalism, cap, consumption, and university. Which, isn't a very extensive or diverse list really. I have my niche of k's that I like, if you read one of those you can assume I have a bit of knowledge about it and can change how you argue about it accordingly. If its not on this list, I may have heard it, and if I have, my understanding of it will be on a very shallow level. So please be sure to give good explanations particularly in cx as to what the k actually means.
Links should be specific. You should explain why what the aff has done is uniquely bad and causes X impact to occur. I have a high threshold for the link debate.
The alt should mean something. Its the weakest part of the debate which I know from experience, so invest time into telling me what it means to vote neg, what the world of the alternative looks like, and how it resolves the impact to the 1ac and the k.
Good Luck and have fun!
(If you're stressing out: http://i.imgur.com/KZf5kWZ.gifv)
Note - this was probably a terrible paradigm and you might still have a question about the way I view debate. Please feel free to ask me before the round starts. Alternatively, if after the debate you have further questions give them to your coach and have your coach reach out to me.
I've judged online tournaments, but still be clear - online debate is still new. You can spread. I have done some research on this topic but more towards Baudrillard, and theory along those lines. At this point of the season I understand a big chuck of the core affs so feel free to run. So engage me for what your plan/advocacy is. I have heard Set Col - Lacan - Soft Left aff- wide variety of K's so feel free to run what ever args you want to run. Ive been doing Open LD on the Collegiate level so either it be PF - LD - Policy - Parli - etc. Break down what you want me to vote on - always have framework and if not then ill just evaluate impacts at the end.
Always include me in the email chain'
Affiliations: LAMDL - CSUN
I've been doing policy debate for 5 years now (doing NFA- LD at the moment).
I do not disclose speaker points. Overall your speaks will be determined on the quality of speech. Context is important but the way that you explain your points/ideas will be the deciding factor between a 30 or 27.
I am okay with spreading, clarity/speed. I will say clear at most 2 times in the entire round if I can not understand you. I will not be responsible for anything I could not flow because the speech was not clear.
Comments/rules for in round
1. I try to keep the timer running. Meaning that once the timer signals the speech ends cross-ex will start or prep-time will start. Time is the most valuable thing especially in tournaments. I am lenient with this because debate can be difficult and also technical difficulties
2. Spreading --> You may spread but try to slow down a bit in the block when extending multiple flows.
3. Cross Examination --> Keep it on the topic of the Aff/args of the Neg. Use this time strategically, and obviously I wont flow cross, unless in the speech you do mention "Cross-ex checks ....." That will be the only time I will use cross ex in my flow.
4. Respect your opponents. I can not stress this enough- respect your opponents (i.e. gender, pronouns, etc.). I will not tolerate racism, homophobic, ableist behavior or anything in that area. If you do not first will be docking of speaks and I will address it - if it continues you'll drop the round - and I'll talk to tab. This is a safe space for everyone - lets keep it that way.
Basics rundown for Policy and LD - most of these apply to Parli as well
Every argument/off case will be flowed the same way. What I mean by that the way that you will win a flow is the consistency of your argument and the persuasion of your speech. I have no "bias" or preference of arguments or type of Affs. For the record CP's and Theory arguments are going to be evaluated the same way. I separated them for the sake of alphabetization.
Case/Traditional Affs: Traditional Affs; I am very familiar with many kinds of Affs (i.e. Hard right and soft left Affs.) You should know the content of your Aff. I have no preference on the type of Aff or content itself. If you persuade me enough to vote for you through out the round then the ballot will ultimately go to the Aff. I run "traditional affs" in LD and have been a USFG centered in high school - still need why youre net better.
CP- Remember that not all Cp's are plan-inclusive and to me at least all you have to prove is that your method solves better than the aff. Its more credible with Net-benefits and show me solvency deficit.
DA- Uniqueness... Link.... Internal Links.... Impacts. Best way and easier for me to flow as a judge. If you don't use the DA as a net-benefit for the CP then I will always think the sqou. is being advocated as well besides the CP.
K-Affs: If the performance/K-aff is structured really well and you know what you are talking about and convince me I will vote your way. I as a judge need from the 1AC what the advocacy is and does and how it solves. I don't want to have to vote neg on presumption, but I will if I have to. I've been more a K debater policy wise but still want to see why your aff is net better
Kritiks: In this flow I really need to see how your alt and how the Aff links. If the K is ultimately not ran properly as in the explanation of Links, Impacts, Alt, Alt solves, etc. I will not vote for the K.
Topicality For Traditional Affs: On this flow there should be the most clash on. I need to know why and how the aff is not topical and why it matters to me as a judge.
Topicality For Non-Traditional Affs/ K-Affs: I was T debater when it comes to K-Aff/Non-traditional Affs, so I have a general idea on what the Neg flow will be. That still does not mean spread like crazy, I want to hear clarity and a proper framework. Yes I will flow your framework on the T flow only if you tell me to - it could be a seperate flow as well. It not only makes it easier to keep track of, its pretty much a T arg. because it talks about how within the round the Aff's Framing isn't inherently good which can ultimately lead to extending your standards. In all for this arg. make it credible and really emphasize why the T against a K-aff should be weighed against the aff.
Theory: Don't spread theory. If you need to spread, then send out any blocks/evidence because I will not flow if I can't understand you.
Reminder: Any dropped argument is a true argument.
Also remember you decide your fate of the ballot. Tell me why I should vote your way and I feel that you did a good job on executing that then I'll sign the ballot to you.
Overall have fun! This is what debate is for.
For this side of speech I would really enjoy a really emotion filled performance due to the kind of event this is. If you are going to perform a sad interp. then use emotions make me as a judge feel what you want me to feel. If you are going to perform a humorous interp. work on making me laugh. For me to rank you 1 you have to be able to engage and impress me.
For this side of speech there are three key points for this:
1. Memorization: Memorize your essay and keep it within a reasonable time frame.
2. Use your stage: Be fluid, make this your TedTalk. This time is yours to prove to me that what you are talking about needs to be ranked 1.
3. Detailing: I need your speech to be impact even if that means using experiences that you have had to make your point or use stories that could've happened to someone else. Make me see what you see, make me feel what you feel, etc.
Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.
If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.
I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.
I began high school judging in 1973.
I started judging college debate in 1976.
Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.
Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.
You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.
I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.
BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.
People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.
I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.
Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.
For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.
I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.
I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.
Look these things are usually long, convoluted, and filled with lies; so I will try my best to be completely honest.
Notre Dame '21 - Qualed to TOC - add me to the email chain - [briansnitman at gmail.com]
TLDR: I view debate as a competitive activity which means that my argumentative preferences go out the window once I enter the zoom call. For me, this has meant I have cut arguments ranging from SPARK to Set Col to H-Triv. For me it doesn't really matter, I don't think that any discussion can be objectively pedagogically harmful no matter the content. This means that to me Tech>Truth, and I can be convinced of anything if the other team does not contest it adequately. The only other important thing to know is that for me, the most effective ballot framing occurs when each team can paint a clear picture of what the world looks like after I submit an aff or neg ballot. This means going beyond just extending your impacts, and actually humanizing the whole aff, and almost explaining it in very simple terms. I am also not very card focused meaning: Smart Analytics > Bad cards or even good cards that aren't explained well.
K's - I'll be honest as a 2A my partner and I ran a one-off K strat every round, but I still don't understand all the buzzwords that people like to throw out. For the neg, I am more likely to just vote on just framework than other judges because the aff teams usually don't do any line-by-line. If the alt is just a framework argument then just say it, otherwise, I get confused. Links are usually mishandled and don't require a lot of evidence. K-tricks are cool and I think they should be employed, who cares if it's an easy way out. For the aff, perms make a lot of sense for soft-left aff's - you do need a net-benefit, but it seems pretty easy to win that the alt doesn't solve the aff so long as you answer the outlandish alt solves case arguments. Other than material net-benefits - I think that epistemological net-benefit also makes sense (ie practicality or particularity in policy analysis). The neg usually makes the mistake of not contextualizing the link to the perm - and DA's to perms usually don't have impacts that the alt can't resolve. For me, the perm doesn't need to avoid the links if it solves the impacts to said links. For extinction affs it makes a lot of sense to just go for util and impact turns, but you have to use util as a justification on the framework, otherwise it will be difficult to win.
DA's - CJR is tough, and I generally don't think that the neg evidence needs to be fantastic or even good. Let's be honest the politics card you are probably reading aren't about the aff, meaning that a blanket extension is not sufficient. I don't want to hear "X author says this"; instead take the opportunity to impress me with your civics knowledge and make logical arguments as to why the aff would derail the agenda. The one caveat to the you don't need cards rule is that if the aff has very specific link turn evidence you will be in a bad spot.
CP's - I was a 2N my junior year and I almost exclusively went for the most abusive counterplan on the topic - thus have fun and feel free to terrorize the aff. Theory is great against these counterplans but affs get scared to go for it when the block read their 18 sub-point response. Condo - literally have no preference.
T - This is the one place where it is all about evidence. Intent to exclude is very important to me, otherwise IDK why the aff can't be topical.
Speaks - Technical debating is what gets you the ballot - ethos and pathos get you speaker points - I'm also a point fairy and if you can make jokes during the round that I actually find funny you will receive much better speaks.
I was a performance debater so naturally I am drawn more to performance/critical debates, but this is not about me its about you. So, debate however makes you feel comfortable.
Traditional debaters: I have NEVER been a traditional debater so overviews are very helpful because I am not up to date on things like politics D/A's or how much political capital the president has etc., So flushing those things out will greatly help your chances in the debate.
I am not a huge framework judge. That means it is up to you to prove to me that it is abusive, or that there is a topical version of their aff.
1. Do YOU!
2. I understand that being negative you only have to prove that the aff is bad, however, in those scenarios you need to explain why that alone is enough, because I like ways to fix things or at least try.
3. Don't make me vote on framework! Show me that your aff is reasonably topical/ or could never be topical, or why you being topical is bad.
4. I LOVE OVERVIEWS
Who I vote for is largely going to come down to who tells the best cohesive story at the end of the debate.
Also, in any debate I love historical or just examples in general of how things play out in the real world.
Teach me something, express yourself, have fun, make me laugh, don't be mean.
Read a plan.
Death is bad, suffering is bad.
Not a huge fan of theory.
Prep ends when the doc is sent.
put me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
i flow on paper so please give me time to write things down
2A my whole career, ran both policy and k affs. my partner and i read da/cp as much as we would run the kritik. i firmly believe tech > truth. i vote for teams that have clear judge instruction, can efficiently frame the debate, and explain argument interaction in a way that adds up to the ballot. good debates prove that a change to the status quo is good or bad. do what you do best. i don't tolerate any argument that is racist, sexist, transphobic, etc.
people who have influenced the way i think about debate: miles gray, emmiee malyugina, matt liu, jyleesa hampton, nish neelakandan, josh martin.
if you're aff: k affs are great and i read one senior year. please let me know what your aff does. because some counterinterps don't place too much emphasis on limits for the topic, i think that affs should be impact turning all the negative's reasons as to why debate is fine in it's current state or why their model of debate is good. please interact with the negative's standards, it's going to be hard for me to evaluate a debate when i'm just looking at blocks that have no relationship to each other
if you're neg: i think case debate is pretty important. presumption is also convincing against a lot of k affs. i'll evaluate framework as to whether or not the affirmative should defend a hypothetical implementation of a plan through the USfg. i'm a little more lenient towards affs that are close to the topic, but definitely willing to vote on why that's bad. clean framework flows are nice. “no perms in a method debate” doesn’t make sense.
good topicality debates should be specific and include impact calc. these debates are great if the negative is doing things like naming case lists or telling me what successful teams are reading. negative teams should be answering the affirmative's standards and how they interact with the negative's if it's a viable 2NR choice. i'll default through competing interpretations.
most familiar with militiarism, cap, fem, and orientalism. if you’re going to read high theory/pomo stuff in front of me, please, please explain it well without any sophisticated jargon. i’m betting a lot of 3 minute overviews can be done on the line by line. negative teams should be able to explain and defend the alternative. framework is probably one of the most important things in these debates because it determines how i evaluate links/impacts (i.e if no links are to the actual plan text and impacts arent caused by the plan, the aff winning the framework part of the debate means the k is moot). specific links to the aff > totalizing, broad claims about whatever it is you’re critiquing. firmly believe that death/suffering are bad and that the aff gets to weigh the impacts of the plan vs the k.
good disad debate has great link analysis and impact calc/explanation. i don’t tend to buy da’s that are just “plan causes econ to crash which causes extinction”. politics is only a thing if you actually do internal link work, most likely not probable but i’ll still vote on it. turns case analysis can also be crucial for the ballot.
counterplans with evidence are probably better than ones without. negative teams should be good and prepared at any theory/competition debates about their counterplans. tell me what the counterplan does and slow down on the text. i don’t default to judge kick. affirmative teams should explain what the perm does.
condo good. international/fifty state fiat bad. 2nc cp’s bad. slow down on theory. i am much more likely to vote on theory if it is contextualized to the round and legitimate abuse happened. if this is the case, please impact theory out. a significant portion of your 2nr/2ar must be about theory if you’re going for it. when random theory blocks are being read against each other, it’s harder for me to vote on it. theory is the only place where i might diverge from tech > truth if something ruined your ability to debate.
how to boost speaks:
i will literally laugh at any joke/comment you make that is supposed to be funny
i like little catchphrases like, "i hope you're hungry because they just set up a concession stand" -- even though they're cheesy, they make me smile
sarcasm/being funny (but keep in mind there’s a line between being funny and being straight up mean)
knowing what you’re winning/losing and how that frames my ballot (i.e “even if we’re losing x, we’re winning y")
Point Loma Nazarene University '23
I really want to see a disad/counterplan debate or disad/case debate. I won't vote you down if this isn't your thing but I have yet to see one on this topic, so I will give an extra speaker point to any negative debater that attempts this strategy.
Top level things:
-As a caveat, everything in my paradigm is just my opinion and can be reversed through good debating.
-Nothing is at 0 or 100% risk. I evaluate debate as to which arguments have a higher risk and which ones are quantifiably bigger or implicate the debate on a deeper level.
-Debate determines risk until I'm told why it isn't.
-I don't have a problem voting for "lies" but I'd rather vote for true arguments.
-Some people whose opinions about the debate I admire are Chris Tai, Scott Wheeler, Raam Tambe, and Danish Khan.
-In my opinion, the negative does not read enough off-case positions most of the time.
-Judge instruction is underutilized but the team that uses it more will make the debate easier to decide.
Email chains are a big vibe: email@example.com
Rounds on the CJR Topic: 18
My Decision Process:
I will do my best to actively assess who is ahead during the debate however, this does not mean an instant decision. I will try to give a timely well thought out decision as fast as I can because I believe it's the debaters job to debate their best, and the judges to be an active listener and decisionmaker which means to think critically through the debate as it goes on. The way I use this process is by assigning risk based on explanation and/or comparison of arguments. Usually, I base the way I assign risk of on dropped arguments, explanations, and comparisons between which arguments should be considered to be the nexus question of the debate and which should not. Just to be clear when I mention explanation, I don't mean explain your argument about what is but how it fits throughout the overall strategic context of the round. This means quantifying why your evidence proves that argument has a broader scope than your opponents. Absent reading evidence, I usually vote for the team that has best articulated why their argument's risk is higher or can be quantiified as much bigger. Good ev/argument comparison, framing arguments, and evidence that can be well explained in a strategic context can shift this process in your favor. The reason for my decisionmaking process is that I believe in tech over truth and I don't try to do alot of work people. Explanation is important but only in the context of me evaluating the debate in a purely technical way because I do not want to evaluate the relative truth claims of arguments as much as I can. That is not so say I am truth over tech, the process I just listed probably only applies if the debate is close. If an argument is dropped, it's dropped and I have SUPER LOW threshold for dropped arguments which I will vote on. The more you use the process above to direct my decision, the less my predispositions factor into the decision.
I believe that the evidence determines the scope of the argument. I.E if you powertag your extinction card but it only says small scenario for war, I'll probably not against a powertagged card if the other team points it out but I'll vote for lies in any other instance.
Online Specific Stuff:
-Go 85-90% of how fast you would go in an in-person round.
-I do not require you to turn your camera if you do not feel comfortable doing so.
-If you are reading blocks that are mostly analytics, slow down a bit because not all of us have the best internet connections.
I am an okay judge for the Kritik. My Kritik experience revolves around common Kritiks like Cap and Security and Kritiks about theories that engage in structural analysis of antiblackness, settler colonialism, liberalism, etc. but anything else will require more explanation. I think that thesis claims and links are the most important part of the Kritik. Thesis level claims should forward a description of the world that filters how I evaluate the other parts of the Kritik. For example, if you read antiblackness or Psychoanalysis, you would want to win arguments such as Blackness is ontological, Psychoanalysis is true, or the state is irredeemable. Links should be about the plan, not just rant about why a certain ideology is bad. I'm somewhat agnostic on the alternative level, but it should solve the aff in some way. Aff teams should leverage their aff against the K way more imho. I understand Kritik's are multifaceted and have many ways to win on them, so both sides should explain why the parts of the Kritik debate they are winning matter if you decide to divert from my preferences.
T vs Policy Aff:
Plans should be topical. Painting a scary version of the topic that creates an unreasonable research burden for the negative is always a good strategy. Depicting a litany of affs that the 2N cannot prepare for is fine. If you make a ground argument, explain why the specific Affs, Disads, or Counterplans are necessary for your side to have a fair chance at winning rather than just saying we lose "x" ground without explanation as to why that ground is necessary in the first place.
T vs K aff:
I prefer that the affirmative read a topical plan but that is not a deal-breaker. I recognize that some Kritikal affirmatives have a great deal of value and are some of the best arguments in debate read by the best debaters but a lot of K affs are part of a phase that some debaters have where they want to be a "K debater" because it's fun, new, or more interesting. Rants aside, my preferences are just that; my preferences, I will ultimately vote for the team that does the better debating in the most technical way possible in every debate I judge no matter what argument the debaters read.
If you develop 1-3 pieces of good offense, I will be more inclined to vote aff. In general, the whole "we're a discussion of the resolution" argument is a decent counter-interpretation but the more aff takes the side of the discussion that affirms the action of the resolution, the more likely I'll vote aff. Redefining the words of resolution can be good too. I think that affirmatives that don't have the grammar of a plan but still affirm the action of the resolution like the "No is illegal" aff from the immigration topic are up for debate because it still gave some ground (but not enough) to the negative. Anything that goes in the direction of carte blanche rejection of the topic will be a harder sell.
If you are against a kritikal affirmative, I think that procedural fairness is the most tangible impact that my ballot has an effect over. I prefer if you read standards that engage or turn the aff's offense or demonstrate that their description of the world and debate is inaccurate or problematic. DO NOT argue racism, sexism, homophobia good, etc. but challenge the operationalization of the aff's theory in the debate by reading standards that challenge the scope of the claim that the 1AC forwards.
General Policy Stuff:
- Framing is a supplement, not a substitute for answering disads.
- Read arguments that justify the educational model of how we talk about impacts. Things "Learning about extinction is valuable" or "Extinction prediction education is bad"
-If you are reading a soft left, read arguments about extinction prediction models fail rather than some ethical orientation about immediate violence comes first.
-Debate in meta-level characterizations that tell the story of the debate. COMPARE arguments. Say things like link speaks to a broader event that the aff causes or the link evidence only describes a small event that the aff outweighs. OR "the aff's advantage is minuscule but the disad is huge because they conceded "x", "y", and "z" argument.
Read them. There's not much to say here. Read a counterplan. Make sure it solves a sufficient part of the aff. Define what is a sufficient amount of the aff is solved by the counterplan and vice versa for the aff. Ideally point to lines in the evidence that identify these thresholds for solvency. Quantify counterplan solvency/solvency deficits by telling how big or a small counterplan solvency or the solvency deficit is. Solvency advocates for counterplans are helpful but not having one isn't a deal breaker.
I evaluate them probabilistically and usually don't vote on arguments that are direct yes/no questions. Make arguments about the Aff/Disad having higher risk is the way to go for me. I care more about the impact debate than I used to but the link is still most important. Politics Disads are good and they teach valuable political forecasting skills that are extremely useful in the field of political science like making predictions about the political ramifications of political action in a probabilistic manner.
The debate determines whether a counterplan is legitimate or not as well as any other theoretical question. All things equal, I default negative on condo, states, international counterplans, PICs, and process counterplans. If you are to go for theory, make arguments about why the negative promotes a model of debate that creates worse education or lower quality arguments rather than some claim about why it makes debate too hard for you. Counterplan theory aside, I'm agnostic. You don't have to have an interpretation but it would better if you did. Don't blaze through blocks. Do line by line.
- All of the policy stuff applies.
- I have little to no comprehension of "phil" or techy strategies germane to LD and I will evaluate "phil" like a Kritik. The closer you are to policy debate, the happier everyone will be with my decision.
- I think condo is good but I find condo bad to be more debatable in LD than in policy.
I start at a 28 and work up or down from there.
27 - Still learning
28 - Alright
28.5 to 29 - You probably can break
29.5 and above - Semis/Finals
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Notre Dame High School - 2018
WorldSchool stuff for harvard:
I will listen to whatever argument you want to make.
I have judged a few world school debates in my life.
resolve your arguments -everything bellow still applies.
I have not looked into the 2020-2021 topic extensively, but have been coaching/judging pretty regularly. take that as you will.
update 2021: the more i judge the more i think debate is an intellectual free for all, outside of speech time's/prep/ballots nothing is "illegal."
I am not a stone tablet, i have my preconceptions on how the world works and arguments that surround the nature of our reality. Those are based on the subject formation i have experienced in debate/school and the agency i developed outside of institutions.
Debate produces critical thinkers that are trapped, unable to apply their knowledge to the world around them and retreat into intellectual, spatial bubbles of comfort and superiority, are you one of them? Reflect on what debate means for you when you are describing your vision of the topic to me. Reflect on the application of knowledge, are you learning things that you can use in your life, are you able to change your reality with what you've learned from debate? Do you really have agency?
I think this is question of competing visions of both debate and how to operate within intellectual spaces. Procedural fairness is an internal link that needs to be impacted - on its own saying "but procedural fairness" is not responsive.
I love innovative arguments, ! impact turns !, and re-highlighted evidence. (they say terror da you say terrorism good, their cards are written by hack inst. bring it up)
I am pretty well read, I think the best arguments and debates happen when all parties are familiar with the ideas being discussed, that creates a depth based environment. Metabolization of information takes time and energy, but the skills gained from it is well worth it. I enjoy debates that make me critically think beyond weighing impacts or weigh causes of those impacts.
If your opponents don't know why they are losing the round you aren't debating well, if you're well read on the lit base you are debating you should be able to explain it to them during your speech while still making convincing arguments that i could vote on. I would rather hear less arguments explained, contextualized and debated in the round, than more bullet points on an overview that i am probably not going to be flowing.
I would prefer you resolve the debate substantively vs theoretically. I simultaneously believe in zero conditional advocacies and unlimited conditional advocacies. CounterPlans that compete off the certainty and immediacy of the plan are lame, y'all can do better. PIC's need to, and you guessed it, PIC out of a portion of the plan.
tech>truth but idk if i believe this bc of debate conditioning or because i believe technical concessions outweigh a big T truth. convince me one way or the other.
have a groovy round
Online judging :
please don't ask me if you can go to the bathroom at your own place, just tell me that you're going to go at a convenient time.
anyone with a chess.com account gets .1 higher speaker points (you gotta bring it up tho)
I debated in high school and college, and I also coached both high school and college. Decades ago. I flow, and I am fine with spreading as long as you enunciate and don’t slur your words. Given the policy topic, you should know that I am a practicing lawyer. But I will judge the round based on what you argue.
Be kind. Don’t be obnoxious.
Since I’m old school, I have little patience for kritiks and theory. I expect topical debates. Don’t waste our time with arguments that have absolutely nothing to do with the resolution. Turn your argument into a disad, and you may have something I’d vote for. If both sides agree on a framework, I will likely apply it unless it is completely silly. I will not adopt a framework that asks me to vote for the team who says “banana” the most times in the round, even if both sides ask me to do so. If there is no agreement on framework, I will likely apply utilitarianism, even if nobody asks me to do so. Do not read me a poem, or tell me a story, or try to win the round by letting me know how the other side’s arguments make you “feel.” Not gonna work. High speaks go to those with great, on topic, clash.
I don’t like planless affs because I think they are abusive. The aff should always have a plan that relates to the topic.
I will of course consider voting for a counterplan. But be careful. I am voting on the resolution, not the plan. If the neg gives me a topical counterplan, I’m inclined to vote aff.
Do not speak in a monotone. Vary your pitch, pace, and volume. Make eye contact. Use cross ex wisely. If you are going to ask for cards, I expect you to do that in cross ex or using prep time. If the other side has a better argument, you will not win the round if you just repeat the argument they already blew out of the water. I only extend arguments that are unrefuted.
If I have to flow the aff arguments and the neg arguments on separate pages because they are talking about completely different things, that's not a debate. I like a round with lots of clash that forces me to weigh the arguments the aff won against the arguments the neg won. That's a good debate.
feel free to ask questions before we start
be respectful to each other, speak at a speed where u can be understood, don’t be rude, racism will not be tolerated, disrespect to queer people will not be tolerated, gender disrespect will not be tolerated.
add me to the email chain email@example.com
I’m a private criminal defense attorney. I did policy/parli debate during high school and college, and then coached and judged on and off for years
I’m open to all sorts of arguments. Don’t assume I know what all of the debate acronyms/jargon mean(s)
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated policy for four years at CPS, currently a junior on the Dartmouth policy debate team
I've read both policy stuff and k stuff, just make sure to explain all your arguments and have fun :)
I'll give you slightly higher speaks if you don't use all your prep/speech time when you've clearly won already
Lowell '20 || UC Berkeley '24
Add me to the email chain - email@example.com
Please format the chain subject like this: Tournament Name - Round # - Aff Team Code [Aff] vs Neg Team Code
I think about debate in the same way as this guy
I debated for four years at Lowell High School. I’ve been a 2A for most of my years (2Ned as a side gig my junior year). Qualified to the TOC & placed 7th at NSDA reading arguments on both sides of the spectrum.
I learned everything I know about debate from Debnil Sur - his paradigm is 1000x more nuanced and thought-out than mine will be.
Update for the CPS RR:
I have never heard a PF round in my life. Please don't assume I know any jargon specific to the activity. I will try to evaluate the round like I would in policy.
I'd rather adapt to your strategies than have you adapt to what you think my preferences are - I personally dislike judges injecting their personal views into decisions. The below are simply guidelines & ways to improve speaks via tech-y things I like seeing rather than ideological stances on arguments. No judge has a clean slate but I’ll try my best to decide the debate based solely on what I hear in round.
Tech >>>>>>>>> truth
I think evidence quality is important, but I value good spin more because it incentivizes smart analysis/contextualization - I personally believe that a model of debate where rounds are adjudicated solely based on evidence quality favors truth more than technical debate skills. With that being said, I’ll probably default to reading evidence if there’s a lack of evidence indicts or resolving done by teams in round.
Fine with speed, but I do flow on paper & don't look at speech docs during the round so be clear
Looooove judge instruction - I’m lazy, please write my ballot for me.
My biggest frustration when judging rounds is inaccurately flagging arguments the other team spent a substantial amount time answering as “dropped" - your speaks will reflect this frustration. Second to that is repeating “they dropped x” instead of explaining what the technical concession means for you.
I refused to read a plan for most of my debate career but I enjoy framework debates and don’t have a heavy lean towards one side.
Generally, I don’t think people do enough work comparing/explaining their competing models of debate and its benefits other than “they exclude critical discussions!!!!”
For the aff: Having advocacy in the direction of the topic >>>>>>>> saying anything in the 1AC. I’ll probably be a lot more sympathetic to the neg if I just have no clue what the method/praxis of the 1AC is in relation to arms sales. I think the value of planless affs come from having a defensible method that can be contested, which is why I’m not a huge fan of “refusal” affs or advocacies not tied to the topic. Not sure why people don’t think perms in a method debate are not valid - with that being said, I can obviously be convinced otherwise. I prefer nuanced perm explanations rather than just “it’s not mutually exclusive”.
For the neg: I don’t really buy procedural fairness - I think to win this standard you would have to win pretty substantial defense to the aff’s standards & disprove the possibility of debate having an effect on subjectivity. I usually like to go 6-8 off against planless affs - one off framework debates are boring for me. If the aff says you can read topic disads - hold them to that and read a bunch in the 1NC. If not, there’s your abuse for framework.
Not much to say here - think these debates are pretty straight forward. Smart, nuanced link analysis/internal link explanation >>>> “our impact outweighs on [x] because [unwarranted assertion]!!11!!”. Detailed, subpointed link modules and link turns case analysis will make me and your speaks very happy
Default to judge kick unless the 2ar is really convincing on why I should not/wins the thesis of condo.
I can't remember the last time I heard a really good counterplan. Process/agent/consult CPs are kind of cheating but in the words of the wise Tristan Bato, "most violations are reasons to justify a permutation or call solvency into question and not as a voter."
Smart solvency deficits >>>>
I think I tend to err neg on questions of conditionality & perf con but probably aff on counterplans that garner competition off of the word “should”. Obviously this is a debate to be had but also I’m also sympathetic to a well constructed net benefit with solid evidence.
Framework is sosososo important in these debates. I don’t think I really lean either side on this question but I don’t think the neg needs to win the alt if they win framework + links based on the representational strategy of the 1AC.
Nuanced link walls based on the plan/reps + pulling evidence from their ev >>>> links based on FIATed state action and generic cards about your theory.
To quote Debnil “I'm a hard sell on sweeping ontological or metaphysical claims about society; I'll likely let the aff weigh the plan; I don't think the alt can fiat structures out of existence; and I think the alt needs to generate some solid uniqueness for the criticism.“
I default to competing interps. Explanations of your models/differences between your interps + caselists >>>>> “they explode limits” in 10 different places. Please please please please do impact comparison, I don’t want to hear “they’re a tiny aff and that’s unfair” a bunch.
Questions of norms ≠ ethics violations about clear evidence distortion(deliberately modifying evidence to alter its meaning)/clipping. If one team is accused of an ethics violation, I’ll take it seriously and ask if the accusing team would like to stop a round, then let tab take it from there.
Be nice & have fun.
I competed for 5 years in policy (two in college). I've been judging Policy since 2010. Right now I also coach HS LD.
I try my hardest to be tabula rasa, but I'm also a person.
Major things that make me different from other judges:
1) I'm somewhat hard of hearing - try to talk way louder than you would. This is usually only a problem during physical (not online) tournaments, and in rooms with a lot of echo.
2) Calling for evidence - I hate doing it. Tell me what their evidence says or doesn't say. You have their speech doc. I don't like reading and I don't like taking up RFD time to read stuff that should've been explained.
3) I don’t like spreading through warrants - I know that the debate community has made it the norm that judges read through speech docs as they’re being read. I’m not a huge fan. That being said, I guess I’ll follow along if I must, but I do dock speaker points for clarity more so than most judges.
4) Try to be pleasant.
5) K's on the Neg and their Aff refutations:
Aff: Don't over-rely on framework, perms and theory. Read these arguments when they really make sense, not out of fear of engaging the substance of the K. Make sure that the K actually violates the rules you want to set up before spending time setting up those rules.
Neg: Don't be lazy! Read specific, offensive links with well-explained alts that are both paradigmatic and can be translated into action that helps people. You can advocate for specific solutions (that may or may not be state policies) as examples of a broader and more general alternative. Find a good balance between examples, explanations, and warrants/proof.
add me to the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Tech over truth
K - don't read a high theory K, I can judge others but I prefer not to
DA - contextualize links, do impact comparison, etc.
CP - i like process/consult/agent CP's, but i like CP's that recut 1AC evidence better. Condo is prolly good but don't go crazy
T - use standards as DA's to their C/I, recutting interps is always persuasive, have case lists
I am fine with speed but you need to prioritize clarity
From the novice debates I've judged, my main comments always center around rebuttal decisionmaking. both the aff and neg must determine the most strategic off-case(s)/arguments to go for, make choices, and have ballot framing! put yourself in my shoes and think about what I will vote on. This not only makes it easier for me (as a judge), but if executed properly, I will reward you with higher speaks. The more warrants you give, the higher speaks I give. If they drop an argument you still need to explain it.
Most of my views align with my wonderful coach, Christina Phillips.