Hi,

I competed in LD and Policy for six years at Newark Science/Science Park High School. I also competed for 3 years at Wake Forest University in college policy. If, for some reason this helps, my specialities in high school and collegiate debate were critical arguments, soft left policy, and (critical and normative) T-framework. I'm best in clash debates, K v K, or K v T-FWK debates.

For the email chains: b.aaron3693 [@] gmail [.] com

Updates for TOC:

1) If you are unclear in any way, I will be brutally honest and say clear twice in your speech. If you don't adjust and are still unclear after the two times, I am heavily open to just saying "I didn't catch that argument" or "You were unclear" as my RFD.

2) LDers, tricks and normative phil aren't it for me. I'm just not the judge you should pref for any of those arguments because it's not my area of expertise. Same goes for one line blips. If the argument doesn't have a warrant, I will not vote for it.

3) Please properly disclose your arguments! I've glitched out before in online judging and have had competitors and other judges on panels glitch out too. It's so helpful that you are sending out marked documents and properly disclosing during the round.

4) My topic knowledge is constrained. I default to debaters to educate me on topic specific content, which means that you should default to explaining your arguments well.

On Speed and Document Accountability

Please start off at 75% of your speed then gradually get faster. Online debate doesn't help clarity either so you have to overcompensate for that. Also, just to make it explicit, I will not vote on arguments I don't catch on the flow especially when you are unclear. I hate flowing based on the document. I'll make sure to say clear when needed but, after two times, your speaks are getting docked.

All changes to the original file you sent out must be sent out immediately after your speech. For example, if you read through your 1NC and mark two cards and skip over a paragraph of analytics, the marked version of your document needs to be sent out. This aids in accountability purposes. I usually follow along and mark them myself but some of yall just overestimate your speed and skip around a bunch which makes doing so hard.

Arguments

I understand how arguments work.

Default to over-explanation of your position and get rid of acronyms. I love examples and non-abstract argumentation. And, for the love of everything, varsity debaters, throw it back to novice year where your coaches yelled at you to weigh and crystalize. It's SO helpful no matter what year you are.

Lastly, I'm NOT a tabula rasa judge. Anyone who says that is lying and/or oblivious to power dynamics. My experiences in debate and life will always inform my thinking which means please don't be racist, sexist, or offensive.

Debated for University of Rochester for 6 years in Varsity Policy Debate and BP/Worlds Debate

Coached HS policy debate for 1.5 years

Currently a Clinical Psychology PhD student at Indiana University Bloomington

And yes, I would like to be on the email chain: oabubaka@u.rochester.edu

Borrowed from the Glass man himself: "If you are a debater with accessibility (or other) concerns please feel free to reach out to me ahead of the round and I will work with you to make the space as hospitable as possible."

Honestly, just do what you want in front of me and just explain your arguments. I will vote on how you want me to vote (since how I see the debate may not be the same way you think you are articulating).

Also, if you can, I prefer debaters to slow down when in front of me. I am not the best judge for you if you decide to spread as fast as Harvard MS or Northwestern MV (although Arjun is very clear).

If you read high theory, do not pref me unless you are willing to explain your argument. My area of study is in psychology, neuroscience, linguistics, and disability studies so I am not hitting up the latest post-modern/structuralist/etc. papers.

Greetings debaters, coaches, and old friends. My name is Alex Acosta. I debated 1996-2000 in high school at Gulliver Prep, Assistant coach at Carrollton Sacred Heart from 2000-2002, debated at the University of Miami from 2003-2007, and was an Assistant Coach at Berkley Prep 2007-2008. I got back into debate this year judging for the Boston Debate League.

I have some familiarity with the topic, I still flow fairly well (if debaters or coaches would like them after the round they are available), and you never really forget debate theory.

Here are some thoughts on debate theory and arguments:

Counterplans: They should compete. I am fairly ambivalent on conditionality, however the affirmative has the right to challenge it. I can be persuaded on impacted and developed theory arguments.

Topicality: When I was an active participant I loved winning rounds on potential for abuse, in hindsight I do not find this as persuasive as I thought it was. Regardless, I will vote on it. Detail out the abuse claims, impact the reasons to vote (education, effects , or extra )

Critiques: I used them often, I find them more compelling debated with an alternative. If you explain your impact like a disad impact, then I think you open yourself up to have it attacked as a disadvantage. A counterplan with a non-unique net benefit sounds non-compelling.

Competing frameworks can be debated and defended but the onus is on the debaters to provide reasons why their framework is more beneficial.

Generic Theory: If you can prove abuse and give me a reason to vote for it I will.

Finally, this is an educational activity that by its very nature will have winners and losers. So while I will try to rationalize my ballot in that way, I will also look for the easiest reason to vote. If I have to ask to read your evidence, you are asking me to intervene. If you have any questions please feel free to ask before the round. If you or your coaches have any questions feel free to email me at Alex.m.acosta@gmail.com. Also use that email for the round chains.

jorman.antigua@gmail.com

school affiliation: acorn community high school (Brooklyn NY), NYUDL (new york urban debate league), stuyversant high school (New york, NY)
years debating: 4 years of high school, starting college debate

in a debate round i have done everything from cp and politics to performance

my first highschool topic was aid to south Africa, last one was reduce military (if that matters)

I will vote on whatever arguments win, this means I may vote on anything, it could come down to Counterplan-Disad, Procedurals, Kritiks, Affs with no plan text, to even performance. tell me what your argument is and what the ballot signifies (if it has a meaning)...i.e. policy maker etc...(...)

speaker points: be persuasive and make it interesting thin line between funny and ass hole at times may it be in cross-x or your speech you decide *background music* ...analysis/argumentation (don't lie about reading a hole card if u didn't,don't just read cards and tag~line extend ~_~ ) i will call for evidence if needed and i will hit you wit the world famous "cum on son" lol

specifics...

impact your arguments (duhh)

Topicality: i like a good t debate, their fun and at times educational, make sure you impact it, and give a correct abuse story...

counter plans: have a good net benefit prove how they solve the case

dis ads: you can run them i vote for anything and am familiar with most scenarios

k: i was a k db8er for the better half of my db8 career so i'm pretty familiar with most k~lit u will read unless its like some deep
nietzsche, zizek, lacan type ish but i get it...and if you explain it give a good story and show alternative solvency i will vote for it...it is also fine if you kick the alt and go for it as a case turn just debate it out...

preformance: i did this too...explain what the round comes down to...i.e. role of the judge/ballot/db8ers...and if their is a form of spill over what this is and means in real world and debate world... block framework lol...and show me why your/this performance is key...may it be a movement or just you expressing your self...i like methodology db8s so if it comes down to the aff and neg being both performance teams be clear on the framework for the round and how your methodology is better and how the other may recreate these forms of oppression you may be speaking about...may it be the deletion of identity or whiteness etc...same things apply if your running a counter~advocacy against a performance team...(*whispers* solvency)...k vs performance rounds same as methodology prove the link and as for the alt prove the solvency... framework vs performance rounds i had a lot of these, boring but fun to see the way they play out depending on interp, vio, impacts and stuff...

framework: any kind is fine...same justification as Topicality...depending on how your spinning framework within a round... *yells* education =)

theory: sure

short & sweet

#swag...have fun...do you...debate =)

Glenbrook South high school ‘15

University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign

Top Level
-Clarity is very important both in tags and card text. Slow down.
-Clash is the crux of any good debate.
-Explanation is key and the team that better explains their arguments earlier in the debate will be more persuasive in front of me.
-Tech over truth (usually).
- Impact calculus/comparison is truly awful in most debates. I think it should be more sophisticated than just probability/timeframe/magnitude and should include discussions of impact inclusivity, internal link short circuiting, etc.
-I have no predispositions that should preclude you from reading anything you would normally read. Tabula rasa is impossible but I’ll try and “you do you”.
-Cross-x is as important as your speeches and is binding.
-Have fun, don’t cheat.

Specific Arguments
Topicality— T debates are awesome but I am unfamiliar with the topic and as such have no idea what you consider a “core aff” or anything about the community’s consensus. I’m won over by contextualized and limiting interpretations (though I am willing to defer to reasonability if the aff is convincing). Also teams that take the effort to counter define words will make an impression on me.
Critiques— while not versed in every K imaginable I’m probably okay for whatever you want to read. Other than that I think specific links are great, critiques should have external impacts, and the framework debate is extremely important and you should have a clear role of the ballot. I dislike long overviews that are just summarizations and a grab bag of different K tricks. Explanation is once again key and will get you farther with me the earlier it is done.
Counterplans— once again specificity is great but I’m also fine with teams reading consult, PICs, delay etc., even if only for the fact that they will encourage counterplan competition debates which I think are awesome. With that being said I really only think that condo bad is ever really a reason to reject the team and not just the argument.
Disadvantages— not much to say with disads other than that I once again think specificity is great. I also like to see comparative impact calculus.
Politics— I think evidence quality matters a lot in politics debates but only so far as you the debater explains your evidence and compares and contrasts it your opponents’. I want to do as little work post round as possible. Everything above about disads also applies.
Impact turns— Some are good and some are dumb but almost all are hilarious so I really like seeing impact turn debates. They generate easy offense and can thus be very strategic.
Non-traditional affrimatives— Two of my beliefs regarding debate frame how I view non-traditional affs. These are the value of clash and the importance of explanation. I think negative teams often try to circumvent clash by just going for framework or some generic K and I think that affirmative teams slow play their aff with ambiguity or a lack of explanation in earlier speeches. I think both these practices lead to uninteresting debates. I would rather see negative teams try to engage the affs even if they have no evidence and I would rather see the aff being as clear about their aff their proposed role of the ballot as early as possible. All this being said I still do think that framework debates can carry a great deal of clash and explanation but only when done thoughtfully with both sides regarding the other’s arguments.

Closing Thoughts

Debate is an educational game and should be treated as such so please have fun.
My personal goal is that at the end of the debate you were able to learn at least something from having me as your judge.
Lastly, everything is up for debate and that is the beauty of the activity. Each team has 26 minutes of my undivided attention to explain their arguments and persuade me why they should win; this matters much more than any part of my philosophy.
Please feel free contact me with questions or anything at Nishanthasokan97@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, my email is awavrakh@gmail.com. If you have any questions, feel free to email me.

I debated high school policy debate for 4 years with Goldstein HS, I've judged and taught parli and I've judged PF.

I don't like:

Existential impacts, don't give me a million ways nuclear war will happen, high magnitude impacts are almost always unconvincing and non-unique, if you're gonna run that kinda arg, make sure the impact story makes sense

Generic t arguments, I'll vote on it if it's carried well but if you can run off case and on case, then t really has no place in your 1nc. Time skews are just boring for everyone involved, throwing things at the wall and seeing what sticks isn't an effective strategy

Spreading tags and analytics, as that's the stuff I'll need to flow. If I don't get down something important because your spreading through it, don't be surprised if I have to make my own conclusions to write an rfd

That aside, I'm fine with anything so long as it's thoroughly explained. I also like if you're funny, snarky, or bring up the mood somehow... it makes for good debate, brightens everyone's day, and usually gets you higher speaks

Anyway, have a good time, have fun, and good luck

she/they pronouns

I debated three years in high school with some moderate success at the local and national level. During high school, I read predominantly K affs and Ks, focusing on capitalism and identity arguments. I'm now a sophomore at Columbia, and I do some debate equity work, but don't debate for the university. Despite judging online, I’m still a hater of the online format and am consistently screwed over by my wifi, so efforts at argumentative clarity are much appreciated.

I’m very new to this topic but am currently helping work on a water rights case for an indigenous tribe, so I have a general understanding of how the world works around this. Needless to say, if you’re reading hyper topic specific affs, I might need you to explain the acronyms.

CPs and DAs are great if they're specific.

Don't spread your tags, especially if you're reading topicality arguments. I need to know what your version of debate looks like to vote on T. I'll say clear twice, after that I'll stop flowing.

I care about making debate an equitable space, and I'm pretty willing to vote on theory. Performance affs are welcomed. Creativity is welcomed. Be nice human beings.

Put me on the email chain: emilyjbach@gmail.com

MBA '20

Harvard '24

Please put me on the chain and feel free to send any questions here: adenbarton@college.harvard.edu

TL:

Do whatever you want. None of the biases listed below are so strong as to override who did the better debating, but adjusting to my priors could maximize your chances of winning and result in better speaks. That being said, I probably will come down on policy side against the K if the debate is exactly even.

Being nice in round, evidence quality, and efficient line-by-line are the most important things to me / will be rewarded the most with speaks.

Specifics:

K: I agree with Julian here:

“I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.”

CP: Lean neg pretty heavily on most theory but could go either way on process cps, depending on the quality / specificity of the cp and in-round theory debating. I won't judge kick unless told to.

DA: Nothing new to say really. Think that generic DAs are probably underutilized, so no worries going for those in front of me.

K Affs / FW: I went for framework many times in high school, so I judge these rounds with the experience of having been on the neg vs k affs more so than being on the aff vs fw. For affs, I find straight up impact turns / k’s of fw more persuasive than c/i + defining words in the rez. For the neg, I’m more of a skills / education impact person, but still will listen to fairness / clash impacts.

T: Please please give me more background on the topic than you would normally. I have no idea what the core of the topic, community consensus, or what the best core generics are. The team that more specifically describes what their vision of the topic usually seems to win these debates.

Speaker Points: Will reward kind debaters who are enjoying themselves in the activity. Will reward speeches given off flow / not reading blocks in late rebuttals.

Please don't hide aspec in the 1nc.

Overview:

Hey! I'm Jordan (he/him/his). I am a freshman at Harvard College planning to study Philosophy or Government. I did policy for 3 years in high school, 4 years of speech, and was on the CX team here at Harvard for a bit (planning on returning here soon). I am effectively tabula rasa (in debate, at least). I fundamentally believe in the doctrine of functional frameworks and counter-frameworks (this meaning the debate experience shapes the judge interpretation of the ballot, the round, or the debate space by introduction of, and rebuttal of, framework positions). In this, the debate experience is shaped uniquely only by the debaters in question. I hold no inherent value towards the resolution, debate structure, or meta-textual or metaphysical interpretations within the debate, such as the role of performance, language, or superstructure. This is not to suggest that I don't hold opinions/analytical perspectives on the issues raised in the debate, but as a judge, I open the debate space without my own subject-experiences. There are no fundamentals guaranteed in the debate other than those which are mutually accepted by, best articulated by, or debated by the two teams. In this, all voting issues are tangential to the substance of any single debate, so I vote on anything and everything so long as I have an implicit or direct framework which allows me to evaluate it in comparison to the debate as a whole and all rebuttals raised against it.

TL;DR: I am purely non-interventionist tabula rasa, meaning I uphold no rules or standards other than those brought into conversation by the debaters or those implicitly agreed upon by both teams (for instance, speaking time). I vote on anything as long as it wins the debate and I have a reason to believe it winning the debate is sufficient to capture the ballot.

Specific Things (work in progress):

Theory (ALL): In line with paradigm notes, theory is obviously fine in debate. I will not prefer any interpretation or meta-structuring innately, but will listen to theory args. Theory is a huge thing to hash out here, so if you have anything weird or need clarification, you can ask, and I'll answer as best as I can.

Coaching/Spectators/Scouting: Follow tournament rules, but in the blank spaces between those rules most of the time is difference between spectators and coaching/scouting. Difference between these two categories is big. Debaters have the right to object to any spectator in the room, and they will be asked to leave if any debater has a problem with any certain individual watching. Coaching is different matter. Debaters are always allowed to be coached before round. If you don't want coaching against you, which is fine, refuse to disclose. This is perfectly within your rights (as long as it is specifically not forbidden by tournament rules), and if you're the opponent, you can run Disclosure T, as you can run anything, but I won't for some reason give your argumentation more leniency if they don't disclose.

Topicality: In line with my paradigm notes above, T is fine and is not inherently a time-suck. Debate it sufficiently, and maybe it is. I will vote on it if I should (if it wins the debate and I have reason to think it deserves the ballot).

Performance: Same as my general paradigm, I don't care, but if you think you should debate it, do so and I'll weigh methods. However, I won't ask for clarification on performative purpose. All argumentation is assumed to be within the realm of the ballot unless otherwise stated, so if it is an aesthetic addition, say so. This also goes for Discourse Ks as DAs or the sort: I will assume it is on the flow unless you state it is aesthetic.

Addendum: someone asked if they can play music as a performance/before round. Two different issues, but before round is fine as long as no one is uncomfortable. In round, yes as a component of performance, obviously. Don't disturb other rounds.

Time: Keep it and don't cheat.

Card-Cutting: Be clear and state exactly where you stop reading. Reasonably, I won't evaluate card claims/warrants that aren't spoken.

Open CX: I am still being asked about this, so to put it simply: I don't care. If a team is uncomfortable with it, defer to me and I'll evaluate whether or not that discomfort is sufficient to cease Open CX. Otherwise, don't ask. Open CX is assumed in any sensible tabula rasa paradigm.

Disclosure: Follow tournament rules and be nice to each other. Otherwise, your choice.

Literature Debate: I am fine on critical literature, so don't hold back. But do it correctly; I study postmodernism and cultural theory, so "high" theory (Frankfurt School, Deleuze, post-colonial) is within my academic scope. I've probably read what you're cutting from or read something critiquing/reviewing it, so don't skip loose ends on the crit debate. I obviously don't expect the level of complication of theory as it would be in an academic setting, but don't be cheaty by obscuring links with buzz words that receives little to no sophistication based on the literature. It obviously isn't a voter unless implicated as such, but the weight your alts and links carry when they rest on a bed of skeptical theoretical sophistication is obviously harmed.

Resolutionality: See above, but I don't differ to resolutional cases because they are innately resolutional. Even if you're a policy buff, if a neg case brings resolutionality into question (be it in an operative mechanism, value-based mechanism, like a Kritik, or on theory), a rebuttal is not "this is the resolution we were given," or "but its the resolution!" However, defending aff ground, predictability, etc. as STANDARDS to why we should prefer resolutionality theoretically is a response. This is a callback to my emphasis on operative frameworks: nothing is guaranteed as an innate standard unless it is implicitly valued by both teams. Even the resolution is capable of criticism (and meta-criticsm) if a team has a reason to suggest we should critique it.

Framework/Framing: One thing I will say is that framework, both as an off-case or as a structural mechanism within an argument, requires an interpretation. If you want me to view the round/ballot/team in some way, you need to clearly define how that experience exists and how I should orient myself to it. IT IS CRITICAL to provide counter-frameworks as the opposing team, as I cannot assume how your arguments function in relationship to the framing of your opponent. As a tabula rasa judge, I have to definitionally prefer what framework I am given if it is not contested, tabula rasa being very literal in this sense (meaning I have only witnessed, and thus can only know, the given framework that exists in the world of the debate). Even if it is conceptually flawed, if it is the only framing that exists in that world, I have to prefer it. Give counter-frameworks with standards and clash. If no framing is provided, I implicitly differ to the flow and weigh arg versus arg (which should inevitably conclude in impact analysis and clash, which is sufficient to write a ballot as it gives me a lens to view the debate).

Arg Prefs: This is usually the point where judges will rank their prefs on distinct args. I will not do that. Every debate is unique and all issues have distinct context and related structuring as a component of that unique debate experience. Thus, I can't really holistically rank all Topicality issues, DA issues, or K issues in one ranking. I will listen to anything and everything, and it is ultimately your job to decide the value your arguments (and your opponents arguments) hold in the debate.

Happy debating, and if you have any questions, debate-related or not before/after round, talk to me or email me at jordanbarton@college.harvard.edu.

***Judging history is wrong here on NSDA - can't link to tournaments I've judged in West Texas as I didn't link to Tabroom, any questions lmk.***

Rowland Hall-St Mark's '17

Georgetown University '21

Berkeley Law '26

Put me on the email chain: dwbdebate@gmail.com

Judging Habits of Mine:

--Treat me like a stock issues judge that can keep up with speed and is in the weeds on topic literature. Only caveat to stock issues is I’m fine with CPs, conditionality, and Ks. But that K has to address at least solvency and harms.

--Quality of arguments matters more than quantity of arguments. Debaters win in front of me when they slow down and thoroughly make strategic arguments with clear implications for my decision, rather than throwing out inconsequential arguments and hoping I will put the pieces together for them.

--I tend to follow the Dallas Perkins view of evidence: "If you can't find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me." I am going to start more aggressively enforcing this premise. If I decide your card is gobbledygook from the highlighted words, I will not evaluate it. Similarly, you don't need to answer a card if you point out that the card says nothing as currently highlighted. That can have significant impacts for the round when unpacked, such as a 1NC failing to read a coherent link card to a DA.

--Relatedly, evidence quality is paramount. Please flag if your authors are writing in peer reviewed journals, if your opponent's authors have clear partisan affiliations that impact their scholarship, and the degree of specificity of your evidence.

--Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue. This is especially true when refuting contrived CPs and silly impact arguments.

--Debaters tend to rely on "extinction outweighs everything" far too much. I am not likely to vote for you simply because you are the only one to have a tenuous connection to an extinction level impact; I am likely to vote for you if you acknowledge relative degrees of risk and recognize that many impacts (e.g. poverty, disease, unemployment, regional conflicts with great power draw in, etc) are bad regardless of whether they will potentially lead to nuclear annihilation.

Operating Procedure:

--I flow on paper.

--I flow cross examination and will refer to that flow when making my decisions.

--I will not be following along closely enough with speech docs to enforce any sort of clipping violations by myself. Debaters should record debates and provide that recording when accusing the other side of an ethics challenge.

--Each debater must give 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. If it is not your speech and you say something, it will not be on on my flow.

--Not interested in arguments about issues from out of round. Also not interested in hearing arguments about how former debaters are either good or evil people (may make an exception if you actually know the person and can speak to their character, but I'm not interested in hearing you insult someone you don't know).

Theory Issues

--Conditionality is good. I will still vote aff on conditionality bad if debated well.

--I am very open to voting neg on plan vagueness arguments.

--Limited intrinsicness can be very good.

CPs

--I'm increasingly in the camp that CPs need solvency advocates (albeit not hard and fast with that rule). CPs grounded in opponent's solvency advocates are frequently an ideal 2NR in front of me.

--I'm getting bored of the States CP, especially in the iteration of "all 50 states uniformly do the plan" and/or "all 50 states should uniformly force the federal government to do the plan." I am open to consider 50 state action (if debated decently), but I don't see why the affirmative shouldn't be able to make solvency deficits about non-uniform implementation.

--I judge legitimacy of CP's on a case by case basis. In the magical world of fiat, it feels tough to categorically exclude specific varieties of CP's.

--Literature determines predictability. If your "cheating" CP is clearly in the lit, I will be more likely to listen to it and allow it in the debate. That also necessitates the literature clearly distinguishing it from the plan.

--If no one says a word about it, I will judge kick for the neg.

Ks

--I heavily prioritize framework in these debates, especially when framed in terms of the "win condition" for both teams. Generally, I find that assumptions/justifications underlying the 1AC are fair game for both aff and neg offense; however, I still require clear framing devices for how to determine who wins the debate should those assumptions be the primary consideration.

--I am open to vote on an alternative that includes the plan or other arguments that may be considered theoretically illegitimate by many. Just be up front about it (preferably in the 1nc) so the aff can respond and so you can have a real debate.

T

--T debates are fun when they focus on evidence, rather than purely abstract discussions of limits or ground.

No Plan/K Affs

--I like it when the aff has a robust defense of what debate looks like in their model, particularly a clear role for the negative team.

Misc:

--Do NOT read evidence written by undergraduates. I will not evaluate it.

--Tweets from experts can be effectively used as evidence in front of me. Two illustrative examples:

1. In response to evidence that says the Russian invasion of Ukraine was precipitated by NATO expansion, a debater reads this thread from a University of Chicago International Relations Professor: https://x.com/ProfPaulPoast/status/1630305966674640896?s=20
2. A 1AR responding to a politics disadvantage reads a tweet from a Senior Congressional Correspondent to indicate the current state of negotiations on a bill and its prospects of passing.

UPDATE FOR TOC 2024

a.bhaijidebate(at)gmail.com

gbsdebatelovesdocs(at)gmail.com

**please add both emails to the chain!**

Aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) Bhaiji (by-jee)

any pronouns (pls don't call me judge)

Debated for GBS 2016-2019, qualified to the TOC my third year and was awarded the JW Patterson Fellowship as a member of the graduating class of 2020. I do not debate in college.

I’ve judged around 30 debates on the fiscal redistribution topic. Most of my work related to debate is with Chicago Debates, where I help to build and maintain programs.

SHORT VERSION

"Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in...I think judging is a privilege."-Maddie Pieropan.

I flow as much as my fingers will allow me. Slow down on the important parts and always remember clarity should be prioritized over speed.

LONG VERSION

Debate as an activity loses all value when debaters do not consider that there has to be a reason why a team deserves the ballot. I try my hardest to stick to my flow and rely heavily on judge instruction as to how I will write my ballot. YOU DO NOT WANT ME TO CONNECT THE DOTS FOR YOU.

I appreciate debaters who are passionate, excited, and well-prepared. The best debaters I’ve witnessed throughout the years have been the ones who show kindness and respect towards their partners and opponents. I am not a fan of teams that openly mock, belittle, and disrespect the people they are debating.

Clarity is key and seems to be a lost art. I mostly flow by ear and will not catch what you are saying if you blast through your analytics. Please slow down and do not start at 100% speed at the top of your speech.

Planless Affirmatives

I like planless affirmatives, but you absolutely need to defend the choices and explanations you give in early cross-exes. I need to know what your version of debate looks like, and I am finding that most teams aren’t willing to defend a solid interpretation, which makes it hard for me to vote for them.

Please stick to an interpretation once you’ve read it. Clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolution are fun, and I find myself in the back of those debates most of the time.

CPs

I do not default to judge kick; you have to give me instructions. What does it mean to sufficiently frame something? I am so serious. I have been asking this question for what seems like forever now.

I miss advantage counterplans, and I am a less-than-ideal judge for Process CPs (I'm not saying I won’t vote for them, it might do you well to spend a couple more seconds on process cps good in the block).

Solvency advocates are good but not always necessary.

DAs

Zero risk of the DA is super real; sometimes you might not even need a card for it!

DAs as case turns will inevitably end up on the same flow, so please just tell me where to flow things earlier on in the debate.

Ks

Biiig fan of 'em.

“Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them, then I am unlikely to vote negative.”-AJ Byrne

If you cannot explain your alternative using a vocabulary a 7th grader can understand, you are likely using language and debate jargon that I find counterintuitive and, quite frankly, boring.

T

Why are we putting this as the first off? I will most likely miss the interpretation if you are speeding through it.

FW

Fairness is an internal link, clash is good and I personally think that more teams should be going for portable skills.

I am not good for “our interpretation is better for small schools”.

Other things:

1. If I could implement the no more than 5 off rule, I would.Obviously against new affirmatives, the circumstances are different, but I firmly believe that everything in the 1NC should be a viable option for the 2NR.
2. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD!I will try my hardest to be in the room for when it happens and I am not afraid to check teams wikis to see their disclosure practices. If you post round docs and show before I give you my decision, you will be rewarded.
3. I am super expressive, and you will be able to tell if I am vibing with whatever you are saying. I do have a very prominent RBF. Don’t take it personally; it means I am trying to get everything down.
4. Fine with tag-team but have found myself becoming frustrated when one debater from a team dominates all of cx. I do think that all debaters should speak at some point during cross-ex.
5. CX as prep is only justified when there is a new aff or if you are maverick.
6. The 1AC should be sent out at the scheduled round start time, the only exception is if the tournament is behind schedule and Tab has alerted everyone of the timing change.

More things I have thought about in regards to debate but aren’t wholly necessary to pre-round prep.

1. There is a difference between speaking up and yelling, I do not do well with debaters talking over their partners.

2. STOP HIDING ASPEC ON YOUR FLOWS, say it with your CHEST.

3. I LOVE good case debating, and I get sad when the block treats it as an afterthought.

4. I had no idea teams gained the ability to remember every single thing their opponent said. FLOW! PLEASE!

5. Why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills

6. Rehighlighting evidence is a lost art. Bring it back for 2024

7. Clipping is bad, don't do it. I will clear you twice, and after that, I will stop flowing. If there is a recording of you clipping, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach

8. I flow straight down (primarily because of sloppy line-by-line); the more organized your speeches are, the happier I am.

9. DRINK WATER

10. I do not care if you put a single card in the body of the email chain.

11. Have fun and let the games begin!

10/2/2018

Things to note:

I have not flowed a college varsity round in about 3 years. Be intentional in slowing down and speaking up around tags and warrants.

I don't like spreading. Sure i can comprehend the necessary things, but so much is lost at 300 words a minute. Speaks reflect largely on this.

While I was a K debater in college, I deal exclusively in policy now.

Debate Specifics:

Aff - Be related to the topic. I like any good affirmative plan text or not, i just want to know what your method is and does at the end of the round. I will vote against on reasonable fw args. K Affs probably dont get a perm in my world, or im at least extremely sympathetic to the arg if the neg makes it.

Neg -

5+ off is probably abuse

I prefer rigorous policy analysis over the K, and if you're reading the K I award making those smart case arguments to the link flow.

I like good topicality debates.

I'll vote on reasonable theory args.

I minimize as much judge intervention as possible, which means ill only flow while you're speaking and the laptop serves for contextual reference.

I do not have topic knowledge this year. Proceed accordingly.

You have < 10 seconds before the round:

a.) Tech > “truth” or ideological predispositions – although some level of judge intervention is inevitable, I will do my best to ensure that if you win the flow, you win the debate

b.) I will vote for both framework and k affs (see subpoint a)

c.) Rebuttals should frame why you win the debate (bolded because fewer and fewer teams seem to be doing this)

d.) In terms of qualifications, I did the whole TOC/speaker awards/late elims thing and I qualled to the NDT as a Harvard first-year, but I am a second year out – make of all of that what you will

e.) I love subpoints

Email Chain: yes

blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com

You have time:

As I debater, I am most frustrated by decisions in which I feel the judge voted in a way that doesn’t reflect the reality of the debate they judged. This could be because:

a.) The judge voted based on predetermined personal beliefs

b.) The judge heavily and somewhat arbitrarily intervened for one side

c.) The judge read all of the evidence at the end of the debate and reconstructed what could have happened, but didn’t

d.) The judge gave weight to new 1AR/2NR/2AR arguments

e.) The judge did other “work” for the debaters, making cross-applications or other analysis that the debaters themselves did not make in the debate

As a judge, I will attempt to NOT do these things, and to base my decision as much on the flow as I can.

Yes, I have biases. For example, I will generally assume that death and suffering are bad unless told otherwise. However, I will insist that debaters create clear metrics for evaluating impacts. My favorite thought experiment for this is the following:

If the 1AC presents all the ways their plan or advocacy CAUSES extinction, and the negative team makes purely “defensive” arguments about how the aff doesn’t cause extinction, and the aff wins in the 2AR that they do cause extinction, I will vote aff: Both teams implicitly agreed that extinction is a good we should try to reach. Obviously speaker points in this debate would be quite low, and I’d be frustrated with the decision, but I will do my best to work within the evaluative system the debaters have either explicitly or implicitly created.

Do I have thoughts about the way arguments should be deployed? Yes, and I will delineate them below, but they can almost always be reversed by good debating. What do I mean by good debating? Line-by-line, warranted analysis that clashes with the other team’s analysis, strategic use of evidence, organizational clarity, and impact and ballot framing are the most important things to me.

Framework and K Affs:

This is where all of the stuff I said about tech > truth and voting on the flow comes in – whoever does the best line-by-line and impact/ballot framing will win the debate. I debated and judge in the northeast. I would estimate that maybe 75% of my neg debates in high school were k aff v. framework rounds, so I like to think that I am familiar with how these debates go down, and I enjoy them.

If you are going for framework:

a.) Go for whatever impact you like going for – procedural fairness, clash, switch-side debate, et cetera. I disliked it when judges “liked T” but “didn’t believe” that fairness or clash was an impact. Tell me what I should think are impacts and why, and I’ll listen.

b.) Answer case or at the very least explain why you don’t have to answer case.

c.) Close doors in the 2NR. You know the 2AR will expand on case or a disad – try to cut that off.

d.) Line by line. Please. Messy and late-breaking clash rounds favor the aff.

e.) The TVA is your friend. The combination of the argument that deficits to the TVA are negative ground and the argument that reading stuff on the neg is good is very persuasive to me.

f.) Don’t be afraid to extend stuff on case in the 2NR, particularly presumption level claims that question their advocacy’s ability to solve stuff.

If you are going for a k aff:

a.) Please defend something. I love it when k affs defend some form of material action, but please advocate for something.

b.) A couple smart, powerful disads > laundry list of similar, poorly explained/differentiated disads to T

c.) Compare models of debate – what does your model of debate do? Why does it resolve the harms you say their model creates, and why does it limit their offense?

d.) Line by line, especially in the 1AR, is so important – don’t force your 2A to make new arguments

e.) Impact framing

f.) If you do cool non-traditional stuff, bring it back up after the 1AC. I am always a little disappointed when the 1AC includes some song or performance but it disappears immediately.

Disads:

I LOVE the politics disad. As such if you extend it well, I will be happy, and if you extend it poorly, I will be sad. Extending a politics disad well means reading a ton of uniqueness cards and subpointing multiple answers to every 2AC argument. If this is done in the 1NR, and extended in the 2NR, speaks will be bueno.

Topic or process disads are also cool. Impact calc and turns case arguments are the move, especially link turns case arguments.

I don't have fixed ideological positions on the more nitty-gritty stuff -- it's up to the debaters to prove whether uniqueness controls the direction of the link, or vice versa, for instance.

Counterplans:

EXPLAIN WHAT IT DOES! I don’t have a ton of experience judging on this topic; I won’t immediately know the agency or mechanism you are talking about.

Multi-actor fiat, delay, conditions, and some + process and consult = sketch; international fiat on an international topic I will probably be okay with if you have the evidence. Solvency advocates can basically make any counterplan legitimate to me, but I will listen to any theory debate, and the 2A in me may or may not pop out. Not to feed a fed horse, but all of these leanings can be reversed by good (read: clear) theory debating.

I probably won't judgekick unless I am explicitly instructed to.

Policy T:

EXPLAIN YOUR INTERP! I don’t have the topic knowledge to know if there is “consensus” about what certain terms in the resolution mean.

I may be more willing to listen to reasonability than other judges.

K's:

Most of my aff debates in high school were soft left aff versus the k. I like it when there are links to the plan, not to the status quo. I also like turns case analysis and when the alt does stuff.

Please don't assume that I am wholly unfamiliar with all k stuff because I ran mostly policy affs. I am pretty familiar with a lot of the anti-blackness and cap literature and I am very up for those throw-downs.

I have a medium level understanding of a lot of the other literature, but unless it's something super new or Frankensteined together, I will probably be able to follow you.

***PLEASE DO CASE DEBATING*** This is something that frustrates me ENDLESSLY. K teams -- you know that extinction outweighs is one of the most powerful answers policy affs will leverage. The solution to this is NOT to add subpoint W to your "Util Bad" block. The reason the aff gets extinction outweighs is because you aren't MOCKING their scenarios. Policy aff internal links are SO contrived, especially on domestic reform topics. Impact scenarios rarely assume COVID or a Biden administration, and they're written by think tanks funded by Boeing and Lockheed Martin. The aff won't win on extinction outweighs if you EVISCERATE their extinction scenario. I think a block that was 8 minutes of the K and 5 minutes of ridiculing whatever nonsense the aff solves would be a killer. I know I am shouting into the void here, that case debating is a long lost art, but hopefully somebody reading this will invest some time on the case page.

Do I have any judging quirks?

a.) I find myself reading evidence after the round more and more. This is bad -- I hate being interventionist. That being said, I think a logical analytic still carries as much weight as a card.

b.) I have some but not a lot of topic knowledge. Please err on the side of explanation.

c.) Most of my debates in high school were against k teams, but I went to Michigan and helped at the Dartmouth debate camp. I like to think that means I have some amount of both policy and critical experience.

d.) I was a 2A for most of high school but I 2Ned or double two-ed for a few years. That means I may lean aff on theory surrounding questionable counterplans but I lean negative when it comes to holding a high bar for the 2AR.

e.) I am passionate about climate change. If you like going for warming good, I am the wrong judge for you. I will look for any way to vote for the other team and your speaks will suffer. I honestly have no idea why the debate community continues to treat this as a legitimate argument. (If this seems at odds with my tech>truth beliefs, I agree that I am not being wholly consistent, but the notion of breeding apathy among youth about climate change is frankly abhorrent to me. Just as tech over truth does not extend to arguments like racism is good, climate change is something I feel obligated to hold the line on.)

f.) I care a lot about the participation of women, especially WOC, in debate. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space.

g.) I want to help debaters who don't receive a lot of formal coaching. I remember feeling intimidated and isolated in high school debate rounds when the other team had 3+ professional coaches in the room while my partner and I sat alone, desperately trying to figure out what we could do. A lot of my coaching in high school came from incredibly kind strangers in the debate community who were willing to help (take pity on) a panicked kid who didn't have the cards to answer a disad. If you ever have questions, whether they're about my decision or just arguments in general, email me: blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com or find me in the hallway, and I will do my best to help you out.

h.) Subpoints!

i.) I love, love, love topic education arguments, whether they're on framework/T or when you are aff going against a K or when you are going for a k and making arguments about what topic education SHOULD look like. As a policy 2A I loved making arguments about the way grassroots organizing can amalgamate careful policy research with novel or radical forms of praxis and pedagogy. Teams that do this will make me happy.

j.) References to Magi Ortiz, Debayan Sen, Rayhan Ahmed, Sydney Young, Samar Ahmad, or Ishan Bhatt = +0.2 speaks; references to any Lex debater / Lexington debate in general, including Sheryl Kaczmarek = +0.1 speaks

If either of my cats are present during the round and a debater compliments them, makes a reference to them in any way, or shows me their pet(s): +0.2 speaks

Novice paradigm

Hello novices!

Yes:

-flowing

-line by line

-impact calc

-using evidence

-using warrants

-splitting the block (if you don't know what this means, ask!)

-picking up on dropped arguments

-being assertive

-referencing Debayan Sen, Magi Ortiz, or Rayhan Ahmed (if you don't know who these scrubs are, no worries)

-frame my ballot (why do I vote for you? what impacts does voting for you ameliorate, and why do those impacts matter/matter more than the other team's impacts?)

-show me your flows after the round (+.1 speaks)

-asking questions!! email me ( blatttaliaaspel@gmail.com ) with any questions about my decision/debate in general

No:

-extending claims without warrants + impacts

-bullying your partner or the other team

-block repetition (see above)

-switching flows without telling me when you are switching (signposting)

-reading arguments/blocks you don't understand

John Block: block.john.b@gmail.com please add me to email chain, thanks

LRCH ’09

Missouri state State ‘12

Last Updated: March 2024

General:

I am currently completing my final year of pediatrics residency so I have been out of the judging game to some extent so be aware that acronyms/the latest K lit I may not be up to date with. That being said I assist LRCH and judge practice debates/listen to practices. I believe that my job is to be a reactionary presence in the room. I do have my own opinions which I’ll get to in a bit but I should be receptive to basically anything you are doing. Being nice goes a long way. Make my job easy. If you can write my ballot for me in the 2NR/2AR I would be happy for you to do so. Even if statements are phenomenal, no one will win 100% of the arguments, recognize and embrace that.

Digital debate will be an adjustment to all. I have watched some debates but they were conducted over Zoom so I will be new to this software interface so please be patient if and when glitches arise.

You don’t need evidence for an argument, although it helps.

Specifics: T/Framework-I am not exclusively a policymaker. I’m just a person evaluating a discussion of ideas. That being said I went for Framework quite regularly in college and have voted on it multiple times. Be interactive with the other side, don’t just read blocks at each other. TVA’s are important and so are aff visions of the topic that are navigable to the negative team.

Theory: bad theory arguments are just that, bad. If you want to go for theory great but I am pretty easily swayed by reject the argument not the team. If you want to read consult/conditions style arguments I can get on board pretty easily. If you want to read multiple CPs without solvency advocates to simply skew the 2AC’s time I’m less on your side.

Case Debates-crucial to a good round. You can make my threshold to vote negative significantly lower if you have good case args, these don’t have to be supported by evidence but again it helps. Ev analysis has gotten somewhat lost in my opinion over the years. Read the text/read who this person is, discuss why one piece of evidence should be prioritized (does it assume the other team’s ev? Is it newer? Is it better analysis etc?)

DA’s-PTX is fun, elections is an exciting time to be reading it. Otherwise topic DA’s are great too. Don’t forget to have specific links to the aff and a good internal link. Similarly, don’t forget to identify flaws in the internal link chain or why your aff is different than what the link evidence assumes/why it would be perceived differently.

CP’s: having a solvency advocate is good but not necessary. I read a lot of hyperspecific CP’s in my day but also think a lot of it can become esoteric. If you have a great counterplan to read go for it, if you have a generic CP, go for it. Delay is questionable from a theory level but I’ll certainly listen to it.

K’s-Guide me through the K and what it means for the hypothetical world of the aff vs the hypothetical world of the alternative. Explain what specifically the aff does, specifically what the 1AC said or the assumptions that went into it. I may not be hip to the latest high theory K’s but I hear of some of them by proximity to debate even if I haven’t sat in the back of rounds in recent times.

K Affs: Most of what I wrote in the K area applies here. I think I am slightly K leaning as far as my threshold for voting on T or F/W so keep that in mind. What is the ballot and why does it matter for whatever the aff is. I am a bigger fan of embracing the K side of the aff and not as crazy about “soft-left” affs as I have been in the past.

CX-don’t just use it for prep. A good CX can end a debate round early on. This may be difficult with virtual debate and people just trying to talk over each other.

Cheating: If I suspect it I will report it. I will often read along and will likely do this even more because hearing specifics of spreading may be more difficult virtually.

Last updated: March 10th, 2021.

Alpharetta 20.

Harvard 24.

Email chain: bokildebate@gmail.com

General:

1. I have no topic knowledge.

2. Good debating requires quality evidence; strong, logical explanation; and contextualization.

3. Online debate: please slow down and enunciate more than you normally would.

Specifics:

1. If you read a planless aff or rely on the critique as your primary negative strategy, you should strike me.

a. K Affs: It is near impossible to get me to vote against framework/T-USfg (yes, fairness is an impact).

b. Ks: I don't have anything against Ks themselves, but I do have a substantial preferential bias in favor of policy arguments that will be exceedingly difficult to overcome regardless of good debating. There are much, much better judges for adjudicating K rounds than me.

2. CPs/DAs:

a. CPs: Not a great judge for process CPs, but mostly anything else is fine. If left undebated, I won't judge kick the CP.

b. DAs: Anything works. Politics DAs are too often incoherent.

3. Theory:

a. Conditionality: Good until egregious. Worth noting that I think aff teams rarely capitalize on neg teams' poor defense of condo.

b. States CP, International CP, and Ctrl + f word PICs are all bad assuming even debating. Neg leaning on most other theory.

c. ASPEC is stupid and unwinnable.

4. Not a big fan of T vs. affs with plans. Assuming even debating, reasonability > competing interpretations. Precise, contextual evidence is key to winning these debates, for both the aff and the neg.

5. Case: Not a fan of framing pages. Good case debating will be rewarded.

C_boreczky75413@berkeley.edu

Brief update for Stanford LD competitors - I primarily judge circuit and CA-circuit policy debate, but much of the below should apply. I'm not primed for any category of LD arguments over another, and don't have an inherent preference for circuit arguments and styles, but I'm very open to them.

Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.

Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.

Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.

I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.

Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.

My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.

I used to read these in High School all the time, I hated it when it was too long. So I will try to make this short and descriptive.

About me: I am born and raised in Newark NJ, the biggest inner city in New Jersey. I grew up with K debate and hated it. Slowly K debate grew on me. I do also enjoy policymaking, but I hate politicians. I think good ideas should be discussed and debate helps us explore those ideas. I think debate becomes problematic once we rely on vague explanations and lying to win.

Debated in middle school for 3 years and debated for Technology High School for 4 years. I debated in college for about 2 years, and I judge on and off. I have about a decade of involvement in the Debate space.

I enjoy critiques but I also incorporated theory in practice through political organizing for 3 years. I have strong opinions of armchair Marxists and intellectuals who are counter-revolutionary.

I think Debate is a mess, and I wonder if it is helpful when it is so detached from reality. Regardless if it is a critique or a policy action. Both worlds have their limitations. Debate is good because it teaches us things, but I think that education goes backward eventually.

I currently work as a Medical Case Manager for a non-profit.

Preferences

Please just run what you believe in, as long as you debate well, I will vote for it. Don't try to run a k just because I like them. If you cannot run it well, especially with my big opinions, I will NOT vote on it....

Theory: I will not vote on Theory unless there are voters. I do not enjoy theory, but I will vote on it IF you can use the round as an example of abuse. I need empirical evidence while you are debating.

I hate vague alternatives. But I also don't think vague and hypothetical policymaking will change anything.

I like specifics but do not run ASPEC.

Answer your arguments. If you don't answer them I will have to vote on it if they explain it well.

Finally, Analysis analysis analysis! You can tell me to vote on something but I need a detailed reason.

I will never vote on an ethics challenge.

I will not vote aff on presumption, that makes no sense. Aff changes the status quo. Aff passes a policy. Negative advocates for the SQ if there is no K or CP.

Zach Brisson

I debated @ Arizona State 2014-15, 2018-19, did three years of policy and one year of LD @ McClintock HS, 2010-2014.

Fancy myself as rigidly line-by-line. I default to offense/defense unless otherwise told. Will hear all good arguments, would prefer none of the bad ones. Intervention is bad and instruction to read a piece of evidence in place of explaining it shouldn't be part of a speech.

In terms of strategy, I believe depth is preferable to breadth. This applies to both sides. Well-developed, smaller negative strategies are almost invariably better than dumping everything you have in the box into the 1NC. Similarly, affs often benefit by banking on their central offense throughout the debate.

K Affs/FW: ... impact comparison and crystalization often gets lost in aff strategy, so do that. For neg teams running framework, these debates are more easily won on the substance side over theory. ...

Theory: ... will have to go in on a very clear abuse scenario has occurred in round to make this a viable option, ... Critical conditionality is good stuff and I have a slightly lower threshold for condo, in general. Other theory arguments are 99 out of a 100 times a reason to reject the argument.

The rest is pretty run-of-the-mill, please ask for any clarification. Questions to zach.brisson@gmail.com

pfd peeps:

I have only judges pfd a handful of times, but I did qualify for nats in public forum in high school. I also competed in public forum for three years in high school. I should be good with anything you decide to do, but let me know if you have any questions at all.

Policy peeps:

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - if you know you are way too behind then it's time to shoot for the moon; condo, dispo turns, try and sell a new link turn, whatever. I appreciate not giving up and being risky on a mid round strat change if executed well and justified.

Voted aff on the policy topic: 13

Voted neg on the policy topic: 19

email: trinityb@ksu.edu

she/her/hers

Four years at @ Manhattan High School

Assistant Coach @ Lawrence High

Everything is up for debate.

I am a heavy flow critic. I find myself looking towards the arguments and how they function in the debate over the inherent “truth” of an argument. I will vote on an argument I know is not true (many economy arguments, for example) if this is not refuted. Basically, I am tech over truth in most instances...

However, I will not vote on arguments such as racism good, patriarchy good, transphobia good, ableism good, colonialism good, etc. Give content warnings for graphic content (I will vote you down) If there are any of the aforementioned violence practiced theoretically or materially in round I will vote against your team immediately. These types of injustices kill education and means that no ethical pedagogy can occur. Zero tolerance here. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments.

I am fine with any speed you choose, you will not go too fast for me. However, do not spread just to push the other team out. That is an accessibility issue and if they are pushed out of the round and make an abuse argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you. I see way too many debaters push other teams out just because they think they are better than the other team. Don't be a dick.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. T is always a voter because it taps into the performative aspects of debate and how this education can be effective. They are always about competing interpretations and the reasons as to why that interpretation is more beneficial than others. You must weigh the offense based on your standards/voters vs. the C/I and their subsequent standards/voters. You have to win your interpretation is the best for the debate. This applies to all theory arguments.

***Topicality is just an agreement between two teams on what is to be debated.*** If there is/are more pertinent issue(s) that the teams wish to discuss (e.g. anti-blackness, transphobia, colonialism, ableism) of a particular event that is proximal to the debaters then that is okay. Do not think you are stuck to the topic if there is a general consensus on what should be debated.

Counterplans: Read one, please. If you don’t, you need status quo solves. If you read a perm text, please give SOME explanation on how the perm functions. I don’t view perms as advocacies (no one does anymore) because the CP is just opportunity cost to the affirmative, so don’t act like you suddenly have an amazing new net-benefit because you permutated the CP. Presumption never flips aff. Presumption, simply put, is that the existing state of affairs, policies, programs should continue unless adequate reasons are given for change. I believe condo is good, I'm going to have a hard time listening to anything else.

Criticisms/Performances: I do run Ks as a debater. (I have argued neolib, cap, security, fem, gender, set col, and queer kritiks) It should be an advocacy. Additionally, I do not think white debaters should run anti-blackness. I do not think non-queer individuals should run queer theory. This runs the line of commodification and you cannot work within that position if you do not belong to it, meaning that you will never truly understand what you are running and operating form a position of privilege to do so. I am okay with whatever criticism or performance you so choose to run, just make sure you can explain it and how it solves the aff.

Case: haha you should do it, literally aff's are so bad and not well designed anymore. I could have lost on presumption so many times my senior year but people are too afraid to give that 2NR. If that is your best 2nr option, do it.

***BOTTOM LINE***

It is much more important to me that you find an educational gain from this activity and adequately express the things you care about greatly than hitting all the stock issues or being a policy maker. Debate is about the debaters, make the round what you want. ANY attempt to push the other team out of the debate will result in a dropped ballot.

fiat is fake and the debate round should be ethically and strategically centered in the contact between the bodies in the space (me and the debaters). that doesn't mean i don't buy your ptx da or shady i/l link chain, but that i want to see a politely conducted, complex debate with four people who know a lot more about what they are talking about than me. at the end of the day, we all leave the round and what we take away from it is knowledge, empathy and experience. if you prove to me that you are best for the production of those three things in this space, then it is likely you have won. (Sam took this from me)

Attack the argument, not the debater. As a woman in debate, I have experienced forms of sexism, if I see any of this, you will be voted down. microaggressions, racism, homophobia, or xenophobia will not be tolerated by me. If I encounter this, I will stop flowing and vote you down. CX is a time for understanding, not for coming after the other team. Don’t be a jerk. If you are, you will be voted down. Debate is a place for fun and learning, not for being mean to people for the sake of “winning.”

Any other questions just find me and ask.

(Updated 1/13/25)

Chain Email

browndarcell@gmail.com

Darcell Brown He/Him

Operations Director - Detroit Urban Debate League

Wayne State University Alum '22 (2020 NDT Qualifier)

My debate background in high school and college consisted of both policy strategies as well as Kritikal Performance & Structural K's (Antiblackness/Cap/Securitization)

-- Top Level --

I don't care how you choose to present/perform/introduce your arguments nor do I have a bias toward any particular type of argumentation. Just read your best arguments and give an impact that I can vote on. I'm like 60/40 tech over truth. I default to my flow but can be persuaded by pathos/performance in the debate to weigh my decision. I'll vote on presumption if persuaded the aff doesn't solve anything. I heavily prefer clarity over speed but can keep up with a fast pace as long as you're still coherent. I'll vote on theory args but am not the person you want for 2NR/2AR theory throwdowns.

-- Aff Stuff --

- On the policy end of the spectrum, I don't have too many comments for the aff besides the generic ones. Have an internal link to your harms and if you're gonna go util v vtl/deontology stuff then go all in or go home. On the Kritikal side, I'm down for whatever and will vote on rejections of the topic if there's an impacted reason as to why engagement in the context of the resolution is bad as well as Kritkal interps of the topic. Be clear about what your argument is early on. It serves better to be straight forward with your claims with me instead of using a ton of jargon.

-- Neg Stuff --

- I'm fine with you reading whatever on the neg however you need to engage the aff. FW has to have a TVA otherwise I default aff. THE TVA DOES NOT SERVE AS OFFENSE FOR ME BUT IS AN EXAMPLE OF WHY YOUR OFFENSE IS APPLICABE TO THE AFF! I rarely vote on fairness as an impact. There needs to be a reason why normative debate rules are good and what the off does that creates an inability for engagement with those good components of the topic/rez, not just "there are rules so vote neg". Not a fan of reading 5+ off and seeing what sticks kind of strategies especially in college debate. Any other questions you can ask me before the round.

I never debated policy myself, but have judged it extensively over the past 8+ years. I have also judged all other debate formats pretty extensively. I debated at the college level and have since been coaching at the college level, but again, in non-policy formats.

-I can handle most spreading, but please don’t be monotone.

-I will vote primarily on the flow, unless you do something racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

-I thoroughly enjoy K debate.

-Fine with any kind of performance debate too.

-Unsurprisingly, I’m willing to vote on anything related to the structure of debate.

-All of that said, I am more than open to traditional policy debate, so don’t be afraid to engage in that.

-Don’t cut cards. Call out your opponent if they are. Don’t lie about it if they aren’t. I won’t look at cards unless you tell me I need to. Cutting cards or lying about opponents cutting cards is a major offense to me.

-Explicitly weigh arguments for me. If I have to weigh arguments myself, that is forcing me to intervene as a judge, which I don’t want to do.

-Anything else, just ask.

-Be nice, have fun, and good luck.

LD Paradigm - I know nothing about LD. Anything not included in the policy paradigm are things I don't know about.

Policy paradigm

Lexington High School 2020 - Went to the TOC

Cornell University 2024 - CEDA Octas with UMass

Pronouns: He/Him

Add me onto the chain: david.cai2002@gmail.com

I know nothing about the resolution or topic.

I have ran an impressive variety of arguments from all spectrums throughout my years of debate. My goal as a judge is to evaluate any arguments that the debaters are comfortable running with as little intervention as possible. It goes without saying that racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are all unacceptable.

TLDR - I'm fine for anything. My personal preferences can easily be swayed by good debating. The team that does the best framing of arguments is likely going to win.

Policy Throwdown - I know a bit about government and politics, a little less so about international relations. Even so, try to be clear about which legislation or test case the argument is about, as well as clarify acronyms. I won't default to judge-kick if you don't explicitly mention it in the 2NR. Creating quantifiable impacts to solvency deficits against CPs will be extremely effective. I also really like sufficiency framing on CPs against soft-left affs. Please slow down on technical arguments like theory or CP competition (especially in online debate). Condo is probably okay but don't try to come close to my record (20 off).

T vs Policy Affs - Make numbers or percents really clear on the “we meet” debate, especially on quantitative definitions like “substantial.” Nuanced impact calc is super important, but also call out the internal links that the other team’s interpretation actually accesses. In terms of definitions proper, I think things like intent to define/exclude are important as well, but try to clarify as much legal jargon as possible. The TVA in these debates are super underrated.

K vs Policy Affs - There are cool tricks on both sides that I enjoy. A link that is to the action of the plan is very good, but all arguments need to be impacted. I'm a huge fan of just ripping through 1AC and 2AC evidence and calling out lines that prove the thesis and internal links of the K. The way links are framed is probably the most important part of the debate, and generally leads to good debates. However, framework debates about epistemology can be just as effective if impacted well.

FW vs K affs - Fairness can be a good impact, but needs to be explained well. The more nuanced explanation of the impact, the more likely I am to vote for it. TVAs or other arguments that act as defense to the aff's impacts are useful. I tend to see that K affs lose when they make their impact turns to framework super small, as opposed to potentially connecting their impacts to a larger theory of power. The best impact turns to framework tend to have really good framing issues behind them. Counter-interpretations also have merit, and I think that there are a few interesting ones that could be strategic (your interp + our aff is NOT one of them). I also think other topicality violations beyond just "USfg" against K affs can be strategic as well.

K v K - Make the role of the judge and the role of the ballot really explicit (tell me what to do, not just what I am). Presumption can be really convincing, especially by calling out double turns. I like scholarship consistency, but amalgamating strategies can be interesting. Other than that, I find that theory of power explanations that use less buzzwords and more application are more successful at winning their side of the debate when it comes to things like permutations and links. The less I understand the aff/alternative, the more frustrated I will be.

CP and/or DA vs K affs - Super underrated strategy. Certain well-researched CPs and smart DAs that impact turn the thesis of certain K affs can catch people off guard. Even something like the hege DA can get you really far.

Other things - Debate is a speech activity, so I would prefer if you read rehighlighted evidence as opposed to just inserting them on the email chain. Especially for online debate, I have found that it is worth sacrificing speed for clarity. I will say "clear" twice and that's it. I would prefer to minimize the amount of time wasted in debates as much as possible when it comes to prep time. For ethics violations like clipping, the accusing team must have indisputable evidence, and an auto-loss will be given. If I think you deserve to break, I'll probably give you at least a 28.9. Open source AND cites gets +.2 speaks if you bring it up.

Judge Evaluation Form - Fill this out to comment on my judging!

https://forms.gle/ftTUHmS2cHxuFrc88

Experience-This will be my fifth year as the head coach at Northview High School. Before moving to Georgia, I coached for 7 years at Marquette High in Milwaukee, WI.

Yes, add me to the email chain. My email is mcekanordebate@gmail.com

*As I have gained more coaching and judging experience, I find that I highly value teams who respect their opponents who might not have the same experience as them. This includes watching how you come across in CX, prep time, and your general comportment towards your opponent. In some local circuits, circuit-style policy debate is dwindling and we all have a responsibility to be respectful of the experience of everyone trying to be involved in policy debate.*

I recommend that you go to the bathroom and fill your water bottles before the debate rather than before a speech.

LD Folks please read the addendum at the end of my paradigm.

Meta-Level Strike Sheet Concerns

1. Debates are rarely won or lost on technical concessions or truth claims alone. In other words, I think the “tech vs. truth” distinction is a little silly. Technical concessions make it more complicated to win a debate, but rarely do they make wins impossible. Keeping your arguments closer to “truer” forms of an argument make it easier to overcome technical concessions because your arguments are easier to identify, and they’re more explicitly supported by your evidence (or at least should be). That being said, using truth alone as a metric of which of y’all to pick up incentivizes intervention and is not how I will evaluate the debate.

2. Evidence quality matters a bunch to me- it’s evidence that you have spent time and effort on your positions, it’s a way to determine the relative truth level of your claims, and it helps overcome some of the time constraints of the activity in a way that allows you to raise the level of complexity of your position in a shorter amount of time. I will read your evidence throughout the debate, especially if it is on a position with which I’m less familiar. I won’t vote on evidence comparison claims unless it becomes a question of the debate raised by either team, but I will think about how your evidence could have been used more effectively by the end of the debate. I enjoy rewarding teams for evidence quality.

3. Every debate could benefit from more comparative work particularly in terms of the relative quality of arguments/the interactions between arguments by the end of the round. Teams should ask "Why?", such as "If I win this argument, WHY is this important?", "If I lose this argument WHY does this matter?". Strategically explaining the implications of winning or losing an argument is the difference between being a middle of the road team and a team advancing to elims.

4. Some expectations for what should be present in arguments that seem to have disappeared in the last few years-

-For me to vote on a single argument, it must have a claim, warrant, impact, and impact comparison.

-A DA is not a full DA until a uniqueness, link, internal link and impact argument is presented.Too many teams are getting away with 2 card DA shells in the 1NC and then reading uniqueness walls in the block. I will generally allow for new 1AR answers.

Similarly, CP's should have a solvency advocate read in the 1NC. I'll be flexible on allowing 1AR arguments in a world where the aff makes an argument about the lack of a solvency advocate.

-Yes, terminal defense exists, however, I do not think that teams take enough advantage of this kind of argument in front of me. I will not always evaluate the round through a lens of offense-defense, but you still need to make arguments as to why I shouldn’t by at least explaining why your argument functions as terminal defense. Again this plays into evidence questions and the relative impacts of arguments claims made above.

Specifics

Case-Debates are won or lost in the case debate. By this, I mean that proving whether or not the aff successfully accesses all, some or none of the case advantages has implications on every flow of the debate and should be a fundamental question of most 2NRs and 2ARs. I think that blocks that are heavy in case defense or impact turns are incredibly advantageous for the neg because they enable you to win any CP (by proving the case defense as a response to the solvency deficit), K (see below) or DA (pretty obvious). I'm also more likely than others to write a presumption ballot or vote neg on inherency arguments. If the status quo solves your aff or you're not a big enough divergence, then you probably need to reconsider your approach to the topic.

Most affs can be divided into two categories: affs with a lot of impacts but poor internal links and affs with very solid internal links but questionable impacts. Acknowledging in which of these two categories the aff you are debating falls should shape how you approach the case debate. I find myself growing increasingly disappointed by negative teams that do not test weak affirmatives. Where's your internal link defense?? I also miss judging impact turn debates, but don't think that spark or wipeout are persuasive arguments. A high level de-dev debate or heg debate, on the other hand, love it.

DA-DAs are questions of probability. Your job as the aff team when debating a DA is to use your defensive arguments to question the probability of the internal links to the DA. Affirmative teams should take more advantage of terminal defense against disads. I'll probably also have a lower threshold for your theory arguments on the disad. Likewise, the neg should use turns case arguments as a reason why your DA calls into question the probability of the aff's internal links. Don't usually find "____ controls the direction of the link" arguments very persuasive. You need to warrant out that claim more if you're going to go for it. Make more rollback-style turns case arguments or more creative turns case arguments to lower the threshold for winning the debate on the disad alone.

CP-CP debates are about the relative weight of a solvency deficit versus the relative weight of the net benefit. The team that is more comparative when discussing the solvency level of these debates usually wins the debate. While, when it is a focus of the debate, I tend to err affirmative on questions of counterplan competiton, I have grown to be more persuaded by a well-executed counterplan strategy even if the counterplan is a process counterplan. The best counterplans have a solvency advocate who is, at least, specific to the topic, and, best, specific to the affirmative. I do not default to judge kicking the counterplan and will be easily persuaded by an affirmative argument about why I should not default to that kind of in-round conditionality. Not a huge fan of the NGA CP and I've voted three out of four times on intrinsic permutations against this counterplan so just be warned. Aff teams should take advantage of presumption arguments against the CP.

K-Used to have a bunch of thoughts spammed here that weren't too easy to navigate pre-round. I've left that section at the bottom of the paradigm for the historical record, but here's the cleaned up version:

What does the ballot do? What is the ballot absolutely incapable of doing? What does the ballot justify? No matter if you are on the aff or the neg, defending the topic or not, these are the kinds of questions that you need to answer by the end of the debate. As so much of K debating has become framework debates on the aff and the neg, I often find myself with a lot of floating pieces of offense that are not attached to a clear explanation of what a vote in either direction can/can't do.

T-Sitting through a bunch of framework debates has made me a better judge for topicality than I used to be. Comparative impact calculus alongside the use of strategic defensive arguments will make it easier for me to vote in a particular direction. Certain interps have a stronger internal link to limits claims and certain affs have better arguments for overlimiting. Being specific about what kind of offense you access, how it comes first, and the relative strength of your internal links in these debates will make it more likely that you win my ballot. I’m not a huge fan of tickytacky topicality claims but, if there’s substantial contestation in the literature, these can be good debates.

Theory- I debated on a team that engaged in a lot of theory debates in high school. There were multiple tournaments where most of our debates boiled down to theory questions, so I would like to think that I am a good judge for theory debates. I think that teams forget that theory debates are structured like a disadvantage. Again, comparative impact calculus is important to win my ballots in these debates. I will say that I tend to err aff on most theory questions. For example, I think that it is probably problematic for there to be more than one conditional advocacy in a round (and that it is equally problematic for your counter interpretation to be dispositionality) and I think that counterplans that compete off of certainty are bad for education and unfair to the aff. The biggest killer in a theory debate is when you just read down your blocks and don’t make specific claims. Debate like your

Notes for the Blue Key RR/Other LD Judging Obligations

Biggest shift for me in judging LD debates is the following: No tricks or intuitively false arguments. I'll vote on dropped arguments, but those arguments need a claim, data, warrant and an impact for me to vote on them. If I can't explain the argument back to you and the implications of that argument on the rest of the debate, I'm not voting for you.

I guess this wasn't clear enough the first time around- I don't flow off the document and your walls of framework and theory analytics are really hard to flow when you don't put any breaks in between them.

Similarly, phil debates are always difficult for me to analyze. I tend to think affirmative's should defend implementation particularly when the resolution specifies an actor. Outside of my general desire to see some debates about implementation, I don't have any kind of background in the phil literature bases and so will have a harder time picturing the implications of you winning specific arguments. If you want me to understand how your argumets interact, you will have to do a lot of explanation.

Theory debates- Yes, I said that I enjoy theory debates in my paradigm above and that is largely still true, but CX theory debates are a lot less technical than LD debates. I also think there are a lot of silly theory arguments in LD and I tend to have a higher threshold for those sorts of arguments. I also don't have much of a reference for norm setting in LD or what the norms actually are. Take that into account if you choose to go for theory and probably don't because I won't award you with high enough speaks for your liking.

K debates- Yes, I enjoy K debates but I tend to think that their LD variant is very shallow. You need to do more specific work in linking to the affirmative and developing the implications of your theory of power claims. While I enjoy good LD debates on the K, I always feel like I have to do a lot of work to justify a ballot in either direction. This is magnified by the limited amount of time that you have to develop your positions.

Old K Paradigm (2020-2022)

After y’all saw the school that I coach, I’m sure this is where you scrolled to first which is fair enough given how long it takes to fill out pref sheets. I will say, if you told me 10 years ago when I began coaching that I’d be coaching a team that primarily reads the K on the aff and on the neg, I probably would have found that absurd because that wasn’t my entry point into the activity so keep that in mind as you work with some of the thoughts below. That being said, I’ve now coached the K at a high level for the past two years which means that I have some semblance of a feeling for a good K debate. If the K is not something that you traditionally go for, you’re better off going for what you’re best at.

The best debates on the K are debates over the explanatory power of the negative’s theory of power relative to the affirmative’s specific example of liberalism, realism, etc. Put another way, the best K debaters are familiar enough with their theory of power AND the affirmative’s specific impact scenarios that they use their theory to explain the dangers of the aff. By the end of the 2NR I should have a very clear idea of what the affirmative does and how your theory explains why doing the affirmative won’t resolve the aff’s impacts or results in a bad thing. This does not necessarily mean that you need to have links to the affirmative’s mechanism (that’s probably a bit high of a research burden), but your link explanations need to be specific to the aff and should be bolstered by specific quotes from 1AC evidence or CX. The specificity of your link explanation should be sufficient to overcome questions of link-uniqueness or I’ll be comfortable voting on “your links only link to the status quo.”

On the flipside, aff teams need to explain why their contingency or specific example of policy action cannot be explained by the negative’s theory of power or that, even if some aspects can be, that the specificity of the aff’s claims justifies voting aff anyway because there’s some offense against the alternative or to the FW ballot. Affirmative teams that use the specificity of the affirmative to generate offense or push back against general link claims will win more debates than those that just default to generic “extinction is irreversible” ballots.

Case Page when going for the K- My biggest pet peeve with the current meta on the K is the role of the case page. Neither the affirmative nor the negative take enough advantage of this page to really stretch out their opponents on this question. For the negative, you need to be challenging the affirmative’s internal links with defense that can bolster some of your thesis level claims. Remember, you are trying to DISPROVE the affirmative’s contingent/specific policy which means that the more specificity you have the better off you will be. This means that just throwing your generic K links onto the case page probably isn’t the move. 9/10 the alternative doesn’t resolve them and you don’t have an explanation of how voting neg resolves the offense. K teams so frequently let policy affs get away with some really poor evidence quality and weak internal links. Please help the community and deter policy teams from reading one bad internal link to their heg aff against your [INSERT THEORY HERE] K. On that note, policy teams, why are you removing your best internal links when debating the K? Your generic framework cards are giving the neg more things to impact turn and your explanation of the internal link level of the aff is lowered when you do that. Read your normal aff against the K and just square up.

Framework debates (with the K on the neg) For better or worse, so much of contemporary K debate is resolved in the framework debate. The contemporary dependence on framework ballots means a couple of things:

1.) Both teams need to do more work here- treat this like a DA and a CP. Compare the relative strength of internal link claims and impact out the terminal impacts. Why does procedural fairness matter? What is the terminal impact to clash? How do we access your skills claims? What does/does not the ballot resolve? To what extent does the ballot resolve those things? The team that usually answers more of these questions usually wins these debates. K teams need to do more to push back against “ballot can solve procedural fairness” claims and aff teams need to do more than just “schools, family, culture, etc.” outweigh subject formation. Many of you all spend more time at debate tournaments or doing debate work than you do at school or doing schoolwork.

2.) I do think it’s possible for the aff to win education claims, but you need to do more comparative impact calculus. What does scenario planning do for subject formation that is more ethical than whatever the impact scenario is to the K? If you can’t explain your education claims at that level, just go for fairness and explain why the ballot can resolve it.

3.) Risk of the link- Explain what winning framework does for how much of a risk of a link that I need to justify a ballot either way. Usually, neg teams will want to say that winning framework means they get a very narrow risk of a link to outweigh. I don’t usually like defaulting to this but affirmative teams very rarely push back on this risk calculus in a world where they lose framework. If you don’t win that you can weigh the aff against the K, aff teams need to think about how they can use their scenarios as offense against the educational claims of the K. This can be done as answers to the link arguments as well, though you’ll probably need to win more pieces of defense elsewhere on the flow to make this viable.

Do I go for the alternative?

I don’t think that you need to go for the alternative if you have a solid enough framework push in the 2NR. However, few things to keep in mind here:

1.) I won’t judge kick the alternative for you unless you explicitly tell me to do it and include a theoretical justification for why that’s possible.

2.) The framework debate should include some arguments about how voting negative resolves the links- i.e. what is the kind of ethical subject position endorsed on the framework page that pushes us towards research projects that avoid the links to the critique? How does this position resolve those links?

3.) Depending on the alternative and the framework interpretation, some of your disads to the alternative will still link to the framework ballot. Smart teams will cross apply these arguments and explain why that complicates voting negative.

K affs (Generic)

Yes, I’m comfortable evaluating debates involving the K on the aff and think that I’ve reached a point where I’m pretty good for either side of this debate. Affirmative teams need to justify an affirmative ballot that beats presumption, especially if you’re defending status quo movements as examples of the aff’s method. Both teams benefit from clarifying early in the round whether or not the affirmative team spills up, whether or not in-round performances specific to this debate resolve any of the affirmative offense, and whatever the accumulation of ballots does or does not do for the aff. Affirmative teams that are not the Louisville project often get away with way too much by just reading a DSRB card and claiming their ballots function the same way. Aff teams should differentiate their ballot claims and negatives should make arguments about the aff’s homogenizing ballot claims. All that being said, like I discussed above, these debates are won and lost on the case page like any other debate. As the K becomes more normalized and standardized to a few specific schools of thought, I have a harder and harder time separating the case and framework pages on generic “we couldn’t truth test your arguments” because I think that shifts a bit too strongly to the negative. That said, I can be persuaded to separate the two if there’s decent time spent in the final rebuttals on this question.

Framework vs. the K Aff

Framework debates are best when both teams spend time comparing the realities of debate in the status quo and the idealized form of debate proposed in model v. model rounds. In that light, both teams need to be thinking about what proposing framework in a status quo where the K is probably going to stick around means for those teams that currently read the K and for those teams that prefer to directly engage the resolution. In a world where the affirmative defends the counter interpretation, the affirmative should have an explanation of what happens when team don’t read an affirmative that meets their model. Most of the counter interpretations are arbitrary or equivalent to “no counter interpretation”, but an interp being arbitrary is just defense that you can still outweigh depending on the offense you’re winning.

In impact turn debates, both teams need to be much clearer about the terminal impacts to their offense while providing an explanation as to why voting in either direction resolves them. After sitting in so many of these debates, I tend to think that the ballot doesn’t do much for either team but that means that teams who have a better explanation of what it means to win the ballot will usually pick up my decision. You can’t just assert that voting negative resolves procedural fairness without warranting that out just like you can’t assert that the aff resolves all forms of violence in debate through a single debate. Both teams need to grapple with how the competitive incentives for debate establish offense for either side. The competitive incentive to read the K is strong and might counteract some of the aff’s access to offense, but the competitive incentives towards framework also have their same issues. Neither sides hands are clean on that question and those that are willing to admit it are usually better off. I have a hard time setting aside clash as an external impact due to the fact that I’m just not sure what the terminal impact is. I like teams that go for clash and think that it usually is an important part of negative strategy vs. the K, but I think this strategy is best when the clash warrants are explained as internal link turns to the aff’s education claims. Some of this has to due with the competitive incentives arguments that I’ve explained above. Both teams need to do more work explaining whether or not fairness or education claims come first. It’s introductory-level impact analysis I find lacking in many of these debates.

Other things to think about-

1.) These debates are at their worst when either team is dependent on blocks. Framework teams should be particularly cautious about this because they’ve had less of these debates over the course of the season, however, K teams are just as bad at just reading their blocks through the 1AR. I will try to draw a clean line between the 1AR and the 2AR and will hold a pretty strict one in debates where the 1AR is just screaming through blocks. Live debating contextualized to this round far outweighs robots with pre-written everything.

2.) I have a hard time pulling the trigger on arguments with “quitting the activity” as a terminal impact. Any evidence on either side of this question is usually anecdotal and that’s not enough to justify a ballot in either direction. There are also a bunch of alternative causes to numbers decline like the lack of coaches, the increased technical rigor of high-level policy debate, budgets, the pandemic, etc. that I think thump most of these impacts for either side. More often than not, the people that are going to stick with debate are already here but that doesn’t mean there aren’t consequences to the kinds of harms to the activity/teams as teams on either side of the clash question learn to coexist.

K vs. K Debates (Overview)

I’ll be perfectly honest, unless this is a K vs. Cap debate, these are the debates that I’m least comfortable evaluating because I feel like they end up being some of the messiest and “gooiest” debates possible. That being said, I think that high level K vs. K debates can be some of the most interesting to evaluate if both teams have a clear understanding of the distinctions between their positions, are able to base their theoretical distinctions in specific, grounded examples that demonstrate potential tradeoffs between each position, and can demonstrate mutual exclusivity outside of the artificial boundary of “no permutations in a method debate.” At their best, these debates require teams to meet a high research burden which is something that I like to reward so if your strat is specific or you can explain it in a nuanced way, go for it. That said, I’m not the greatest for teams whose generic position in these debates are to read “post-truth”/pomo arguments against identity positions and I feel uncomfortable resolving competing ontology claims in debates around identity unless they are specific and grounded. I feel like most debates are too time constrained to meaningfully resolve these positions. Similarly, teams that read framework should be cautious about reading conditional critiques with ontology claims- i.e. conditional pessimism with framework. I’m persuaded by theoretical arguments about conditional ontology claims regarding social death and cross apps to framework in these debates.

I won’t default to “no perms in a methods debate”, though I am sympathetic to the theoretical arguments about why affs not grounded in the resolution are too shifty if they are allowed to defend the permutation. What gets me in these debates is that I think that the affirmative will make the “test of competition”-style permutation arguments anyway like “no link” or the aff is a disad/prereq to the alt regardless of whether or not there’s a permutation. I can’t just magically wave a theory wand here and make those kinds of distinctions go away. It lowers the burden way too much for the negative and creates shallow debates. Let’s have a fleshed out theory argument and you can persuade me otherwise. The aff still needs to win access to the permutation, but if you lose the theory argument still make the same kinds of arguments if you had the permutation. Just do the defensive work to thump the links.

Cap vs. K- I get the strategic utility of these debates, but this debate is becoming pretty stale for me. Teams that go for state-good style capitalism arguments need to explain the process of organization, accountability measures, the kind of party leadership, etc. Aff teams should generate offense off of these questions. Teams that defend Dean should have to defend psychoanalysis answers. Teams that defend Escalante should have specific historical examples of dual power working or not in 1917 or in post-Bolshevik organization elsewhere. Aff teams should force Dean teams to defend psycho and force Escalante teams to defend historical examples of dual power. State crackdown arguments should be specific. I fear that state crackdown arguments will apply to both the alternative and the aff and the team that does a better job describing the comparative risk of crackdown ends up winning my argument. Either team should make more of a push about what it means to shift our research practices towards or away from communist organizing. There are so many debates where we have come to the conclusion that the arguments we make in debate don’t spill out or up and, yet, I find debates where we are talking about politically organizing communist parties are still stuck in some universe where we are doing the actual organizing in a debate round. Tell me what a step towards the party means for our research praxis or provide disads to shifting the resource praxis. All the thoughts on the permutation debate are above. I’m less likely to say no permutation in these debates because there is plenty of clash in the literature between, at least, anti-capitalism and postcapitalism that there can be a robust debate even if you don’t have specifics. That being said, the more you can make ground your theory in specific examples the better off you’ll be.

Experience: I spent 4 years doing Policy Debate at Bronx Science and am currently a sophomore majoring in biology and sociology at Macaulay Honors College.

Email: chane7@bxscience.edu - please put me on the email chain :)

FOR POLICY - Updated for 2022:

Overall:

Please tell me how to vote. Having been out of debate for 2 years, not telling me exactly how you want a round evaluated leaves everything up to my own previous experience and former knowledge which is not as decent as it used to be.

I am a tech over truth judge. Unless something is contested in round, I'll generally take it for truth. The only exception to this rule is if something blatantly offensive is said in round (this includes but is not limited to anything racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist). In this case, I wouldn't give the offending team the win or high speaker points even if the argument goes cold conceded.

Usually I don't mind speed, but especially in online, I've noticed that it gets a little more difficult to hear so you can still be fast, just make sure you are still slowing down for tags and analytics.

Run whatever you want and know the best. I also usually prefer it when debates are kept small (so I'd prefer 1-3 off vs. 8 off) but if you're more comfortable with a bigger strategy, go ahead.

Explain everything (things like acronyms) - please don't assume I have prior topic knowledge.

FOR LD:

All of the above from the Policy section applies wherever applicable.

I like performance and kritikal debate although traditional is fine too.

Assuming I don't know anything about the topic beforehand is a good idea.

I've never debated LD so I don't have a strong opinion about LD specific theory (for ex: RVIs) and I might not know what LD specific arguments/theory is or what the conventional way to evaluate such arguments are - if you explain what it is, I won't have a problem with it though!

Associate Director of Debate @ Greenhill

Still helping KU in my free time

Please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is reasonable if you are going for reasonability.

Having said that if your intep is so obscure that there isn't a logical CI to it, perhaps it is not a good interpretation.

T debates this year (water topic) have gotten too impact heavy for their own good. I've judged a number of rounds with long overviews about how hard it is to be negative that never get to explaining what affirmatives would be topical under their interp or why the aff interp links to a limits DA and that's hard for me because I think much more about the latter when I think about topicality.

T-USFG/FW

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to topicality arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of this debate. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but a forced TVA is generally a waste of time.

If the aff is going for an impact turn about debate, it would be helpful to have a CI that solves that impact.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing can be important but it is one of a number of arguments that should be made.

I am aware the DA's aren't all great lately. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy an old-fashioned k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of multiple bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions. Also, how does one alt solve all of that??

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency.

5. When ontology is relevant - I feel like these debates have devolved into lists of things (both sides do this) and that's tough because what if the things on the list don't resonate?

CP's

Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly convoluted counterplans supported by barely highlighted ev.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors. If you are fiating through solvency deficits you should come prepared with a theoretical justification for that.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

If the debate is happening later than 9PM you might consider slowing down and avoiding especially complicated arguments.

If you make a frivolous or convoluted ethics challenge in a debate that I judge I will ask you to move on and be annoyed for the rest of the round. Legitimate ethics challenges exist and should/will be taken seriously but ethics challenges are not something we should play fast and loose with.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-If my camera is off, I am not there, I am not flowing your speech, I probably can't even hear you. If you give the 1AR and I'm not there, there is not a whole lot I can do for you.

THE ESSENTIALS

Background:

- Yale College '24 / Stuyvesant High School '20

- I am a rising senior in college. I debated policy debate for four years in high school (qualified to the TOC my senior year) but do not debate in college.

- I do not hold any strong ideological predispositions. I ran mostly Ks on aff and neg for my first three years and then mostly policy arguments (hard right aff, DAs, CPs, T) my senior year. I have been both the 2A and 2N and so can sympathize with all speaker positions. You do you, I am probably okay for whatever you want to read

- If I am judging you for public forum, ignore all the extended thoughts which are policy specific. Although I never debated public forum, I do have experience teaching it several times for the NYCUDL Summer Camps and Debate Club.

Round Logistics:

- Add me to the email chain: Jeffrey.Chen.009@gmail.com

- Please time your own speeches and prep

• Don't steal prep and please try to be as efficient as possible with downtime in between speeches

EXTENDED THOUGHTS

Top Level Thoughts:

- Strongly tech > truth. How much I evaluate a dropped argument though depends on how well it’s warranted and impacted out.

- Yes, you can insert a rehighlighting.

Specific Thoughts:

This is super easily overcome with superior debating but in a 50-50 debate, this is how I’ll lean:

Overall:

Disclosure is good X--------------------------------------- Be a jerk

Longer ev ------------------------X--------------- More ev

Condo good ---------------------X------------------ Condo bad

Clash of Civs:

Fairness is an impact ----------X----------------------------- Not an impact

Weigh the aff vs the K ---------------------X------------------ Moot the 1AC

Links of omissions --------------------------------------X- Links to the plan/reps

Links to the plan ---------------------X------------------ Reps links

Policy Throwdown:

Politics DA is a thing ---X------------------------------------ Not a thing

Cheaty CPs ------------------------X--------------- Theory hack

Dropped ASpec in the 2NR ------------------X--------------------- Not voting on it

0 risk -------------------------X-------------- Always some risk

Judge kick ------------X--------------------------- No

Competing Interps -----------X---------------------------- Reasonability

Rev v Rev:

No plan no perm ----------------X----------------------- Yes perm

Other thoughts:

K affs vs FW:

I’ve been on both sides of this debate. To me, fairness is the best impact but education, clash, and most other standards are also impacts. Frame the debate around competing models of debate. A lot of counter-interpretations are written sloppily so either think extensively about your model of debate or go for impact turns.

Ks:

In most clash of civ debates, the team that talks about the aff more usually wins. I have a decent understanding of most Ks (cap, set col, queer theory, anti-blackness, asian stuff, even some high theory). Framework is usually important. Absent that, some sort of mitigation against the aff (case defense, turns case, alt solves case, etc) is probably necessary.

DAs:

Impact calc and turns case are essential. Love the politics DA. Creative research and good ev will be rewarded.

CPs:

Not great for cheaty CPs without specific solvency advocates for the aff but willing to vote for them. Advantage CPs are great. Strategic PICs are good but word PICs are wack. Explain the net benefit. Will default no judge kick but easily convinced to if 2NR tells me to and there’s no pushback.

Ts:

I lean competing interps unless the interp is really silly and reasonability is debated well. I’m sympathetic to T vs non-T affs. The best T debates compare caselists and why debating specific affs are good or bad.

Theory:

Inclined to think condo is the only voting issue, can be persuaded otherwise but it'll be an uphill battle.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years in high school. In college I competed in policy debate for four years at the University of Richmond where I was a three-time participant at the NDT. Since graduating from law school I have been practicing as an attorney in the New York state court system. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. To me, well-warranted arguments extended and explained in rebuttals combined with strategic control of the flow wins debates. Technical proficiency in terms of argument interaction is also appreciated. Well executed link and impact turns are also impressive. It won't change how I evaluate the debate, but in case you are curious, I was primarily a 2A/1N and ran everything from hard right, to soft left, to ironic affs as well as a full range on the neg. My email is jchicvak at gmail dot com.

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

elyse.conklin@gmail.com

I graduated from the Comm Masters Program at Wake Forest where I coached for two years (2015-2017). I coached Whitney Young Magnet (2010-2014) and Walter Payton College Prep (2014-2018). I am not currently coaching and spent the last couple years working as a pastry chef. I have a good base knowledge of the topic, but I might need some clarity on more niche references to argument trends, particularly T if you want to talk about other team's affs as examples of good or bad education.

“Who did the better debating” will always be the last question I ask myself before hitting the Submit button unless there is an extremely pressing reason not to. This also means I'm hesitant to vote for a team that wins one argument but loses the rest, “cheap shots” have to be well-impacted.

I judged quite frequently when I coached and am well-versed in most areas and styles of debate. I tended to coach "high theory" teams (whatever that means), but I think in order to be good at debate you have to engage and understand what other people are saying. If someone described me as a "technical" judge, I would be pleased. Judges who say "Plan or GTFO" or the reverse are doing everyone a disservice.

I am more dispassionate than dogmatic when it comes to substance -- I try to reward quality, up to date research related to the topic, and to respect the work of debaters and coaches by giving my best effort to give a well-explained decision. At the same time, I'm very willing to vote on presumption if the other side has not given me a coherent, justifiable reason to vote for them. The most direct and creative impact turns from any ideological standpoint make for fun debates. Heg and cap good args are fine enough, but I need these positions to be contextualized within current political events and trends, not only theory and impacts. By the final rebuttals I tend to flow straight down and line them up the best I can, but I prioritize typing the content as much as I can during the speech.

Time your speech, your partner's speech, the other team, and prep. If suddenly it seems like you have given a 12 minute 2AC, I will become even grumpier than usual and dock everyone's speaks .1

cadecottrell@gmail.com

Updated February 2024

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 Green Valley High School, various Las Vegas schools, 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.

- 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

- #Team1%Risk

- 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.

- 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.

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 successful 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 "A.I. 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, Neoliberalism, 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.

***

Aff:

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.

Last Notes:

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. 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. (Explicitly tell me that you want to issue a clipping challenge, I've had debaters email me and I don't see it, or wait until after the debate. Don't do that.)

I'll give you +.1 speaker points if you can tell me what phrase appears the most in my philosophy. 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 generally correlates to 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

Hi i'm jared

Lane Tech 2016

GSU'2021

- i help coached at wheeler hs in georgia alittle this year and rufus king here and there this year so topic knowledge is there. As I have judged the water topic a bit more here is some more articulated opnions:

Framework: You need to prove to me why an aff is not debatable, things like the industry da's, or the interstate compacts cp's seems like what the core neg ground is looking like whats its more the be. I need somewhat of a conversation of why an Aff makes it impossible. One off framework is probably not the best in front of me. Y'all need to probs look into like ivory tower args at least, how would the group of people you advocate for understand the args you are goin for, and how thats probs academic elitism and resinscribes the impacts you talk about .

K aff's : I need to understand what your aff does, and how it solves what it says you solve by the end of the debate. I ran these mostly while I debated, but I need to understand some relation to the topic, or why I should not care about the topic. But if it is the should not care about the topic route, you probs need to give give a ground list on the framework debate.

Theory: Alot of CP's are prolly cheating , once you hit 3+ condo that has some perf-con thats prolly bad.

to win my ballot beat the other persons arguments.

Quick Metaview to better understand how I view things.

1. K's/K aff's: Was my own bread and butter while I debated, will understand most literature basis but do not expect me to the work for you.

2. T's/Impact Turns': Underappreciated in debate , and I think are enjoyable debates if done well.

3. Politics DA : They are the intresting toxic thing that could go either way.

4. Policy Affs : If your aff relies on more intricate knowledge such as like a random court case more explanation the better.

5. Process CP's are probably cheating, but im more inclined to reject the arg than the team.

larger meta-framing issues :

a. dont be racist

b. aff prove why the status quo is bad - neg says its good or run your k or cp

c. ill dig a cp and impact turn strat with your 8 off strat or one off performance - ill listen to your arguements and look at it.

d. anything is probably could be voted on if not racist

f.I am probably truth is higher value than tech ,I'm not the most familiar with more techy policy args where slow down more of my knowledge is the K I'll try buy if im confused and look lost that means you are going over my head

g. theory : please just for the love of god do not read more than 5 or 6 condo, at this point its a question of yes reasonability but at the same time I need to be able to figure out what your warrants are. More often that not if CP's are specfic they'll avoid most of the theory questions.

h. With topicality it'll always be an interesting debate that with good framing its good.

i. In a round where I have to be answering questions It probably goes more towards the K, and how I think the Ontology Debate works out.

Non-Policy Debate Section:

You do you, and I look at flows. alot of my views on arguements in debate are summed up below, but I am open to any non-traditional forms of any of the other types of debate as long as you are not racist. I tend to vote purely off the flow as long as something is not just a straight up lie(i.e "Trump was Good"). On theory issues i tend to default to whatever means the least amount of judge intervention.

Updated June 2023

Short Version + Email:

Read what you want - I don't think tabula rasa exists, but I do think the predispositions I share below clearly indicate my open engagement on many aisles. I have a decent breadth of knowledge of things in the world but will reward you for making it clear you have depth of knowledge. My debating background was mostly Ks, my coaching background is mixed but leaning K, and my career/academic work is mixed but leaning policy. I'd recommend you read the section below on the argument you want to go for.

I will vote for theory and T. Smart DA / CP strategies are fun. I judge a lot of policy aff v. K rounds and would appreciate if K folks would ground more in the literature and make more content args than K trick args. With framework, fairness can be an impact but you must win debate is a game. K affs probably need to win debate is not just a game / impact turns to FW outweigh the value or truth of game framing.

Write my RFD for me at the top of your 2NR / 2AR, but make args instead of grandstanding about how you're winning - you did it right if I repeat your words back to you in my RFD. Impact framing is a powerful tool. Cost benefit analysis is inevitable to a degree but it's your job to convince me how the round's cost benefit analysis should look.

Would appreciate if you add me to the email chain in advance - just let me know that you did so.

Email: larry [dot] dang2018 [at] gmail [dot] com

---now the full paradigm---

The Overview

I care quite a bit about being a good judge, but only if you're clearly here to bring your A-game. Do what you will with that information.

*In case this ever matters, this is a policy paradigm*

Read whatever you want - I really do mean it. As humans tend to do, I have my predispositions. They are evident in the rest of my paradigm, which I worked to make very clear on my positions. However, I like to believe that I am a fair judge who can evaluate whatever style of argument you bring to the table, be it very policy, very K, or something new altogether. With that said, see the two paragraphs below.

I seem to end up judging a lot of policy aff v. K debates and end up voting policy slightly more than K (see next sentence for explanation). I think that as a big fan of critical literature and as someone who reads a lot, I have a high bar for explanation and content-based argumentation. I will vote for but am pretty tired of K tricks on framework or supposedly using sweeping claims to skirt points of clash. I like voting for smart K explanations, so if you're a K debater disappointed to hear about my voting for policy args more often, same here. By all means, I hope you can turn that record around, but by no means will I "hack for the K." Shallow K args make me sad and I won't reward it. One problem I feel like I see often is that K args don't become complete and coherent strategies by the end of the round cos the pieces are not tied together - don't let this happen. It seems like a missing the forest for the trees kind of issue.

T is a viable option in front of me, and a good T debate will be rewarded in your speaks.

You will benefit from reading the section of my paradigm on the arguments you plan to execute in front of me. I explain how I think arguments are best won. With that said, my suggestions are functional in nature. You should do what you do best. I will reward you for being smart, strategic, and hard-working.

Good luck!

Framing This Paradigm

I believe that reading paradigms is less a practice of learning how judges view specific arguments and more a practice of learning different ways to execute arguments. My debate knowledge has increased exponentially from reading paradigms, and I write this paradigm with that in mind.

A Note for the Economic Inequality Topic

I feel quite familiar with this topic from a professional perspective because I currently work and previously studied in this space, but I don't know a lot about how the debate community has engaged with the topic. I haven't been rigorously involved in judging and coaching since the water topic in 2021-22.

Background

I currently work in NYC at an anti-poverty nonprofit foundation specifically in the area of early childhood development. I think simultaneously like a critical sociologist, social policy researcher, and public administrator.

Here's my debate and educational history: Head-Royce HS 2018 (Oceans, Surveillance, China, Education), Harvard College 2022 (didn't debate) Sociology and Global Health.

I debated on the national policy circuit in high school and did decently well by traditional standards (blah blah TOC blah blah bids). Most of the arguments I read were critiques, on the AFF and the NEG, though I engaged with more traditional policy arguments a fair amount at camp and now in my time coaching. I believe that traditional policy genuinely has value - it just wasn't my focus as a debater. The Ks I read in rounds were mostly about capitalism, neoliberalism, sovereignty, biopolitics, critical security studies, and psychoanalysis. The K arguments I coach now are mostly in the vein of critical race theory and postmodernism. I have a good working knowledge of other common K authors/lit bases in debate like Baudrillard, Deleuze, queer pessimism, other queer theory, Spanos, critiques of death, disability studies, feminist critiques, and the likes. However, you should never take any of this as an excuse for lackluster explanation - shallow K debates are a big sad. All in all, do what you do best. That'll make for the best and most enjoyable debate.

General

Tech over truth - answer arguments and don’t drop stuff - debate is about in depth contestation of ideas. However, what constitutes tech is up for debate and should ultimately be a matter of contestation, whether that happens holistically, via a rigorous line by line, or otherwise. There are many different ways to be a skilled and technical debater that isn't always just following the line by line closely or forcing opponents to drop an argument. Smart framing claims and innovative arguments can go a long way. With that said, please do try to do line by line when appropriate - it's not the only way to debate, but it definitely is an effective way that is tried and true. A few more quick thoughts.

Execution probably matters more than evidence, but good evidence/cards goes a long way + helps speaks.

Don't cheat - no clipping cards, falsifying evidence, or stealing prep.

Achieving 0% risk is difficult but not impossible.

Voting NEG on presumption exists - some AFFs don't say anything.

Cross-ex is binding - I will listen and flow notable parts.

Do some impact framing at the top of every final rebuttal.

Be kind to one another and by all means don't be bigoted.

K AFFs

I read K AFFs for most of high school, so they're generally what you might call my forte. Some thoughts:

- A lot of K AFFs don't seem to in any way clearly do anything. Please make sure the 2AR (and the rest of AFF speeches) does not forget to explain the AFF. It becomes hard to vote AFF when I don't know what I'm voting for, even if you did everything else right. Utilize CX to bring up examples that will concretize your method.

- When answering framework, make sure that you have a justification for why your K AFF must exist in debate. Even if you have forwarded a generally good idea, framework begs the question not of whether the K AFF should exist in general but why it should be presented in round. Make arguments about how your K AFF interacts with the status quo of debate arguments, or how debate is a platform, or how argumentative spaces are key. I think the easiest way to do this is usually to impact turn the notion of framework, which I'll note is different from impact turning limits.

- When answering Ks of your AFF, the winner will usually be the team who can concretize their argument better. Don't forget that. Keep it simple and keep it real. Don't get bogged down in theory.

Framework

Despite having read K AFFs most of high school and coaching K AFFs most of the time currently, I also read and really like framework. In many ways, I do believe it makes the game work.

- Some general agreement about what debate constitutes is probably necessary for debate to function, even with K debates. Your job reading FW is to convince the judge that that agreement should be the resolution. Don't forget that FW is T-USFG. You are fundamentally arguing for a model of debate, with limits that provides teams the ability to predict and prepare for arguments. You forward a way to organize a game. Don't let a K team force you into defending more than you need to.

- Game framing is very helpful in FW rounds. If you can win that debate is a game, then you hedge back against most of the offense the AFF will go for. You can best prove that debate is a game by giving empirics about the way that all debaters shift arguments to get a competitive advantage. Present the question of why the K AFF needs to occur in debate and strategically concede aspects of how the K literature might be useful while making it clear that that literature can be accessed outside of debate while your impacts to FW, such as policy education and advocacy skills, are best accessed in debate.

- There was a time when I think I had a decent predisposition against going for fairness as the only impact to framework, but I've since amended my belief to being that going for fairness alone is difficult but when done successfully is usually very dangerous and impressive. A few thoughts on how to make it good: 1) Win that debate is a game and that we do not become intrinsically tied to arguments in debate - make a game theory argument about the nature of competition. 2) Force the aff to make arguments about the value of the ballot. If the K team says they think the ballot is good, then they are in one way or another arguing that fairness in debate is somewhat necessary insofar as fairness maintains the value of the ballot. 3) Use #1 to then force the burden onto the aff to describe when fairness is good and bad, once you've pigeonholed them into defending that some fairness must be good. 4) Defend a dogma/switch side argument as offensive defense - I phrase it that way because I think dogma is a great way to internal link turn K affs without giving them education offense to impact turn (since the education offense then makes debate at least in some capacity more than a game / risks indicating that debate changes subjectivity).

- Go for your preferred FW impacts. Some will work better than others against different types of K AFFs, and I have some thoughts about that as a coach but enjoy hearing different takes on framework.

Plan AFFs

Do your thing. I think this is pretty straightforward. I will say, I'm not the biggest fan of when teams have a million impact scenarios and very little explanation of the AFF's solvency mechanism. I think that's a pretty abusive use of the tech over truth framing in debate, and I will in that instance grant the neg a chance to use framing to get their way (and vice versa with the neg reading a million off). With that said, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Critiques

I read Ks for most of my high school debate career. I think that they're a great way to think about the world and deepen our understandings of the world and problematize the mundane. Some thoughts on how to effectively execute.

- See paragraph 3 of the overview section of this paradigm.

- Overviews are good but not to be abused aka don't forget about line by line.

- The alt is usually the weakest part of the K, so I often find it effective to do things like take the link debate and make turns case arguments. These make the threshold for winning alt solvency much lower. Things about how your systemic critique complicates the way the AFF can solve or makes the AFF do more harm than good are very effective.

- The framework debate on the K is important - you should use it to your advantage to shift how the judge analyzes the round. Don't just throw it out there. You can use framework to make the judge think more deeply about whether or not it is ethical to take a policy action even if it solves the AFF's impacts, or you can use framework to have the judge consider implementation complications (e.g. the Trump regime) that the AFF doesn't factor in because of fiat.

Topicality

The biggest mistake NEGs make going for T is forgetting that at the end of the day, the impact debate is always still the most important, even with a procedural. Give me strong T impacts, limits and ground arguments that internal link to fairness and education - you can't win without it, even if you win that they violate and your interp is more predictable or precise.

I like to think about the meaning of the topic and what different models of the resolution look like. I'm okay with throwaway T 1NCs, but don't throw it away when there's opportunity. T can be a very good argument, as long as you remember to keep the impact debate in mind. Different models of the topic have different effects on people's education and fairness of debates. It's not sufficient to prove the AFF doesn't meet your interpretation.

Disadvantages

I like to hear nuanced DA debates, especially when they're contextualized well to the AFF's mechanism. Just don't take for granted the amount to which policy debaters are used to the idea that proving a link to the DA makes the DA true. At least make an attempt to explain the internal link between your link story and the impact scenario. Otherwise, I think this is an easy avenue for the AFF to win a no risk of DA argument.

Counterplans

Like with DAs, I really enjoy when CPs are related to the AFF's literature/mechanism. I will reward with speaker points a well-researched DA/CP strategy. Don't forget that in the 2NR, the CP is just a way for you to lower the threshold of DA/internal offense that you need to win. The CP is a very effective strategy, but it is not the offense that wins the debate.

Use theory against abusive CPs when you're AFF - I will take it into account. For the NEG, read smart CPs or be prepared to defend against theory. It will favor the NEG if a CP is maybe abusive (process, PIC, agent, etc.) but is core controversy in the literature.

Theory

I am willing to vote for theory to reject the team. Theory arguments with claims about how the violation specifically engages with the topic literature are especially convincing. My threshold to reject the team is high but winnable and I enjoy theory when it's done well. Don't forget to go for reject the arg strategically when things are really cheat-y. Impact out reject the team and reject the arg differently when theory is a big part of the debate strategy.

Maybe this is a hot take, but my default assumption is that the status quo is always an option. Unless the 2AR tells me no judge kick / vote aff on presumption explicitly (and all the 2AR has to do is assert this - I’ll change my assumption if you tell me to assuming the 2NR has not made an issue of this), then my paradigm for evaluation involves judge kick, cos I think that just means the neg proved the status quo is better than the aff, and that’s enough for me to vote neg even if there was a CP and that CP doesn’t do anything.

I like conditionality debates.

Speaker Points

I consider 28.5 to be about decently average (not a bad thing). I think inflation has gotten to a point where I skew a little low, but if you are good, then I wouldn't worry about it cos I am far from conservative with 28.9+ points. If it helps for context, I debated from 2014 to 2018, so that's my frame of reference for points. I follow this guide pretty closely. Here's a breakdown:

29.7-30: You are one of the best speakers I've ever seen

29.3-29.6: You should get a speaker award, and I was really quite impressed

28.9-29.2: You gave some really good speeches and maybe deserve a speaker award

28.7-28.8: You spoke decently well, performed above average, and have a fair shot at breaking

28.3-28.6: You performed probably squarely in the lower middle to middle of the pool (standard for circuit bid tournament)

27.8-28.2: Your performance signaled to me that this pool is probably tough for you, but you're getting there - keep trying!

27-27.7: Your performance signaled to me that this tournament was/is probably going to be rough for you, but don't give up!

Below 27: You almost certainly did something offensive to deserve this

Ways to increase speaks: have organized speeches, be friendly in round, have good evidence, know what your evidence says, be effective in cross ex, be funny (but don't force it)

Ways to decrease speaks: have disorganized speeches, be mean, make it clear that you are reading blocks you don't really get, treat the debate as a joke (don't waste our time)

Ways to get a 0 (or a 20 since that's usually the minimum): be blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or generally bigoted towards your opponents or people in the round in any way

Don't forget to have fun in debate. Good luck!

Yes I want to be on the email chain--feel free to email regarding decisions or any random debate questions or thoughts--I love talking about debate because I'm a nerd and this is my life.

Please add this email to the chain and send any questions here: Jack.A.Seraph@gmail.com

I am a third year George Mason University, a Varsity Debater. I've been a 2A and a 2N. Cleared at two nationals. Still debating. I go for framework and read a plan, but will vote for whatever(no seriously I'll vote for almost anything).

TL;DR: Spreading is literally preferred just don't gargle marbles. I'll vote on anything. Tech over truth. Framework vs. K affs is either way but maybe 55% neg on the question.

Spreading: Not only do I think spreading is fine, I think it's one of the best things to happen to debate. It's a very useful communicative and competitive tool. That being said, don't take this as a green light to be unintelligible. Yes I can flow a clear 450 wpm. NO I will not be able to flow 300 words per minute that sounds like you're brushing your teeth and gargling water.

Policy vs. K:

A few thoughts.

1. My understanding of K debate and respective critical theorization comes from the perspective of answering the K from a policy perspective. This means that what I look for in deciding these debates is assessing what each team needs to win in the context of the strategies that were deployed, and whether those arguments were won by each team.

2. Framework is the most important part of these debates hands down. Many judges usually say something like 'the aff gets the plan and the neg gets the K.' I take objection to this because usually neither team gives this as an option for me to resolve the debate. The logical conclusion to an aff team saying 'weigh the plan's consequences' and a neg team saying something like 'the 1AC is a narrative or scholarship etc.' being debated out nearly equally is not for me to contrive some sort of compromise. Also how can the aff team 'get the plan' and the neg 'get the K' it literally makes no sense and is totally amorphous. If the debate were about a DA vs. Case, I'd interpret risk and competing claims on a sliding scale, whether I should consider the plan's consequences MUST be a yes/no dichotomous choice though. Most important part. It's much harder for me to conclude that a nuclear war or extinction doesn't outweigh something about the status quo being messed up or some of their assumptions being problematic than otherwise. On the other hand, if the neg is killing the aff on framework, I'll vote on a non-unique reps link.

3. This is also about framework but it deserves its own number -- I think if the neg says 'the aff should defend their reps' or 'the aff is a research project' the aff should make an argument that if they win the plan is a good idea and their impacts outweigh, their research project is net beneficial so who cares about these link args that don't turn the case.

4. The neg should make args about how the links turn the case

5. The neg should criticize the aff's framing of extinction or big stick impacts very heavily. Make this plus framework basically most of your position.

6. I can be convinced of anything so long as it has a warrant. That means death can be good.

Framework vs. K affs:

1. I'll vote either way -- I know that debate is a game, therefore it makes sense that affirmative teams might say that it is not in order to win. This paradox does not make me always vote neg.

2. TVA and SSD can be very critical in mitigating aff offense. That being said, sometimes people are anti-topical and you just need to win that they should be topical and defend a topical plan.

3. Fairness is usually an impact either directly or residually. It's a better impact than 'we'll be advocates and save the world' because we all know that's kind of non-sense. Clash can be an impact that turns the case if the case tries to actually forward scholarship/do something.

4. Fairness should always be impact turned by the aff and I am amenable to voting for 'fairness is bad' or 'fairness impossible.'

5. Kritikal teams are usually correct that the negative's debating in framework debates is usually phenomenal on the link and internal link level, and atrocious on the impact level. Everyone keep this in mind.

6. I prefer affs that think debate is good and try to do something productive/forward scholarship/are close to the topic and try to mitigate neg offense. If an aff basically does nothing or is a sort of self-care argument, I will definitely be amenable to voting aff on those impact turns, but the neg's strategy then should just be a hardcore 'be topical, you're anti-topical, ballot does nothing, fairness good.' The aff should just impact turn fairness.

7. If you don't read any of the above or choose not to take my advice, you'll still be able to win just or close to just as easily.

T: Limits and Ground I'm good for both. 'You have ground' isn't a sufficient answer to 'limits DA.' Affs should have contextual ev to their interp obviously. Aff should impact turn the debates that the neg's interp would produce. Caselist important. Don't make caselist too big -- you might link to your own limits DA and that would be amusing yet unfortunate.

CPs: I'll usually judge kick unless the aff argues otherwise. The neg still needs to justify why I should judge kick if the aff gives me a reason I shouldn't. Love advantage CPs. Love PICs if they're actually testing something substantive. Agent CPs are meh -- really depends on who does the better debating on the competition portion of the debate. Textual vs. functional competition or both being necessary is a debate and you should debate it out. I can be convinced either way.

Condo: I typically am good for unlimited condo/negation theory. I think the neg still has to not blow off condo and can definitely vote aff given a great 2AR on it and bad neg debating on the question. 2AC skew is the best argument. Contradictions isn't a great arg 99% of the time because either the neg has double turned themselves, or they're just testing different portions of the aff.

Other theory: Reject the argument not the team answers every other theory arg if you don't plan on going for the counterplan/position.

Style: I love aggression and sass in debate--but be weary for that is a line that can be difficult to tow. Also don't be sassy or indignant if you're losing--that's just painful. Don't be overtly, or covertly for that matter, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

Tell me what you advocate.

tell me why it is not being done

tell me why it needs to be done

tell me why it is the best thing we should do

Graduated from West Des Moines Valley 2017

Debated for the University of Iowa for a year

My email is Parker.day887@gmail.com - please add me to the email chain and feel free to hit me up with any questions

Clash of Civs:

This is why people read paradigms right?

I'm very experienced with these rounds, but have always debated on the kritikal side of the issue. I'll evaluate any argument that has an impact and a warrant attached to it - from "procedural fairness is a prior question" to "debate is structurally bad".

Thoughts on reading framework against K teams:

- Fairness doesn't seem to be an impact unless you win that a) debate is a game AND b) debate is good

- Impacts and solvency should be comparative to the other team's claims about what my ballot does/means

- Dropping 2AC disadvantages to your interpretation is a quick way to lose

Answering framework with a K aff:

- Utilizing the base of literature your aff comes from >>> generic framework bad args

- Reading impact defense to their standards helps to minimize their substantive offense

- Tell me what the ballot does for you

Believe it or not, I'm not a total K hack in these rounds. My record is split pretty even in framework v K debates and I definitely believe there are good arguments on both sides. For more info, see the framework section below.

How I view the activity:

Nothing in debate is set in stone for me. If you have a reason why you singing, dancing, reading poetry, staying silent, recrafting subjectivity, etc. is good, go for it.

Give me an easy way out.

Dropped arguments are true, dropped claims are not.

Tech > Truth (with some obvious exceptions)

However, if you think that anything that Ayn Rand has ever said is a good argument I'm not who you want in the back. If the only impact you extend is "states' rights" in your final rebuttal, you probably shouldn't pref me.

At this point in my coaching career, I have researched and advised almost exclusively about the theories of Afropessimism, Black Feminism, and Settler Colonialism. Just something to keep in mind.

The K

Very familiar with:

Nietzsche, Afro-Pessimism, Marx, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Queer Pessimism, Bataille, Queer Utopianism, Preciado, Puar, Negarestani, Foucault, Weheliye, Resiliency, and most "high-theory" or "po-mo" arguments

Pretty familiar with:

Settler Colonialism, Psychoanalysis, Cybernetics, Heidegger, Ableism, and Derrida

Not super familiar with: Irigaray, Hyperstition theory, Adorno, Badiou, and most of analytic philosophy

Even though I spend my free time reading critical literature, don't assume that I'll fill in the gaps for you. I have a fairly high standard for explanation of both your theory, the other team's theory, and how they interact.

Framework

Being a 2A who has only ever read K affs, I'm pretty familiar with framework and the different ways that it is deployed in debate. If you are only going to go for procedural fairness as an impact, make sure you flesh out why its an intrinsically good thing for debate/why it isn't just an internal link to education. If you're hitting an aff that links to framework, they've probably thought out a way to apply the theory of the 1AC to the form of debate. Use lots of examples of previous debaters who did good/bad things because of debate to drive your points home.

Just because I don't read framework doesn't mean that I won't vote on it. If anything, I have a high threshold for blatantly untopical affirmatives to explain why they don't have to be topical because that was the burden I had with critical positions.

Policy Stuff

If the K isn't your thing and you find yourself in front of me, you do you. I'm down for whatever as long as its contextual and well-explained.

Earlier in the season I voted multiple times on Trump tax reform good because trickle-down econ (even though that argument is factually incorrect)

Final Thoughts:

- I don't expect any particular decorum from the debaters I'm judging, I enjoy debates when they're sarcastic/aggressive. That being said, please don't be unnecessarily mean to your opponents.

- Have fun. I wouldn't have done high school debate if it wasn't fun for me, so I don't expect you to do things that make it not fun for you.

- If you're going to refer to me, call me Parker instead of "Judge"

- Sit/stand wherever you are the most comfortable

LD debaters:

Don't read 8 theory shells, and if you are going to read 8 theory shells don't spread through them.

You should also flash pre-written theory blocks.

I'll vote on theory, but I'll be sad while I'm doing it.

Lets make sure we are slowing down for analytics and tags because I sincerely need to be able to understand you to flow you.

Hi I'm Sunday! Nice to meet you! Here's my email: odeloss1@binghamton.edu i want to be on the email chain

I'm the coloring book person

I like Ks

But I'm not against policy arguments!

i think they are both viable strategies

all i really care about in the round is clash please engage with each other substantially i don't want to watch a debate where two teams are just talking at each other because thats boring and i dont want to be bored believe it or not. the point being anything is up for debate and i'm down to hear any of it as long as you arent being fucked up. dont think that if you say something antiblack or anti queer youre going to get away with it. i believe in people making mistakes and i believe that you can learn from them so if you say something that is blatantly violent and you know it is then don't double down on it. TLDR: don't spew out violent rhetoric but if you do then apologize

okay stuff yall care about:

i went back and looked at this and realized i have something to say beforehand so first first first of all. i think yall can tell me what to do. im here to facilitate the debate the way yall want and to deliberate. im not going to tell you that you cant play music or that i wont flow a poem. if you want me to try to a handstand while i listen to the 1ac i will try to do it. obviously im going to need to know why youre making me do things... but i think that debate isnt just about what you say but how you say it and how you present it. TLDR: sucker for judge instruction

onto the good stuff:

first of all yall need to actually explain your arguments to me. youre all very smart and youre all very persuasive but you can't just get up and start saying to extend every single card you read because that is not persuasive. you dont have to explain every single card but i need something to write down. a warrant perhaps :) if i dont understand something i wont vote for it. and you will know if i dont understand something because i probably wont be flowing it TLDR: make it make sense

T: i will vote for it. like seriously. you should have UQ links i/l and impacts. i dont think that going for just fairness as an impact will win you the round. i like clash, in depth debates, education, etc. as impacts and fairness can be an internal link. also i would like it if you had a persuasive TVA that actually tries to encapsulate some parts of the aff. I don't think you have to solve the entirety of the aff but you have to access their lit base. TLDR: win an impact

t against policy teams: cool

t against k teams: i like it better w a fw arg

for the aff: don't just say fw is bad and don't just say the state is bad. explain why doing the aff the way you want to do it is important for education for you for other debaters. you have to win your model of debate is good. or win that models of debate are bad (i went for that a lot :P) explain your counterinterp i don't think that you have to win that you solve the entire world. but you have to solve for something by reading the aff. read disads to their model. read disads to the TVA... answer the TVA. TLDR: actually answer t

the K! (im grouping the K and K affs together)

i don't know everything so don't expect me to know what you are talking about even if it seems likely that i would know what you are talking about. at some point in the debate just slow down and be like "here's the K/aff. here's what it does. here's why its good" i think that should be at the top of all your speeches but i just need one clear moment in the debate where you tell me what is going on. TLDR: i am lazy and do not want to do extra work so do it for me

For Ks I think that you don't need an alt but it doesn't hurt to have one either. You have to win your alt if you are going for it though I'm not going to kick it for you.

For K affs. win that you do something

misc: I love presumption. i love the case debate. neg teams: i will vote on the aff doesnt do anything the aff doesnt make any sense the aff is bad for debate. also you can read CP to K affs. shake it up. dance emoji

he/him delphdebate@gmail.com

year 10 of debate

coach at wake

former LRCH and Kansas Debater

TLDR:

When it comes to evaluating debates, two things are the most important for me:

1. Clear judge instructions in the rebuttals of how I should filter offense and arguments made in the round. Impact and Link framing are a must. if I can't explain the argument myself, I probably can't vote on it.

2. Impact comparison and clear reason why I should prioritize impacts in the round between the neg and aff. Each argument should have a claim - warrant - impact for me to evaluate it as such.

Use these to filter the rest of my paradigm and general in round perception.

General

I consider myself to be pretty flexible when it comes to arguments that teams want to read. I debated more critically but you should read whatever arguments that you are comfortable with. Any racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc will be met with speaker points that reflect, so don't be an assho|e.

Most of my debate experience was in critical debates on both the aff and neg (I was a 1A/2N), but I’m not unfamiliar with the technical aspects of policy debates.

I’m probably not the best for Topicality debates in general when it comes to plan-based policy debates and less likely to vote on Framework vs plan-less affs if going for impacts such as fairness/competitive equity or predictability. I generally lean more into truth over tech in most debates, but tech is important for impact comparison.

for college: still formulating how I understand and evaluate as a judge, so making sure I clearly understand what I should evaluate without intervention from me comes down to how you go for your arguments. The less judge intervention I feel like I have to do, the happier we are all in the post-round RFD.

——————————————————————————————

Truth over tech/Tech over truth? - Depends, i view myself evaluating truth before tech concessions but that isn’t always the case. I think technical concession are important for evaluating impact debates, so utilize both these to your advantage.

Framework on the Neg? - I’ll evaluate any negative arguments about the meta of debate. If you win your model of debate is good and the aff in question doesn’t access it then generally I’m pretty neutral on Framework arguments. Same for K’s with framing questions, the way you want me to evaluate a prior question should be framed as such.

10 off? I’d prefer if you didn’t, gish galloping is a fascist tactic.

Theory arguments? I believe theory arguments are heavily underutilized in high school debates. I evaluate conditionality and presumption debates as much as I evaluate K vs Framework. I have a certain threshold for certain arguments that I will vote on in theory debates, I think condo is a definite aff/neg ballot if it gets dropped in the neg block or rebuttals. I tend to vote neg on presumption, in those debates I think a lot of the perm debate and solvency portions of both sides are important to those rounds. CP contextual theory, perm text theory, textual severance, etc im all game for theory. i think theory debates get underutilized a lot

K affirmatives

I read them, I think that you should read whatever you read on the aff. I will vote for them, but I at least think they should be in the direction of the topic and a reason why the topical version doesn't solve.

Performance

If performance is your thing - go ahead go for it.

FW on the neg

I will vote on a neg FW but I think that there are certain arguments that I'm gonna have a harder time pulling the trigger on, i.e. fairness. I don't think fairness is something I would absolutely vote on but of course that all depends on the round. I also think the neg should be doing a lot of work why the state/usfg is worth it, why the aff isnt good for a model of debate, or why the judge should care. Generic args on framework aren't gonna cut it for me tbh, i need a concise way of why i should view the debate through the neg and why the aff doesnt solve etc etc.

K’s

Pretty versed in most of the lit but you shouldn't use a lot of buzzwords in front of me. I think you should say why the aff is uniquely bad and how the alternative can resolve its impacts and the squo. Why perms don't solve, links are disads, etc etc. I find alternative debates to be the most shallow, I think even if you are winning reason the links are disads you still need a reason the alt isn't the squo. Role of the ballot arguments are self-serving but it makes is a lot easier to evaluate them when they are dropped or not contested by the aff. Aff teams: FW on Ks is underutilized, I think you should make arguments about why you should get to weigh your impacts vs the K.

Any other questions just ask before the round, "If you can't dazzle me with excellence, baffle me with bullshit."

To begin with: please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. This is of paramount importance. While we understand that this is a competition and situations, especially during cross examination, can reach high levels of intensity, that is no excuse for showing disrespect to any party involved.

ANY reference to an opponent with the use of a derogatory or racist term (even under the guise of a performance piece or simulation in the debate space) will NOT be tolerated.

As a general note, I greatly prefer topicality in the debate round. If you are running an AFF that is far away from the topic of the year (i.e. performance pieces, poetry, voluntary silence), you will have to work very hard in the round to show relation to the resolution. If either team is running a KRITIK, you will have a high threshold for proving that the topic as given by the NSDA is not worthy of being debated.

As for Topicality arguments, I believe that they usually do not hold up over the long haul of a round. After a certain point, they just become, for lack of a better term, a time waste. As long as the AFF team can prove that they are topical if the NEG team calls it into question, it will leave my flow sheet after the 2AC.

Speed reading DOES NOT impress me. If anything, I find it to be distracting from the debate. If you want me to have a clean flow, make sure that I can understand that information that you are trying to relay. I much prefer being "explained to" vs. "read at". There is a difference. If I can't make sense of your arguments, it will be hard to pick a side.

During the final two speeches (2NR & 2AR) I will be listening for you to tell me why YOU should win the round.

For the most part, we are all here as a learning experience, and to enjoy the clash of policy debate.
During your speeches, I will greatly appreciate clarity and slow-speaking, especially when reciting taglines and making important points. This will make it easier for me to analyze and flow what you are saying instead of struggling to keep up with what you are saying.

Please include me on all e-mail chain: adeluca@longbranch.k12.nj.us

I did policy debate for four years in high school, and have judged at many tournaments. My attitude for each round is "tabula rasa"- I am open to most arguments, but I request teams explain clearly, especially in the closing rebuttals, why their argument wins/outweighs that of the other team. I go for as minimal judge intervention as possible- you need to tell me why I should give credence/preference for your arguments.

I believe that framework is a shield, not a sword- I will evaluate a team's arguments first under a framework if they win on it, but that doesn't mean they necessarily win those arguments.

I generally place a higher standard for Reverse Voting Issues (RVIs). I also have a higher threshold for voting for theory/debate-specific/performance arguments. I am willing to vote for these arguments and have done so in the past, but you need to do a brilliant job to sell them to me.

Email Chain: aciatou.diallo@gmail.com

I am okay with spreading just slow down w/analytics pls.

K/Critical arguments: I really love K's and critical args just run them correctly thats all.

Policy: I'm fine w anything just be clear.

--> for topicality args/theory is fine i just need yall to break stuff down especially on the impacts and violation.

Not here for the petty/racist/ debates so pls dont try it ill vote you down so fast, Lets have a good time and debate.

Updated - Fall 2020

Number of years judging: 12

For the email chain: philipdipiazza@gmail.com

I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).

Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.

I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.

I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.

As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.

KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.

I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.

Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.

Senior at the University of Texas at Austin '24

Email chain: david.do.6375@gmail.com and (CX only) hawkcxdebate@gmail.com

Overview

– None of this applies to PF or other formats besides Policy/CX and LD.

– Tech over truth in most cases. I won't evaluate an argument without a warrant, even if it's completely unanswered. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other wholly unethical and derogatory arguments. Additionally, arguments meant to be a meme or joke are inherently garbage. I will give you the lowest speaks for reading any of these arguments.

– I prefer contextualized arguments with specific warrants over anything else. Although I generally prefer high-quality evidence, issues from lack of evidence or poor-quality evidence can be resolved with good argumentation. I do normally read cards, but I leave explanations and comparison of evidence up to debaters. I mostly read cards to give comments/advice on how to better execute/answer a particular argument. I also don't want card docs. If you send a card doc, that email and doc will sadly be ignored and left unread in my inbox.

– I’m not the best for teams reading Kritikal arguments. I didn’t read a lot of Kritikal arguments in high school, which means that I don’t understand your arguments as well as most judges. If you do want to read a kritik and pref me, then structural kritiks like capitalism, militarism, and security and identity kritiks like anti-blackness, feminism, and queer theory are fine. Post-modern kritiks are really pushing my boundaries. However, you shouldn't over-adapt. I would much prefer you read arguments you're familiar with and are able to clearly articulate over arguments I understand. I will be able to follow along with what you're saying so long as you're properly explaining key components of your argument.

– I don't often vote on 0% risk of anything. Although I have voted on 0% risk of impacts or solvency in the past, this was mostly because aff/neg teams provided insufficient responses, rather the other side being so good at beating an argument into the ground. In a debate where both sides are sufficiently responding to each other's arguments, I default to impact calculus more than anything else.

– "Soft-Left" affs have become increasingly popular and common. I don't have an issue with these affs in general, but I do have an issue with 1ACs that have a short 3-4 card advantage with 5-minute-long framing contentions that include pre-empts like "no nuclear war", "[x] DA has [y]% risk", and "[z] thumped their DAs". Teams that read these 1ACs seem to have an aversion to debate. I have read these 1ACs in the past, so I understand the strategic utility of long framing contentions. However, I much prefer listening to 1ACs that have well-developed advantage and solvency contentions. I enjoy sifting through quality evidence that came from the topic literature base rather than evidence I can find in my backfiles. Additionally, I have been increasingly finding myself persuaded by aff indicts of extinction first frameworks. High-magnitude, low-probability events have increasingly silly and comical to me. That being said, the aff must still make defensive arguments to DAs and answer the specific extinction scenarios that the neg has made.

– Unlike most judges, I flow cross-ex. This doesn't mean I consider cross-ex a speech, rather I am taking notes of cross-ex. You don't need to go into detail about what happened during cross-ex during your speech. I will understand the reference and evaluate your use of cross-ex accordingly.

Topicality

– I generally default to competing interpretations over reasonability. I err towards reasonability when there isn't a coherent case list, a persuasive link to the limits disad, or high-quality evidence defending the interpretation. Reasonability is about the aff's counter-interpretation, not the aff.

– I'm not persuaded by "plan text in a vacuum". Just inserting the resolution into your plan text isn't enough to prove that the aff is topical. You have to prove your mechanism fits under the resolution.

– I have listened to debates on T-Taxes. I generally err aff that "fiscal redistribution" implies taxes or transfers. For the neg to win, the aff must either mishandle the Topicality debate or the neg has a spectacular reason that deficit spending should not be aff ground. I have yet to hear a spectacular reason that deficit spending should not be aff ground.

Framework

– Comparative impact calculus matters more than winning in-roads to the other side's offense. I am more likely to vote on "procedural fairness outweighs maximizing revolutionary education" over "switch-side debate solves the aff's offense." Winning turns and access to the other side's offense increases your chance of winning, but they aren't necessary to winning the debate. These arguments are inherently defensive and, alone, are not enough to win the debate.

– Recently, many negative teams have increasingly gone for clash and education as the impact in the 2NR. I find procedural fairness as a more persuasive impact than clash and education. Members of the debate community approach debate as if it were an academic game, which means the collapse of that game discourages further investment into the activity.

Kritiks

– Like most judges, I prefer case-specific links. Links frame the degree to which the neg gets all of their offense and K tricks on framework, the permutation, and the alternative. The more the link is about the broader structures that the aff engages in, the more likely I am to err aff on perm solvency of the links. I'm a sucker for 1AC quotes/re-highlights as proof of a link.

– Kritiks that push back on the aff's theory of the world require, at least in some part, case defense. Defense to the 1ACs impacts or solvency claims are useful to disprove the necessity of doing the aff. I'm more likely to be convinced that the aff has manufactured their threats and have engaged in militarist propaganda when you've proven the aff wrong about their scenarios. Absent sufficient case defense, extinction outweighs, and I vote aff.

– K tricks are fine. However, I won't give very high speaks if a debate is won or lost on them. I am not a fan of floating PIKs, especially if it's not clear until the 2NR.

Counterplans

– I absolutely love counterplans that come from re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC. Even if your counterplan doesn’t come from their 1AC author, the more case specific it is, the more likely I am to reward you for it.

– Presumption flows towards the least change. I consider most CPs that are not PICs as a larger change than the aff.

– I will judge kick unless told otherwise. If I believe the CP links back to its net benefit or the permutation resolves the links to the net benefit, I will evaluate the net benefit independent of the CP.

Disadvantages

– DAs that rely on poor-evidence can be easily beaten without the 2AC ever reading new evidence against it. I am much more comfortable voting aff on "your uniqueness evidence is horrible" than 1% risk of a poorly carded DA. I am also very sympathetic to the 1AR making new arguments when the block reads new evidence to defend parts the 1NC poorly defended.

– The Economy DA has been incredibly popular in this topic. I'm an economics major, so I will generally understand the macroeconomic factors and theories that your authors are talking about. Just because I understand them does not mean you can simply name drop the theories as a response to your opponent's link or link turn. If anything, my understanding of these links and link turns means impacting out each individual link and link turn is far more important. At the end of these debates, I will still have a hard time evaluating each link and link turn because neither side has sufficiently explained the significance of their arguments.

Theory

– Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument, except for condo. This is especially true when there isn’t any in-round abuse. Theory arguments that such as counterplans without solvency advocates, vague alts, etc. are reasons to be skeptical of the solvency of the counterplan or alt. They are rarely reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments like PICs bad, floating PIKs bad, agent CPs bad, etc. are reasons to reject the counterplan or alt. These arguments can be reasons to reject the team, but only if the neg severely mishandles the theory debate and the 1AR and 2AR are really good on them. The same is true for theoretically suspect permutations.

– Process CPs have become increasingly popular. I generally err aff that Process CPs are bad and severance or intrinsic permutations are therefore justified.

– I think the most reasonable number of conditional worlds the neg should have is two. Three or four is pushing it. If the neg only reads advantage counterplans or kritiks specific to the 1ACs plan, then I lean neg on condo even if their counter-interpretation is an infinite number of worlds. So long as those worlds are both textually and functionally (or philosophically) competitive, then I’m good with it. Obviously, new affs also justify infinite conditionality.

– I don't vote on shotty theory arguments like ASPEC, Disclosure Theory, New Affs Bad, etc. unless they are dropped and properly impacted out.

Miscellaneous

– I will always disclose or give feedback after the round is over. Debaters will only improve if they are given proper feedback and the opportunity to ask questions about the round. I want to watch and enjoy good debates, but that can only happen when debaters improve and know how to effectively articulate their arguments.

– For UIL State, the above is not true.

– Re-highlighted evidence can be inserted, but you must explain what you've re-highlighted and why the re-highlighting proves your argument (or disproves your opponent's argument). Simply inserting the re-highlighted and stating that the re-highlighting proves your argument is not sufficient. You must make a complete argument with the re-highlighted evidence.

– I have witnessed more and more debaters marking multiple cards in every speech they give. There is nothing wrong with marking cards, but excessive marking (marking more than 3 cards in a single speech) is frustrating. I will ask a debater who marks more than 3 cards to send out a marked copy. I will also lower speaker points for such behavior.

– Please start slow before speeding up. It's difficult for me to understand the first few seconds of your speech otherwise.

LD

– If the affirmative is going for an RVI, it needs to be the entirety of your last speech and you must prove in-round abuse. I won't reject arguments or the negative otherwise.

PF

– Just because I judge CX doesn't mean I want to watch a CX debate. Debate as if I'm a parent judge with no knowledge about the topic. This means no spreading, theory, or Kritiks. If you debate like it's a CX debate, I will not give you speaks higher than 28.

– Please set up an email chain for the purposes of sharing evidence/cases. My email is above.

My introduction to debate started in College 2014 -2018 British Parliamentary. I taught BP debate at the College Of Staten Island Summer 2019.

I am not a Policy Debater. I do coach for SA middle school policy debate.

I will vote on framework if you tell me to vote on framework. I will vote on the stock issues if you tell me to vote on stock issues. I will not read evidence unless their is an issue of specific cards being read. I only flow what is said in your speech.

I am a huge fan of voters. Tell me exactly what you want me to know, the ROB and ROJ.

Update for BFHS 2024: I don't have experience judging PF but will do my best if you have me in the back. Because of my background in policy, I will flow and try to evaluate which team did the better debating. Any theory arguments or technical jargon specific to PF will probably be lost on me.

________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

LASA 20

Emory 24

I'd like to be on the email chain: meleckel[at]gmail[dot]com.

K Things:

1. Neg K v. Policy:

A. I generally think the aff should get to weigh the aff and the neg gets links to the plan.

B. Links to reps are OK but it's important you explain how the aff's representations produce XYZ impact. Too often, teams say "Reps bad" and say "Extinction" with zero connection or explanation. Just as the aff has defended an impact to their plan and not the entirety of policymaking, the negative must win an impact to the aff's reps, not the entire history of how those reps have been used.

2. Aff K v. Policy:

A. I think fairness is an impact. Debate is an activity that is driven by competitive incentives with winners and losers. Most every decision we make in a round is shaped by the desire to gain a ballot. I think both sides, regardless of their argumentative preference, have voluntarily subscribed to this activity. Regardless of what model of debate is desirable, most everyone agrees that debate itself is desirable, to which fairness is a precursor.

To beat fairness, the affirmative needs to forward a counter-interpretation that mitigates the risk of a predictable limits DA with an external impact that outweighs "fair debate". Impact calculus in these debates are very important.

B. I'm not a fan of jargon. Too often teams say "Neuroplasticity DA" or "Pathologization DA" without an explanation of what this means. I am much more interested in the aff explaining their argument and how it interacts with the neg's offense than throwing words at me and hoping 1 sticks.

C. I'm not persuaded by the variant of arguments that say framework is violent.

UPDATED FOR NEW TRIER 2020

Tim Edstrom
Edina High School, MN

Rounds on Topic: Around 20
Debate Experience: 16 Years
Coaching Experience: 10 Years
Judging Experience: 12 years

Masculine or gender neutral pronouns.

Chain? Yes. thegesture@gmail.com

STUFF FOR DIGITAL DEBATE

Overall I have found these to run smoothly for the most part. Everyone has to be willing to have the speech time stop and possibly give part of/the whole speech over depending on the level of lag or crash. Most tournaments have some tech time built in so don't worry if you drop the call- just patiently sign back in and we can figure it out as a room how to approach finishing your speech. If I can't hear you I will SAY SOMETHING as well as PUT IT IN THE CHAT.

The good news- I do flow and will probably have a very good idea of where I lost my ability to understand you. My internet has been pretty consistent but not perfect- hopefully I won't have many problems on my end but if I do drop out or lag badly PUT SOMETHING IN THE CHAT because I may not be able to hear it. This is also an important reason to pay attention to my video- if my head stops moving completely and I don't blink it probably means my signal cut.

Stylistically some changes are definitely necessary- in particular slowing down and being clear, especially on extremely dense blocks of analytics or wordy tags (some people are recommending a percentage of speed or something- it's really more you want to seek max clarity). Additionally, cross-x is tough when people talk over each other, and tag team cross-x is possible but more difficult. Sadly we may have to revert to some politeness norms of "Excuse me" etc to get our question/answer in and trust me, trying to orient towards a cross-x where I can actually hear what people are explaining makes the debate better for all.

OLD MEAT AND POTATOES PARADIGM- MICHIGAN 2019

I think the value of debate is in its incredible ability to help people learn not only about the world around them but also about themselves. Debate is not only what happens in the debate round, but also all of the attendant things that surround and go into the debates and the performance of the debaters: their work, their thoughts about their arguments, their partnerships, their coaches, personal relationships, stress of school, family life, upbringing, privilege, ethnic or racial identity, orientation etc etc etc. I mention this first and foremost because you should definitely understand that I connect to you in the difficulty of this activity and can appreciate that sometimes debate is so overly stressful, you might make a mistake, might say something wrong, or might be off your game. I will take into account the relative difficulty of the tournament and your place in it in my evaluation of speaks and the round.

Debate judges are not robots or argument calculators: we have feelings just like you. I do not believe that debate is merely a technostrategic forum for the comparison of cold and static policy ideals. Please know that I think beliefs like this are not only harmful, but seriously make me question people's actual grasp of what this activity is and can mean for people. The benefits of debate have been guarded by wealth, race, and heteronormative gender elitism for decades (and I am no exception to this rule- white masculine pronoun using individual here from a relatively privileged background) but I would like to think I can entertain the notion that we can use the space to examine some of the ideas that we have about the world around us and that actually effect us as people rather than pretending that the only importance of a debate is whether or not a policy would be successful. If we can't examine those questions in debate, I am of the opinion that debate can't really change. And it is, and it will, but it's slow and a long road and a hard fight. It's easy to lose hope.

Lest you turn away in anger because you want to just plain read a DA- that's awesome! I still very much enjoy and am compelled by what some call "traditional debate" and judge all sorts of rounds on the national circuit. I like politics DAs, cleverly researched case negatives, and impact turns. All arguments should strive to emphasize evidence quality and internal warrants, and comparison of these are one of the key ways to a ballot and good speaks for me.

I am generally a bit affirmative leaning on theory as many times process based counterplans stretch the definition of what could be called a solvency advocate and actively seek obscure terms on which to condition the plan. I do love PICs however, and think that they can lead to some of the most interesting debating. If it's going to be a theory debate, please slow down a bit- I want to be able to actually flow the reasons I should vote for you. Generally I find I am compelled to vote for the team that not only best explains their impact but also how it relates to the other impacts in the round, whether policy or critical.

I judge a lot of clash of civilization debates as well- just a note for these: a creatively explained TVA is much better than a generic text with little explanation of how it actually "solves the affirmative." I would like you to actually make an effort to interact with the warrants of the affirmative.

Please feel free to ask any questions you have. I'll do my best to accommodate your debating in any way I can. This activity is for the debaters and not the judges, and I will strive to make sure my decision reflects that philosophy. Have fun and good luck!

Background:

Tawfique Elahi is currently pursuing MSc Information Systems at Lund University, Sweden. He got his bachelor's degree in computer science from NSU. He is an early-career researcher in Human-Computer Interaction.

He served as a debate coach at BL Debate Academy, Vancouver; and Debate Spaces Academy, Boston. In terms of leadership experience, he is currently serving as the Head of the Lund University Debating Society, and Chairperson at the United Asian Debating Council. Previously, he was the Secretary of the World Universities Debating Council (WUDC) and the Asian BP Debating Council. He brings a wealth of debate experience to the table. He has judged elimination rounds at ~100 debate championships on five continents (Asia, Africa, Australia, Europe, and North America), served on ~25 Chief Adjudication Panels, 3 Equity Panels, ~40 Grand Finals, and chaired ~20 elimination rounds. Among his major successes are serving as Chief Adjudicator at the McMaster High School Tournament and judging final series rounds at the World Championship of Debating (Korea WUDC), Hart House IV, and Canadian BP Championships. He is experienced with the WSDC, IPDA, CNDF, BP, CP, PF, LD, Policy, Asians, Australs, and Easters formats.

Certifications:

• NFHS Protecting Students from Abuse

• NFHS Cultural Competence Course

General Notes for speakers:

• I really admire teams that are well-structured and can clearly express the implications of evidence and properly tie back the evidence to their position.
• While you’re going to use evidence, it's preferable that you also explain the underlying trend/core issue associated with it.
• Engagement is important. Direct comparison and weighing make the lives of judges easier. It's preferable that you also illustrate how the advantages on your side outweigh theirs, and how their disadvantages outweigh their advantages.
• If you argue a comparative advantage, be prepared to justify it with proof that explicitly links to that piece of proof that your opposition used.
• If you’re presenting counter-plans, be prepared to analyze why your counter-plan is a better approach, for example, you reach the resolution faster/easier and take fewer resources.
• Please don’t present any point that will not be understandable to an average intelligent voter. If you do so, that piece of material will be discounted.
• Please don't use any offensive language that leads to equity violations.
• Roadmaps are appreciated.
• Speaking fast is fine, but please use clarity.
• Any kind of Style is fine with me as long as you're fairly understandable. I acknowledge that different debaters come from different backgrounds, and thus have different styles.
• I reasonably flow during speeches. During the crossfire, I take notes for the most important questions raised and how they're answered.

I was a high school policy debater, college IPDA debater, and now lawyer. That being said, I can tolerate most styles of debate, but ask that in the age of Covid and online tournaments, you be sure to be as clear as possible when speaking. Even though you normally may be able to go faster, if you can't be as clear, it may benefit you to slow down a bit.

I like big picture, impact calc, why we win analysis. If you run a K but can't evaluate it within the round, I'm not going to evaluate it for you.

NoBro 2020

Harvard 2024

Important Update: Since leaving the activity, I have come to the conclusion that spreading is detrimental to skills learned. I also haven't flowed spreading in over a year, so I would prefer debate at a conversational pace.

Please add me on the email chain: anna.farronay@gmail.com

I have a great appreciation for the preparation and effort that goes into each debate round. I understand debate has different meanings for each person but I do believe that competition is the center of the activity - we care about what we do because of a desire to win. I will do my best to understand your arguments even if they are not arguments I would normally be familiar with.

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Non-Negotiables:

(1) I will only evaluate complete arguments: that means that every argument should have a claim and warrant. Incomplete arguments like a 10-second condo block will not be flowed and when you extend it I will allow the other team new answers.

(2) Be clear and give me pen time. If you are not, you will be dissatisfied with the decision and your speaker points.

(3) Every team consists of 2 speakers who will split their speech time equally. I will only allow one person to give every speech.

(4) The line-by-line is key. Answer arguments in the order that they are presented.

(5) I will not evaluate arguments that hinge on something that did not occur in the debate round I am adjudicating.

I believe it would be unfair to obscure any predispositions I have since a neutral judge rarely exists. That being said I have been persuaded to abandon my opinions in the past by speakers who use humor, charm, and smart, specific arguments. I also have a very expressive face so use that to your advantage. At some point, I had very different ideas about debate and I can be reminded of that.

Preferences:

(1) I believe that policy debate does encourage in-depth research practices. However, I will admit that I am a K debater who is definitely more proficient at judging k v. policy debates than a policy throwdown. This being said I do not want to judge silly positions like China Doesn't Exist so please be conscious what you run.

(2) Theory - I will do my best to understand your theory argument but I have never understood the debates (even something as simple as condo). If you choose to engage in these debates, have some caution and lean on the side of over-explanation.

(3) Framework (K v. Policy) - The aff gets to weigh their advantages (fiat) and the neg gets their K. The neg can't win fiat is an illusion but they can win it's a waste of time/bad idea to engage the state OR they can say we reject the representations of the 1AC/2AC.

(4) K affs - I will be the first to admit that former K debaters often dislike K Affs after they graduate/quit. I don't love them - I do believe there is less in-depth preparation, especially with new K affs, and I do have a high bar for how these debates end up. If you go for fairness, you'll likely win. But if you do insist on reading a K Aff, the easiest way to my ballot is going for the impact turn and cross-applying it to every standard from the negative team. I want to emphasize that I did love the K at one point but in recent years policy debaters have excelled at FW that has made it very difficult to vote for the K.

I don't care for:

Existential impacts, dont give me a million ways nuclear war will happen, high magnitude impacts are almost always unconvincing. If you're gonna run that kinda arg, make sure the impact story makes sense

Generic t arguments. I'll vote on it if it's carried well but if you can run off case and on case, then t really has no place in your 1nc. Time skews are just boring for everyone involved

Spreading tags and analytics, as that's the stuff I'll need to flow. If I dont get down something important because your spreading through it, dont be surprised if i have to make my own conclusions to write an rfd.

That aside, I'm fine with anything so long as it's thoroughly explained. I'm only partial to well run disads

not today fascist

Four years of HS Public Forum Debate, Four years of HS Congressional Debate, Two years of HS Extemp Debate, Two years of University-level policy debate, two years of British parliamentary debate personal experience.

Key Points:

§ Speed: I can generally handle national circuit speed, though I prefer you going at 80% of your top speed, focusing on clarity. As this is still a speech competition, I also appreciate efforts to be emotive and persuasive outside of what a debater reads in their cards. If I don’t hear/understand/flow a card, it didn’t happen. There may be instances in which I ask for the speech beforehand, but I will only use it as an occasional reference and will not read along. Normally, I’ll call cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to examine your citations.

§ Theory: I have a high threshold on theory, especially Topicality, and believe that these debates trade off with more educational, common sense arguments. I will be skeptical if a Negative team reads Topicality claiming that the Affirmative destroys Neg ground, and then follows up with 5 strong off-case arguments that link to the case.

§ Performance: I am interested in and have debated against cases that had at least some performative elements, and I have also seen quite a few such cases as a judge. Please be clear why you are performing and take a few extra seconds to explain to me why performative aspects were integrated into the case.

§ Shadow Extending: Although I do my best to flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, sometimes the speed and the difficulty of an author’s name make it difficult for me to catch them. I do not want to call up every card I miss because it unnecessarily extends the length of the debate and breaks its flow. Therefore, if you are trying to extend your evidence, do not just give me an author name. Extend evidence properly by explaining it, or I may have no idea what you are talking about.

Ks must provide an alternative and reasons to evaluate the round within that framework.

little rock central '20, harvard '24

add me to the email chain: gargsakshi506@gmail.com

TL;DR: I'm fine with anything as long as it is debated well. Good judge instruction, impact calculus, and contextualization will win my ballot. I also reward clarity (over speed, especially in online debate) and technical debating with high speaks. Full disclosure: I have little to no topic knowledge and have judged zero rounds on the CJR topic, so it would benefit you to explain acronyms and topic-specific jargon early on in the debate, rather than in the 2NR/2AR. Ultimately, if you win your argument (claim + warrant + impact + application), you will be fine.

Less important things: I love re-highlightings, case debate (even if it's just logical analytics), ev comparison, and presumption vs. k affs. Conversely, I'm not a huge fan of lengthy framing contentions, unexplained solvency mechanisms, >1 minute overviews, incomplete arguments in the 1NC, and general shiftiness. I think fairness is an impact when you've won an external reason that preserving debate as a fair game is desirable.

Email chain: cgilmerhill AT college.harvard.edu

Top Level:

Debated at Detroit Country Day for 4 years in HS; currently a 2N at Harvard (4th year). Mostly read policy/soft left affs in HS; on the neg, I went for a mix of stuff, but a lot of it ended up being Ks (usually Agamben and various versions of imperialism; recently buddhism). Likely fine for whatever you want to go for. I'll try to understand the point you're making, but please don't assume a ton of background knowledge on the HS topic or the literature of a specific K you want to go for.

Arg details:

PICs (and PIKs) are fine as long as they make sense and have a decent and specific justification; that said, I'm relatively sympathetic to aff args that the CP is a way the plan could be implemented. That said, if the round ends up a theory round then all bets are off, so don't be afraid to have that debate. Always been a fan of specifically tailored CPs that have explicit evidence/solvency advocates referencing the aff.

Granular case debate is great - a lot cases probably aren't actually a good idea, and a solid offensive block case press can totally win a round. Case turns are definitely underutilized. Also applies to K affs - I've found that a lot of K teams answer case presses by re-explaining the 1AC, and a lot of the time that doesn't really resolve things for them.

If you plan to go for framework, you'll need to spend a decent amount of time on the impact. My default framing is that debate is a game, and that I should focus on what the ballot can resolve (i.e. fairness), but the aff will be contesting both of those from the 1AC, and if the neg falls behind then things can go sideways for them very quickly.

2 condo advocacies is probably fine; more than 3 is definitely pushing it.

I do like to be included on the email chains if that's okay with everyone, at johng518@gmail.com.

With regards to speed, for speeches without any docs to send out or closely follow, just be sure to speak up and enunciate on the tag lines/citation and I should be fine to follow along. For speeches where you'll be adhering closely to a doc you sent me, you're free to go at whatever speed you'd like. Regardless of what speech it is, if I do want you to slow down, I'll either hold up a fist if I'm in your line of sight, or say "clear".

I've always tried to lean on the tabula rasa/clean slate approach to judging, where I don't approach a round with any pre-existing biases about a specific type of argument or format. For example, you won't find anything like "don't run topicality" in one of my paradigms. This gives me more flexibility to really weigh the round based on how well-developed your arguments are and how well you're able to use your evidence. And I do like to sit and read cards during prep time (I'm a paralegal in my day job so I love reading fine print lol)

I don't normally disclose a winner after a round unless I'm judging at a tournament where that is the norm/encouraged/required. As far as general feedback, I'm better in writing, so I usually point people to my ballot for that as well.

brixztheflip@gmail.com

I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels

T is not a voter

Fairness is not an impact

although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...

I vote against my personal beliefs all the time it often makes me sad

Make Art Not War

Good Luck out there, show me something I ain't seen before.

I'm not one of of these smug intellectuals, I use a lot of fancy words sometimes but I thrifted them.... so the better you can tell it like it is and give historical examples the easier it is for me to make a decision.

Judge instruction is nice... dont just say it to me, tell me what to do with it.

MBA '19
Harvard '23

Put me on the email chain: jhabermann@college.harvard.edu (email any questions here too)

Most Important:

1. I evaluate debates by identifying the central questions of the round and then adjudicating line-by-line. This system rewards judge instruction and top-level analysis; I make an active effort to make my RFD in the language in which the round was debated. Additionally, I am tech-oriented and prioritize warrants highly.

2. I have minimal topic knowledge and judge experience on the current topic. I am not coaching a high school team. You will do best in front of me by throwing out most background knowledge (especially any debate meta) but by still debating in a nuanced, technical manner.

3. I enjoy almost all types of debate rounds. I'll put as much effort into judging the round as the debaters did debating the round. I'm very easy to read visually.

Biases:

2A/1N

I reward risks. Please play scrappy.

Evidence quality and smart analytics make me happy.

My favorite affs that I have read are: a one-advantage China-war Cyber aff; a SetCol K aff with a plan; and a very technical asylum courts aff. Anything resembling these affs will be great.

My favorite neg strats were aff-specific Ks and CPs. Any neg team with both will get ridiculous speaks. I prefer diverse 1ncs in general.

I appreciate anything that debaters are passionate about, so don't try to adapt too much.

General thoughts:

K Affs / FW: I've read planless affs before; I've debated against many more. These debates are always decided in line-by-line not the overview for me speicifcally.
If you are aff, I prefer you to choose an impact turn or counterinterp strategy early in the debate. I am usually very skeptical of the aff c/i and do not understand the utility of how many teams read it, but a thought-out strategy prepared for the question of multiple rounds can convince me quite well. If you are impact turning, only go for at most two DAs in the 2ar or combine them.
If you are neg, I prefer you to compare the two models of debate. Most teams can explain why resolutional action and/or fairness is important but completely lack any engagement with the aff. The best way to prove your standards is by directly applying the aff's specific mechanism and what it justifies as examples of your internal link.

T: Without topic knowledge, I will be very lost in many of these debates if there is no adjustment. I will not know which model is more in line with a 'core of the topic' and what specific teams debate with the best/worst affs. Still, I will easily vote on T. In general, I find T to be a contrived time-sink rather than a thought-out strategy and am lenient on the aff for late-breaking responses, but with substantive engagement, a long T debate is one of my favorite neg strategies.

K: I will weigh the aff unless convinced otherwise. I enjoy alt debating far, far more than FW. Aff-specific link explanation will be rewarded highly. I am most likely to vote for a K if it uses its critical theory and explanatory power to directly diminish aff solvency rather than try to access a larger impact. If debated like a critical CP, DA, and case push, you will be rewarded.

CP: Generally good for condo, international fiat, states, and anything with specific ev. I never went for theory on the aff, so I appreciate solid aff theory debating especially with many lackluster neg strats.
Neg: explain CP solvency for every pertinent internal link. Aff: impact out solvency deficits, don't just talk about them.
I don't judge kick unless told, but lean neg on its theory.

DA: I'm generally dissatisfied with the state of disadvantages and will vote aff on smart analytic i/l take outs if your shell is garbage. Generic, core of the topic DAs do surprisingly well with me.

Speaker Points: Should range from 27.5-29.7. I try to follow community norms rather than artificially deflate or inflate points. I generally give points for direct clash and tech, but I have a soft-spot for persuasiveness and humor.

I am a middle school policy debate coach for Washington (D.C.) Urban Debate League. I've also coached at the high school level for Chicago debates.

Arguments:

- I prefer traditional policy arguments (i.e., Topicality, Disadvantage, Counterplans). However, I do not mind Ks and Framework as long as they are thoroughly argued on both sides. Negative team please thoroughly explain your alt and how you intend to solve the Aff's impacts or any related impacts within the round.

*Topicality - place more emphasis on voting issues. Please impact them and demonstrate why it is important within the round. Make sure to thoroughly explain the violation/connection to the Aff's plan. I do not want to be heavily involved in the argument making/connection during the round. As a judge, I would like to take the arguments that you've made and evolved throughout the round to justify my RFD. (less judge intervention; more clash from debaters)

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Head Debate Coach, University of Chicago Lab Schools

Previously a coach at Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-21), Walter Payton (2018, 2021-23)

Last updated: April, 2024 (new FR thoughts in the Topicality section, random updates throughout)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time. I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college nuclear forces topic and the HS fiscal redistribution topic. For fiscal redistribution, I gave the topic lecture for the Michigan debate camp and I wrote both the Topicality and Job Guarantee Aff/Neg files for their starter pack

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive, and I still believe mine to be insufficiently comprehensive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them). I attempt to counter this practice with detailed disclosure of the various predispositions, biases, and judgment canons that may be outcome-determinative for how I decide your debate. Maybe you don't want to know all of those, but nobody's making you read this paradigm. Having the option to know as many of those as possible for any given judge seems preferable to having only the options of surprise and speculation.

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions, both in general and in specific contexts likely to emerge in debates. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow every argument that every speaker expresses in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. In some cases, like when very fast debaters debate at max speed in a final rebuttal, it may be virtually impossible for me to to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is most found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia is that, in theory, debaters are free to argue for unpopular, overlooked, or scorned positions and ill-considered points of view. Conversely, they will be required to defend EVERY component of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted in most other settings. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on argumentative content is obviously arbitrary and is likely unpredictable, especially for judges whose philosophies aren't as long as mine! But more importantly, drawing that line does profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective prejudices against creative ideas or disruptive thoughts are an ubiquitous feature of human societies, but that makes it all the more important to encourage free speech and free thought in one of the few institutions where overcoming those biases is possible.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by how persuaded judges were by competing presentations of analysis and evidence. With reasonability-style arguments, aff teams can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, and instead that they should win if their plan meets an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research parity/quality debate. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Answering "plan text in a vacuum" requires presenting an alternative standard by which to interpret the meaning and scope of the words in the plan. Such seems so self-evident that it seems banal to include it in a paradigm, but I have seen many debates this year in which teams did not grasp this fact. If the neg doesn't establish some method for determining what the plan means, voting against "the plan text in a vacuum defines the words in the plan" is indistinguishable from voting for "the eighty-third unhighlighted word in the fifth 1ac preempt defines the words in the plan." I do think setting some limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, especially in debates where large swaths of the 1ac would be completely irrelevent if the aff's plan were to meet the neg's interp. For example: if an aff with a court advantage and a USFG agent says their plan meets "enact = Congress only", the neg could say "interpret the words USFG in the plan to include the Courts when context dictates it---even if 'USFG' doesn't always mean "Courts," you should assume it does for debates in which one or more contentions/advantages are both impertinent and insoluable absent a plan that advocates judicial action." But you will likely need to be both explicit and reasonable about the standard you use if you are to successfully counter charges of infinite regress/arbitrariness.

For Fiscal Redistribution:

I'm probably more open to subsets than most judges if the weight of predictable evidence supports it. The neg is maybe slightly favored in a perfect debate, but I think there is better aff evidence to be read. I generally think the topic is extremely overlimited. Both the JG and BI are poorly supported by the literature, and there are not a panoply of viable SS affs.

Social Security and programs created by the Social Security Act are not same thing. The best evidence I've seen clearly excludes welfare and health programs, although expanding SS enables affs to morph the program into almost anything topically (good luck with a "SS-key" warrant vs the PIC, though). SSI is debateable, though admittedly not an extreme limits explosion.

Topicality arguments excluding plans with court actors are weaker than each of the above arguments. Still tenable.

Topicality arguments excluding cutting programs to fund plans are reasonable edge cases. I can see the evidence or balance of debating going either way on this question.

Evenly debated, "T-Must Include Taxes" is unwinnable for the negative. Perhaps you will convince me otherwise, but keep in mind I did quite a bit of research on this subject before camps even started,so if you think you have a credible case then you're likely in need of new evidence. I really dislike being dogmatic on something like this. I began the summer trying todevelop a case for why affs must tax, but I ran into a basic logical problem and have not seen evidence that establishes the bare minimum of a topicality interpretation. Consider the definition of "net worth." Let's assume that all the definitions of net worth state it means "(financial assets like savings, real estate, and investments) - (debts and liabilities)." "T-FR must include tax" is the logical equivalent of "well, because net worth means assets AND liabilities, cashing a giant check doesn't increase your net worth because you don't ALSO decrease your debts owed elsewhere." For this to be a topicality argument, you'd need to find a card that says "Individual policy interventions aren't fiscal redistribution if they merely adjust spending without tax policy." Such a card likely doesn't exist, because it's self-evidently nonsense.

Of course, I'll certainly evaluate arguments on this subject as fairly as possible, and if you technically out-execute the opposing team, I'll vote against them remorselessly. But you should know my opinion regardless.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is extremely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or by investing time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory/competition debating is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation. It's relatively easy for CPs to be written in a way that meets this design constraint, but that makes it all the easier to dispose of the CPs that don't.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am somewhat partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, and in truth if I had to pick a side, I'd certainly go neg, but it seems like a relatively workable debate relative to alternatives.

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. Generally, I prefer competition debates to theoretical ones, although I think both are basically normative questions (i.e. the whole point of either is to design an ideal, minimally arbitrary model to produce the debates we most desire). I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

That being said, "functional-only" is a very defensible model as well, and I think the arguments to prefer it over functional/textual hinge on the implication of the word being defined. If you say that "should is immediate" or "resolved is certain," you've introduced a model of competition that makes "delay a couple weeks" or "consult anyone re: plan" competitive. If your CP competes in a way that introduces fewer CPs (e.g. "job guarantees are admininstered by the states", or "NFUs mean no-first-use under any circumstance/possibility"), I think the neg's odds of winning are fairly likely.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense, in this context, can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. Perhaps you can advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But absent any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but generally that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. the neg drops it), a significant skill discrepancy between teams, or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are fairly difficult to defend. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp, your creative acumen may be too advanced for interscholastic debate; consider more challenging puzzles in emerging fields, as they urgently need your input.

I don't think I'm "biased" against infinite conditionality; if you think you have the answers and technical acuity to defend infinite conditionality against the above argumentation, I'd happily vote for you.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is probably always the best option, I would generally also enjoy seeing a well-executed substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic). But please don't sacrifice your likelihood of winning the debate.

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "debate doesn't shape subjectivity" takes out clash/education offense, for example, is a reasonable and even threatening one.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad."

Fairness is an impact, though like any impact its magnitude and meaning is subject to debate. Like any abstract value, it can be difficult explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven via observation or testing. In other words, it's sometimes hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" Nonetheless, it's pretty easy to persuade me that I should care about fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity, such as expecting that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothing.

But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. Nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know... debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

So, I am a good judge for the fairness approach. It's not without its risk: a small risk of a large-magnitude impact to the ballot (e.g. solving an instance of racism in this round) could easily outweigh. But strong defense to the ballot can make it difficult for affs to overcome.

Still, it's nice to hear a defense of debate if you choose to go that route as well. I do like FWs that emphasize the benefits of the particular fairness norms established by a topicality interpretation ("models" debates). These can be enjoyable to watch, and some debaters are very good at this approach. In the aggregate, however, this route tends to be more difficult than the 'fairness' strategy.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than others, and they're related to why I value the debate activity. First, "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would). Second, "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Further, despite sympathies for and familiarity with much poststructural thought, I'm nevertheless quite easily persuaded to use utilitarian cost-benefit analysis to make difficult decisions, and I have usually found alternative methods of making decisions lacking and counter-intuitive by comparison.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, frequently because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are glaringly obvious.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Procedural Norms

Evidence ethics, card clipping, and other cheating accusations supercede the debate at hand and ask for judge intervention to protect debaters from egregious violations of shared norms. Those challenges are win/loss, yes/no referendums that end the debate. If you levy an accusation, the round will be determined based on whether or not I find in your favor. If I can't establish a violation of sufficient magnitude was more likely than not, I will immediately vote against the accusing team. If left to my own discretion, I would tend not to find the following acts egregious enough to merit a loss on cheating grounds: mis-typing the date for a card, omitting a sentence that doesn't drastically undermine the card accidentally. The following acts clearly meet the bar for cheating: clipping/cross-reading multiple cards, fabricating evidence. Everything in between is hard to predict out of context. I would err on the side of caution, and not ending the round.

'Ad hominem' attacks, ethical appeals to out-of-round behavior, and the like: I differ from some judges in that, being committed to minimal intervention, I will technically assess these. I find it almost trivially obvious that introducing these creates a perverse incentive to stockpile bad-faith accusations and turns debate into a toxic sludgefest, and would caution that these are likely not a particularly strategic approach in front of me.

11) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said. Bad takes were thrown into the memory hole.

Topicality on NATO emerging tech: Security cooperation almost certainly involves the DOD. Even if new forms of security cooperation could theoretically exclude the DOD, there's not a lot of definitional support and minimal normative justification for that interpretation. Most of the important definition debates resolve substantive issues about what DA and impact turn links are granted and what counterplans are competitive rather than creating useful T definitions. Creative use of 'substantially = in the main' or 'increase = pre-existing' could elevate completely unworkable definitions into ones that are viable at the fringes.

Topicality on Legal Personhood: Conferring rights and/or duties doesn't presumptively confer legal personhood. Don't get me wrong: with evidence and normative definition debating, it very well may, but it doesn't seem like something to be taken for granted. There is a case for "US = federal only" but it's very weak. Overall this is a very weak topic for T args.

Topicality on water: There aren't very many good limiting devices on this topic. Obviously the states CP is an excellent functional limit; "protection requires regulation" is useful as well, at least insofar as it establishes competition for counterplans that avoid regulations (e.g. incentives). Beyond that, the neg is in a rough spot.

I am more open to "US water resources include oceans" than most judges; see the compiled evidence set I released in the Michigan camp file MPAs Aff 2 (should be available via openevidence). After you read that and the sum total of all neg cards released/read thus far, the reasoning for why I believe this should be self-evident. Ironically, I don't think there are very many good oceans affs (this isn't a development topic, it's a protection topic). This further hinders the neg from persuasively going for the this T argument, but if you want to really exploit this belief, you'll find writing a strategic aff is tougher than you may imagine.

Topicality on antitrust: Was adding 'core' to this topic a mistake? I can see either side of this playing out at Northwestern: while affs that haven't thought about the variants of the 'core' or 'antitrust' pics are setting themselves up for failure, I think the aff has such an expansive range of options that they should be fine. There aren't a ton of generic T threats on this topic. There are some iterations of subsets that seem viable, if not truly threatening, and there there is a meaningful debate on whether or not the aff can fiat court action. The latter is an important question that both evidence and normative desirability will play a role in determining. Beyond that, I don't think there's much of a limit on this topic.

ESR debates on the executive powers topic: I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics: States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make some new rule apply throughout the entire area, e.g. all police are prohibitied from enforcing XYZ criminal law." Admittedly, there are better and worse variations for all of these violations. For example, Title 18 is a decent way to set up "T - criminal justice excludes civil / decrim" types of interpretations, despite the fact it's surprisingly easy for affs to win they meet it. And of course, aff teams often screw these up answering bad and mediocre T args in ways that make them completely viable. But none of these would be my preferred strategy, unless of course you're deploying new cards or improved arguments at the TOC. If that's the case, nicely done! If you think your evidence is objectively better than the aff cards, and that you can win the plan clearly violates a cogent interpretation, topicality is always a reasonable option in front of me.

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

Trump-era politics DAs: Most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

Debated for Bronx Science for 4 years (2015-2019) and been judging for three years in college; polsci and public policy major at Hunter College

DISCLAIMER FOR CAT NATS: I am completely new to the water topic (haven't researched, coached it, etc.), keep this in mind while debating in terms of technical terms and knowledge of topic Ks, CPs, etc. I have also not judged policy in over a year so chill with the spreading

Feel free to run any argument in front of me. I want you to tell me how to vote and how I should view the round. Besides that, I'm down for anything.

Quarantine edition edit: My connection isn't the best so please send the analytics and/or spread like 5% slower so I can flow it, if the argument isn't on my flow I can't evaluate it ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

tl;dr: run what you want

I decide rounds pretty quickly so I usually disclose right after the 2AR.

This is more for policy rounds but don't just card-dump, I hate it when teams just spew a bunch of cards at each other and expect me to do all the work.

If I’m on a panel with Eugene Toth there is a literal 100% chance that we will vote the same way.

My paradigm has been greatly influenced by my god-tier debate partner in high school so if you want to give it a look: https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=46818

TKO: If you think you 100% won the round at any point in the debate (i.e. other has no path to a ballot bc of conceded off case, etc.) then you can call a TKO and the round will stop. If I buy that the opponents have no path to the ballot, I will give you the win and 30s. If you are wrong, you will get an L and 25s.

DA

DA should at least have a aff-specific link and not just "Protecting water resources means Biden loses political capital". Make sure impact calc is tight, and good evidence comparison will notch up your speaker points. I want you to tell me a story of how the aff actually triggers the impacts.

CP

Haven't gone for that many CPs, not really my favorite argument. Please slow down for the CP text, especially if it's one of those really long ones. Whatever you run, make sure that you have a clear net-benefit.

FW/T

Unless its not even in the direction of the topic, I won't automatically vote down an aff because it violates your interpretation of framework and the resolution. If there is no significant impact and there is sufficient response from aff, I will weigh education over fairness.

I like to hear cleverly thought out T arguments against K affs that aren't just USFG, but an explanation, again, is necessary.

K

I run Ks very often and love a good K debate but I also hate it when the links for the Ks are not explained well or are just generic. Most of the K debate is rooted in the link debate and you have to be able to do this well in order for me to understand how the kritik functions in terms of the affirmative.

A side note: I am not a judge who thinks you need to win the alternative debate in order to win the round. As long as you can prove that each link is a non unique disad to the aff, and those disads outweigh, I will gladly vote neg. However, winning the alternative debate definitely makes your job a LOT easier. If you do go for the alt, I need to know what the alt is supposed to do, how it is supposed to do it, and why what it does matters. You have to be able to explain the alt well, a lot of debaters do not read the literature behind their kritik and this means they cannot explain their alternatives well or just summarize the tags of the cards when explaining the alt.

Love creative K args, topic-specific Ks are really cool too and I've been finding myself voting for more eccentric and high theory Ks so take that as you will

Ks I've ran: Cap (almost every variant of it: logistics, Dean, historical materialism, etc.), academia (Moten and Harney, Tuck and Yang, etc.), ID stuff (set col, queer theory), psychoanalysis.

K affs

I have read K affs the majority of my debate career. Love them, they great. But if it is a nontraditional aff, an EXPLANATION is necessary. If I don't understand what the aff is, what it does, or why it's good, then I will absolutely default neg

Theory

Have judged a fair amount of theory debates at this point and have voted for condo and ASPEC, so I'm down w it just make sure you have interpretation, violation, and standards esp in the last speech

Troll args

Been there done that, just don't be reading random files you found in the backfiles or online without knowing what they mean

In general, I am open to all arguments, I believe that every argument has value but it is up to the debater to

1. Determine what that value is
2. Communicate what impact the argument have in the round.

I do however tend to swing more towards traditional policy options due to my experiences as a high school policy debater, however I am not against voting for more critical affirmatives. If teams choose to run these affirmatives, I like to see a great impact analysis towards the end of the debate. A good affirmative/a great debater should be able to apply their advantages in any situation.

To me a great impact analysis levels the playing field.

On that point, I examine topicality as a gateway issue. If a neg team runs a T argument it is the burden of the affirmative to meet the violation. This is important!

In terms of Kritiks, I value a well explained Kritiks, If rejection is the alternative, please explain what that means, how do you access solvency both in round and post round?

In terms of speed-reading, make the tags/authors/dates clear.

Finally in terms of speed reading please slow down on tags, authors and dates. Other than that feel free to speed through the text.

**A Final Note: I love spirited discussion about how a round was conducted on my reason of decision. I am however not in the interest of debating a decision with debaters after the round is over... there is no such thing as a 3NR or 3AR. If you don't do this, I will end the conversation there. It's not that I want to be rude, rather I firmly believe many judges spent countless hours making a committment to support debate and honestly every judge's opinion should be respected, even if you disagree with it. The burden of proof is on the debater and if that proof is not presented in the round or not explained well enough for the judge, it is on the debater. In real life, you must be able to adjust your style to the audience you are around... not expect the audience to immediate understand you.

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

karl.joyner@saschools.org. He/him/his.

Spreading is fine. If you’re unclear I’ll let you know. Or add me to the email chain. Take time on your tags so I can flow them.

I don’t flow authors unless you want to draw attention to the quality of evidence, credibility of author, etc. Point it out to me. Otherwise, extend your arguments, don’t just mention the author’s name. And extend/add warrants, even if it’s just important that the other team provided no response. (Again, it helps if I’m on the email chain if you want to draw attention to authors later).

I probably won't flow cx - add it to your speech.

I’ll vote on anything - just tell me what you’re argument is/role of the ballot/what’s important for my vote.

On Ks - make sure you’re clear on all parts of the argument. I enjoy them greatly, but I’m not familiar with anything but the basics (cap K, Abolition K), so articulate the argument clearly please.

Give me an impact calc. On every argument. Especially T. I’m not going to vote on a predetermined sense of abuse. Let me know in round how the argument is affecting you. Or what the significance is for debate going forward.

Never debated policy, 3 years of coaching experience.

-- Update 1/14 --

Tech issues:

Please slow down a bit - for my sake and the competition.

Tbh, I'm very lenient on tech issues - I'll be assuming the best out of everyone. If you're concerned with the other team's actions, please bring them up, because I won't.

I feel the need to emphasize again, and more strongly this time, that I vote on impacts. You'll see in my decisions that I list all of the impacts as presented to me and use that to determine which issue I should vote for in the round. Impact calc is the most important part of the round to me. Spend time on it.

Lexington High School Class of 2018

Dartmouth College Class of 2022

Add me to the email chain: cjun357@gmail.com

TOP LEVEL

You should not change your strategy too drastically based on what you think I would like but instead do what you do best and do it well.

I am not too familiar with this year's high school topic so what you may assume to be common knowledge may be something I don't know. So if there's an abbreviation make sure to say what it stands for, ect,...

If you have any questions that I may not have addressed feel free to ask before the round.

KAffs V T

If you are aff you need to have a good explanation on a couple of questions in order to get my ballot. If debate is not a game what is it and why? Why is an aff ballot important? What would debates look like under you counter-model of debate?

If you're going for an impact turn strategy then I need more than just a bunch of theory related to the aff. I need that work to be contextualized to debate as an activity and why it matters.

If you're neg, I prefer procedural impacts (ie fairness, ect) more than portable skill args. However, you need to do the work of warranting out why, for example, fairness matters, why it's an important impact ect,...Don't assume that I automatically default to fairness being intrinsically valuable because I can be persuaded otherwise.

For both aff and neg, please do impact calc. Too often teams just extend their impact without doing any comparative work. Make sure that you're also contextualizing your offense to new spins being made by your opponents. Otherwise it will be very hard to win.

Kritiks

I believe that the FW debate is one of the most important components of these debates that often get forgotten about. I look to the framework debate to "frame" how I evaluate the other arguments on the flow and what impacts I should or should not be prioritizing.

If you are aff, I really enjoy hard presses against the alt, or an impact turn strategy against ks like the cap k (obviously do not go for an impact turn strategy against Afropessimism). If you are going to make a perm make sure that it's contextualized and explain what the world of the permutation would look like. Just saying perm do the aff and [insert alt text here] will be very unpersuasive.

For the neg, I need specific links to the aff or the representations within the 1ac (tho I prefer the first). Only going for generic links will make it very hard to get my ballot. I think it's very persuasive when you can pull lines from their evidence or have recuts that demonstrate your link arguments.

Side note: I am the least familiar with high theory arguments. However, that doesn't mean I'm against it. Just make sure that you do a more thorough job of explaining your arguments and defenses of your theory.

Topicality

Make sure to explain your impacts in depth and to do impact calculus. Your arguments shouldn't be just quick blips that you are shot gunning.

I think topicality should be a question of limits.

I find competing interpretations to be more persuasive but I can be persuaded otherwise.

I am not as familiar with this year's high school topic so if you are planning on going for T or you are answering T make sure that you clearly explain how debates under you interp differs from that of your opponent. (ie case lists, ect,...)

Counterplans:

I'm open to any type of CP as long as you win that it's theoretically legit.

I really like well researched PICS.

Make sure that you explain why the CP doesn't link to the Net Benefit

Make sure to kick it if you're not going to go for it.

Joe Karam

Attorney – Commercial Litigation

Overview:

I was a college debater and have spent the last three and a half years as a volunteer judge, fundraiser, and occasional stand-in coach for the Washington Urban Debate League.

Key Points:

§ Style: I was a flex debater and generally like and will upvote any argument, as long as it is run well.

§ Speed: I can generally handle national circuit speed, though I prefer you going at 80% of your top speed, focusing on clarity. As this is still a speech competition, I also appreciate efforts to be emotive and persuasive outside of what a debater reads in their cards. If I don’t hear/understand/flow a card, it didn’t happen. There may be instances in which I ask for the speech beforehand, but I will only use it as an occasional reference and will not read along. Normally, I’ll call cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to examine your citations.

§ Theory: I have a high threshold on theory, especially Topicality, and believe that these debates trade off with more educational, common sense arguments. I will be skeptical if a Negative team reads Topicality claiming that the Affirmative destroys Neg ground, and then follows up with 5 strong off-case arguments that link to the case.

§ Performance: I am interested in and have debated against cases that had at least some performative elements, and I have also seen quite a few such cases as a judge. Please be clear why you are performing and take a few extra seconds to explain to me why performative aspects were integrated into the case.

§ Shadow Extending: Although I do my best to flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, sometimes the speed and the difficulty of an author’s name make it difficult for me to catch them. I do not want to call up every card I miss because it unnecessarily extends the length of the debate and breaks its flow. Therefore, if you are trying to extend your evidence, do not just give me an author name. Extend evidence properly by explaining it, or I may have no idea what you are talking about.

§ Pre-dispositions: I live in the Washington D.C. area, and over most of the last 4 years, I have lived within a stones throw of the White House (not that I would ever throw a stone at the White House). While the government doesn't have the best track-record on many issues, I find generic "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I also find vague and generalized Politics arguments centered on political capital or backlash to be unpersuasive. If you run those arguments, make sure the links are not generic, and you have a strong internal link argument. Finally, I enjoy and appreciate creativity as this is intended to be a learning experience for everyone involved. I enjoy critical arguments, and will happily vote for critical affirmatives, as long as they provide a strong framework.

Notes About Technology: I do not like it when the round is delayed because of technology. E-mail chains are the devil. Use a flash drive. I always bring an extra one to the round.

1. Evidence Sharing: If you can't share evidence quickly, you shouldn't be debating on a laptop and will get low speaks in you are in a Varsity Division. (Lenient for Novice/JV). If it takes to long to share evidence, I will run your prep time.

2. Viewing Laptops/Accessibility: If you don't have a way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or printed out copies of your speech), you will get very low speaker points—this is a big accessibility question for the activity that I am very aware of as someone intimately involved in the Urban Debate League

Guaranteed Ways to Irritate Me

1. D Rules—In a vacuum, no such thing; stop looking for an easy way out. Ex. “You must always reject a team that reads arguments that violates the Constitution" or “You must reject utilitarianism/consequentialist arguments.” If you go for this without reading the appropriate framework cards, I will be sad. You will see the sadness in my eyes.

2. Debaters that are rude, racist/sexist/etc., and condescending. Just…don’t, okay? Please? (I will decimate your speaker points if you say these things intentionally.)

Specific Arguments

· Solvency: If you are the affirmative, read this. In your first speech. Please do not make me vote on Neg Presumption

· The Disadvantage: I like. Always appreciate seeing a good one from the Neg.

o Politics DA: Make sure they are well-run, researched, and up-to-date. I read a lot of current events. I will know if they are not.

· The Counterplan: I like a substantive counterplan debate. PICs are fine if they are well-researched and have a legitimate net benefit. Do not read a nonsense net benefit, ignore it, and default to theory in the 2AC. This is another thing that will make me sad.

· Procedurals/Topicality: Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately and is well-supported. Please prove abuse. Have good sources and intent to define. Slow down. Less jargon, more examples, particularly on the voters (fairness and education).

· On Case Debate: It makes me happy when you do this. The point of debate is to engage, not to ignore everything the other side says.

· The Kritik: I am a fan. I think Ks are part of a well-balanced Neg strategy. I also like critical affirmatives, so long as they are topical. If you only provide ultra-generic links or do not read an alternative, I will not likely vote on the K.

o Literature: I have read some K literature but am not familiar with everything you could possibly run (and it is unreasonable to expect me to be). Overviews and non-jargony tags are great to provide the thesis of your argument in your own words.

· Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are A) very clear what that is in your first speech, B) and why it is net beneficial.

Hello! My name is Kay Karlin and my pronouns are they/them. In high school I did four years of LD debate and two of congress. I've judged policy, PF and LD for five years. It is most important to me that competitions understand their own arguments and are able to convince me.

For all debate: email for email chains is kaykarlin6@gmail.com I understand technology issues but I set a timer for 5 minutes for any wifi/email/google doc confusion. Anything past 5 minutes comes out of prep time!

Extentions should include Year, Author, Tagline, idc what order, but you must include all these!

Arguments against people's identities, basic human rights, or that are aligned with racism, homophobia, sexism, transphobia, and other forms of bigotry will not be tolerated and will get you dropped and reported to your coach.

I am open to speed, but I will say clear if I can't understand you. However, as a coach and in general I am anti-spreading. I think that spreading is bad for debate, because it encourages us to make the space more inaccessible in order to win arguments. Again, I am fine with speed, you can spread in front of me, but I think that we should make a shift as a community away from spreading.

LD Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues but I'm open to Ks/CPs/Theory so long as you can sustain your argument. If you NEED to run seven off cases to solve inequity in the debate space, I want to give you the space to do that. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated. (Do not run disclosure theory with me. It's bad for debate/small school accessibility and I will drop you.)

Definition debate is boring!!! Have a productive discourse!

For Ks-- my threshold is a bit higher but I never want to prevent you from making arguments you're passionate about. Just be prepared to highlight/defend/extend your link, impact, and alt. (Fine with K-affs, Identity Ks, etc)

I will drop speaker points for prefacing. (Using your time to question your opponent to frontload your case with arguments that haven't yet been presented in round)

DO NOT DROP THE FRAMEWORK DEBATE-- all of your impacts should be evaluated (and will be evaluated by me) under the framework. I do like to see competing ideas of frameworks, but I understand that timing makes that difficult, but I want to see debate about which world creates more benefit.

If you plan to debate in LD like it's Policy-lite I am not the judge for you. Framework is one of the most important things to me.

Policy Paradigm:

I prefer to judge based on stock issues, and I'm not a huge fan of theory, but debate is your world and I'm just living in it while we're in round and I'm open to whatever you can justify. That said, running frivolous theory like "my opponent swore before round" will not be tolerated.

I love to see speeches explicitly comparing the Aff and Neg plans and impact calculations based off that. Prove to me why your argument is better.

Tag Teaming for CX is fine, but I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space, but I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

PF Paradigm:

PF is the area of debate in which I have the least experience, but I like to see a healthy clash.

I want to see POLITE cross examination. I will not rule based on CX unless I have to drop teams for competitors who create a hostile space.

I will also drop speaker points for prefacing.

Timing is really the only thing you need to defer to me as a judge; they're the only rigid rules in debate. If the answer does not start before CX is over, there isn't time to answer it.

Hello Debaters,

I am a parent judge and this is my second year judging debate tournaments. Please speak slowly and clearly. Please don't run too many technical arguments and keep track of your time. You should also assume that I have no prior knowledge of the topic or context for the discussion. I appreciate clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Good Luck to all the teams.

Cheers!

-Amit

I am a debate coach at Little Rock Central. Please put both on the email chain: jkieklak@gmail.com; lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com

General

You do you. Let it rip. Seriously. A judge does not exist without the debaters, and I view my role as a public servant necessary only to resolve arguments in a round to help empower young people to engage in meaningful discourse. I believe that it is important for me to be honest about the specific things I believe about common debate arguments, but also I find it more important to ensure I am prepared for debaters to persuade me away from those beliefs/biases. Specifically, I believe that my role is to listen, flow, and weigh the arguments offered in the round how I am persuaded to weigh them by each team. I will listen to and evaluate any argument. It is unacceptable to do anything that is: ableist, anti-feminist, anti-queer, racist, or violent.

I think debates have the lowest access to education when the judge must intervene. I can intervene as little as possible if you:

1) Weigh your impacts and your opponents' access to risk/impacts in the debate. One team probably is not most persuasive/ahead of the other team on every single argument. That needs to be viewed as a strength rather than a point of anxiety in the round. Do not be afraid to explain why you don't actually need to win certain arguments/impacts in lieu of "going for" the most persuasive arguments that resolve the most persuasive/riskiest impacts.

2) Actively listen and use your time wisely. Debaters miss each other when distracted/not flowing or listening. This seems to make these teams more prone to missing/mishandling arguments by saying things like, "'x' disad, they dropped it. Extend ____ it means ____;" yet, in reality, the other team actually answered the argument through embedded clash in the overview or answered it in a way that is unorthodox but also still responsive/persuasive.

3) Compare evidence and continuously cite/extend your warrants in your explanations/refutation/overall argumentation. Responses in cross that cite an individual warrant or interrogate their opponents' warrants are good ethos builders and are just in general more persuasive, same in speeches.

Policy Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway to solving a significant harm that is inherent to the status quo with some advantageous, topical plan action is entirely up to you. There are persuasive arguments about why it is good to discuss hypothetical plan implementation. I do not have specific preferences about this, but I am specifically not persuaded when a 2a pivot undercovers/drops the framework debate in an attempt to weigh case/extend portions of case that aren't relevant unless the aff wins framework. I have not noticed any specific thresholds about neg strats against policy affs.

Kritikal Affirmatives

Go for it. Your pathway/relationship to the resolution is entirely up to you. I think it’s important for any kritikal affirmative (including embedded critiques of debate) to wins its method and theory of power, and be able to defend that the method and advocacy ameliorates some impactful harm. I think it’s important for kritkal affirmatives (when asked) to be able to articulate how the negative side could engage with them; explain the role of the negative in the debate as it comes up, and, if applicable, win framework or a methods debate. I don't track any specific preferences. Note: Almost all time that I am using to write arguments and coach students is to prepare for heg/policy debates; I understand if you prefer someone in the back of the room that spends a majority of their time either writing kritikal arguments or coaching kritikal debate.

Framework

This is all up to how it develops in round. I figure that this often starts as a question of what is good for debate through considerations of education, fairness, and/or how a method leads to an acquisition/development of portable skills. It doesn't have to start or end in any particular place. The internal link and impact are up to you. If the framework debate becomes a question of fairness, then it's up to you to tell me what kind of fairness I should prioritize and why your method does or does not access it/preserve it/improve it. I vote for and against framework, and I haven't tracked any specific preferences or noticed anything in framework debate that particularly persuades me.

Off

Overall, I think that most neg strats benefit from quality over quantity. I find strategies that are specific to an aff are particularly persuasive (beyond just specific to the overall resolution, but also specific to the affirmative and specific cites/authors/ev). In general, I feel pretty middle of the road when it comes to thresholds. I value organization and utilization of turns, weighing impacts, and answering arguments effectively in overviews/l-b-l.

Other Specifics and Thresholds, Theory

• Perms: Be ready to explain how the perm works (more than repeating "it's perm do 'X'"). Why does the perm resolve the impacts? Why doesn't the perm link to a disad?

• T: Normal threshold if the topicality impacts are about the implications for future debates/in-round standards. High threshold for affs being too specific and being bad for debate because neg doesn't have case debate. If I am in your LD pool and you read Nebel, then you're giving me time to answer my texts, update a list of luxury items I one day hope to acquire, or simply anything to remind myself that your bare plurals argument isn't 'prolific.'

• Case Debate: I am particularly persuaded by effective case debate so far this year on the redistribution topic. Case debate seems underutilized from an "find an easy way to the ballot" perspective.

• Disclosure is generally good, and also it's ok to break a new aff as long as the aff is straight up in doing so. There are right and wrong ways to break new. Debates about this persuade me most when located in questions about education.

• Limited conditionality feels right, but really I am most interested in how these theory arguments develop in round and who wins them based on the fairness/education debate and tech.

• Please do not drop condo or some other well-extended/warranted theory argument on either side of the debate. Also, choosing not to engage and rely on the ethos of extending the aff is not a persuasive way to handle 2NRs all in on theory.

TOC Requested Update for Congress (April 2023)

General

Be your best self. My ranks reflect who I believe did the best debating in the round (and in all prelims when I parli).

The best debaters are the ones that offer a speech that is appropriately contextualized into the debate the body is having about a motion. For sponsors/first negs, this means the introduction of framing and appropriate impacts so that the aff/neg speakers can build/extend specific impact scenarios that outweigh the opposing side's impacts. Speeches 3-10 or 3-12 (depending on the round) should be focused on introducing/weighing impacts (based on where you are in the round and where your side is on impact weighing) and refutations (with use of framing) on a warrant/impact level. I value structured refutations like turns, disadvantages, presumption, PICs (amendments), no solvency/risk, etc. The final two speeches should crystallize the round by offering a clear picture as to why the aff/neg speakers have been most persuasive and why the motion should carry or fail.

The round should feel like a debate in that each speaker shall introduce, refute, and/or weigh the core of the affirmative and negative arguments to persuade all other speakers on how they should vote on a pending motion.

Other TOC Requested Congress Specifics/Randoms

• Arguments are claim, warrant, impact/justification and data when necessary. Speeches with arguments lacking one or more of these will not ever be rewarded highly, no matter how eloquent the speech. It is always almost more persuasive to provide data to support a warrant.

• Impacts should be specific and never implied.

• Presiding officers should ensure as many speeches as possible. The best presiding officers are direct, succinct, courteous, organized, and transparent. Presiding officers shall always be considered for ranks, but ineffective presiding is the quickest way to a rank 9 (or lower).

• More floor debaters are experimenting with parliamentary procedure. Love it, but debaters will be penalized for misapplications of the tournament's bylaws and whichever parliamentary guide is the back up.

• Nothing is worse in floor debate than repetition, which is different than extending/weighing.

• Decorum should reflect effective communication. Effective communication in debate often includes an assertive tone, but read: folx should always treat each other with dignity and respect.

Arkansas Debate

Woo Pig. I am not here to force you to capitulate a paradigm that you find in someway oppressive to what your coach is teaching you to do. I will drop you for clipping/cheating, and I do not reward (and will rank low in congress) bad/no arguments even if they sound as rhetorically smooth as Terry Rose and Gary Klaff singing "Oh, Arkansas."

scotthkrueger@gmail.com
I was the Captain of the Eagan Policy Debate Team (2019-2020) and now debate Lincoln-Douglas for Simpson College(2020-Present). I additionally have debated Big Questions and Parliamentary as well as judged Congress.
I will vote on most anything, during my highschool career I leaned towards the basic kritiks (Biopower, Cap K), and rhetoric kritiks (nuclearism, fem, post-colonialism) but if inherency is your winning strategy don't hold anything back. If you plan on running a "not on the wiki" sort of argument, it has to meet an incredibly high threshold for me to vote on it - for instance, them dropping the issue in it's entirety and, therefore, agreeing that they "did a bad."
Tech >Truth except for Racism/Sexism/Discrimination. Debate is a competitive academic argumentation event. Reading cards at me is just the beginning of what you should be doing. Your job is to convince me that your position (Plan/Alternative/Counterplan/Status Quo) is the best and reading random pieces of evidence isn't the sort of interaction and argumentation that convinces me of your position being true.
Referring to me as "Your Supreme Excellency" once will get you a minimum of a 27.3 speaker points.
I don't like judge intervention, you should be telling me how to vote in the final two rebuttals.
Mearsheimer is the Once and Future King.
If I don't understand an argument by the end of the round I won't vote for it. If your spreading is unclear don't assume I wrote down anything you said.
There is a fine line between assertive and overly aggressive - don't be a jerk or your speaker points will suffer. I think that the most important thing we get from debate is education about the topic as well as the connections we make with other people in our little community - remember that the other team are also people.

If you are spreading so fast that it sounds like white noise I might just fall asleep.

Topics I've Debated
China (2016)
Education (2017)
Humans are Fundamentally Different than Animals (2018)
Immigration (2018)
Humans are primarily driven by self-interest (2018)
Arm Sales (2019)
Immigration (2020)

Lane Tech - 2012 - 2013

Iowa City High - 2013 - 2016

University of Northern Iowa - 2016 - 2017

Emporia State 2018 - 2021

Berkeley Prep - 2021 -

-----

2022 Update

TLDR:

-email chain -

BerkeleyPrepDocs@gmail.com

natodocs@googlegroups.com

-Recently retired k-leaning flex debater/resident performative stunt queen for Berkeley Prep Debate

-would much rather judge a really good policy v policy round than a poorly executed k round - BUT - would ultimately prefer to judge a k v k round where both sides have competing and creative strategies that they are both a) deeply invested in and b) have interesting interpretations of. Those are the rounds I always had the most fun in, but to be clear, I have also realized over the years that a policy v policy round has the potential for just as much, if not more and have no problem judging these debates.

-the team executing whatever argument they are most comfortable with at the highest level they can, will always in my eyes have an easier time getting my ballot/receiving higher speaks which means that the the speeches I want to see are those that you are enthused about giving and ultimately, I want you to be excited to be able to do whatever it is that you are best at.

-went for everything from big stick warming affs to f*** debate performance 1AC's, to Black/Native Studies like Warren, Wilderson, Moten, King, Gumbs and Hartman to Queer theory like Butler, Edelman and Trans-Rage to High theory like Nietzsche, Baudy and OOO as well as Procedurals like T/FW/A- and I-Spec, Disads/Case turns like to deterrence, politics and SPARK and of course, multiple different flavors of counterplans. so regardless of what it is you go for I'm down - just don't take this as an excuse to not use judge instruction/concise explanations that makes sense - even if I was a Nietzsche one - trick in high school that doesn't mean I'm going to do the nihilism work for you. All this is to say is that whoever you may be, you should feel comfortable that I have in some way or another had a certain level of experience with your literature base.

Important Note:

Due to recent events its been suggested to me that I add a layer to my philosophy I wasn't sure was necessary, but in an effort to help protect future debaters/debate rounds, as well as myself/fellow judges, here is what I will say -

While I do empathize with the competitive nature of this activity, it should go without saying that if there is violence of any kind, whether that be intentional or not, my role as an educator in this community is to intervene if that situation deems my involvement to be necessary and I want to make it very clear that I have no qualms in doing so. Its important to recognize when we have to put the game aside and understand as a community that we have a responsibility to learn from situations like those and to be better as we move forward. SO just for the sake of clarity, I do not have a desire to stop rounds, in fact - quite the opposite. However, my role as a judge (one that I would hope others embody when judging my own students) is one that adjudicates the round in the most equitable means possible AS WELL AS one that ensures the safety of, to the best of my capacity, each debate round and all of its participants/observers.

Also - Sometimes, and not always, but in the same fashion as countless other judges, I can, at times, be a very reactive/nonverbal judge. Understanding that those kinds of things are a) an inevitable part of this activity b) not always caused by something you did and c) can be incredibly critical in your in round-decision making is crucial and is a fundamental skill that I believe to be vastly important in succeeding within this activity. HOWEVER, that means that whether or not you choose to modify what you are doing based off how I am reacting is, at the end of the day, your decision and your decision alone - recognizing when to do so/when not to is a core facet of competing.

Strike me if you don't like it.

specific feels about certain things:

- have aff specific link explanations regardless of offcase position - that doesnt mean that every card has to be specific to the aff but your explanation of the link should be as specific to the 1AC as you can make possible - extra speaker points to those who can successfully pull lines

- hot take: after all this time in online debate, I will in fact "verbally interject if unable to hear" regardless of whether you make that clear to me before you begin your speech - so as a personal preference don't feel obligated to say that anymore. Id rather you just give me an order and start after getting some signal (verbal or visual) that we're all ready. as an incentive to help try and stop this practice, expect a lil boost in points.

- that being said, "as specific to the 1AC" means you could have a really good link to aff's mechanism. or you could have a great state link. or a link to their impacts. etc. it doesnt matter to me what the link is as long as it is well developed and made specific to what the 1AC is. I dont want to hear the same generic state link as much as the next person but if you make it creative and you use the aff than I dont see a problem.

- affirmatives could be about the topic, or they could not be, its up to you as long as whatever you choose to do you can defend and explain. If you're not about the topic and its a framework debate, I need to know what your model of debate is or why you shouldnt need to defend one etc. if youre reading a performance aff, the performance is just as important if not more than the evidence you are reading - so dont forget to extend the performance throughout the debate and use it to answer the other teams arguments.

- whether its one off or 8 please be aware of the contradictions you will be making in the 1NC and be prepared to defend them or have some sort of plan if called out.

- on that note theory debates are fine and could be fun. im not that opposed to voting on theory arguments of all varieties as long as you spend a sufficient amount of time in the rebuttals to warrant me voting on them. most of the time thats a substantial amount if not the entirety of one or more of your rebuttals.

- perm debates are weird and i dont feel great voting for "do both" without at least an explanation of how that works. "you dont get a perm in method debates" feels wrong mostly because like these are all made up debate things anyways and permutations are good ways to test the competitiveness of ks/cps/cas. that being said, if you have a good justification for why the aff shouldnt get one and they do an insufficient job of answering it, i will obviously vote on "no perms in method debates"

- dropped arguments are probably true arguments, but there are always ways to recover, however, not every argument made in a debate is an actual argument and being able to identify what is and isn't will boost your speaker points

speaks:

how these are determined is inherently arbitrary across the board and let's not pretend I have some kind of rubric for you that perfectly outlines the difference between a 28.5 and a 28.6, or a 29.3 and a 29.4, or that my 29.3 will be the same as some other judges.

I do however think about speaks in terms of a competitive ladder, with sections that require certain innate skills which ended up being fairly consistent with other judges, if not slightly on the higher side of things. Hopefully, this section will more so help give you an idea of how you can improve your speeches for the next time you have me in the back.

-26s: these are few and far between, but if are to get one of these, we've probably already talked about what happened after the round. The key here is probably don't do whatever is that you did, and is most likely related to the stuff I talked about at the top.

-27s: If you're getting something in this range from me, it means you should be focusing on speaking drills (with an emphasis on clarity, and efficiency), as well as developing a deeper/fuller analysis of your arguments that picks apart the detailed warrants within the evidence you are reading.

-28s: Still need to be doing drills, but this time with more of an emphasis on affective delivery, finding a comfortable speed, and endurance. At this point, what I probably need to see more from you is effective decision making as well as judge instruction - in order to move into the 29 range, you should be writing my ballot for me with your final rebuttals in so far as using those speeches to narrow the debate down and effectively execute whatever route that may be by painting a picture of what has happened leading up to this moment

-29s: at this point, you're probably fairly clear and can effectively distinguish between pitches and tones as you go in order to emphasize relevant points. The only drills you should be doing here should be concerned with efficiency and breathing control, and if you are in the low 29's this is most likely a clarity issue and you should probably slow down a bit in order to avoid stumbling and bump your speaks up to high 29's. Higher 29's are most likely those who are making the correct decisions at most if not all stages of the debate, and successfully execute the final speeches in ways that prioritize judge instruction, and clearly lay the ballot out for me throughout the speech.

-30s: I actually don't have a problem giving these out, because I think my bar for a "perfect" speech can be subjective in so far as 30's for me can definitely make mistakes, but in the end you had a spectacular debate where you gave it everything you could and then some. I try not to give these out often though because of the risk it could possibly mess with your seeding/breaking, so if you do get one of these, thanks - I had a wonderful experience judging you.

-0.0 - 0.9 - this section is similar for every category in that it is dependent on things like argument extension and packaging, handling flows/the line by line, cross ex, link debating, etc. however, a team that is in the 29 range will have a higher bar to meet for those sort of minutia parts of your speech than those in the 28 or 27. That's because as you improve in delivery you should also be improving in execution, which means that in my eyes, a debater who may be in the 27 range the first time I see them, but is now speaking in the 28 range will have a higher bar than they did before in order to get into the high 28s.

For e-mail chains and questions/concerns: lianne.lk@gmail.com

Arguments:

I don't really prefer certain types of arguments. I would like to see you run whatever you think you can argue best. That being said, I do prefer clear, substantive debate with good clash. Listen to your opponents and make sure you are actually responding to what they run. I am most interested in judging debates where the two teams are actually listening and responding to each other. Keep it organized. FLOW and respond to arguments based on your flow.

Kritiks: If you are running a complicated K at full speed that is heavy on rhetoric and clearly meant to confuse rather than educate, I am not the right judge for you. I am not impressed by use of buzzwords and highly complicated literature that you refuse to help your opponents understand during cross-ex. This seems to be trending more and more prevalent in policy debate and it is a real turn-off for me. If you are reading in any complex critical argument, you need to slow down during speeches and work to clarify the complex argument in cross-ex when opponents are asking you clear questions.

Topicality: If the affirmative is reasonably topical (as in not a K-aff), and responds to T efficiently in the 2AC with we meet and/or counter-definition/interp, etc... then you should assume that I will not be voting on T. I will favor reasonability in cases like this, and don't particularly enjoy judging rounds arguing rules and technicalities through to rebuttals if we can avoid it. So, my advice to neg would be: if your opponents adequately respond to T in the 2AC, you should kick the argument by the 2NR.

General Note: Ultimately, I judge the round based on the evidence and analysis explicitly provided by both teams. I will not make arguments for teams under any circumstance. If the aff says the sky is purple, the sky is purple on my flow until the neg states otherwise. You should also explicitly tell me why you win the round in your rebuttals. The only time I would make an exception in my "tabula rasa" approach to judging is if something stated is blatantly offensive and/or discriminatory. This is as a means to ensure student safety and equity within the round.

Flashing Evidence/E-mail Chains/Sharing Speech Docs:

This is probably sounding outdated in the world of post 2020 debate, but I'm leaving it in for now just in case: Your prep time stops only when you pull out your flash drive to hand to the other team. Saving, attaching, compiling, etc. is all part of your prep.

Now for the more technologically relevant: In the same spirit as above, for e-mail chains and/or drive sharing, prep time stops when you press send on and email or press share on a google/cloud document. I would suggest asking for your opponents email addresses prior to the start of the debate round so that doing so does not take time out of your prep. I really do not want to be the judge in a round holding up a tournament, and unfortunately it seems like this is the only way I can hold everyone accountable without everyone stealing prep left and right.

This should also go without saying, but the expectation is that you are prepared to and have planned for sharing speech docs in some way with your opponents. If you have no way of doing so, I will request that someone in your partnership allow the other team to use your laptop to view the speech. As a last resort, I will instruct the opposing team to stand and read over your shoulder during your speech so that they can flow appropriately. These are, to reiterate, last resorts. The ethical move for the sake of education in the round is to make sure you have a way to share documents: via email, google docs, dropbox, flash drive, etc.

General Conduct/Protocol/Speaker Points:

Open cross is fine. Make sure questions and answers remain a team effort though, for the sake of your speaks.

High speaks go to debaters that stay organized, keep to their road-maps, and clearly signpost.

Err on the slow side with me. I am super unimpressed by debaters that spread unintelligibility. State your taglines and authors slowly with extra clarity to be sure that they end up on my flow; If I can't understand you, I can't write down what you are saying, and your argument is moot. Spread only if you truly know you can be understood when you do so (that should go without saying, but based on rounds I've had to sit through, I guess it needs to be noted explicitly). Rule of thumb: if I am not typing while you're speaking, take that as your clue that nothing you are saying is going on my flow.

Treat your fellow debaters with the utmost respect, especially during cross ex. I understand that debate can be stressful, but stress is never an excuse to be rude or nasty. There is no simply need for it. Unnecessary hostility in cross-ex is a major issue for me. Chill out and try learning from each other. If you are rude or unnecessarily hostile to either your opponents OR your partner, your speaks will negatively reflect that.

The use of any derogatory/discriminatory terms, including sexist, homophobic, and/or racial slurs when referencing an opponent or judge will result in my stopping mid-round to call out the unacceptable language. Speaker points will negatively reflect the use of such language. Repeated use of slurs/name-calling will result in my ending the round with an automatic win for the opposing team.

I don't love the use of profanity for profanity's sake-- Meaning, if you can make your argument without the use of profanity, I would prefer that. If you are using profanity, your words should be chosen for a reason, and the reason should not be shock value - make smart choices here.

My personal background:

- I have been involved in policy debate in some capacity as either a college debater, judge, or high school coach since 2010.
- I am a high school teacher. (Courses taught: AP Macroeconomics, Economics, Law & Equity, Criminal Justice, Intro to Debate, Advanced Debate, US History & Social Justice).
- My academic interests mainly lie in economic theory. I believe strongly that economic impacts ARE social impacts and existential impacts.

Final Thoughts:

I congratulate you on choosing to participate in one of the most difficult, yet rewarding, activities that high school/college has to offer. I encourage you to use debate as a true learning and growing experience. If you allow for it, debate can make you a critical reader, a faster thinker, a better writer, a more confident speaker, a more prepared activist, an in-tune empath, a team player, a humble winner, a gracious loser, and ultimately a better overall citizen of this world. I wish you the very best of luck, and encourage you to use what you learn in debate to create more good in the world, starting as soon as you possibly can... perhaps even right now.

Quick 2022 update--CX is important, use it fully. Examples make a big difference, but you have to compare your examples to theirs and show why yours are better. Quality of evidence matters--debate the strengths of your evidence vs. theirs. Finally, all the comments in a majority of paradigms about tech vs. truth are somewhat absurd. Tech can determine truth and vice-versa: they are not opposed or mutually exclusive and they can be each others' best tools. Want to emphasize your tech? Great--defend it. Want to emphasize your truths? Great--but compare them. Most of all, get into it! We are here for a bit of time together, let's make the most of it.

Updated 2020...just a small note: have fun and make the most of it! Being enthusiastic goes a long way.

Updated 2019. Coaching at Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Nothing massive has changed except I give slightly higher points across the board to match inflation. Keep in mind, I am still pleased to hear qualification debates and deep examples win rounds. I know you all work hard so I will too. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. Email: kevindkuswa at gmail dot com.

Updated 2017. Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep in Tampa. Been judging a lot on the China topic, enjoying it. Could emphasize just about everything in the comments below, but wanted to especially highlight my thirst for good evidence qualification debates...

_____________________________ (previous paradigm)

Summary: Quality over quantity, be specific, use examples, debate about evidence.

I think debate is an incredibly special and valuable activity despite being deeply flawed and even dangerous in some ways. If you are interested in more conversations about debate or a certain decision (you could also use this to add me to an email chain for the round if there is one), contact me at kevindkuswa at gmail dot com. It is a privilege to be judging you—I know it takes a lot of time, effort, and commitment to participate in debate. At a minimum you are here and devoting your weekend to the activity—you add in travel time, research, practice and all the other aspects of preparation and you really are expressing some dedication.

So, the first issue is filling out your preference sheets. I’m usually more preferred by the kritikal or non-traditional crowd, but I would encourage other teams to think about giving me a try. I work hard to be as fair as possible in every debate, I strive to vote on well-explained arguments as articulated in the round, and my ballots have been quite balanced in close rounds on indicative ideological issues. I’m not affiliated with a particular debate team right now and may be able to judge at the NDT, so give me a try early on and then go from there.

The second issue is at the tournament—you have me as a judge and are looking for some suggestions that might help in the round. In addition to a list of things I’m about to give you, it’s good that you are taking the time to read this statement. We are about to spend over an hour talking to and with each other—you might as well try to get some insight from a document that has been written for this purpose.

1. Have some energy, care about the debate. This goes without saying for most, but enthusiasm is contagious and we’ve all put in some work to get to the debate. Most of you will probably speak as fast as you possibly can and spend a majority of your time reading things from a computer screen (which is fine—that can be done efficiently and even beautifully), but it is also possible to make equally or more compelling arguments in other ways in a five or ten minute speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQVq5mugw_Y).

2. Examples win debates. Well-developed examples are necessary to make the abstract concrete, they show an understanding of the issues in the round, and they tend to control our understandings of how particular changes will play out. Good examples take many forms and might include all sorts of elements (paraphrasing, citing, narrating, quantifying, conditioning, countering, embedding, extending, etc.), but the best examples are easily applicable, supported by references and other experiences, and used to frame specific portions of the debate. I’m not sure this will be very helpful because it’s so broad, but at the very least you should be able to answer the question, “What are your examples?” For example, refer to Carville’s commencement speech to Tulane graduates in 2008…he offers the example of Abe Lincoln to make the point that “failure is the oxygen of success” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMiSKPpyvMk.

3. Argument comparison wins debate. Get in there and compare evidence—debate the non-highlighted portion of cards (or the cryptic nature of their highlighting). Debate the warrants and compare them in terms of application, rationale, depth, etc. The trinity of impact, plausibility, and verge analysis doesn’t hurt, especially if those variables are weighed against one another. It’s nice to hear good explanations that follow phrases like “Even if…,” “On balance…,” or “In the context of…” I know that evidence comparison is being done at an extremely high level, but I also fear that one of the effects of paperless debate might be a tilt toward competing speech documents that feature less direct evidence comparison. Prove me wrong.

4. Debates about the relative validity of sources win rounds. Where is the evidence on both sides coming from and why are those sources better or worse? Qualification debates can make a big difference, especially because these arguments are surprisingly rare. It’s also shocking that more evidence is not used to indict other sources and effectively remove an entire card (or even argument) from consideration. The more good qualification arguments you can make, the better. Until this kind of argument is more common, I am thirsty enough for source comparisons (in many ways, this is what debate is about—evidence comparison), that I’ll add a few decimal points when it happens. I do not know exactly where my points are relative to other judges, but I would say I am along a spectrum where 27.4 is pretty good but not far from average, 27.7 is good and really contributing to the debate, 28 is very good and above average, 28.5 is outstanding and belongs in elims, and 29.1 or above is excellent for that division—could contend for one of the best speeches at the tournament.

5. All debates can still be won in 2AR. For all the speakers, that’s a corollary of the “Be gritty” mantra. Persevere, take risks and defend your choices

(https://www.ted.com/talks/angela_lee_duckworth_the_key_to_success_grit). The ballot is not based on record at previous tournaments, gpa, school ranking, or number of coaches.

6. Do not be afraid to go for a little more than usual in the 2NR—it might even help you avoid being repetitive. It is certainly possible to be too greedy, leaving a bloated strategy that can’t stand up to a good 2AR, but I usually think this speech leaves too much on the table.

7. Beginning in the 1AR, brand new arguments should only be in reference to new arguments in the previous speech. Admittedly this is a fuzzy line and it is up to the teams to point out brand new arguments as well as the implications. The reason I’ve decided to include a point on this is because in some cases a 2AR has been so new that I have had to serve as the filter. That is rare and involves more than just a new example or a new paraphrasing (and more than a new response to a new argument in the 2NR).

8. Very good arguments can be made without evidence being introduced in card form, but I do like good cards that are as specific and warranted as possible. Use the evidence you do introduce and do as much direct quoting of key words and phrases to enhance your evidence comparison and the validity of your argument overall.

9. CX matters. This probably deserves its own philosophy, but it is worth repeating that CX is a very important time for exposing flaws in arguments, for setting yourself up for the rebuttals, for going over strengths and weaknesses in arguments, and for generating direct clash. I do not have numbers for this or a clear definition of what it means to “win CX,” but I get the sense that the team that “wins” the four questioning periods often wins the debate.

10. I lean toward “reciprocity” arguments over “punish them because…” arguments. This is a very loose observation and there are many exceptions, but my sympathies connect more to arguments about how certain theoretical moves made by your opponent open up more avenues for you (remember to spell out what those avenues look like and how they benefit you). If there are places to make arguments about how you have been disadvantaged or harmed by your opponent’s positions (and there certainly are), those discussions are most compelling when contextualized, linked to larger issues in the debate, and fully justified.

Overall, enjoy yourself—remember to learn things when you can and that competition is usually better as a means than as an ends.

And, finally, the third big issue is post-round. Usually I will not call for many cards—it will help your cause to point out which cards are most significant in the rebuttals (and explain why). I will try to provide a few suggestions for future rounds if there is enough time. Feel free to ask questions as well. In terms of a long-term request, I have two favors to ask. First, give back to the activity when you can. Judging high school debates and helping local programs is the way the community sustains itself and grows—every little bit helps. Whether you realize it or not, you are a very qualified judge for all the debate events at high school tournaments. Second, consider going into teaching. If you enjoy debate at all, then bringing some of the skills of advocacy, the passion of thinking hard about issues, or the ability to apply strategy to argumentation, might make teaching a great calling for you and for your future students (https://www.ted.com/talks/christopher_emdin_teach_teachers_how_to_create_magic note: debaters are definitely part of academia, but represent a group than can engage in Emdin’s terms). There are lots of good paths to pursue, but teaching is one where debaters excel and often find fulfilling. Best of luck along the ways.

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I will evaluate offense and defense to make my decision unless you tell me to do otherwise.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and done on the top of your kritik/topicality violation before it is applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

Former HS Policy and NDT debater.

But, it has been a long time....

- Tabula rasa, if that is still a thing. Open to all lines of argumentation, but please tell me why I should care.

- Very rusty flowing, but should be able to keep up. Most important is that you speak clearly to help me follow your speech.

- Have fun, but please be respectful. Debate is not an excuse to be rude.

Gabe Lewis

Assistant Director of Debate at Georgetown University

gl642@georgetown.edu

_____________________________

NDT Update - February 2024

I am still not a topic expert so don't assume I know everything about the weapons systems you're droning on about.

I really do not enjoy process counterplan debates, especially on this topic. Say the aff is a bad idea! Say that it is not topical! But do not tell me that we should have a constitutional convention to eliminate nuclear subs! I mean you can tell me that but I'm going to be grumpy about it.

If your 2AC to T is more focused on grammar/semantics/fringe definitions than explaining why your version of the topic is better... just don't do it. Tell me why your version of the topic is better!

Stylistic Things - Please number your arguments and slow down between pages. Please do not put nine consecutive permutations at the top of the CP flow in the 2AC. Every time you refuse to label an off-case position, I die a little inside. You can "insert the rehighlighting" as much as your heart desires but I refuse to acknowledge it unless you've read the rehighlighting given the communicative activity of it all.

Top Level Debate Thoughts:

Explanation: I am a bit of a dinosaur (or maybe I'm just right) when it comes to expectations about explanation. I want to know exactly what internal links you solve & how you solve them for each impact. I want to know this in every speech. If after the debate I do not understand how the aff resolves the internal links, I am not going to vote on your impact outweighing.

Delivery and Evidence: Debaters should SLOW DOWN especially when reading blocks. I understand that there is an incentive to be the fastest speaker in the room but this negatively impacts you when I cannot understand what you are saying let alone to flow your arguments. Debate is a communicative activity first and foremost. That means I am uninterested in reading a lot of evidence after the debate.

Decision Making: Think about what argument you will win the debate on and then spend your time appropriately developing that argument in the final rebuttals. I understand it can be frustrating if a judge doesn't vote on the argument you think is capital T true but if you spend a few seconds on it four minutes into your last speech, you're probably doomed because judges have countless other arguments to think through and evaluate. You should put your best arguments at the top of the speech and you should also do judge instruction.

Argument Specific Thoughts

Kritiks: I did not read them in college and am not familiar with the various literature bases. Going for a K against a policy aff will be an uphill battle for you. I am, at my core, a pragmatist and it will be difficult to convince me that the alternative (or doing nothing) is preferable to the affirmative without a significant amount of case defense.

K Affs: I think affirmative teams should affirm the resolution and I am sympathetic to negative topicality/framework arguments. I am not convinced by "in the direction of the topic" We Meet/Counter-interpretations because I find them very self-serving, vague, and arbitrary.

T v Policy Affs: I evaluate these as debates about comparative models of the topic. What does the topic look like under two different interpretations? Is that good or bad for debate? Does it limit out all affs on the topic? Does it explode the limits of the topic? Does it obfuscate all negative ground? These are considerations you should grapple with when answering and extending Topicality/defending your model. I am more likely to side with a solid version of the topic as explained by the debaters than I am to side with a better evidenced explanation of the topic that provides no clear brightlines or guardrails.

Politics: I thoroughly enjoy politics debates - even if it's midterms or elections. I think internal links can be generally contrived so I would encourage aff teams to point out the various uniqueness issues these DA's tend to present. I am not a fan of politics theory arguments (Vote No, Intrinsicness, Fiat Solves the Link) because I think they are generally warrantless arguments that negative teams hope the aff will miss. Without a warrant, a dropped claim does not matter as I do not believe it to be a completed argument.

CP: I think CP theory is a reason to reject the argument, not the team. I HATE when teams read multiplank CP's and do not explain the utility of the planks in the solvency debate. Why are you reading ten planks if you explain the CP like it is a single plank? I generally believe that CPs link to the net benefits. If your explanation of a plank in the 2NC is rereading it without explanation and context, I'm not the judge for you. Not great on counterplan competition questions and have little experience debating competition or judging these debates.

Conditionality: Fine - more than three is pushing it.

TL;DR

Add me to the email chain: caroline.li.debate@gmail.com

I have no topic knowledge yet this year, I'm back in after having not judged for 2 years. Please help me out in the round!

Policy

I'm a current senior at Penn, she/her. I did policy debate for 4 years at Lexington High School, was a 2N. I ran mostly policy arguments on the neg, but my partner ran K and policy affs.

Top 4 things you need to do to win in front of me:

1. Do impact calc.

2. Have numbered warrants.

3. Prioritize what you want me to vote on in your last speeches.

4. Be civil to your opponents!

K-------------------------x--------------Policy

Advice

High level how I decide rounds. 1. I look for any major tech mistakes (dropping a perm, condo, flow, straight turn, etc) that mean I can auto vote for one side, no guilt necessary. If this happened in your round, stand up, make 2 arguments, and sit down. 2. I break the debate into blocks, (ie for a K, framework, link, alt, impact) and decide who won each block. 3. I decide what winning a block means for a team, and how the blocks implicate each other. If you made even if statements, bonus points in this step. If you did impact calc, bonus points in this step. 4. I return a decision.

Also, I'm mostly flowing by listening. Clarity~

Framework Debates

At the end of this debate, I will write down the impacts each side goes for, assign some probability of solvency depending on how well you're doing on the internal links for that impact, and then figure out if they implicate/outweigh one another. As such, feel free to expand the debate in the 2AC through the 1AR, but in the last speeches buckle down on 1-3 key pieces of offense, weigh it against your opponents' best offense, and then apply it to all the other arguments that show up on these massive T flows. Also, procedural fairness can be a terminal impact if you can convince me it is. Doing good case debate and then applying it offensively to the T flow is always an excellent idea.

Policy aff v Ks

On the aff, having specific, well-thought-out perms and explaining why they mitigate the risk of links is an excellent idea, as is using your impacts to outweigh. On the neg, winning strong impacts to each link helps a lot, as does pointing out specific parts of the aff speeches that link. These debates also tend to become massive, so collapsing in your last speeches and not getting caught up in the line by line will help.

DAs

I do think it's possible for there to be 0% risk of a DA. I find it more persuasive if you have like 5 reasons why one internal link of the DA won't happen than if you put one reason on five different internal links. Aff-specific DAs which are well-prepared will be entertaining, as will having specific links to the aff.

CPs

Don't like process CPs. Do like advantage CPs, or any CP that you made up on the fly but solves the entire aff. CPs are tests of how necessary the aff is to solve its impacts. On the aff, creative permutations are entertaining.

T

Make clear internal link and impact scenarios, do impact comparison, and internal link turns, and you'll be good to go. If they clarify how the aff works late in the debate, and it's egregiously untopical, I don't mind if you introduce a new T violation in the neg block.

Final thoughts

Make my job easy please!

Give me judging advice/Review my judging: https://forms.gle/FrmsLwNv95YQZpgF9

Loud prep is a pet peeve

I don't love it when other members of your team sit in on your prelim rounds sorry!

Speaks Scale

28.0 needs some improvement

28.5 good

29.0 impressive

I am a parent judge, please do not spread. I judge base on fluency, clarity of speech, logical reasoning, organization of thought and presentation. Please explain acronyms and have clear thought out arguments. Make strong links between impacts.

Please do not run Afropess, dedev, and other related arguments.

Be respectful to your opponents, the judges and your partner. Have fun.

2020 Update - I've been out of debate for a few years now, and my judging is still pretty much reflected on the huge block of text below. Keep in mind that I don't really have topic knowledge on most topics that are currently on circuit, but you do you and I'll be able to follow along. Debate is a fantastic activity and if I can help people enjoy it and learn then that's what my goal is. Feel free to email me after any round I judge with questions if my RFD is unclear.

About Me:

Email (for chains or questions after rounds): lolud272@gmail.com

Ex-Varsity policy debater for George Mason University, debated for 3 years at GMU (started as a Novice, woo most important debate level)

I'm flow-centric and I vote only off of what I have flowed. I'll flow cross-ex for the most part, but unless concessions/arguments made in cross-ex make it into a speech I won't evaluate them at the end of the round. Clarity is more important to me than speed, and a word of warning to machine gun spreaders - I'm receptive to the old-school arg that if I can't understand the arguments being spread, I shouldn't evaluate them. This isn't my default, and I'll do my best to adjudicate based off of what I have, but I can sympathize with that argument. If I can't understand you, then I'll likely be uncomfortable voting on an arg that I never heard articulated in the first place.

Tech > Truth or vice versa is kind of silly - I think like most things a moderation between both is where I fall. What this looks like in my mind is that I'm pro techy args on things like Ptix DAs like link turn debates or a cross applying of the opponent's theory standards to take out other theory offense, as well as other stuff not listed here, but I also think that uncarded analytics that can press on the real world happenings around the world on certain issues can be very convincing to mitigate offense, and I think that the best answer to shit politics disads can be a 2AC block of 4-5 lines telling me why their ev is terrible and makes no sense. Basically - do you and I'll follow. I personally think an internal link press on a sketchy advantage or DA is the most convincing place to push back against other teams,

I read a lot of evidence post round, at least compared to other judges I've seen in high school debate. I do this maintain to verify that the arguments a team has been making are substantiated by the warrants of their ev, but in a scenario when an argument is dropped, this is mainly just to verify the ev is close to what was argued. I try to lean less towards judge intervention when it comes to considering evidence in my decision, as in I will vote off of the flow first, and use the reading of evidence to assess how strong an argument is backed up. In extremely close debates, I will often find myself voting on one ev versus another, but this is contingent on winning a risk from a flow level. I try to do evaluation this way to avoid decisions that are based somewhere in "you've argued your position this way, and your opponents haven't contested your quality of ev, but I think their ev is better so you lose."

Cross ex is binding friends, but if you try to fish a link in the last few seconds and your opponent is trying to clarify their answer while you cut them off (something I see/experience a lot), there's some wiggle room there.

Debate can be a game or it can be an educational space, I'll frame the debate space and myself as a judge however I'm told. This doesn't mean "conceding RoB means you vote thru our lens" - to quote Joe Patrice, the RoB is more just like a sort of impact framing, not an immediate "vote for team that concedes our artibrary RoB". If neither team gives me a RoB or other framing, my default to evaluating the debate is a judge in a game; the winner is the team that does the better debating.

I'm down for recutting of evidence, but if it's not a gamechanger then you're probably wasting your time. Recutting politics DA cards for UQ that goes the other way is fuego though, and teams should do that more. Reading your opponents ev and pointing out how bad it is in C-X is great, but that arg needs to be in a speech for me to eval it as part of the overall debate.

Impacts/Impact Framing:

I tend to default towards magnitude to evaluate different impacts, but that can mean different things in different debates - if higher magnitude means prioritizing structural violence first instead of faake newwwss policy nuclear war impacts, ok sounds good. In a policy debate the default is what causes most harm, which can be interpreted or debated in different ways. The point is that I will adapt to the debate and how each debate plays out, but including elements of magnitude/timeframe/probability in your overviews for framing will make things a lot easier for you to pick up my ballot. Impact turns are the SHIT and a great way into my ballot, I think they're very underutilized in high school policy.

Condo:

I hold the line for my fellow slow debaters - I'm of the opinion that more than 3 conditional worlds are not necessary, and 1-2 line CPs without evidence are straight shit. I'm a hard pass on mega-7 plank CPs that solve the aff in like 8 different ways ALSO being able to kick planks. If you want to try to read more than 3 condo, go ahead, it's a debate and you might be able to convince me, but I'm skeptical of the need to read that many to begin with. I don't have any opinion on multiple Ks or CPs, just that they don't ideologically conflict, ie. running two identity politics Ks that say for example "native focus first" and "black violence focus first" then just kicking what you're losing - that's conditional ethics which I think is a separate but also bad method of debate and I'm extremely sympathetic to aff args to reject Ks based on that.

Counterplans:

Totally fine with counterplans. I'm a *big* fan of multiplank CPs that do a lot of things to resolve the aff in creative ways, especially against soft left type of affs. If a counterplan solves an Aff better than the aff and has a risk of some sort of net benefit, then it's hard to vote Aff in that situation. I'm kinda iffy on teams tossing out "sufficiency framing" as a "ehhh cmon judge it's good enough," and I'm more receptive to aff teams telling me to hold down the fort, especially when it's a question of large CPs versus the aff. IMO the most underutilized args against the CP are analytics why the CP can't solve the internal links of the aff - as well as other solvency deficits. Aff teams should use these types of args for sure.

PICs are good if using the Aff evidence as ways to solve, I think that Aff teams should be responsible for the ev they cut, and if it says there's a better way to do it, yeah I'll vote on that. However, PICs can be abusive sometimes and I'll vote on theory against PICs if the debate shakes down that way, but that's a question of doing the debating. Any CP that absorbs some sort of mindset shift/change of epistemology that the Aff uniquely does is closer to actual cheating and you'd have a hard time convincing me of that legitimacy without carded ev. I'm down to vote on CP theory if it becomes a big debate, but it's still kind of an uphill battle, especially if it's a random blippy theory arg without being fleshed out.

Da's:

For the aff: I'm very accepting of non-uq and no link args and think they should be made often. Link turns can be the best pieces of offense against DAs, just be clear on the story of the turn in the rebuttals, starting in the 1AR. Reading only impact D is not the best way to handle DAs but they aren't death sentences. Leverage your aff versus the DAs often and thoroughly, and winning Aff impact mitigates DA risk is something I think can be credible in the right context.

For the neg: The more coherent the Link and Internal Link story the better, contextualizing your evidence to what the aff is and why it triggers your links is the best way to weigh your offcase. Even if the aff drops an impact, you need to point it out and frame why they lose because of it, impact calc on DAs is just as important as on aff advantages.

Ks:

As mentioned above, not typically what I run. Alts are important, and I'm not a fan of teams that kick the alternative, but it's strategic sometimes and I get that. If you want me to kick the alt, I'd like some framing about what the neg world looks like without an alt and why the Aff doesn't matter. Got no problem with voting on the K as long as it's explained well. To quote numerous others, I'm not comfortable with voting on something I can't articulate at the end of the debate, so keep that in mind if I'm in the back. This for the most part includes high theory word vomit and literal nonsense like Baudrillard, so be wary. Specific links to the Aff's direct ACTIONS, as opposed to injustices in the squo that the aff doesn't get rid of will make voting on the K a much easier time.

T:

To be honest, T was never my forte as a debater and I am not the best for these debates - but:

Fairness is an impact, and proving to me what ground you lost and it's easier to get a ballot. Winning your interp is a prereq to any ballot, and having reasons why I should prefer your interp will greatly improve your chances. The limits debate is the most persuasive part of T/FW for me, I feel there's (for the most part) always ground that the neg can shift into. If you can prove that the aff interp makes the topic unmanageable and unpredictable, brownie points.

Framework is a option that I am willing to vote on, although it's not my strongest suit despite being a policy 2N (lol, rip.)

Spec arguments generally are not convincing and I'm likely not going to vote on them. It's an uphill battle for you.

TL;DR:

You do what you want to debate and I'll evaluate as the round is framed - I'm more partial to techy policy debate since that's what I did but I'll work out the round as it unfolds without incorporating my own opinions into the external truth level of some arguments. I read ev post round so don't read bad ev - especially things that you are likely to go for in the final rebuttals. K things are good but I'm not as deep in the lit base for high theory, so extra laymans-level explanation in the block and final rebuttal are the most important thing to consider.

Non-policy debate types:

PF:

The default framing I use is basically util, whatever I feel will do the most good overall, unless I am given any other way to evaluate the round. I'm not going to vote for any theory argument about how Pro should have to go against a double-negative res because they're Pro, so it'd be best not to waste speech time on it. If you've read this far, you can see that I'm a policy debater, so overall I prefer magnitude framing and impact comparison as ways to sway my ballot more. This doesn't mean it has to be a big stick war impact or anything, but being mindful of what your opponents arguments are and why your impacts are more important is a good way to pick up my ballot.

I don't have any preference to standing/sitting during Crossfire, whatever both teams are comfortable with is fine by me. More of a suggestion rather than paradigm thing is to use all of your prep time. I've seen teams go into the Final Focus with more than a minute left, and taking extra time to focus on what you need to say will help immensely, there's always a better articulation or some way of framing arguments better.

LD:

I don't judge much LD nowadays, but you do you and I'll follow. Framing against your opponent's VC will help provide clarity for me on how I should be evaluating the round.

Congress:

Same with LD, I don't often judge Congress but do your best and I'll give my full attention.

I am the parent of a current debater at the Bronx High Science of Science. I was not a debater myself in high school or college. I am not a very experienced judge, so it would be best if you are going to spread to spread clearly. I will try very hard to make sure I am voting on the issues each side raises in the round, so please try to compare your arguments to the arguments made by your opponents.

I am semi-familiar with the topic this year and I can understand most arguments that will be run. I encourage debaters to run whatever arguments they are comfortable with, and I am not predispositioned towards any type of debate (Ks or policy).

Evidence is important but the way it is presented throughout the round is more important.

I believe the best debaters are those who are respectful to one another while still showing their arguments to be superior to the arguments made by their opponents.

Please make sure to keep in mind that I am a parent judge. Good luck!

**2022 LONGHORN CLASSIC UPDATE**

Email please - flashingisprep@gmail.com

I have now lived on a farming commune for the past two years. I have judged maybe 5 debates in that span, and zero debates on this topic. Do not expect me to know things about what is happening

I will not vote on things that happened outside of the debate I am judging.

Since I’ve been out of the activity, I think two main things have happened to my judging philosophy

• I have gotten worse for the neg in framework debates. I increasingly find the negs framework standards silly and am beginning to think more and more that framework is an argumentative crutch that prevents people from actually trying interesting and/or responsive strategies. Yes framework is often an impact turn to the 1AC which like, fine I guess. And yes, sometimes the aff doesn't defend anything at all, or sometimes is just “this is how I make a home in debate” which like, how do you negate that? But a shocking amount of the time, in front of me, you will be better off just debating the aff as it has presented itself in the 1AC. I do not want to watch you go for framework. I will still vote for neg in these debates, just not as easily as I did before.
• I have gotten worse for the aff in K v K debates. Your aff doesn't do anything? I'm excited to vote on presumption. Your aff plays some music and reads poems? I'm excited to vote for any of the thousands of impact turns to poetics, or a fun PIK out of the music. I think that the neg has a lower threshold for me in KvK debates than most people seem to think. I want to watch you go for something that is not framework. I will still vote aff in these debates, just not as easily as I did before.

-------------------------------------------------[2021-2022]-----------------------------------------------------

**IMPORTANT UPDATE**

"No mask, no win. You can only have your mask off when giving a speech. Masks should be on for CX, prep, and all other times we're in the same room. Otherwise, you will take a big L 25. Don't like it? Great, do your prefs." - Yao Yao Chen

I've been out of judging for a year as I have been living on a farming commune, and over that time a couple of things have happened

• I have gotten worse for the neg in framework debates. I increasingly find the negs framework standards silly and am beginning to think more and more that framework is an argumentative crutch that prevents people from actually trying interesting and/or responsive strategies. Yes sometimes framework is an impact turn to the 1AC which like, fine I guess. And yes, sometimes the aff doesn't defend anything at all in which case you need to force them to actually take a stance on something. But a shocking amount of the time, in front of me, you will be better off just debating the aff as it has presented itself in the 1AC. I do not want to watch you go for framework. I will still vote for neg in these debates, just not as easily as I did before.
• I have gotten worse for the aff in K v K debates. Your aff doesn't do anything? I'm excited to vote on presumption. Your aff plays some music and reads poems? I'm excited to vote for any of the thousands of impact turns to poetics, or a fun PIK out of the music. I think that the neg has a lower threshold for me in KvK debates than most people seem to think. I want to watch you go for something that is not framework. I will still vote aff in these debates, just not as easily as I did before. Just answer the aff. Seriously, have y'all heard of this thing called the cap K? Speaking of the cap K....
• There has been this trend to push beyond the whole "I will not vote on racism good" and say things like "I will not vote on climate change not real/good" Which I totally support. Now that we have opened up that gate, I am really tempted to say that "I will not vote on cap/heg good." I thought about this for a long time, and I'm not going to draw that line in the sand outright, but I am willing to say that it is going to be hard for you to win a cap good debate in front of me. I'm done trying to leave my very real political investments at the door for the sake of "the sanctity of the game" or whatever other nonsense.

Also, if you have (NON-DEBATE) questions or curiosities about any of the following feel free to reach out to me. I'd love to hear your thoughts and maybe share a few of my own, or at least help you find people more qualified to answer your questions.

Communism, prison and police abolition, pre-configurative politics, homesteading, private property, reparations, cooperative living, sustainable and regenerative agriculture, labor history, why crypto is bad, etc.

----------------------------------------------------[2020-2021]-----------------------------------------------------

Yes I want to be on the email chain: flashingisprep@gmail.com

**Please make the subject line of your email something that makes sense (ex: TFA State - Round 3 - Texas CM v MSU GS)**

All other things (questions, comments, speech doc requests, etc) should go to masonnmv[at]gmail[dot]com

[ONLINE DEBATE NOTES]

Please for the love of all that is good in this world update your wiki's. The community has paradoxically dramatically reduced it's wiki updating during a time of Zoom debate where it is more necessary than ever before. Seriously, what are you doing. Update your wiki. I will vote on disclosure theory.

Also please leave your camera on if possible. It's so awkward and alienating to stare at a blank screen for two hours by myself.

For other things see paradigm from last year below

----------------------------------------------------[2019-2020]-----------------------------------------------------

[Pre-TFA State UPDATE - 2/25/2020]

Still judging only clash debates so here is a more complete framework rant

• Ideologically I slightly lean aff for reasonability reasons. In the real debate world we actual live in, (some) K affs are predictable, and (most) K affs that are in the direction of the resolution are not hard to engage with. Not only that, but ideally we all have case negs to the best teams at the tournament anyway. That being said, framework is still absolutely negative ground, and K affs are (often) impossible to pin down. Also a lot of K affs require you to spot them solvency before you can win offense which is probably not something we should have to do. Two things you should take away from that
• On the aff, defense goes a long way. The negatives fairness and limits offense is often blown way out of proportion and you should stop letting them get away with that
• On the neg, negative engagement is the easiest standard to convince me of. The 2AR will probably say "our aff is contestable because XYZ" but framework debates are questions of models not just about the aff.
• I vote aff in these debates when:
• The 2AR wins that impositions of limits are bad. I don't often find myself voting that "limits in the abstract are always terrible" but re-framing that same argument as "imposing X limit on debate is bad for Y reason" is something that I find a lot more compelling, especially when the 2NR doesn't do impact comparison and instead just asserts "but I promise limits are super great"
• The 2AR wins that their interpretation solves limits with even a small net benefit of some kind. Mostly this happens when the the aff spends a lot of time on defense (an under-utilized component of framework debates, see above), or when the 2NR rants about impacts for 5 minutes without talking about internal links.
• I vote neg in these debates when:
• The 2NR does great internal link work. I would love for the 2NR to include a section that says "their interp is A which allows for B because C which doesn't solve D because E" Doing so will force you to clearly articulate an internal link differential which is a thing I care about, while also dramatically raising the threshold the aff has to meet to win any of their defense (again, a thing I care about)
• There isn't a role for the negative under the affs interp. I believe clash is great, and the negative often gets away with telling me that they are the only ones that allow for clash to occur. Not only that but the negative often is better at telling me why the types of clash that we have under their interp is good for XYZ reason.
• I think debate is great, I wouldn't devote 100% of my non-schoolwork time to it if I didn't, so you will have a hard time convincing me that "debate is terrible, we shouldn't do it, clash is always bad in every instance" and the negative will have an easy time winning "debate can be good, you don't even have to read a plan just say something at all please"
• I find it really hard to explain why the act of reading framework in and of itself is violent or bad. Specifically, I will have a really hard time voting on "you read framework you should lose" if the 2NR doesn't go for it, and I really don't care about framework linking to X other position that you read. If you don't put framework in the 1NC the aff gets to run wild in the 2AC, and fallback positions are a thing. If you're neg you still need to answer it but don't think you have to go for framework or you're screwed because as long as you answer it I don't care that much at all.

[MID SEASON UPDATE - 12/11/2019]

• I increasingly find myself saying something like this in the RFDs "I have you saying quote: *reads exactly what I have written on my flow* in the 2NR/2AR, to me that is not a complete argument nor does it answer the explanation the other team is doing" - this might be me being picky, but just know that I have a slightly higher threshold than average for what qualifies as extending a complete argument
• I have also done this a couple of times "I have you saying quote: *reads from flow* in the 1AR/block, while the 2NR/2AR explanation is very good you have not made this into an actual argument until then"
• This is not a tech over truth claim. Truth does come before tech, but there is a minimum threshold that your truthful argument has to meet for me to feel comfortable evaluating it
• For framework, some new thoughts
• To quote Bankey: there are two framework 2ARs: 1) limits are bad, or 2) we solve limits. While there are a plethora of winning 2ARs on framework, if you don't do either of those things you are going to be in a rough spot
• If the aff is going for the "we solve limits" 2AR, the 2NR would be greatly served by having a section which says "their interp is A which allows for B because C which doesn't solve D because E" Doing so will force you to clearly articulate an internal link differential between your interp and their interp. If you can't do that in the 2NR then maybe go for a different standard.
• I still continue to only judge clash debates. I've accepted that fate by now, but know that if for some reason I'm in a policy debate I will probably not be as educated as I should be.
• Specifically, I seem to end up judging a lot of *different flavor of anti-blackness* vs *state engagement and fiat are good* debates. I can almost promise that I've heard someone make a much better version of the argument you're making and I can also promise that I'll just wish I was watching that person debate and not you when you're making that mediocre argument.
• I enjoy these debates when:
• There are examples from both sides on the ontology portion of the debate
• Each side answers the specifics of the others examples
• I hear an example I haven't heard before (examples are a trend here if that wasn't clear enough)
• You clearly know what you're talking about/look like you've actually read a book - if you know your stuff, make that clear, it makes me happy that students know things
• I DO NOT enjoy these debate when:
• You assume you're winning ontology true/not true without doing any explanation
• You sound like you're annoyed the other team exists/is making arguments (yes even if their arguments are bad you should still respect them)
• When there are only non-black people in the room and nobody talks about/seems to recognize/cares about that fact
• It's clear you are just reading blocks and don't actually know what your cards say - I will still vote for you, I'll just be upset about it and you're speaks will not be happy

[POST CAMP PARADIGM - SEPTEMBER-ISH 2019]

General Things:

• Tell me how to vote and why, hold my hand as much as possible and you will be rewarded
• Your evidence quality matters a lot to me, but I won't read evidence unless I need to. Use that to your advantage, compelling and in depth evidence comparison goes a loooong way.
• If/when I call for cards I will ask for "whatever you think is important" That is NOT an invitation to send me everything you read, nor is it a promise to read everything you send me. Instead it's an opportunity to do what you should have done in the speech and tell me which cards you think I should read (that does include opponent evidence if you so choose).
• Truth over tech, you should have a warrant to prove why your truth claim is true
• Take risks and have fun. When you're engaged and having fun it makes my job more enjoyable and a happy me = better speaks
• Always happy to answer specific questions you have before the debate. The question "do you have any specific paradigms judge" (or anything along those lines) will be answered with "do whatever you want"

Framework - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• State good isn't offense for a framework argument, and state bad isn't offense against it - unlikely you will tell me otherwise
• Your interp isn't just a model that dictates the way debates go down, but also a research model that dictates the way we prepare for debates - you should have reasons why both in and out of round their interp is bad and yours is good
• If the aff says arms sales are bad I do not understand why winning arms sales are good is not a reason to vote neg. On the aff that should help you answer fairness/ground, on the neg that should give you another 2NR option if you so choose.
• I am more than willing to vote for intervention/heg/cap/arms sales are good. Often times I think the aff is too flippant about answering the impact turns that get read on case and the negative fails to capitalize on that.
• Increasingly I am becoming less and less of a fan of arguments that say "framework is policing/the prison/any other actually bad thing" In fact, I think that it is very dangerous to equivocate the violence that happens in a prison to the "violence" that happens when teams read framework.
• Answering the aff is not a microaggression. Neither is reading generic evidence. Debaters make bad/non-responsive arguments all the time, that's not a reason to vote them down, just a reason you don't have to spend as much time answering the argument.

Until I judge more rounds on this topic I won't have as many topic specific things to say. Please consult the previous seasons paradigm for any additional information

----------------------------------------------------[2018-2019]-----------------------------------------------------

Yes I want to be on the email chain: flashingisprep@gmail.com

General things:

• Tell me how to vote and why, not only will this help your chances of winning, it will also help your speaks
• I will read your evidence after the debate, not during, so the more you do the ev comparison for me during the debate the more likely I am to believe you - that being said, your evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read the evidence that I think is relevant while making my decision, so make sure to tell me which evidence matters
• Take risks. It makes my job a lot more fun and often pays off big. Your speaks will be rewarded for it.
• Truth over tech, and you should have a warrant to prove why your truth claim is true
• I increasingly keep judge clash debates, I have judged maybe two high level disad/cp debates since the Greenhill tournament, that means two things
• First, in clash debates I find myself leaning aff on the internal link level but neg on the impact level, I think the 2NR impact explanation sounds pretty but the internal link is dramatically under explained, and the 2AR can often be very compelling on a "you don't solve your own impact" level. The topical versions that teams are reading (mostly the generic open borders stuff) is also only really ever compelling to me in a world where the aff goes for "our discussion good" which is increasingly not the way the aff is answering framework. If your aff defends restrictions are bad and provides a mechanism for resolving (whatever that means) that then I am a fan. If your aff is just "debate is bad, fairness and clash are bad" then I am not a fan
• IF you do have me in a policy v policy debate, make sure you explain which part of the debate matters and why, and do a little bit more handle holding me through the debate in the 2NR and 2AR than you would in front of your regular policy judges as I will need to shake the rust off

Policy things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, you will be hard pressed to persuade me otherwise
• Undecided on indefinite parole good/bad - probably lean neg on this question but haven't seen it really debated out enough yet
• The topic is LPR - way more thoughts on this later, but unlikely you convince me your non-LPR aff is T
• If your CP has a solvency advocate (each plank, together) I think it's almost impossible to lose to any theory argument
• Presumption flips aff if the CP is a larger change from the status quo than the aff is (fully explained in the CPs section at the bottom)
• The 1AR is a constructive, you should probably read some cards

Clash of civ things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• Fairness is an internal link, but negative engagement and clash are very compelling impacts
• State good isn't offense for a FW argument, and state bad isn't offense against it - unlikely you will tell me otherwise
• If the aff says and defends that restrictions on immigration are bad I find it harder to win a limits impact but a little easier to win a topical version
• Your interp isn't just a model that dictates the way debates go down, but also a research model that dictates the way we prepare for debates - you should have reasons why both in and out of round their interp is bad and yours is good
• Ericson is descriptive of debate 15 years ago, not prescriptive of what debate should be. I think this makes it a little difficult to win a predictability internal link, you still can just make sure you do slightly more work than you normally would here for me
• Negative engagement/clash is an impact but probably doesn't solve the affs education offense because the neg wants to be able to go for the temporary CP and base, instead it is good as a critical thinking model

K v K things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• I don't judge a lot of these debates, but when these debates are good, I highly enjoy them. The more specific you get with your links/alt explanation/link turns/alt offense the happier I will be
• The aff gets a perm - "this is a method debate" is not a real world thing to do, only way I really change my mind here is if the aff drops this argument
• You are not responsible for other things your author wrote that you haven't read, but you are responsible for other things/theories that the parts you have read rely on for their theorization (your psychoanalysis aff probably has to defend the Lack even if you don't make any of your arguments about it)
• Examples are the key to winning the link v link turn debate for me
• Just because you read a Zizek card doesn't mean you can just make any argument you want - your theory should be consistent and you should tie your arguments back to your evidence, I will read your evidence after the debate while making my decision

Feel free to email me with any questions - masonnmv[at]gmail[dot]com - yes this is different from the email above, please use each for its intended purpose.

After that quick and dirty, here is my rant about the topic as I've seen it so far. Increasingly on this topic I find myself becoming more and more frustrated with the trajectory of affirmatives who have decided to read a plan. Two large complaints that I have:

• Your aff should be LPR
• You should specify which restrictions you reduce

Let me unpack those two things

First, LPR. I feel very strongly that the aff has to be for the purpose of LPR and only for the purpose of LPR. I know that generally the community is moving in this direction but I feel like it’s worthwhile for me to talk about this because I find myself more ideological about this than others I’ve talked to. I think that “legal immigration” most clearly means “admission to the United States for the purpose of long term permanent residence” and anything that isn’t that is fairly clearly negative ground. There are two versions of the refugee/asylum/T/U visas affs that are mainly being read now.

The first type just makes it easier to get those visas. This is the “determine that environmentally-displaced persons constitute ‘refugees’” aff’s. Or the “remove the requirement to cooperate with law enforcement” aff. These affs, for me, and almost impossibly defensible. Those people that enter under those new expanded rules are not permanent residents, nor are they guaranteed to be permanent residents. The most popular counter-interp for these affs, “legal immigration is path to lpr” to me is poor at best. It begs the question of what a “path” is, which I have yet to find a good definition of. For example, H1-B’s might be considered a path to LPR because the majority of people here on H1-Bs apply for transfer of status and become LPR. Without a good definition of what a “path to LPR” means I have no idea how that interp can set a limit on the topic that excludes non-immigrant and temporary visas. With these affs they all have the similar we meet/reasonability story that happens in the 2AR which goes something like “but our visas end up with LPR and aren’t temporary because they eventually become permanent so please don’t vote neg” But this we meet argument is not even close to compelling. In my mind this is the negatives argument, and at best for you is just the same as saying “we are effectually topical so don’t vote neg” The plan doesn’t immediately give people LPR, and I don’t think that our model of debate is defensible.

The second type of that aff changes those visas and makes them LPR. These are the “for the purpose of long term permanent residence” affs. These are think are more defensible than the type above, and end up raising a lot of interesting T questions, but I would prefer it if they weren’t topical. The problem that I have with these affs is that they just make any non-topical group topical. I have no idea why the plan can fiat that they give refugees immediate LPR and why they would not be able to fiat that H1-Bs are LPR (I keep using H1-Bs because I feel like everyone agrees that those are by definition not topical). The problem that I run into when thinking about these types of affs though is that I don’t think that there is a good interp that clearly limits these types of affs out. I think that there are two ways you can try and limit out these affs. The first, is a definition of restrictions that would say that making a new LPR isn’t reducing a restriction. But I think that a compelling answer to that is probably that the restriction that exists on getting LPR is the 1 year requirement which the plan would eliminate. I think that this could go either way, but that’s the point of debate. The second way you can limit this out is to say that a reduction has to be pre-existing. The aff increases the cap from 0 to 200 LPR refugee visas, which is technically a reduction of a cap but it doesn’t increase a currently existing cap. That coupled with a literature argument about there not being any lit to contest reducing restrictions that don’t officially exist to me feels weak but doable. In general this is the debate the aff wants to have in front of me, because despite the fact I don’t want these affs to be topical I don’t know how to safely limit them out without just arbitrarily deciding that they shouldn’t be topical.

Second, specification. This one really gets me going but comes up in debates less. The topic is not immigration good/bad. The topic is restrictions good/bad. The number of affs with plan texts that resemble “Plan: The USfg should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration for artificial intelligence professionals.” is sad but not surprising. Look I get it, you don’t want to debate PICs. But come on, you have to actually defend something. The best debates on this topic are not “should we let in AI professionals to the US?’ but instead centered around how we should do that. And unless you want every debate to be indefinite parole vs LPR then it would benefit everyone if you just specified. If you read a plan, and a solvency advocate that goes with it, that defends a specific restriction(s) then I am very comfortable inflating your speaks AND telling the neg that their generic CP/links don’t assume the specific mechanism of the aff. If you do not do that (read a real plan that is), I am very comfortable voting neg on a circumvention argument. Let’s be real, you are reading your plan like that because you think it has strategic value, and truthfully, it does. And with that in mind I think that there has to be some incentive for the aff to foster clash and read a real plan text so if you are aff in front of me and you don’t read a real plan, make sure you spend more time than you want to answering vagueness arguments/case circumvention arguments. I am also more comfortable with cheating CPs against affs with vague plans, and dramatically less comfortable with cheating CPs against affs that specify.

I understand that the two above statements might make you slightly uncomfortable but I feel like I should put that out there just so that everyone is on the same page.

------------------------------2016-17 Season-----------------------------------------

I am a first year out. I debated for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science academy and currently attend the University of Texas in Austin. I have always been a 2A so that does actively shape the way that I think about/approach debate.

Short and sweet – Yes put me on the email chain - flashingisprep@gmail.com. I lean more truth over tech in the sense that I will not vote on something that can't explain to the other team at the end of the debate, but that doesn’t mean you can just drop things and hope I ignore them. Do what you do best. Seriously. I would rather judge a good debate on something I am less familiar with than a bad debate any day. The more you can write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me what I am voting on and why, the more likely you are to win but also the more likely I am to give you better speaks. Make my job easy and you will be rewarded. I will be somewhat/very expressive during the debate, and I will flow cross ex

Any specific questions feel free to email me: masonnmv [at] gmail [dot] com - yes I realize that this is a different email from the one above, please use each email for its intended purpose.

Now what you are probably here for:

K affs and Framework – I read mostly traditional affs throughout my career but I did read a variety of different K affs with moderate levels of success. I would like to think that I will do my very best to evaluate the debate in front of me but there are a couple of thoughts that I have about framework debates in general that will always be a part of my decision calculus no matter how hard I try and be objective.

First, my senior year my partner and I went for framework against every single K aff that we debated except for one, against which we went for the global/local K. I think that K affs tend to not meet their own interp more often than you would think, and get away with it, and in the instances in which they do meet their interp, it is often very easy to win a limits disad. I also think that a lot of the offense that K teams like to go for is often only a question of “our education is unique” which I feel is often resolved by switch side and maybe the topical version. Limits and clash are the negative standards that I find the most persuasive, and I most commonly went for clash as an impact that has intrinsic value. I am least persuaded by the topic education standards people like to go for, but I encourage you to do what you are the best at and if that’s topic education then go for it. I tend to think about switch side debate more than other people do when evaluating framework debates. I lean neg in general on framework that's for sure.

That being said, there is nothing intrinsic to me about debate that requires that you read a plan, nor do I think that not reading a plan means that no productive debate can occur. I think predictability is definitely a question of the lens through which you view the resolution (eg: on the China topic, even “policy” teams knew that people were going to read a Pan aff. Doing research in a particular area helps to guide what you and others are able to predict will be read during the year), which means that K on K debates can be highly productive/clash can occur. I think that the neg often gets away with way too much offense in terms of things like the limits disad etc as the aff often forgets to test the internal links of their impacts and instead just goes for the impact turn. To use the limits disad as an example, I think that the negs interp is not nearly as limiting as they often get to spin it as, and the world of the aff is often not as bad as the neg says it is. Don’t get me wrong, impact turning things is fantastic, but sometimes smart effective defense can be just as useful.

Other thoughts on framework debates

• One carded, smart, topical, topical version of the aff goes A LOT farther than 4 short generic ones. Specificity matters a lot in these topical version debates. Both the aff and the neg can exploit this to great effect

• If your aff has a solvency advocate that links your theory to the topic in the same way you claim to, you are in a MUCH better place. It cuts back against a lot of their offense and makes it substantially harder for them to win anything that isn’t limits

• I tend to think that both interps have some educational value, if you are winning reasons why the education that your interp provides is comparatively better than the education that their interp provides you are 75% of the way to winning these debates

• I think that debate is a game, but that doesn't mean that it can't have other intrinsic value, eg it can definitely be a home, or a place of individual expression, or even an academic space or educational training ground. I get this framing from my years playing soccer, which while being a game, also provides a lot of good to a lot of people. What that really means for y'all is that I am probably not the best judge for "it's a game cause some wins so vote neg because fairness"

• The more specific that each sides offense gets, the better. There is often a lot of offense happening on both sides of these debates so the more you are able to get ahead on the specifics of how your offense interacts with their offense the better.

I think it is very hard to win state good is a net benefit to framework, especially if you’re coupling it with a switch side debate argument.

Now the more specific things

Kritiks vs Plans –

• Buzzwords do NOT equal explanation. Just because I might be familiar with your author/argument doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t explain it.

• Specificity matters. Feel free to read your generic link cards but be prepared to explain them in the specific context of the aff. On the aff, read your generic K answer cards if you have to/want to but again, be prepared to explain them in the specific context of the aff

• I am better for the negative than most for frameworks that do not let the aff leverage its advantages – I generally think that the aff just assumes that obviously they get the aff and don’t spend enough time here. Yes you can go for framework as the alt/without the alt/whatever you want to call it. Especially if you have a link specific to the aff/something the aff did and not just a link to the squo this can be a very effective strategy.

• Link turns and “the aff is a good idea”/”our reps are true” are sufficient offense to vote aff, but mostly only when coupled with a perm, and you have to explain to me why the aforementioned statement is true. You don’t always have to have external offense against the alt but it would greatly increase your chances of winning. If they kick the alt you can sometimes still get the perm, but you have to do the work to tell me why you should

• On the aff, you should defend the aff and you shouldn’t forget about the aff. Often people get caught up in going for “psychoanalysis bad” instead of actually just answering the links and defending the aff. You should still have specific K offense but seriously, if the K is competitive, then the aff is offense in and of itself. Unless you don’t get to weigh it. See above

Kritiks vs No Plans –

• Just because this is a “method debate” does not mean the aff does not get a permutation. I definitely think that it is actually most real world to combine different methods and see how they interact. Just because we are in debate doesn’t mean that that same standard should apply. Now you can win specific reasons why in the context of your theory the perm still fails, but the aff probably gets the perm.

• See K vs plans stuff as well – specificity matters a ton. Especially in the link vs link turn debate. The aff will almost always have some chance at a link turn, so whoever is ahead on the spin and explanation game will probably win that part of the debate. Historical/contextual examples are super useful and super underutilized. Don’t just assume your truth claim is true, say words and explain why.

Disads –

• I have different thoughts about risk than most people do. Start at 0% risk and build up, NOT at 100% and work down. I think that it is the negatives burden to prove that their internal links are true and not necessarily the affs burden to disprove them. That being said, if the aff only reads a non-unique in the 2AC I think that the negative is going to have a very easy time proving that the rest of their disad is true. What this means is that I am a sucker for a 2AC that maybe reads one or two cards but mainly makes smart and true analytic arguments to answer the disad at each level. Especially if your disad is bad (if you have to ask then yes, yes it is), then I think that the 2AC probably doesn’t need to even read a card and can instead get away with talking about the disad in its entirety for about 45 seconds or less. This is the best example of where I am more truth over tech

• Yes disads can go away in cross ex if it is done correctly, but you still have to make those same arguments in your next speech. A well-executed cross ex on a disad in my opinion is more concerned about what the 1NC evidence says than what the 1N has to say about it.

• The 1AR is basically a constructive. Let’s be real, I got through A LOT of my high school career going for cards that were in the 1AR. As long as you have a similar analytic argument in the 2AC, you can often justify the card. I don’t think that it’s the 2A’s burden to start answering a disad before it becomes a real disad (see above about analytics being awesome). This does NOT mean you can just drop it. But I often don’t think that you need to read cards.

• I really enjoy a good impact turn debate. My senior year this was my bread and butter, and this is where I am more tech over truth. I think that sometimes the CP just solves the aff and so impact turning the net benefit is often an effective and useful answer to CPs. So on the negative just be prepared to defend your impact(s). This goes both ways, if you are ready to impact turn the aff then go for it. These debate are awesome and often involve a lot of strangely qualified evidence and if you do this well I can’t say that your speaker points wouldn’t see a small not-so-subconscious boost.

• On that note I should add: You will receive minimum speaker points and lose if you read racism good, sexism good, and a variety of other arguments where your moral compass should understand that thing is un-impact turn-able. If you have to ask, you shouldn’t go for it

Counterplans –

• I have thoughts about presumption that I think are different from others when it comes to counterplans. Presumption flips affirmative when the counterplan is more change from the status quo than the aff

• For example: Plan: USfg should feed Africa and go to the moon, CP: USfg should feed Africa, Presumption stays negative.

• Example two: Plan: USfg should invest in renewables, CP: USfg should sign the Law of the Sea, iron fertilize the ocean, build CCS, and instate a carbon tax, Presumption flips aff.

• Obviously there are instances where this is not a perfect standard which is why I think it is up to the debaters to explain which way presumption flips and why. This doesn’t come up a ton but when it does it matters.

• On CP theory in general – I am a 2A. Always have been. That being said, I think that you are much better off going for perm do the counterplan/the counterplan isn’t competitive, instead of trying to go for “delay CPs are a voting issue”. I have a hard time believing that I should reject the team because they read a [insert process] counterplan, but I can be persuaded if you have to go for it.

• Also while I am on theory: I have a lot of thoughts about conditionality, but I try my best to judge the debate that happened in front of me. I try to view and evaluate the condo debate the same way someone would evaluate a T debate: which interp have the debaters proved to me is best for a model of debate. I do subconsciously lean aff on this question, but if it's a new aff, do whatever you want.

• 2NC CPs/amendments to CP texts: they justify new 1AR arguments (perms, offense, solvency deficits, links to the net benefit, etc), they are very rarely a reason to reject the team, I could be persuaded that it’s a reason to reject the argument

• The solvency deficit just has to outweigh the risk of the net benefit. Both sides should be doing this comparative work for me please.

Case debate –

• Please do it. I view this the same way that I view disads, it’s the affs burden to prove that their internal links are true and not the negs burden to disprove them. So just like with disads, a smart 1NC on case can be devastating and the less generic your case work is the 1NC the higher the threshold will be for 2AC answers. Basically just read the stuff about disads but switch the aff and the neg

• I am not a fan of the fast, blippy, 2AC case answers, nor am I a fan of your 45 second long block of text that you are going to spread through and call an overview. The 2AC should actually answer case args and the block and 2NR will be given a lot of leeway if you don’t. “Yes war – their evidence doesn’t assume miscalc” is not an answer.

Topicality –

• T is and always will be a question of competing models of debate. That might sound to you like "competing interps" but there is a distinction. Competing interps for me is much more a question of how I should evaluate offense in a topicality debate. Reasonability just means that your interpretation is reasonable (not that the aff is reasonable)/your interp is sufficient to resolve a risk of their offense, competing interps just means that it should only be a question of offense/defense. But in both worlds I am still evaluating different, comparable models of debate.

• I am less concerned about your ability to read your five sub-points ground and fairness block and more concerned with your ability to outline what the world of the other teams interp looks like. Why is it bad for debate (both aff and neg ground) etc.

• That being said, I went for T a lot in high school. T QPQ and framework were our two most common 2nrs. So do what you have to do. And yes, T is a topic generic.

• Topicality is about the model of debate that you endorse, so have a defense of that. Case lists, and why the affs on that list are bad or good, are a must.

• For reference from the China topic – on a scale of Yes T-QPQ We Meet/Counter Interp double bind to No T-QPQ We Meet/Counter Interp double bind I’m a firm “no”.

To close I would like to quote Ezra Serrins, my high school debate partner, "I appreciate it when debaters take arguments seriously but you shouldn't take yourself too seriously"

tl;dr yeah, you can go fast

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: jrmartin707@gmail.com

--

Debated in college for UC Berkeley, have coached high school and college teams at local and TOC levels, etc. Doing a bit of occasional coaching and judging now but I'm not plugged into the circuit hardcore; you should assume I'm familiar with everything argumentatively/stylistically and very little on the topic. Generally, same stuff everyone says: debate like you want to debate, explain things and impact them, tell me why you winning or losing an argument does or does not influence my decision, and have fun. Otherwise, here’s some things you probably want to know:

- My own argumentative evolution has been from a pretty exclusively K debater early on to almost all policy work by the end, though I've coached all kinds. For what it’s worth, if you need an easy way to rank me, I lean more and more towards enjoying straight-up policy debates the more I judge. It's tough to disentangle "what are you a good judge for" and "what are you gonna have more fun watching" sometimes, even though they're definitely different, so I'm just gonna be honest and say that if you have no good reason to pick the K or the DA or which of your affs you're gonna read, might as well read the policy one. My favorite debates to judge are: huge in-depth case throwdowns, techy aff-specific counterplan debates, K on K clashes that are grounded in true disputes in the literature, impact turn debates (on the case or against a DA/K), and well-executed topicality debates.

- I do fundamentally believe that framework is true and debate would be better if people read plans, not that that means I exclusively vote negative in those debates. Predictability and debatability sound like pretty important things to me, and I think most aff framework counter-interps do not develop a feasible role for the negative and what neg prep should look like in their version of debate, but that doesn't mean any given neg team executes properly. I think like most everyone I’d rather here some clever unique strategy, but I dislike the dichotomy that framework isn’t a “substantive” argument and that the negative “didn’t engage the aff” by reading it. It's a good argument. The best aff answers lay out really clear alternatives for what debate should look like and impact turn all the skills that policy-focused debate generates.

- I’m generally unpersuaded by arguments along the lines of “the permutation/framework/etc. is violence/stealing our advocacy/etc.”, arguments that the negative doesn’t have to disprove the affirmative, purely nihilistic alternatives, and K speeches that consist entirely of buzzwords where you expect me to fill in what I already know about your concepts. I’m not afraid to give decisions which consist mostly of “I have no idea what you were talking about most of the time” if you just repeated the words “rhizome” or “foundational antagonism” at me, even if I know what you were trying to mean. Additionally, I'm super not down with arguments that are about things outside of the debate, like "show us your prefs" style stuff. I think the other team needs like a ten second defense of "you can only critique stuff we actually said" and I'm checked out.

- I have relatively few strong predispositions about common theory arguments; conditionality is probably fine but not necessarily, etc. I'll be extremely flow-centric here: I have absolutely voted for really bad theory args that got dropped, and also refused to vote for dropped ones when they were never a full argument with an impact in the first place.

- Evidence comparison, and calling out your opponent’s terrible, terrible evidence for what it is, is both extremely important and probably the best way to rack up your speaker points, alongside detailed impact calculus. The best ways to hurt your speaker points are to be a jerk to your partner, to get angry for no reason in cross-ex, and to spend your whole speech behind your laptop not paying any attention to the judge's reactions. Try to be a kind person who knows their stuff and the rest will follow.

- Because so many debates start with the question, "Can we do open CX?", the answer is always the same: you can, technically, there's no rule against it. But I would really recommend you don't - it's always better to get practice handling your CXs alone, going to your partner only as a last resort. It's important that they have the time to prep their next speech (that's three full minutes of free prep time!) and it's also much better for both of your speaker points if you each look organized and have mastery of your material.

Debated at Glenbrook North a long time ago (Military, Space, Transportation, Latin America topics). PhD student at Harvard.

I wrote the following the last time I judged (many years ago) and most of it is still true. Most important changes now:

- Slow down just a bit and explain yourself. It's been a while...

- Don't know details of the topic, what sorts of arguments have been perceived as "core of the topic" or "mainstream", etc.

- Explain yourself. I don't want to substitute my understanding for yours.

------------------------------

Debate is a technical, competitive game. You debate; I judge and choose one team who did the better debating. I will vote on any argument that I have flowed and will evaluate the debate through whatever lens you tell me to in a manner which requires the least intervention.

I believe that I judge very differently than how I debated. Take that however you want to.

Most arguments are dumb, so I don’t really care what you say whether it’s disad and case, aspec, or D and G. It’s your job to make arguments and my job to evaluate them.

Evidence supports arguments; it doesn’t make them for you. You also don’t need evidence to win an argument.

Be clear. Hearing the text of cards would be nice too…

My preference on arguments: Disads—I’ve yet to meet someone who didn’t like them. Counterplans are good, unless you the negative shouldn’t get fiat. Topicality might be good or biopolitical. Same goes for framework. Politics is stupid in more ways than one, but if that’s your thing, go ahead because it always seems to work. Kritiks are interesting, but remember that they should be reasons to vote for you, not rants on philosophy. Theory? No counterplans or 20 conditional consult counterplans is totally up to you.

Speaker points are obviously arbitrary. They will be based on your respect for others, speaking style, argumentative talent, overall demeanor, demonstration of knowledge, evidence quality, creativity, argumentative choice, and various other arbitrary factors (in no particular order). While the way I vote is entirely dependent on what you say, I have a bit more control of speaker points. You’ll be rewarded if you go for an interesting or uncommon argument.

Cheating: don’t.

I am a policy wonk and NSDA trained Adjudicator. For history, I competed from high school through college in debate. I have worked with Boston Debate League judging for several years.

My pronouns are I/she/hers. Please let me know what yours are as well as your preferred name if it is different from what is on tabroom.

On the issue of speech: you are awarded speaker points. Your speaker points are comprised of rate of speech and clarity. I should not have to refer to your cards to understand your speech. My focus as an adjudicator is on you, not your cards the entire time.

The policy mapping I use: rate of speech, clarity, pre-round prep, evidence sharing, flow, in-round strategy, audience adaption, and thinking on the fly. Things I look out for: evidence distortion and non-existent evidence. When you give me all your evidence know that I will read it to check for distortion and non-existent evidence. During the debate you have my full attention.

Policy is my favorite section to judge. Remeber the question and present a solution. This is not LD, although I also judge LD. Please do not try LD K's in policy. I want an evidence based debate that addresses the proposed question. KNOW YOUR EVIDENCE! I like to hear theory and substance. You must have a strong theoretical framework to warrant deontological or consequential arguments. Who provides the best value and criterion? Giving me an "end of world" solution does not belong in Policy. We're here to solve a problem.

Be prepared. Pat attention to time because I do. Be polite at all times. The point of debate is the civil exchange of opinions. Clash is good! If you find yourself getting nervous, stop and take a breath. Above all, you should have fun and always use this as learning process.

Strong argumentation begins with the topicality, harms, inherency, framework and solvency. Hit each of those.

A thread of logic is required throughout the argument; meaning you cannot begin with one aff and veer off onto a completely different aff simply because your opposition is forcing you to. It is imperative to stick to your aff; be prepared to argue it, defend it in the neg, and have good, solid counterpoints prepared.

Debate is an inherently competitive event. Having its own specialized jargon does not necessarily hurt the event provided the jargon does not become the event. However, they should not replace substance and do not automatically add impacts. Words matter. Choose them wisely. You must impact. You have to do the work: Impact and link back to the value structure and/or provide me with a clear weighing mechanism for the round. I could rattle off all the terms, but really, they add nothing and from a National Debate Champion and former trial lawyer, debate is not won or lost on terms. It's won or lost on topic knowledge. Know your stuff. Know the purpose of your 1AC and 1NC. Your NR's are only to make your final points and address last arguments; by that time all heavy lifting should be done.

Your NR's are your summations. Lay out your argument, EVIDENCE, and reasons for a decision.

My ballot is contingent on how well you use, analyze, extend, link, and weigh evidence and theory (not on how well I read it). Speaking quickly is fine; as all things in debate, please be clear about it. Please have your camera on when speaking.

Current assistant coach at Blue Valley North; debated at Oklahoma (2018-19) and Blue Valley North (2014-18).

Email chain/questions: emendelson7@gmail.com

Note for NSDA: I haven't judged PF before but I did compete in it a few times in high school. Everything below is in the context of policy debate.

General:

Online debate: please have your camera on, at least during your speeches/cx. I won't dock points if you can't, but online debate is a little less soul-crushing if we can at least see each other.

Debate should be enjoyable. Be nice to each other and have fun.

Do whatever you do best. I don't have any strong ideological positions on debate and I'll do my best to fairly judge whatever you put out there.

Please don't go top speed through T/theory/other dense analytics. I will not consult the speech doc to fill in gaps if I can't understand you or am unable to write it down fast enough. This is especially important for online debate.

I'll read cards after the round to verify the claims you're making about them, but I will not do the work of warrant explanation for you.

Case:

I would MUCH rather see in-depth case debate than a 10-off round. Substantive solvency arguments and indicts of the 1AC evidence are some of the easiest ways to my ballot. Offense is always important but I think I am slightly more willing than most to vote neg on presumption.

Counterplans:

I love counterplan debates. The more specific and creative the better.

I’m sympathetic to theory arguments against word PICs, delay/conditions/consult CPs, and CPs that fiat outside the federal government. Outside of those examples, I lean neg on counterplan theory. If the aff wins theory it’s more likely a reason to reject the argument than the team, with the exception of condo.

Kritiks:

Don't read a kritik that you cannot clearly articulate in CX. If you are unable to explain your own evidence, I will be very unlikely to vote on it.

The link is the most important part. Winning framework does not reduce the necessity of winning the link.

The neg still needs to beat the aff in order to win the K. What that looks like can vary, but I'm not very persuaded by arguments that I should just ignore the 1AC.

K Affs/Framework:

The aff should probably defend something in the direction of the resolution but that doesn't necessarily require a plan text. The farther the aff strays from the topic area the more likely that I'll find framework arguments persuasive, but I won't on-face reject any aff.

In general, I'm less concerned with whether the act of reading the 1AC solves a real-world problem than I am with whether the kind of action/inaction the 1AC advocates is hypothetically a good idea.

As the aff, you need to explain why the ballot matters and why debate specifically is a necessary site for your argument, not just why the thing you're talking about is important to learn about/discuss.

As the neg, framework is not a "they cheated" argument and I probably won't vote for it if that's how it's framed. I increasingly think that fairness is not its own impact but an internal link to education, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

Topicality:

The neg should frame T as "here is why the aff model of debate is bad," not "the aff should lose because they cheated."

I think I'm more pro-reasonability than a lot of judges, but "the aff is reasonably topical" is not a compelling deployment of it. The explanation of reasonability that makes sense to me is "our definition is a reasonable interpretation of the topic." That still needs to be backed up by warrants, though.

I am a parent judge who's judged policy only a couple times before. Spreading is okay but ONLY if you speak clearly and I can understand you. If I can't understand what you're saying, I can't adequately judge the round. Respect towards the other team is highly prioritized in my eyes as well. Other than that, anything else is fair game!

Debate History: St. Mark's '10/Trinity University '14
Assistant Director of Speech and Debate - Hendrickson HS (2017-2023)
Director of Speech and Debate - Sandra Day O’Connor HS (2023-present)

Lincoln Douglas thoughts

I come from a policy debate background so I definitely feel the most comfortable judging debates where the negative utilizes things like CPs, DAs or Ks. However, I am totally game to judge a traditional value/value criterion debate.

Pet Peeves:
1) Do not run a disclosure theory or any other argument based on pre-round norms unless it TRULY rises to the level of making the round IMPOSSIBLE to debate - 99% of rounds do not rise to this level and I am tired of judging rounds with constantly moving goalposts (wikis, 30 mins before round disclosure, full open source) for what constitutes "proper disclosure".
2) Have a plan before the debate for evidence sharing - I prefer an e-mail chain but SpeechDrop works too, but please do not wait until the end of the first speech to decide how this will be done.
3) I honestly lose respect for debaters who I feel are running identity based arguments for the sake of a ballot without either authentic personal connection to their scholarship or the ability to make authentic connections to the topic. If you are just running Race War because you saw some other team do it or you think it makes you a cooler debater, it doesn't and please stop. Racism doesn't exist for you to pick up debate ballots.
4) Not a pet peeve - but the debaters I enjoy watching the most are the ones who treat the debate like a game of chess in terms of setting up well-planned strategic moves through targeted cross-ex questions and well planned argumentation and blocks. The more strategic and prepared you seem in my eyes, the better your speaker points will be.

Public Forum thoughts

Please for all that is holy - do not try to become a policy debater just because my background is predominantly in policy debate. I have judged and coached PF consistently for over 5 years at this point and recognize its value as an event that is distinct from policy. There is nothing worse than PF debaters who attempt to cosplay as CXers.

Going off of what is stated as above, there is no circumstance in which a lack of disclosure makes a PF round impossible to access/participate in. Therefore, there is no circumstance in which I will decide a PF round on disclosure theory - you only get a month to debate your topic, lets actually debate it please.

In terms of what I actively DO look for, impact calculus actually grounded in evidence and active analysis. I feel like "debater math" is often arbitrary and replaces actual contextual impact analysis.

Please don't skip crossfires or grand cross, these are the moments where clash often occurs - to me it is tantamount to skipping a speech and speaker points will reflect it.

Smart and strategic choices to invest or divest from flows/arguments reflect public forum debaters with great critical thinking skills and knowledge of their case/the topic at hand. Speaker points will be rewarded to those who make smart, necessary, strategic choices instead of collapsing/extending purely for the sake of it.

Policy/CX thoughts

I treat each debate round as an academic exercise in decision making. I leave many questions of framework and impact calculus to the teams debating, however if not otherwise explicitly stated I will default to a policy making framework and utilitarianism, respectively.

T/Framework:
I typically evaluate this from a competing interpretations standpoint and an offense/defense framework but can be persuaded otherwise. When making these kinds of arguments, negative teams typically forget that their interpretation is of how the debate space should operate and thus must defend it as so. Negative teams MUST explain why their interpretation is better for the overall debate space in order to get my ballot. In round abuse arguments are compelling, however, they are nearly impossible to prove and I have a high threshold for voting on them.
I am a fairly firm believer that debate is a game and that structural fairness is an impact. However, this also means that fairness should be utilized as a lens or impact filter for all the other impacts in the framework debate.

Counterplans:
Many of my thoughts in the above section apply to my thoughts on counterplan theory. I feel that 2 conditional advocacies is the most that the negative should run, much to the chagrin of most folks (new affs are an exception). That being said, I won't default certain ways in theory debates. I will be considerably more compelled to deem that a counterplan solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. Specific PICs that have functional impacts on plan implementation are so much better than your generic process counterplan. So, so, so much better.

Kritiks:
Many kritik teams tend to focus more on tricks than substance. The most important portion of this debate for me is the link debate and I expect a clear explanation of why the specific affirmative links. It is the negative's task to explain why the permutation cannot possibly solve back/overcome the links. I will default affirmative in many of these debates. I feel that the best kritik debaters are the ones who are willing to adapt their strategy and link debate to the specific affirmative that they are debating.
Links of omission are functionally spotting the aff a uniqueness overwhelms the link argument to the net benefit to a very vacuous alternative. Please have link specificity.

Disadvantages:
I didn't think I had thoughts on this until recently. There are very good disads and very bad disads. If you are aff against a very bad disad, don't be afraid to point this out! I feel like I am more likely than most to say there is zero risk of a disadvantage when the uniqueness very clearly overwhelms the link or there is zero link specificity.

Speaking:
-Yes email chain: alymithani91@gmail.com. Every time a varsity debater forgets to hit "reply all" on an email chain, a kitten cries and you will lose 0.5 speaker points.
-Do not clip cards! If there is an ethics challenge, I will stop the debate and have the accused debater re-read their speech with either their speech document on my computer or standing over their shoulder. That being said, ethics challenges are serious, if you are making one, then you are willing to lose the debate if you are wrong. Strategic ethics challenges will result in horrific speaker points from me.
-I will call you out if you are blatantly stealing prep and it will hurt your speaker points.
-For paperless teams, I do not run prep time for saving/flashing the speech unless this time starts to become excessive or it becomes evident that prep is being stolen.
-It drives me crazy when debaters are disrespectful to each other. There is no reason why competitiveness needs to turn into aggression. Treat the debate space like a classroom.
-Another pet peeve: debaters who do not seem to legitimately enjoy what they are doing. Debaters who go through the motions are usually the ones that end up with the lowest speaker points from me. Even if you are not keeping up with the technical aspects of the debate, if you remain engaged and committed throughout the debate, I will definitely feel more comfortable with giving you higher speaker points.

Read a topical plan--------------x-----------------------------say anything

Tech-----------------x-------------------------Truth

Usually some risk--------------------------------x----------Zero Risk

Conditionality Good----------------------x--------------------Conditionality Bad

States CP Good-------x------------------------------------States CP Bad

Process CPs--------------x-------------------------------Ew Process CPs

Competing off immediacy/certainty--------------------x------------------------No

Reasonability-------------------------x------------------Competing Interps

Limits---------x-----------------------------------Aff Ground

CP linking less matters-------------------x-----------------------links are yes/no

Read every card--------------------x-----------------------Read no cards

Judge Kick------------x-------------------------------Stuck with the CP

Reject the Team---------------------------x----------------Reject the Arg

CPs need cards-----------------------------------x-------Smart CPs can be cardless

K links about the plan-----------x--------------------------------K links about a broad worldview

I am a parent judge who prefers debating by the five stock issues (but not a must).

This includes inherency, significance and harms, solvency, topicality and the disadvantage. (and counter-plan)

As long as you speak clearly, stay on topic, be more convincing than your opponents, handle yourself well during cross-X, I'll vote for you.

Cheers!!

Honorable defeat is preferable to dishonest victory.

Rishi Mukherjee (he/him)

Affiliations/Conflicts: Lexington High School, Cicero Project, UMass Amherst, Harvard College, Amherst College, Tufts University.

rishi.rishi.mukherjee@gmail.com put me on the chain

Harvard Update

I have had a recent spiritual realization. I have faith that there is no truth without wisdom. When making decisions I find that wisdom>tech>truth: divine and spiritual understandings seem inseparable from any ethical paradigm including intuition, consequentialism, intention etc. thus argumentation that does not center religious or divine morality will not be rewarded.

Lexington Update

- i do not want to judge online debates when there is an in person alternative - in college berhe and i deadass strike all online judges - my computer is egregious as i'm using a very old laptop and it can barely handle gmail and overheats when i use zoom - so please strike me if you're online.

- if you feel you must pref me despite competing online i do understand as someone who has to finesse for funding and has debated sick trust me i resonate - of course i still value fair competition above all else and of course i will not punish you with speaks or the ballot if you pref me online - but i will be very grumpy if you choose to pref me despite my objections - if i am judging you online please refer to the section called "online debate".

- this is my first tournament on this topic and i haven't judged policy since last years TOC - and also this is my first year judging where i know close to little about the high school topic - i know nothing about the camp affs, common arguments, side bias, T wordings, accepted norms etc. - for what it's worth i will say i'm majoring in finance and i'm quite knowledgeable about economics plus i've coached on a PF topic about UBI and i've researched and debated an aff about fiscal redistribution - if that matters to you or your coaches you should pref accordingly.

- if you're interested in debating in college in the northeast feel free to let me know or ask questions :)

PF Paradigm
- everything applies from policy paradigm (the top level part mostly)

i consider myself flay funnily enough - but to you i'm probably a flow judge - I do policy - but taught some PF - im ok with speed - ok with theory - ok with k's - plus down for (well executed) trolling

misc things that are weird about me in PF:

• down for paraphrasing - but i believe down with paraphrasing
• i would prefer that people do speech docs than waste time in ev checks
• i flow crossfire
• i actually treat grand cross and the summary as one speech - in my head its the 1ar in policy
• i care about extending 'complete' args into the FF
• i care less than most about terminalization but im lowkey a fan - numbers are cool
• i never understood pf judges deciding based on the number of clashes (see jamie zhang) - i resolve debates based on offense/defense and what seems most important - i dont really go clash by clash to resolve debates - i also default to what i consider judge instruction - (see policy paradigm)

LD Paradigm(Updated for Blue Key RR)

If I were preffing myself: 1 for LARP, Ks, Tricks, & T/Theory and 2/3 for Phil

I do CX, but I've done and judged a fair bit of LD. Everything from my policy paradigm applies. Defaults and Bias are my position without explicit argumentation. Defaults: I default to T as a higher layer than the K . I default permissibility and presumption negates. I default dtd on T/Theory.
Ks/Kaffs/T-FW all fine - I've debated on both sides. Far higher tolerance than most for "frivolous" theory, tricks, a priori's. Harder sell but ok for T-Nebel and RVI's but that's because I think plans are good and that I'm decent for theory generally respectively - if you win technically you're fine.

Memes aren't an autowin despite what you might hear about me. They still need to be fleshed out arguments. But I will be pleased if you send it and go for memes!

Policy Paradigm (Updated for Emory)

Emory Update - Policy

- i noticed i am regressing speakswise because im not impressed recently

- i know the NATO topic pretty well - i debated a NATO aff for all of alliances and have done some prep on this topic plus i occasionally read the news abt Russia - and im disenchanted with the love of recent ev as a substitute for coherent warrants

- talking to shree a lot has made me care more about a) cards in K debates & b) near-excessive contextualization to the other team in FW v Kaff debates by both the aff and neg

- whimsically down for a condo debate that starts early in the 2ac

Top Level:

- I believe debate is best when the judge does not favor adjudicating the round based on personal preconceived notions such as "rep" or "truth" among others. I strive to uphold this ideal and evaluate the debate in a technical manner. "If debate was about truth the debate would end after the 1ac and 1nc" - Matthew Berhe

- Judge instruction is paramount. Telling me what the consequence of winning a particular argument is on the debate will be formative in determining how I evaluate the debate. Argument resolution wins debates; explaining the interaction between your and your opponent's arguments & competing claims as well as why it favors you will win you close rounds. Absent any instruction from debaters I will make my own judgements on how to evaluate competing arguments. Many "JF's" occur because judges put the puzzle pieces together differently in their own head. Tbh this is more important than "opinions" on arguments. Tell me how to think and why!

Online Debate

- Don't start a speech without me.

- I usually won't say "slow" or "clear" in the middle of a speech. It is in your best interest to have me understand everything you say and I don't want to incentivize debaters spamming args until a judge interrupts. I would rather incentivize teams to over-compensate and debate carefully.

- Record your speeches; people inevitably disconnect in the middle of a speech and recording prevents issues that arise from this. My computer caught on fire one time lol anything can happen.

K Stuff -

Kaffs/Framework

- I know people pref based on this so TLDR: I'm very middling. I would pref myself above most clash judges but below judges who lean for you because I'm good for policy-policy and K v K.

- I don't care about what the aff does unless the neg makes it an issue. I read both affs with a plan and planless affs in high-school and continue to read both on the aff in college and I also often read FW on the neg.

- I believe there's no one right way to run FW on the neg i.e. people who say fairness is always better than clash etc. I think that categorizing certain impacts as always strategic or unviable is an L take. Go for whatever option you are most comfortable with/you think is most strategic.

Ks on the neg v Policy Affs

- I'm persuaded by the idea that the aff should get to "weigh" the aff, but what that means is up for debate.

- I find it simpler to vote for K's that disprove the aff and/or have specific links.

K v K

- Framing and judge instruction should be very explicit and debated out.

- Explanation is critical, application and examples win rounds; buzzwords lose rounds.

Policy Stuff

T

- I like the full package: I want a predictable model of debate that also produces good debates. I find it difficult to intrinsically care more about one of these components than the other.

- Reasonability is more persuasive to me when articulated with specific arguments with impacts like substance crowd-out rather than vague pleading that I should believe the affirmative.

- I am unfamiliar with the current high school topic.

DAs

- Comparison of any form including turns case or impact calc wins debates.

- A central question I usually have is evaluating and comparing risk. I find "zero-risk" impossible but often negligible risk is functionally the same e.g. I consider the risk of randomly getting struck by lightning negligible so I wouldn't decide against going outside just because the magnitude of taking a walk is outweighed by death by lightning zap. There is not zero risk that Shree wins the Olympic 200 meter dash in flip flops, however there is very negligible risk of such an event.

- great evidence > good analytics > poor evidence

CPs

- I used to not judge kick unless instructed to do so - I accidentally did one time though. Eh probably neg leaning if you tell me to.

- Fine for hella condo, but I always will take condo seriously if properly extended. I personally care much less abt perf con than most.

- I have no problem with process CPs that compete off of "arbitrary things" like certainty/immediacy as well as consult CPs, delay CPs or literally any other 'abusive' CPs. I generally find it easiest to vote aff in these debates if you have a process advantage. However, most good aff teams can also handily defeat these positions with proper theory and competition debate.

- I am lowkey not with the hype around going for tricky perms against process CP and I'm not enchanted with tricky perms as most and I prefer just voting on theory. I am generally compelled that things like intrinsic perms are bad, but at the same time that certain process cp's are bad.

Misc

- I believe meme arguments are an art form - passion and skill are critical! - this argument has gone underground - if you know you know.

- Don't make debate unsafe. I don't have a problem with stuff like the Death K, Spark, Wipeout etc. but use your best judgement.

- Clipping or other ev ethics violations are a loss and 0 speaks, accusations need a recording/proof and will stop the round.

- I give "modern" speaks and modulate based on the tournament "difficulty".

- I often flow CX.

- While I might not think too highly of debate in the abstract, I definitively respect the passion and effort people put into the activity. Therefore I approach judging and feedback seriously in accordance. The investment is what makes it all worth it.

POLICY/CX EVALUATION

Virtual - I'm not interested in the e-mail chain, but I might request evidence if I feel like the ballot depends on it (for clarification or ethics).

Framework - Unless presented with a compelling framework argument (one with which I can defend a ballot), I evaluate based on the following stock issues: topicality, inherency, impacts, and solvency. It should be noted that I deny the possibility of tabula rasa, and as such, I concede that the evaluation of any framework argument relies on a meta-framework that otherwise lends itself to conventional stock issues. In other words, the way I think has led me to evaluate debate according to conventional stock issues; thus, even if presenting a competing framework, one should try always to appeal to that same primordial logos that made possible and is perhaps indicated by my association with those stock issues.

Kritiks - As with framework arguments, I accept and will vote on kritiks, and I believe they are essential to negative strategy. I will always expect that the kritik does not contradict other arguments run by the team, unless the law of non-contradiction is itself under kritik, in which case, I look forward to the attempt.

Counterplans - I accept topical and non-topical counterplans. If a framework isn't provided, I resort here to looking for comparative advantages and will vote on them.

Disadvantages - I have no problem with generic disadvantages, granted that links are established. Unlike a lot of CX judges, I don't really care all that much about disadvantages. I prefer theoretical to probabilistic argumentation (so prioritize T/K over DA's).

Conditional Arguments - Conditionals or contradictory arguments are absolutely acceptable unless they go against a team's own framework or K (see above). "Even if" statements are 100% acceptable...

Speech - Give me roadmaps, signpost, and don't spread faster than you can enunciate clearly every single word. I'm not concerned with appearance or elements of public speaking beyond communicability, i.e. eye contact, hand gestures, etc. If, however, you manage to get across your ideas and do so with style, well then that obviously can't hurt your speaker points. But in terms of win/loss, these aren't ever voters.

Decorum - Exclusionary (e.g., classist, sexist, racist) behavior or speech will result in the deduction of speaker points and potential loss of round. I regret to witness the refusal of answering questions during cross examination (this includes repetitive dodging or disingenuous responses). I will keep time if necessary, but I will never provide time signals. Treat everyone with respect and help keep things educational (or propose another objective of debate, I suppose).

VALUE/LD EVALUATION

I'm most comfortable sticking to the value/criterion framework. Everything above (in speech and decorum) applies here as well. While I do judge value debate, I'm far more experienced in policy, so please, keep things clear and try not to obfuscate your arguments in ways that only the most nuanced value debater or judge would understand.

EXTEMP EVALUATION

I prefer quality over quantity when it comes to sources, but be as specific as possible in your citation. I don't care too much about speech length as long as your position or information is cogent and well-presented.

Updated Longhorn Classic '21

Chris O'Brien

he/him

forever student at UT Austin

please put me on the email chain: chrisob26@utexas.edu

I debated policy in high school all 4 years in Athens TX, and have been judging/coaching on the Austin circuit since 2013.

Also, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

General Thoughts

I am tab but default to policymaker if not given a clear alternative evaluative framework.

The most important thing is that you give me the easiest path to the ballot. Tell me how to vote, on what, and why. Other than that, give me overviews, keep the debate organized, and please extend things correctly. Technical debating ability determines your speaker points in large part, unless there is reason to dock speaks for hate speech/immoral arguments.

I am generally more confident in my ability to evaluate policy v policy and policy v k debates, than k v k due to a literature knowledge deficiency, especially in high theory kritiks (read: Baudrillard, Heidegger, Deleuze/Guattari, etc.), so expect to explain the thesis of your critical position and how they interact with the topic thoroughly when reading those arguments.

Performance Affs are fine as long as you are very thorough in your explanation of what my role as a judge is and what the ballot does.

I will try to evaluate rounds to the best of my ability based on the information I am able to flow from your speech. That means despite what is in the speech doc, I will only be evaluating what you actually say in your analysis and a lot of close rounds are won or lost in the rebuttals over this issue. There should be clear extensions from the 2AC to the 1AR/Block to the 2NR and 2NRs/2ARs should be going for a specific strategy that is writing my ballot.

Tech over truth in most cases. If an argument is dropped, I still need a proper warrant extension and implication given for that drop to matter, unless given some other model of judging the round. I will rarely decide a round on a single drop and that argument must still be implicated in the broader aspects of the round.

I flow on paper despite the advances in technology since I first started debating. Speed is fine, but in a world of virtual debate please slow down. I expect any theory standards to be read at a pace that gives me adequate pen time, if not they should be in the speech doc.

I will always listen to CX - open CX is fine, but do not talk over each other. Flashing/Email doesn't count towards prep unless it is egregious.

Don't be offensive, rude, homophobic, racist, ableist, derogatory, sexist etc.

Always try to have fun - if you're not acting like you want to be there, it is a real drag to judge your round.

Framework/T-USFG

I default to debate is a game, and I think the k aff bad debate comes down to a question of fairness, whether used as an impact or an internal link by the neg. I am not usually persuaded by topic education vs critical lit education through an aff specific method since that doesn't interact with the fairness question a lot of the time, and the aff team usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. The most important way for the aff to get me to vote for a non-resolutional based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. However, I grant K affs a lot of grace if there are clear resolution-based links that are able to answer ground loss claims.

My threshold for granting neg offense on clash is directly determined by how abstract/immaterial the aff explanations of the k method are.

TVAs are under-utilized in my opinion as ways to take out Aff standard offense. SSD is a must-have argument to even compete on the education debate.

I default to k affs getting perms but have a pretty high threshold for these arguments in context to the ground/clash debate, if brought up.

Topicality

I default to competing interpretations, but can be persuaded otherwise in round. Bad/unpredictable T interps are worse for debate than predictable ones, so I expect neg teams to read interps that are actually making an argument about what the literature base should be for the topic. Barring the block dropping reasonability, I will most always focus on the standards when evaluating the T debate, so teams that do the work on explaining how limits are improved/destroyed by the other team, what case lists/neg generics look like, and which interp provides the most sustainable form of debate for the year are most likely to win.

I typically don't vote on RVI's here unless there is a multitude of T's that the aff meets on face, which puts the neg more in the realm of reading frivolous theory, not just T args.

Kritiks

I really enjoy policy aff vs k debates, however I have very limited knowledge of critical literature outside of Cap/Neoliberalism, Abolition, SetCol, Security, Biopower (Foucault/Agamben), and small amounts of Ahmed. As said above in general thoughts, if you are reading a kritik you feel I may be unfamiliar with, or are pulling multiple theories from critical bodies of literature, I fully expect you to clearly explain the thesis of the criticism and how your method is able to possibly resolve the links you present.

I am very tech based in my evaluative approach to kritiks and hold a high standard for both teams in order to win the sheet. I evaluate the K sheet first by framework then K proper, where the line-by-line is very important - reading massive overviews that don't specifically interact with 2ac arguments hurt your chances of winning those parts of the K if the aff does the work you don't do in the 1ar. I believe the aff should be able to be weighed against the kritik, it is up to the neg to win why that is not the case in this round with a clear counter-interp.

Links are important and must be contextualized to the affirmative, but it is also just as important to be able to explain how the alt method is able to resolve those links. I hold alt solvency to a high regard, you must be able to explain what the alt does to create change in the world after I vote neg. I have found that there is big trend recently by neg teams to ignore solvency deficits/turns because they aren't specific to the (usually obscure) alt method the neg is choosing to read this round - you still need to interact with those arguments and disprove their warrants!

I think perf con is voter as long as there is a clear link in contradiction of advocacies - I believe the neg is able to spin out of this, but depending on the positions read that might be hard at times.

Floating PIKs are bad, but if you get away with it, I will still vote on it.

Disads

I would love to hear a good DA+Case collapse in the 2nr. I believe the top level of the disad should be thoroughly fleshed out in the block and there be clear turns case analysis given that is contextualized to the aff scenarios/solvency. Generic link walls are fine as long as you are doing that contextualization as well. I don't think winning case outweighs is all the aff needs to do when turns case analysis is competing against it, but I do think it is underutilized in the 1ar when paired with other arguments on the disad proper.

I really enjoy politics disads when their scenarios lean closer to plausible rather than just fiat spin +"and x is at the top of the docket now". I think warrant interaction on the uniqueness/link uniqueness question is where this sheet is usually won on either side. Generic pc is fake and winners win args aren't too persuasive unless contextualized to the current political climate.

Counterplans/Theory

I really love good counterplan debate. Generic counterplans are necessary and good. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author are even better than that! I think process cp's are legitimate but prefer neg teams to explain how the net benefit is still a disad to the aff. Plan plus multi-plank advantage cp's are my new most hated CP on this topic - do with that info what you will.

Neg teams need to be sure to have a clear story/explanation for how the aff/perm links to the net benefit and the CP alone avoids it. I do not think the answer to solvency deficits is to go for "lens of sufficiency" or fiat, you need to explain how those deficits still allow the cp to solve the aff/avoid the net benefits. Severance/Intrinsic perm debates seem to be less common these days, but I still think they are important tools against "creative" aff perms.

I am okay with aff teams making multiple perms but those perms need to be explained and how they work before the 2ar is going for them. In that same regard, solvency deficits/perm shields the link analysis and implications must not be made for the first time in the 2ar either. Aff should be leveraging their "creative" permutation with their cp theory if the cp is even close to abusive, but I really don't like when rounds come down to just a theory question.

Theory that is more specific to the argument it is read against will typically have a higher chance of being viewed as a voter. I typically lean neg in most cases, except for bad PICs or convoluted process cp's. I think theory should also be used as a justification for other arguments you make in the round based on substance, not just a reason to reject the team.

My threshold for condo is very easily shifted by circumstances, but I generally believe it is a good idea for the aff to read condo in the 2ac if the neg is reading 3 or more counter-advocacies, though the likelihood of me voting on it largely depends on the amount of in-round abuse/sand-bagging strategy the neg is choosing to do. Aff needs to have a clear interpretation, and I find "no difference between 2/3/4 off" not very convincing by the neg, especially if the aff gives any type of intelligent analysis on time tradeoffs.

I believe frivolous theory bad is a voter, especially on procedural questions that the aff/neg themselves violate, but you need to do the work of showing how in round abuse is occurring and how the theory is frivolous.

On judge kick - if the neg tells me to and it's unanswered or the neg is ahead on the question of whether I should, then I will. Neg teams, you should tell me to do this in the block if you want it to be considered for the same reason 2ar condo strats are bad, you wouldn't want the aff to win on 5 minutes of judge kick bad in 2ar and it gives the aff plenty of time to respond/not respond to it by the 2nr.

Hi, nice to meet you!

In short, I've been debating for a while so I will understand most jargon and stuff. Therefore, feel free to run most types of arguments, don't be mean or use harmful rhetoric in round, do do impact calculus, make sound and logical arguments, and tell me what to look for and vote for. Off time road-maps are a good idea.

I'm sure all you are amazing, but I study public health and am deathly afraid of germs, so please don't shake my hand!

If you would like more information about me or about how I process debate, continue reading here:

General/Important Things on How I Judge:

-Call all Points of Order(POOs)in the last speeches. I will protect the flow as much as I can but calling them is best.

-Content warnings are generally appreciated because we do not know the background of all the people in the room.

-I'm ok with counter-plans (CPs), theory, and kritiks (Ks) and whatever arguments you can make against them

-I am not an expert on theory or kritiks, but generally, I can keep up. Make sure that you are thoroughly explaining your theory and your kritiks regardless because debate is educational at its core.

-Speed is ok, but let everyone in the room know if you are going to spread. If your opponent is talking too quickly, please call CLEAR (this means to say clear in an assertive tone and is a signal for the other team to slow down). If you are talking too quickly and not enunciating to the point that I cannot understand, I will stop flowing.

-Tag-teaming is ok, but be respectful. If you are puppeting your partner to the point of it being obnoxious and rude, I will drop your speaker points.

-Point of Informations(POIs): I think that it is polite to take at least one if not two.

Background on Me:

-I debated through college. I was not super-competitive in high school, but I have won tournaments and medals in NPDA, IPDA, and speech during my gap year (taking classes at a local CC).

Case Debate:

-I will try to be as much of a blank slate as possible (tabula rasa). Meaning that I will not intervene with any of my knowledge to the best of my ability. That being said, if you are saying lots of untrue things it might affect your speaks.

-Please have a clean debate. The messier the round becomes the more I have to go through and pick over information which increases the likelihood of some judge intervention.

-A few isolated quips will not win you the round. Make the debate clean and make it tell a story.

-Again debate is about creating a narrative, so collapse down and create the most compelling narrative you can make.

-Make your arguments logical and make sure they work together (ie. Advantages or Disads that contradict each other really grind my gears and happen more often than you would think)

Theory:

-It should make sense and be specific to the round.

-Throwaway theory is fine as long as you are specifically connecting it to what is happening in the round. (ie. don't run vagueness just to run vagueness, show me where the opponent is vague)

-Make your standards clear and explain it well. (Note: If you get a POI, I would suggest taking it.)

Kritiks: I think they are important to debate and I will listen to them, but because I am less familiar with them than some judges you might have, make sure you both thoroughly understand and can thoroughly explain your K.

-Do not make assumptions about others and do not run anything you already know is offensive and/or hurtful.

-People and emotions are more valuable than a win...and being offensive/causing emotional-damage probably won't get you a win.

-Like theory, make it specific to the round...please don't run something just to run it and not link it to the res.

-Please repeat the alt and take POIs. Ks can be hard and it is exclusionary not to make sure that your opponent understands what you are saying.

-Don't spread your opponents out of the round. If you are not clear or organized, it will be reflected in speaks or (depending on the severity) the way I vote.

-I will flow through what you tell me to and will vote on my flow. This means that you should emphasize arguments or links that you think are key to your Kritik.

Speaker Points: Generally, these are subjective...but I base them on a mix of strategy and style.

25: Please be more considerate with your words. You were offensive during round and I will not tolerate that because debate is about learning and it becomes very hard to learn if someone is not putting thought into their words (ie. please stop being racist, sexist, homophobic, etc).

26-26.9: Below average. Most likely there were strategic errors in round. Arguments were probably missing sections and did not have a ton of structure.

27-27.9: Average. General structure is down, but most likely the arguments were not flushed out and were loosely constructed with hard to follow logic.

28-28.5: Above Average. All the parts of debate are there and the manipulation of the arguments is there but unpolished. The basics are done well.

28.5-28.9: Superior. Very clear and very well done debate. However, most likely some strategic errors were made.

29-29.9: Excellent. Wow, you can debate really well. Good strategy and good analysis.

30: You were godly.

This paradigm was done really late, so it will be edited as I judge more.

Polytechnic '20

Harvard '24

Add me to the email chain: oogbogu@college.harvard.edu

Competed in policy debate throughout high school and currently competing in college. I have competed in PF and parli as well, though.

I generally am more familiar with the K; however, please continue to run whichever argument you want. Everyone should have that fair opportunity.

Pref me lower for a policy vs. policy round, but policy vs.K or FW vs. K or K VS. K I'm better suited for.

Framework: I do love framework when it is utilized and argued properly by both sides, and I find that especially for Kritikal teams, I love to see teams leverage their K's impacts against the impacts of the framework arg. Clash is key when discussing FW; the team who can better articulate the setup of debate and their impacts will have a better chance of winning FW and further args.

Please use framing and judge instruction. It truly will bolster your arguments and when done right. Streamline the debate very well.

CPs: Pretty neutral on these as I haven't really hit them in a while. Your CP has to be competitive to the purpose/solvency of the AFF. Please perm, perms allow you to test this competition.

Das: Again, pretty neutral, but your link must be articulated well, and your impact must be carried through. Affs should evidence and link chains thoroughly and weigh their impacts against the DA.

K: I read the K most of my high school career and still reading it in college. I am most familiar with critical Race Theory, antiblackness, Black Feminity literature, and args in generally all capacities. That being said, I follow identity args and literature much better than high theory, so for high theory Ks like Baudrillard, please be clear with your argument throughout the round. Jargain is not debate or clash. I am sympathetic to some explanations of the K, but I am in a firm belief that the K must be grounded in the aff, especially links. I love performative links, and I think extrapolating those performances to textual links makes the strong K args. Contextualize your alternative. I need to know what the alt is and what it does, and how it solves. It must be coherent, and I say this outside of clear, but the alt must make sense by the end of the round and prove competitive. Affs should always perm to test both competitions on solvency and link. Outside of that, I love hearing all new sorts of Ks and args, and it would be appreciated on both sides if there is a K vs. Policy/FW debate that both sides create clash so an in depth debate can take place.

K affs: I personally ran k affs as well throughout high school and college, and I think they offer a lot of creativity and perspective to various topics I think are needed. That being said, my only ask is that you explain and extend. If you aff is a counter-model to debate, I need an explanation of how and why it is needed. If you do not have a counter interp, I need an explanation as to why it is not needed. If your aff is somewhat grounded in the resolution, I need an explanation of the relationship between the aff and the resolution and why you chose your stance. If you choose not to be with the resolution, I need a clear reason why that is a necessary choice. Be consistent with your args, have proper solvency, and do a lot of clash and weighing of the aff and its impacts. Please extend your arguments. It will only make the aff stronger but don't lose the aff in the debate, that will be harmful.

CX: I am fine with tag team cross. If. I feel that someone is rude that will mark down speakers. That being said, I like seeing a respectful cross and an understanding that some of the args that people read are more personal than others. Therefore, understanding CX should be the point in debate where we go back to being normal people who understand this. I believe CX does garner args from the flow. I will write down these arguments, but it is a team's responsibility to extend them to be proper arguments. Extra speaks for good CX starts and questions. I appreciate humor, but I also appreciate seriousness, so however you enter the CX, enter it the way most authentic to yourself.

Overall, you do you, and I will flow. I start all my evaluations from the level of framing, so please have a lot of judge instruction and ROB and ROJ. Clash, weighing and impacts key, and run whatever makes you happy. It goes without saying I don't tolerate racism, sexism, homophobia, or anything of the sort, and teams, especially those running these arguments within reasonability, should feel comfortable pointing this out in round and determining if they are voters or not. Simultaneously it is also important to understand we are all learning and growing and notice that weaponizing growing moments against people may not actually educate anyone or solve the situation, so prioritize education and growth over debate.

Thanks, Maddox, for helping me with this, lol.

Debate well and do not change what you read just because I am judging. These are just my thoughts on debate, but I try to leave all my opinions at the door and vote off the flow. I do not coach often anymore, so assume that I have no topic knowledge.

I debated at Mamaroneck for three years and coached the team during the criminal justice reform and water resources topics. I did grad school at Georgetown and work for the debate team.

People who have influenced how I judge and view debate: Ken Karas, Jake Lee, Rayeed Rahman, Jack Hightower, Cole Weese, Tess Lepelstat, Zach Zinober, David Trigaux, Brandon Kelley, Gabe Lewis

Put me on the email chain: eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com AND mhsdebatedocs[at]googlegroups[dot]com. The email subject should be "Tournament + Year - Round # - Aff Team v. Neg Team" [Example: Mamaroneck 2023 - Round 1 - Mamaroneck RS v. Mamaroneck LS]

Please open source all your evidence after the debate.

Be respectful. Have fun.

general

Tech > Truth. Dropped arguments are true if they have a claim, warrant, and impact, you extend the argument, and you tell me why I should vote on it. It is not enough to say dropping the argument means you automatically win without extending and explaining. That being said, the threshold for explanation is low if the other team drops the argument.

I adjust speaker points based on the tournament, division, and quality of competition. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative.

Clipping will give you the lowest possible speaks and a loss. Please take this seriously as I have caught a couple debaters doing so and promptly reported the situation to tab and gave L 1 to the debater at fault.

Violence and threats of violence will also result in L 1 or lowest possible points. Don't test me on this.

specific

I love a good case debate. Show me that you did your research and prepared well. Evidence comparison and quality is very important. Do not just say their evidence is bad and your evidence is better without comparing warrants.

I am a good judge for extinction outweighs.

Impact turns are great when done well. However, I do not like wipeout (gross) or warming good (I work in environmental law). I will be annoyed if you run these arguments, but will still try to evaluate the round fairly. Obviously no racism good or similar arguments.

Heg good is a vibe.

5+ off vs K affs is also a vibe.

Big politics disadvantage fan.

I love well-researched advantage counterplans. My favorite strategies involve advantage counterplans and impact turns. I am also good for process counterplans, but it is always better if there is truth based on the topic lit that supports why the specific process is competitive with and applicable to the aff. Counterplans need a net benefit and a good explanation of solvency and competition. I like smart perm texts and expect good explanations of how the perm functions. I will not judge kick unless the 2NR tells me to. Honestly, I am uncomfortable with judge kick and would rather not have to do it, but will if the neg justifies it.

I used to like topicality debates, but I realized that they become unnecessarily difficult to evaluate when neither side does proper comparative work on the interpretation or impact level. Abuse must be substantiated, and the negative must have an offensive reason why the aff's model of debate is bad. You should have an alternative to plan text in a vacuum (this argument is kinda dumb). Legal precision, predictable limits, clash, and topic education are persuasive. I think that I am persuaded by reasonability more than most, but I think this is dependent on the violation and the topic. Please provide a case list.

Condo is probably good, but I can be persuaded otherwise if abuse is proved and there is an absurd amount of condo. I will vote for condo it is dropped, the 2nr is only defense on condo, or the aff is winning the argument on the flow.

For other theory, I am probably also neg leaning. Theory debates are not fun to resolve, so please do not make me evaluate a theory debate. A note for disclosure theory: I firmly believe that disclosure is good, and the bar is lowest on this theory argument for me to vote for it, but you must still extend the argument fully and answer your opponent's responses. Even if you opponent violates, you must make a complete argument and answer their arguments.

Great for T-USFG. Procedural fairness and clash are the most persuasive impacts. I love real and true arguments.

More negative teams should go for presumption against K Affs. Affirmative teams reading K Affs should provide a thorough explanation of aff solvency or at least tell me why the ballot is key if your aff does not necessarily need to have a specific solvency mechanism and instead relies on an endorsement of its method or thesis.

I am most familiar with the basic Ks like capitalism and security. I am not the best judge if you read high-theory Ks, and my least favorite debates have involved teams reading these kind of Ks and relying on blocks. Overviews and non-jargon tags are very helpful. Explanation is key. Specific links to the plan are always better. Despite my own argument preferences, I have voted for the K fairly often.

My ballot in clash rounds is usually based on framework or the perm. Negative teams going for the K in front of me should spend more time on framework than they normally would, unless it is an impact turn debate.

I am not the best judge for K v K, but I will try my best if I find myself in one of these debates. My ballot in these types of debates has mostly focused on aff vs alt solvency.

mx.ortiz.m@gmail.com

Assistant Coach @ Mamaroneck, 2020-2021

Assistant Coach @ Lexington, 2019-20

Debated @ Northside College Prep, 2015-19

TL;DR

The sections below this are a set of my opinions on debate, not a stringent set of guidelines that I always adhere to when making decisions. I encourage you to go for the arguments that you enjoy instead of overcorrecting to my paradigm. I tend to like most arguments - my only distinction between good and bad debates is whether or not your argumentation is strategic and nuanced.

I think CX is heavily underutilized by most debaters. Organized debates make my job easier and are more enjoyable.

Non-negotiables:

I won’t vote on things that have happened outside of the round.

There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude in CX - please be aware of it.

Don’t threaten others or make harmful comments about someone or a group of people - you will lose the round and I will talk with your coaches.

Non-Traditional Affs/Clash Debates

It’s hard for me to be convinced that policy debate actively creates bad people OR perfect policymakers; I think there’s value in challenging our understanding of the resolution and debate itself, but I also don’t think T is inherently violent.

In clash debates, I tend to vote negative when the affirmative fails to parse out the unique benefits of their model of debate, and tend to vote affirmative when the negative fails to grapple with the applicable offense of case. Organization often falls by the wayside in these debates, so I would encourage you to identify the nexus questions of the debate early and compartmentalize them to one area of the flow.

Fairness can be an impact, but it is not one by default - that requires explanation. I’ll vote for any impact on FW if effectively argued, but I personally like strategies centered around truth-testing/dogmatism. I think skepticism is healthy and that breaking out of our preferred ideological bubbles results in more ethical and pragmatic decision-making over time, but I can also be persuaded that the method the aff defends can also be consistently ethical/beneficial.

Aff teams are overly reliant on exclusion/policing arguments but almost never actually impact out the tangible consequences of the negative model as a result, or provide a reason why the ballot would resolve this. If arguments like these are what you like going for, I suggest you codify them within a reasonability paradigm that criticizes the usefulness of the competing interpretations model when it comes to K Affs.

I will say that I am quite partial to teams that go for the K against non-traditional affs (I judge FW debates frequently, and they get repetitive). Most K affs nowadays are specifically tailored to beat FW and generally rely on generic permutations to beat back K’s. I can be easily convinced that permutations exist to compare the opportunity cost of combining specific policies, and that in debates of competing methodologies the evaluating point of the debate should be reliant on who had broader explanatory power and a more effective orientation. How I decide that is up to what parameters you establish within the debate.

Kritiks

I’m not opposed to any of them. However, I do prefer techy K debaters - overviews should be short and the substantive parts of the debate should be done on the respective parts of the line by line.

Specificity goes beyond good links - nuanced impact and turns case explanations make it easier to vote on something tangible as opposed to nebulous platitudes. It’s easy to tell when you have a generic link wall with fill-in-the-blanks like “insert aff impact” “aff mechanism” etc.

For both teams - know the broader theories that your arguments function within (i.e. understanding what theory of IR your authors defend, or actually knowing a decent amount about the author your K is named after). Understanding these concepts outside of the context of debate will give you the tools to be more specific in round, and will often give you additional ways to leverage offense.

Aff teams with extinction impacts - stop overcorrecting to the negative team's strategy. Extinction is extinction, which is easily defensible as bad - if you're not link turning the K/going for the perm, I find it strange when the 1AR/2AR try to subsume the K's impacts/offense by describing how the inroads to extinction would be bad for X group the K is worried about ("nUcLeAr StRiKeS tArGeT uRbAn CeNtErS") ... because extinction, in the end, kills everyone. Also, K teams often capitalize on this arbitrary framing and make it a new link. Don't waste your time - win that you get to weigh your impacts and then win that your impacts outweigh.

CP’s

The more specific, the better.

Yes judge kick. “Status quo is always an option,” once said, is sufficient enough for me to be willing to kick the CP unless the aff explicitly challenges it in both aff rebuttals.

Condo is good. If the 2AR is condo, it's either been dropped or you think it is your only road to victory.

I lean neg on most theory issues, but can be convinced that process CPs and 50 state/NGA fiat are bad for debate.

Invest time and organization into the competition debate - meta definitions matter just as much as word definitions in these debates because they are about competing models.

Severance perms are probably always bad, but intrinsic perms can be very useful if you know how to defend them well.

DA’s/Case turns

Love them, even the crappy ones - there's nothing more fun than watching someone very effectively debate in favor of something everyone in the round knows is ridiculously unlikely.

Winning framing does not mean you win terminal defense to the DA. Winning that a DA is low risk comes from substantive arguments, and then how the framing debate is resolved dictates whether or not risk probability matters. Seriously. Nebulous arguments about the conjunctive fallacy or the general low risk of existential impacts mean nothing if the 2NR can just get up and point to a unique internal link chain on their DA that has not been contested.

Impact turn debates are some of my favorite rounds to judge, but unfortunately I am often left to resolve stalemates within a debate by reading a bulk of the cards in the round and then determining on my own which ones are better, which I think functions as a disservice to everyone in the round. I don’t think that having less/worse ev necessarily means you’ll lose the debate, but you must have constant and effective comparison in-round.

Topicality+

Evidence comparison matters. Terminal impacts are important - so many 2NRs don't do this work (why, I don't know). Not enough teams are going for T against the egregious number of bad affs on this topic.

I don't like arguments like Embody PTX because I don't think there is a way to enforce them as a model and thus lend themselves to problematic enforcement, and it frustrates me when affirmative teams don't make the obvious case for this being true.

Aff teams should be going for reasonability more often against nitpicky T violations - not as a vague appeal, but as a better heuristic than competing interps.

Email chain: lily.coaches.debate@gmail.com

About:

• Currently based in Taiwan and coaching debate for the ADL. That means I am staying up all night when I judge at US tournaments. Please pref accordingly
• Debated in college at the University of Kansas, 2017-2022 (Healthcare, Executive Authority, Space, Alliances, Antitrust). I majored in math and minored in Russian if that matters.
• Debated in high school at Shawnee Mission Northwest, 2013-2017 (Latin America, Oceans, Surveillance, China).

Top:

• If I can tell that you are not even trying to flow (eg you never take out a piece of paper the entire debate, you stand up to give your 2NC with just your laptop and no paper) your speaks are capped at 27.
• Please don't call me "judge." It's tacky. My name is Lily. Note that this does not apply to saying "the role of the judge."
• In the words of Allie Chase, "Cross-x isn't 'closed,' nobody ever 'closed' it... BUT each debater should be a primary participant in 2 cross-xes if your goal is to avoid speaker point penalties."
• I would prefer to not judge death/suffering/extinction good arguments or arguments about something that happened outside the debate.
• I might give you a 30 if I think you're the best debater at the tournament.
• High schoolers are too young to swear in debates.
• Don't just say words for no reason - not in cross-x and certainly not in speeches.
• If you are asking questions like "was x card read?" a timer should be running. Flowing is part of getting good speaker points.
• The word "nuclear" is not pronounced "nuke-yoo-ler." If you say this it makes you sound like George Bush.
• Shady disclosure practices are a scourge on the activity.

Framework:

• I judge a lot of clash debates. I'm more likely to vote aff on impact turns than most policy judges, but I do see a lot of value in the preservation of competition. Procedural fairness can be an impact but it takes a lot of work to explain it as such. Sometimes a clash impact is a cleaner kill.
• TVAs don't have to solve the whole aff. I like TVAs with solvency advocates. I think it's beneficial when the 2NC lays out some examples of neg strategies that could be read against the TVA, and why those strategies produce educational debates.

Topicality vs policy affs:

• Speaker point boost if your 2NC has a grammar argument (conditional on the argument making sense of course).
• If you're aff and going for reasonability, "race to the bottom" < debatability.
• Case lists are good.
• The presence of other negative positions is not defense to a ground argument. The aff being disclosed is not defense to a limits argument. This also goes for T-USFG.

Counterplans

• When people refer to counterplans by saying the letters "CP" out loud it makes me wish I were dead.
• As a human I think counterplans that advocate immediate, indefinite, non-plan action by the USFG are legit, but as a judge I'm chaotic neutral on all theory questions.
• Conditionality: I'll give you a speaker point boost if you can tell me how many 2NRs are possible given the number of counterplan planks in the 1NC.

Disads

• Read them
• Politics DAs are fun. Make arguments about polling methodology.

Ks

• I feel like I have a higher threshold for Ks on the neg than some. I'm not a hack and I will vote for your K if you do the better debating, but I also think arguments that rely on the ballot having some inherent meaning are corny unpersuasive.
• I dislike lazy link debating immensely, primarily because it makes my life harder. Affs hoping to capitalize on this REALLY ought to include a perm/link defense in the 2AR.
• Explain how the alt solves the links and why the perm doesn't.
• Affs should explain why mooting the 1AC means that the neg's framework is anti-educational. Negs should explain why the links justify mooting the aff.
• Case outweighs 2ARs can be very persuasive. The neg can beat this with discrete impacts to specific links+impact framing+framework.
• Speaker point penalty if the 1AR drops fiat is illusory - at the very least your framework extension needs an education impact.

Lincoln-Douglas:

• If there is no net benefit to a counterplan, presumption flips aff automatically.
• I do not think permutations are cheating.
• An argument is a claim and a warrant. If you say something that does not contain a warrant, I will not necessarily vote on it even if it's dropped. In the interest of preventing judge intervention, please say things that have warrants.
• Most neg theory arguments I've watched would go away instantly if affs said "counter interpretation: we have to be topical."
• RVIs are not persuasive to me. Being topical is never an independent reason to vote affirmative. The fact that a counterplan is conditional is never offense for the negative.

Debated policy for Brooklyn Technical High School (2013-2016) and for Binghamton University (2016-2020). You can add me to the email chain at jpan2541@bths.edu

TLDR been out of debate for a while, have very little familiarity with the topic so please explain acronyms, topic specific knowledge, etc... You can probably run anything (nothing offensive) and I'll evaluate it. While I enjoy K debates more, I'm not particularly against debates about policies as I started out as a non-K debater. I prefer depth over breath and think line-by-line is important. Since debate is now on Zoom, please be very clear using changes in tone, inflection, etc to ensure that I am evaluating the arguments you want me to evaluate.

I'm just going to copy and paste a portion of Lee Thach's paradigm here because it basically summarizes how I evaluate debates:

"1. Clarity > Loudness > Speed.

2. Framing > Impact > Solvency. Framing is a prior question. Don’t let me interpret the debate, interpret the debate for me.

3. Truth IS Tech. Warranting, comparative analysis, and clash structure the debate.

4. Offense vs Defense: Defense supports offense, though it's possible to win on pure defense.

5. Try or Die vs Neg on Presumption: I vote on case turns & solvency takeouts. AFF needs sufficient offense and defense for me to vote on Try or Die."

Here are some of my other thoughts:

Kritiks: I mostly ran critical arguments including ones about anti-blackness and biopower. I like Ks and when good K debates happen. One thing that has changed for me in terms of Ks is that I want to hear that the K does "something" whatever that "something" is. Whether in round or external to the debate, please explain what that "something" is, why I should evaluate whatever the K does as "something," and how exactly the K does that thing.

FW: I would say that I'm probably 51/49 against framework. I think that it is sometimes valuable to discuss non-traditional affirmatives especially when the affirmative has given me reasons why their AFF is valuable to this year's resolution. I do enjoy framework for certain AFFs that are abusive/irrelevant. That said, my bias can be overcome with good debating (i.e. when standards/violations are super nuanced and when there are clear articulations/comparisons of each side's model of debate and why they're good/bad)

CPs/Piks: I love them. Flex your creativity as much as possible. I can also be convinced why particular CPs/Piks can be abusive.

DAs: I will evaluate all types of DA but just please have uniqueness and be very clear about your internal links. Contrary to popular opinion, I like politics DAs.

Miscellaneous: I like jokes and the like that make debates entertaining and enjoyable so if you can make me laugh I'll probably boost your speaks. Troll debates are cool too but only when the arguments actually apply and can sorta make sense.

Hello!

Feel free to run any and all types of arguments.

Spreading is fine as long as I can understand you and you sign-post . Cross-x will be open and binding. Do not just read cards/ taglines without explaining them. That is not sufficient enough.

Make sure you are respectful towards one another. Being rude will dock you speaks. This is an educational space that everyone should be able to have fun in.

Ask any questions you may have before the round! Always remember to have fun and try your best.

UPDATED FOR THE THE GLENBROOKS 2023

uclabdb8@gmail.com

***history***
- Director of Programs, Chicago Debates 2023-current
- Head Coach, Policy - University of Chicago Laboratory Schools 2015-2023
- Assistant Coach, PF - Fremd HS 2015-2022
- Tournament of Champions 2022, 2021, 2018, 2016
- Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshop - guest lecturer, lab leader
- UIowa 2002-2006
- Maine East (Wayne Tang gharana) 1999-2002

***brief***
- i view the speech act as an act and an art. debate is foremost a communicative activity. i want to be compelled.
- i go back and forth on kritik/performance affs versus framework which is supported by my voting record
- i enjoy k v k or policy v k debates. however i end up with more judging experience in policy v policy rounds because we're in the north shore
- academic creativity & originality will be rewarded
- clarity matters. pen time on overviews matters. i flow by ear and on paper, including your cards' warrants and cites. people have told me my flows are beautiful
- tag team cx is okay as long as its not dominating
- don't vape in my round, it makes me feel like an enabler
- i have acute hearing and want to keep it that way. kindly be considerate of your music volume. i will ask you to turn it down if it's painful or prevents me from hearing debate dialogue

**background**
identify as subaltern, he/they pronouns are fine. my academic background is medicine. i now spend my time developing programming for Chicago's urban debate league. you may be counseled on tobacco cessation.

**how to win my ballot**
*entertain me.* connect with me. teach me something. be creative. its impossible for me to be completely objective, but i try to be fair in the way i adjudicate the round.

**approach**
as tim 'the man' alderete said, "all judges lie." with that in mind...
i get bored- which is why i reward creativity in research and argumentation. if you cut something clever, you want me in the back of the room. i appreciate the speech as an act and an art. i prefer debates with good clash than 2 disparate topics. while i personally believe in debate pedagogy, i'll let you convince me it's elitist, marginalizing, broken, or racist. in determining why i should value debate (intrinsically or extrinsically) i will enter the room tabula rasa. if you put me in a box, i'll stay there. i wish i could adhere to a paradigmatic mantra like 'tech over truth.' but i've noticed that i lean towards truth in debates where both teams are reading lit from same branch of theory or where the opponent has won an overarching claim on the nature of the debate (framing, framework, theory, etc). my speaker point range is 27-30. Above 28.3-4 being what i think is 'satisfactory' for your division (3-3), 28.7 & above means I think you belong in elims. Do not abuse the 2nr.

**virtual debate**
if you do not see me on camera then assume i am not there. please go a touch slower on analytics if you expect me to flow them well. if anyone's connection is shaky, please include analytics in what you send if possible.

**novices**
Congrats! you're slowly sinking into a strange yet fascinating vortex called policy debate. it will change your life, hopefully for the better. focus on the line by line and impact analysis. if you're confused, ask instead of apologize. this year is about exploring. i'm here to judge and help :)

***ARGUMENT SPECIFIC***

**topicality/framework**
this topic has a wealth of amazing definitions and i'm always up for a scrappy limits debate. debaters should be able to defend why their departure from (Classic mode) Policy is preferable. while i don't enter the round presuming plan texts are necessary for a topical discussion, i do enjoy being swayed one way or the other on what's needed for a topical discussion (or if one is valuable at all). overall, its an interesting direction students have taken Policy. the best form of framework debate is one where both teams rise to the meta-level concerns behind our values in fairness, prepared clash, education, revolutionary potential/impotence, etc. as a debater (in the bronze age) i used to be a HUGE T & spec hack, so much love for the arg. nowadays though, the these debates tend to get messy. flow organization will be rewarded: number your args, sign post through the line-by-line, slow down to give me a little pen time. i tend to vote on analysis with specificity and ingenuity.

**kritiks, etc.**
i enjoy performance, original poetry & spoken word, musical, moments of sovereignty, etc. i find most "high theory," identity politics, and other social theory debates enjoyable. i dont mind how you choose to organize k speeches/overviews so long as there is some way you organize thoughts on my flow. 'long k overviews' can be (though seldom are) beautiful. i appreciate a developed analysis. more specific the better, examples and analogies go a long way in you accelerating my understanding. i default to empiricism/historical analysis as competitive warranting unless you frame the debate otherwise. i understand that the time constraint of debate can prevent debaters from fully unpacking a kritik. if i am unfamiliar with the argument you are making, i will prioritize your explanation. i may also read your evidence and google-educate myself. this is a good thing and a bad thing, and i think its important you know that asterisk. i try to live in the world of your kritik/ k aff. absent a discussion of conditional advocacy, i will get very confused if you make arguments elsewhere in the debate that contradict the principles of your criticism (eg if you are arguing a deleuzian critique of static identity and also read a misgendering/misidentifying voter).

**spec, ethics challenges, theory**
PLEASE DO NOT HIDE YOUR ASPEC VIOLATIONS. if the argument is important i prefer you invite the clash than evade it.

i have no way to fairly judge arguments that implicate your opponent's behavior before the round, unless i've witnessed it myself or you are able to provide objective evidence (eg screenshots, etc.). debate is a competitive environment so i have to take accusations with a degree of skepticism. i think the trend to turn debate into a kangaroo court, or use the ballot as a tool to ostracize members from the community speaks to the student/coach's tooling of authority at tournaments as well as the necessity for pain in their notion of justice. i do have an obligation to keep the round safe. my starting point (and feel free to convince me otherwise) is that it's not my job to screen entries if they should be able to participate in tournaments - that's up to tab and is a prior question to the round. a really good podcast that speaks to this topic in detail is invisibilia: the callout.

i'm finally hearing more presumption debates, which i really enjoy. i more often find theory compelling when contextualized to why there's a specific reason to object to the argument (e.g. why the way this specific perm operates is abusive/sets a bad precedent). i always prefer the clash to be developed earlier in the debate than vomiting blocks at each other. as someone who used to go for theory, i think there's an elegant way to trap someone. and it same stipulations apply- if you want me to vote for it, make sure i'm able to clearly hear and distinguish your subpoints.

**disads/cps/case**
i always enjoy creative or case specific PICs. if you're going to make a severance perm, i want to know what is being severed and not so late breaking that the negative doesn't have a chance to refute. i like to hear story-weaving in the overview. i do vote on theory - see above. i also enjoy an in depth case clash, case turn debate. i do not have a deep understanding on the procedural intricacies of our legal system or policymaking and i may internet-educate myself on your ev during your round.

**work experience/education you can ask me about**
- medical school, medicine
- clinical research/trials
- biology, physiology, gross anatomy, & pathophysiology are courses i've taught
- nicotine/substance cessation
- chicago
- udl
- coaching debate!

**PoFo - (modified from Tim Freehan's poignant paradigm):**

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at debate as competitive research or full-contact social studies. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Framework, philosophical, moral arguments are great, though I need instruction in how you want me to evaluate that against tangible impacts.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote with what's on what is on the flow only. I enter the round tabula rasa, i try to check my personal opinions at the door as best as i can. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

I am a fan of “Kritik” arguments in PF! I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. You can attack your opponents scholarship. Racism, sexism, heterocentrism, will not be tolerated between debaters. I have heard and will tolerate some amount of racism towards me and you can be assured I'll use it as a teaching moment.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. But if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Some of the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance more than style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Former open debater at GMU from 2018-2022. I ran mostly queer theory, disability, and various forms of cap for the last couple years and am most familiar with those lit bases.

She/they pronouns. Put me on the email chain please, ceili1627 at gmail dot com. Feel free to email me after rounds with questions.

TL;DR: run whatever you want and I'll judge as best I can. I think my role as a judge is to be an educator/facilitator of idea exchanges regardless of whether those ideas are connected to anything from USFG action to interpretive dance performances. Keep in mind that even though debate is a game that you should have fun playing, it has real-world consequences for the real people who play it. As a great woman once said, "At the end of the debate, be sure to tell me why I should vote for you; if you don't, then you can't get big mad when I don't ... periodt" and I live by that <3

Policy:

K Affs: I'm totally down with k affs but I prefer them to have at least a vague link to the topic. It's super easy for the narrative of k affs to get lost during the round so please keep the aff story alive!! In FW/T debates, make sure to explain what debate rounds look like under your counterinterp, and that plus solid impact turns is usually a fairly easy ballot from me.

FW/T: As the same great woman once said, "I have voted against framework, I have voted for framework, but at the end of the day I don't really want to be there when framework is read." Run a caselist. Reasonability isn’t really an argument and fairness definitely isn't an impact. I tend to default to competing interps unless given a good reason otherwise. The neg needs to really spell out why I should err towards them on limits. TVAs are pretty useful for mitigating offense against fw as long as they're explained and contextualized well. Please for the love of god contextualize all your fw blocks to the round & aff in question instead of just reading a transcript of fw blocks from an NDT outround half a decade ago. I'm not persuaded by args that debate doesn't shape subjectivity--if you come out of a round the exact same as you entered it (regardless of if your opinions/beliefs have changed) then you're probably playing the game wrong.

Theory: Trying to convince me to care about potential abuse is an uphill battle. Don’t spread through theory blocks please. For blippy args I generally err towards rejecting the arg but will (extremely) reluctantly vote on it if dropped.

DAs/Case: Impact calc and clear internal link chains are both super important for me to vote on a DA. I tend to think that links determine DA direction but can probably be persuaded that direction is determined by uniqueness. I really enjoy heavy case debates and am disappointed that's increasingly missing from a lot of rounds. Also I think re-highlighting your opponents' ev is a bold move that's cool and often persuasive when it's done right but is pretty cringe if done poorly.

Ks: I was mostly a k debater in college and I'm most familiar with lit bases for queer theory, cap, set col, and debility. Still, you need to clearly explain your theories of power and all that good stuff instead of throwing around a bunch of obscure terms expecting me to know what you’re talking about. Please please please don't read a k just because you think that's what I want to hear--it makes for a bad debate and a grumpy judge. I’d like to think my ballot actually means something so explain to me what it does and I'll be more likely to pull the trigger for you. I feel most comfortable voting on specific links to the aff though I prefer the debate to go beyond the level of you-link-you-lose. Please give me a clear and coherent framework under which I consider the aff vs the alt, but also I think too many policy affs use framework to avoid engaging with the k at all which is both frustrating to judge and not at all strategic.

CPs: 50 state fiat is definitely core neg ground at the high school level. I’m fine with the neg having 2 conditional worlds, 3 makes me lean aff, and the neg shouldn't ever need 4+ conditional worlds. I don't judge kick and I'm likely to entertain most if not all CPs as long as they have a clear net benefit and explanation of how they solve the aff. Super meta CP theory confuses and bores me.

General: Tech > truth (often but not always, e.g. I usually tend to evaluate the debate through tech > truth but can be fairly easily convinced otherwise), debate is a game that you should have fun playing, clarity > speed (especially for zoom debate), I reserve the right to tank speaks if you're being homophobic, transphobic, sexist, racist, ableist, excessively rude, or clipping cards. Please don't make me have to judge something that happened outside the round like authenticity checks or happenings from other tournaments/seasons. I usually have little HS topic knowledge but that doesn't necessarily mean you shouldn't pref me ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ it's good for the neg on T insofar as I don't have a predetermined view of what the topic should look like, but it's also good for the aff because I don’t have much knowledge on the nuances of what affirmatives look like under particular definitions. I'm pretty hit or miss on reading ev after rounds unless explicitly told to, and on that note please highlight your cards in as close to complete and coherent sentences as you can. Violent verb fragments aren't arguments.

PF:

I did 4 years of PF in high school so I'm quite familiar with this format. Extend your own args, don’t drop your opponents’ args. I vote on the flow and default to util for impact comparison unless you tell me to frame impacts differently. I’m most likely to vote for a PF team that nails impact calc in the rebuttals, does solid work extending offense, and uses effective warrant-level evidence comparison. My 3 biggest pet peeves with PF are (1) labeling literally everything as a voter, (2) saying "de-link,", and (3) using "frontline" as a verb.

LD:

I never debated this format, though I understand it, and I tend to judge it from a somewhat policy perspective. I'm cool with both traditional and progressive formats--do what you do best/enjoy most and I'll vote off the flow. What bugs me most is the introduction of some kind of framing lens at the beginning of the round (like value/value criteria or another kind of framework) that isn't extended or used throughout the rest of the debate.

The Gamble

If you use One Direction lyrics in your speechI will raise your speaks a max of 0.5. Do with that what you will.

Lay Judge

If Debate: Explain your arguments in a simple manner. Don't go fast. English is not my first language.

If you make arguments about programming/computers make sure it is up to date and accurate.

The more persuasive and powerful speaker that is able to play the policymaker role

If IE: Make sure to speak clearly, make sure to have good volume so I can hear, English is not my first language but I am still proficient enough to judge, and follow the rest of the rules for your respective events.

Good Luck and remember you're bold for competing and your words hold power

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me. I will not try to put pieces together in arguments. I also appreciate roadmaps so I can know what I will be Flowing

Signposting is good, fully fleshing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to make me miss something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong base upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, don't expect me to tie your loose ends for you, that's a sure way to an L.

Please make sure to flesh out your arguments, if you don't give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I won't judge it. I will judge on the factors that I feel best suited that round.

Misrepresenting your opposition's arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they don't call you out on it), but it sure won't win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Although evidence is expected, don't hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition.

I am not a fan of spreading . It is something I try to let all debaters know I will not drop you for it but know you run the risk of me missing something on the flow .

I do not have a heavy policy debate background, The easier you make things for me to understand the better and more likely you are to win my ballot. I try my hardest to be a fair judge and remember as a judge with very little policy experience the easier you make my job and thoroughly explain your arguments and tell me what i should and shouldn't vote out and also IMPACTS !!!! IMPACTS are big for me .

My name is Valeria Pereira, a judge from Boston Debate League. I have debated for around 2 years when I was in high school in the Spanish varsity division. I have judged around 8 to 10 debate rounds since I graduated from high school in 2020.

I do not have any preference about the debate, I am really open-minded to the topics being discussed as long as they are not offensive or told in a rude manner. I enjoy listening to the disadvantages and how the other team responds to them. I like a well-organized debate presenting a round map at the beginning and going line by line responding to the opposite team's points without letting the most important points fall behind. One thing I would ask is during cross x please make the questions if it is your team's turn but only questions, it is the time to ask and clarify not to discuss what is the correct answer.

All I ask if a debate round where everyone is respectful besides if you agree or not with an argument made and well-organized ideas. I would really appreciate it if the arguments are made at a normal speed because if it is too fast I will not understand some of the arguments or let pass important points (remember: I do know English but it is not my first language!). Finally, I would like to hear a debate where you are not only reading your material but explaining in your own words what you understand about the material you are presenting.

Good luck!

yes, I want to be on the chain: katiepham770@gmail.com

reagan ‘20

northwestern ‘24

I coach for LASA

Updates can be found at the bottom of the page

tl;dr: do what you do best. I’ll accommodate for you

almost none of the following paradigm is set in stone: these are mostly just my preferences. I can be convinced otherwise on most of these things, it just depends on how you spin it and frame it. I will always do my best to put my personal convictions and preferences aside for a debate because arguments ought to be what the debaters make of them. I tend to think that bad arguments ought to lose, regardless of what category or style they are. If there is something you’re still unclear on after reading this, feel free to ask questions.

firstly, the things that ARE set in stone: don’t clip. don’t steal prep. don't be mean to anyone. don’t say death good, racism good, sexism good, etc. I know most of you probably won’t, but I feel like it needs to be said. if your strategy relies on being sneaky (intentionally omitting things, relying on them messing up because you tricked them, etc.) do not pref me. there is a difference between being strategic and being sneaky.

a couple notes:

- I have a face when I’m focusing that looks as if I hate you or I am very confused. I don’t hate you, and I’m not confused. I promise its just my face. I’ll do my best to control it because I know it can be off-putting, but if it happens, its nothing you did.

- I don’t like small talk at all. Please don’t do it if we don’t know each other.

- being called "judge" feels weird. just call me kathryn (not katie, i know the email is misleading).

- I am very sensitive to the way that non-men and trans men are treated in debate, and this especially goes for non-men of color and queer people of color. I will never hesitate to call you out and contact your coach(es).

Top Level

- I really appreciate when the 2AR/2NR give me a way to frame the debate and make it really easy to write my ballot. "Even if" statements are cool.

- When evaluating a debate, I always start with questions of solvency: what do I think the aff solves? What do I think the alternative/counterplan solves? I do this by analyzing how the debaters explain their solvency, how they answer solvency deficits, evaluating solvency advocates, etc. I then move to questions that were highly contested in the 2AR (if the aff presses the internal link of the disad, I evaluate that part of the debate. I'll do this for every part that was in the 2AR/2NR (so long as I can trace it back to earlier speeches, if I can't trace them back, I will not evaluate them)) until I conclude one way or the other for every issue. After that, I'll use your framing, impact calc/comparison, and what I've concluded from your explanation and evidence to assign risk of the aff/disad and that helps me decide. This process is subject to change because I'm sure my judging process will change as I get more experience.

- When in doubt, I default to data, empirics, logic. I look at the studies in your cards and weigh them pretty heavily, especially with politics. Charts, graphs, tables, all cool. I find that biases in evidence and methods by which your author comes to their conclusion are really necessary to account for and really relevant to what the card says and why.

- Your arguments need to be complete. Make sure your claims have warrants. Make sure your disads are complete shells.

- Mark your cards. Send a marked version. If you raise an ethics violation, you need to have proof. Accusations of clipping that turn out to be true get an immediate L and a 25 in speaks for the team that clipped. Accusations of clipping that turn out to be false get the same thing for the team that accused.

T-USFG/Framework (I put it at the top. You’re welcome.)

- When evaluating the 2NR/2AR I look first for impact comparison/what do I think the aff solves with their model vs. what do I think the negative solves with their model. This part is especially hard to adjudicate when both sides don’t do the comparison between the two models, so please do that for me.

- I tend to think that people ought to affirm topical action, however if you have a defense of your model I’m willing to hear it. You're much better off going for a couple of solid impact turns to framework rather than a terrible we meet argument and 6 disads that are all the same thing just tagged slightly differently. I don't even wanna hear your interp + our aff.

- I conclude aff in more debates that I’ve watched than I’d like to, usually because the negative spreads themselves too thin or doesn’t do enough impact comparison in the 2NR. I conclude neg in debates where I would have liked the aff to win for the very same reason. There ARE compelling aff arguments against framework, but the trouble usually comes from not responding to the tricky neg defense/tricky internal link turns/not doing impact comparison.

- I’m more persuaded by limits/fairness arguments than I am about education or ground. It’s also not hard for me to conclude that debate is a game and competitive merits matter. However, these are not reasons to skimp on explanation.

- I like switch side. I think do it on the negative resolves a lot more offense than teams think it does, especially when affirmative answers to T-USFG seem to be more about excluding their scholarship rather than affirming a topical plan.

- Teams should press the subjectivity debate more than they do – it implicates a lot of the answers that aff teams make. Not contesting the subjectivity level when a lot of the affirmative strategy depends on it is an easy way to lose.

- T-USFG is not genocide, the Iraq war, or anything else you say it is. I'm unwilling to conclude that.

T

- I lean to competing interpretations, but reasonability is a lot more underrated than it ought to be.

- Predictable limits are your best shot at getting my ballot. I like caselist comparisons a lot, I wanna know what their model justifies and what yours justifies and compare them.

- Much like framework, I like fairness/clash type impacts here. I am unpersuaded by ground and education.

- I think that precision/intent to define/field context is more important that other people do. If your interpretation doesn’t actually define anything and instead you’ve cherry-picked your evidence to say what you want, I will likely be more lenient towards the other team.

Ks

- While I was not K-savvy in high school, I went to a school that was K-heavy so I am very familiar with a lot of the literature of antiblackness, settler colonialism, fem IR, security, and have had some exposure to Baudrillard (though not willingly, lol). I have my own conceptions of all of these things, but I will always default to the debaters’ explanation of it.

- The affirmative should get to weigh the aff against what the negative wins that the alternative solves by the end of the debate. I think that’s probably the most reasonable frame for both teams in terms of fairness, so any “weigh the aff” type arguments takes a lot less work for me to lean your way. On framework of the K, "you don't get K's" and "you dont get the aff" are both equally unpersuasive.

- I’m uncomfortable voting for K alts that I don’t know a whole lot about, as in the question “what does the alt do/look like” was never really clearly articulated. Please take extra time to do that. otherwise, you may not be all that happy with my RFD when I distort your alternative to be what it isn’t.

- Like all people, I like link specificity. It makes the aff’s job harder and my job easier. The more specific the better. I think in K debates its important to fuse the link and impact debate together so that each link is packaged with a particular impact. It’s more coherent that way. Consider only going for one or two very fleshed out links instead of like 6 really bad ones in the 2NR

DA

- Tech > Truth. Spin is cool, but you have to have a reasonable evidence backing for it.

- Evidence comparison is important. If you don’t do enough of it, I will either default to your opponent’s characterization of it or come up with my own convictions that do not match to the way you think of your evidence. Either way, you will not like the result. This is not talking about author quals. You need to compare warrants.

- I am a huge fan of straight turn debates, particularly impact turns. Do with that what you will.

- More evidence isn’t always better. I think fewer pieces of good quality evidence are more valuable than more pieces of terrible evidence. You ought to apply your evidence and unpack all the warrants rather than reading a million new cards. Quality is so much better than quantity.

- Impact comparison is necessary. Do a good amount of it. No, this is not the same thing as impact calc. It's "even if they win their impact, here's why you prefer ours anyway"

- If your disad does not have uniqueness/link/whatever in the 1NC and you read that in the block, the 1AR gets new answers. You need to have a complete argument.

- Zero risk exists.

CP

- Every time you say “see-pee” instead of “counterplan,” a kitten dies and I hate you a little more.

- I like counterplans that are textually and functionally competitive, but your counterplan by no means has to be. I mostly just think you should have a solvency advocate.

- Theory is fine, and I’ll let y’all decide which counterplans are cheating. I lean negative on most theory except for conditionality, on which I am a true neutral. I can obviously be convinced otherwise.

o On conditionality, I find qualitative interpretations much more convincing than quantitative ones. I don’t know why 4 is worse than 3 which is worse than 2 and so on.

o Judge kick is the logical extension of conditionality, so I’ll do it unless the aff contests it and y’all debate about it. Then I will decide whether to or not.

- I like process counterplans with nuanced internal net benefits, PICs, and techy debates of these type.

Case

- Very underutilized! I love nuanced case debate so please do a lot of it. If youre not doing 2-3 minutes of case work, you’re doing it wrong. I think that you ought to give me judge direction when doing case debate, tell me what it means for the debate if you do win this argument.

- One thing that makes me sad is when you ask really good questions in CX about case and then they never make it into the 1NC. You can use analytics to rip apart a lot of the aff internal link chains -- any logical hole in the affirmative should have at least an analytic in the 1NC.

- Case turns are cool. Unpack the warrants.

- I reward good case debating because its not very often that people really do case debate in the block like they should, and when they do, its often done poorly.

Miscellaneous

- I reward clever strategies, organization, being funny, and clarity. Clarity > Speed always. I also reward open sourcing, so I’ll check if you do. If you open source, +.2 speaks for y’all both.

- I hate ASPEC. Viscerally. I really struggle to reconcile the idea that dropped arguments are true and just how much ASPEC sucks. I suppose I'll vote for it but only if in the doc and dropped. Otherwise, no chance. If it's dropped, but it wasn't in the doc, I don't care, I'm not voting for it. If you unironically do this and get mad at me when I vote aff, you are likely bad at debate and I will have no remorse voting against you.

- This is directed at everyone, but mostly cis men in debate: stop yelling. we are in a small room and no one else is talking while you're talking. there is no reason to shout. please stop.

- I cannot stress this enough: be. nice. I said it earlier, but I will say it again. I genuinely hate watching debates where y'all are mean to each other. I enjoy nice and polite debaters more than I enjoy good debaters, hopefully you’re both. I am unafraid to call you out if you are mean. I am unafraid to contact your coach if you are excessive.

- Respect your opponents. Respect their pronouns. Put a trigger warning on your stuff. Don't cut each other off. Generally, just be respectful.

- If you have further questions, I think about debate very similarly to Yao Yao Chen, Sruthi Ilangovan, and Brian Box. Andrew Xiang and Haaris Siddiqi are people who have influenced the way I approach debate and probably judge as well.

****Updates****

- TOC 2021 UPDATE - zoom can be glitchy and the quality of mics on computers tends to be rather bad, so its important that you slow down and be more clear than you think you need to be. additionally, do not delete analytics from your docs. i will be so much more lenient with your opponents if your "aff slaying argument" is a 3 second blip in the 1NC that sounds scratchy and unclear via zoom is dropped in the 2AC.

yes, i'd like a card doc of the cards you find relevant at the end of the debate. negs, during 2ar prep you should start compiling the card doc for the neg, just for time's sake. i don't want the limited time i have to decide to compromise the quality of my decision.

I am a current undergrad at Harvard university. While this will be the first time that I am judging policy, I am no stranger to the debate environment. I did parliamentary debate and various speech events in high school.

Here's what I like to see from my debaters:

Speed: quality over quantity. I need to hear your arguments clearly, so please enunciate.
Sign posting: absolutely necessary.
Evidence and card wars: be clear with your contentions and arguments. On the other extreme, card wars that fall into ’quantity’ vs relevance will hurt the team with that approach.
Framework: is it clear, consistent, and comprehensively covered (and attacked by the opposing team)?
Etiquette: lack of it has caused teams with a stronger framework to lose the round on my ballot.
A final note, the students in speech and debate, from my perspective, are inspiring. It’s a privilege judging these students.

Two years of University-level policy debate, two years of British parliamentary debate. Will vote on theory if it goes unanswered. Ks must provide an alternative and reasons to evaluate the round within that framework.

My focus is on the Legal Model Paradigm, including topicality, significance of harm, inherency, solvency and advantage over disadvantage.

Topicality - In particular, looking at the meaning of the resolution, and how it should be defined. The affirmative's position should address the resolution. The negative should address whether the affirmative's position addresses the resolution, or is extra-topical.

Significance of harm - Harm should be identified, and significance quantified (not necessarily mathematical). Negative should address whether the harm is real, or whether the affirmative's proposal would address the harm, or whether there are other alternatives that are better than the affirmative's proposal.

Inherency - This can be either structural (are there legal impediments to the resolution that need to be overcome, and can these be overcome) or attitudinal (are there philosophical impediments to the resolution).

Solvency - How practical is the plan? Will the plan actually solve the problem, or are there other causes that will remain and perpetuate the problem? Will the proposal actually make the problem better, or will it make it worse?

Advantages and Disadvantages - What are the impacts of the resolution? What are the advantages and disadvantages of the plan in addressing the resolution? Would the harms occur anyway?

Español

Fui debatiente de la escuela secundaria por 3 años, y ahora soy parte de la comunidad de exalumnos de la Liga de Debate de Boston. Desde mi graduación de la escuela secundaria, comencé a ayudar como juez de la Liga de Debate de Boston durante las competencias, especialmente para la división en español. En la actualidad soy entrenadora de debate en español y trabajo como para-profesional para las escuelas públicas de Boston.

Puntos clave:

Estilo: Entiendo que como debatientes, podemos desarrollar diferentes estilos de debate. Como ex-debatiente soy considerada en ello y acepto diferentes estilos que pueden ser brindados, siempre y cuando los estilos utilizados sean bien ejecutado.

Velocidad: la velocidad utilizada durante una ronda de debate debe ayudar a que sus argumentos sean claro y comprensibles. También debe ayudarte a ser más persuasivo a la hora de presentar tus argumentos.

Actuación: cuando se trata de la actuación de los debatientes, siempre que sea profesional y muestren respecto, será bien aceptado.

Nota sobre la tecnología: Entiendo que debido a este nuevo formato de debate. Es posible que experimentemos algunas dificultades técnicas. En caso de que ocurra alguna dificultad técnica, yo sería muy flexible con el tiempo de cada equipo y con el tiempo de las rondas de debate.

Intercambio de pruebas: si un equipo aporta pruebas adicionales, espero que sea compartida con el otro equipo y el juez.

No tolero palabras/acciones racistas, sexistas, etc. durante la ronda de debate. En caso de que suceda, descartaré la ronda de debate de inmediato. Especialmente, si se hacen de manera intencional.

English

I was a high school debate for three years, and now I become part of the Boston Debate League alum community. Since my high school graduation, I started assisting as a Judge for the Boston Debate League during competitions, especially for the Spanish division. Now, I work as a debate coach in the Spanish division and as a paraprofessional for Boston Public School.

Key points:

Style: I understand that, as debaters, we may develop different debate styles. I'm very open to accepting different debate styles during a debate round as long as the style is well-implemented.

Speed:Your speed should make your argument clear and understandable. It should also help you to be more persuasive when it comes to presenting your arguments.

Performance:When it comes to debaters' performance, As long as the debater is professional and respectful, it will be well accepted.

Note About Technology: I understand that because of this new debating format. We may experience some technical difficulties. I am flexible with the time if some technical difficulty happens.

Evidence Sharing:If one team brings additional evidence, I expect it to be shared with the other team and the judge.

I do not tolerate racist, sexist, etc. words/actions during the debate round. If it happens, I will dismiss the debate round immediately, especially if it was intentional.

History: Did four years of debate at UC Lab and had success, did a tad of debate at Michigan, and I am currently a debate coach at Success Academy Harlem North Central.

Thoughts (tldr: Do whatever you want but do it well. I was raised on technical Midwest style debate)

1. Debaters have a debilitating tendency to fail to see the forest for the trees. Most debates can be resolved by 1 central issue, define that issue and tell me why you are winning on that question.

2. I am tabula rasa- I have a read a drilling aff, a Moby Dick aff, an Asian Identity aff, an encryption aff, went for Baudrillard ALOT, etc. In other words, do what you want!

3. The best way to win a K in front of me is to spend a lot ton of time on the link debate and give each link an impact and/or turns case args. Pull lines from the 1AC, go into their internal links or the structuring logic of the aff- don't just read your generic heg links to the K blocks.

4. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reason you think I should vote for you.

5. Nuance is always strategic and appreciated.

6. Im not the best for techy T and theory debates but I can most def handle it.

7. CrossX is a speech and it is super important.

8. After some personal experiences I have come to believe that death good arguments pose a serious real life threat to the mental health of high school debaters. If you read these arguments and the other team makes the argument that death good is detrimental to the community, I am very likely to vote on the argument. However, that does not mean that you shouldn't read arguments like fear of death bad in front of me.

Policy

I'm okay with anything as long as you know what youre talking about

Run an untopical aff, run a plan, advocacy or no advocacy, run a k do whatever you want as long as you know what youre running and are prepared to win on theory/t. Make sure you can explain it to me bc im not gonna vote on something i dont understand and also dont assume I know your authors.

If you go for T or Theory you have to explain how it actually hurts you in the world of debate- don't just read a shell/shadow extend it. I want you to do a line by line on your standards and voters or I won't vote for it. Also if you read disclosure theory that's an isntant loss and no speaks. Sorry you're rich boohoo.

If you're gonna run a BS CP like a PIC or a consult you best have a DA and not just an INB.

Dont go for multiple world advocacies in the 2nr. pick one- you can run multiple advocacies throughout the round- but only go for one

If u go for theory, that better be the only thing u go for or i wont vote on it

LD/Pufo

more impacts based and please do weighing the last speech- i will defer to FW

Hey! I’m Albert Sanchez. In HS I did PF for a couple tournaments, LD for 3 years, and Worlds for 1 year. I’m in college on the American Parli team, where I run some IR/HIR stuff.

In terms of cases, I ran a lot of lay and some LARP stuff in HS. If you’re not sure what to run in front of me, ask yourself if my 8th grade sister would be able to understand your argument the way you read it. This goes for content and speed. Please don’t spread. I’m not perfect at flowing so if you really want me to catch on to something in the line by line please emphasize it. Flowing on a computer makes it easier to get stuff down tho so that’s a plus.

FAQ:

Will vote on spreading is bad. If you spread spreading is bad, I don't know what to tell you.

Stance on Ks? As long as I can understand them from what you tell me in the constructive, go for it. If it requires me to go read over the cards 10 times to understand what you're saying, don't read it.

Stance on LARP? Cool with it.

Stance on T/Theory? If there's clear abuse in the round, sure.

Email chain? Always for it. I'll give you my email in round if you're going to start one.

Time yourselves!

Speaks are silly and arbitrary so I'll be as transparent as possible (DOES NOT APPLY TO WORLD SCHOOLS).

- You will start at a 28 pt minimum unless otherwise told by tab. You can only go up unless you are offensive in round, don't use up all your time (like you have 3 min left in the NC), or spread without clearing it with me and the opponent.

- I don't care about eye contact, posture, hand gestures, or stuttering

- Give me good signposts

- Roadmap before you start your rebuttals (AND FOLLOW THE ROADMAP YOU GIVE ME)

- In rebuttals, don't just read the name of the card. Summarize what it said.

- Write my ballot for me: In the last speech tell me what the round come downs to and why you win

- (If we're in person): If aff sits on my left and neg on my right without asking me, I will bump both your speaks. If only one does so, I'll only bump that person's speaks. If no one does so, you just start at the 28 pt minimum

Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. I’ll talk about the round (if I’m allowed to) but I’ll also answer questions about college debate and stuff in general.

Matt Schnall Judging Philosophy (updated February 2021)

The three most important things to know about debating in front of me are: First, I am an exceedingly open-minded listener; I am willing to take most any argument seriously. Second, in convincing me, argument strength (logic, appropriately evidenced premises) is generally more important than technique. Third, debate should involve interaction — between you and your opponent; between you and me.

A short explanation:

“Taking all arguments seriously” means that I am open to persuasion on almost all issues in a debate, outside of time limits and speaking order. Creative and strategic arguments tend to particularly engage me. This doesn’t mean, however, that everything you say is automatically an argument. Generally, I will only consider arguments that are complete. So, if you say x will cause y to happen (or prevent it) but do not explain why y would be good or bad, there is no argument and no response is required. Similarly, “perm do the aff” requires some explanation in order to become an argument.

In terms of truth versus tech, I appreciate technical proficiency and rhetorical skills in debate. They make it easier for me to be a good judge. Good line-by-line debate, preceded by a coherent story, is usually the best way to convince me to see things your way. Nevertheless, I do my best to evaluate arguments however they are presented, and if your opponent persuades me on a point, the fact that you have been faster, more emphatic, more eloquent, or repeated your argument in more ways will not carry the day. In evaluating evidence, I will begin by giving weight to the supportive warrants a proponent has flagged or the gaps articulated by the opponent. Once I am reading a card, however, if there is a gap that is plainly inconsistent with the proponent’s explanation, I will not ignore it merely because the opponent did not point it out.

Interaction means clash; it means listening; it means asking and grappling with difficult questions in cross-ex, not dodging them. It means I may interrupt your speech or cross-ex to ask a question. Even if I say nothing, I will provide a wealth of non-verbal feedback. If I frown or look puzzled, I probably don’t (yet) understand your argument; if I shake my head, I may not (yet) be convinced. In either case, try it again. You will be most successful if you treat me as an active listener who is working to understand and evaluate what you are saying, rather than a passive canvas on which to paint some preconceived picture.

Clarity and online debate:

I decide debates based on your arguments. To do that, I need to understand all of your words, and more generally to understand complete arguments as they are made. I can do this in person at a reasonably high rate of speed, but it does require both comprehensibility and digestible, transparent argument structure. For online debate, I would recommend slowing down to a speed consistent with your technology. I will look at evidence if resolving an argument depends on it — and to this end, please include me on the email chain — but do not expect that I am reading along with your speech doc.

More details:

My background — I debated in college and coached college teams with some success when I was much closer to your age than I now am. Over the last 25+ years, I have stayed involved by judging somewhat regularly. I did a bit of coaching and argument development and judged more heavily over the period in which my children were high school debaters (2010-2016). Harvard will be my first debate judging on the criminal justice topic.

Clarity —

(1) Comprehensibility should be the same for tags, citations, and evidence: I am listening to, and flowing, cards. If you are not comprehensible I will say something, but after 3 or 4 "clear"s you would be wise to keep an eye on me to see whether I am following, as eventually I will give up on verbal feedback.

(2) An argument is not an argument until I understand it. If you reiterate it in a later speech, I will treat it like any other new argument. Obscure wording is not your friend. If a tag is more than 10-15 syllables (not words), you probably need to simplify it. Pay attention to me when you are making any novel or intricate argument, particularly theory and advocacy statements (plan/counterplan/alternative advocacy) — if I look confused or stumped, explain further.

Predispositions — I expect that a debate will involve advocacy by the affirmative team and a response to that advocacy by the negative team after which I can determine a winner using some reasonably objective standard(s). Beyond that, I will entertain debate on framework, theory, etc. I am predisposed to resolve theory disputes in favor of competitive balance and educational value, but I can be convinced otherwise. All else being equal, I would prefer to see a debate about the topic.

Time limits and speech order are not negotiable. On a two-person team, each debater must deliver one constructive and one rebuttal speech, and I will not evaluate advocacy that takes place by a different person, including a partner, during that speech. Absent reasoned argument to the contrary, rebuttal speeches, including the 1NR, are limited to response to or elaboration of arguments from prior speeches; however, outside of the 2AR, I will not entirely discount an argument as new unless the opponent so identifies it.

Incomplete arguments — As noted above, I do not evaluate an argument if it does not contain — or I do not understand — all of the elements necessary in order for it to affect my decision making (such as an argument missing a link or impact). Whether an argument is complete is of course a subject for debate, but if you think your opponent’s argument incomplete, you should point it out. If I agree, then I will treat the argument as newly made when it is completed. This might cause the argument to be a new argument in a rebuttal speech, and it would always allow you to make new responses after the argument is completed.

heyo,

I debated for Stuyvesant High School for 4 years as a 2A, and ended my career in quarters of the TOC, so I'd like to think I'm qualified to judge you. Add me to the email chain (StuyvesantDS@gmail.com). Please make this round fun for me to watch and adjudicate. I'm a huge believer in tech over truth. All that being said:

If you have only a little time, like the round is about to start or something:

Run (almost) whatever you want in front of me. K debate is mostly what I stuck to when I debated, but I have absolutely 0 predispositions about what debate should look like that I bring into the round with me, that's completely up to y'all to argue about. I have no biases about any specific argument (except theory vs theory rounds, ew), but I probably have a higher level of familiarity with nuances on most K's than with extremely nuanced topical CJR stuff. I have a high level of involvement with coaching some of my students to run topical affs and DA’s/CP’s though, so I should be able to keep up. Just have fun with whatever arguments you run!

If you actually read paradigms when doing prefs/before a round:

T: Sure I guess, just don't go hyperspeed on your standards, especially in the era of Zoom debate. If you're able to somehow tie T into your other flows with fun cross-applications and creative argument interactions, you'll most likely be rewarded with speaker points. If someone makes an RVI I will probably laugh, but will vote on it if they somehow manage to win the arg.

DA's: I'm down. The link story is very important to me here because I feel like a lot of people try to get away with super shady links, and affs don't capitalize on that enough. I really enjoy listening to DA's that have a specific link to the aff and have a really unique internal link/impact scenario, and those are also really strategic so please run those! I also think DA's are a great and incredibly underused asset against K-Affs. Many teams won't be prepared to answer them beyond an impact debate, and if you can convince me that the aff's semiotic insurrection or metaphysical revolution or whatever somehow leads to a collapse in the food chain causing extinction, by all means be my guest. Finally, if you absolutely must run some form of the Politics DA, fine, I'll listen to it, but begrudgingly. I know that neg ground is scarce on this topic, and so now Politics/Federalism/Elections is core lit lol.

CP's: Sure. I generally prefer advantage CP's to shady PIC's, but I'll vote on your shady PIC if you win it. I honestly don't care about how many planks your CP has or how abusive or ridiculous it is, unless the other team tells me to care about it.

Theory: I won't pretend to be an expert on theory debates or to particularly enjoy evaluating them, but if you must you must. Make sure to have a clear, stable interpretation - "conditionality is bad" doesn't cut it, "the neg can get X conditional advocacies" is more like it.

K's: Yes please. Throughout my debate career, I've read almost every single K under the sun, from anthro to race and gender K's to every level of postmodern and psychoanalytic fuckery imaginable. I love hearing both K on K and clash of civs debates, so yes go for it. The one caveat is that the more familiarity I have with the K, the higher of a standard I'll hold you to while running it. This doesn't mean I won't vote on a poorly explained Baudrillard K, but my disappointment will be reflected in your speaker points. My preferred strategy when I ran K's was going 1-off, because I think that's the best way to fully develop your thesis and (hopefully) complex arguments. If you're the type of person who runs 7 K's in the 1NC that all contradict to outspread the other team and go for whatever they undercover, you devalue this activity (and not in a Baudrillardian sense - in a "you suck" sense), and I encourage the aff to take some prep for the 2AC and point out the contradictions in the neg's K's and why this means they should lose as per their own authors. I will most likely agree. I think framework is crucial for both the aff and neg in K debates, as these rounds can sometimes be won on framework alone, even stuff as extreme as "they don't get to have an aff" or "they don't get to have a K". Other than that, I think the best strategy for affs against K's is a solid link-turn that's specific to the K's impacts.

FW: I've been on both sides of the Framework/K-Aff debate many times, and have absolutely 0 predispositions about either argument when they clash. I've found that sticking to either procedural fairness/gameplaying or portable skills instead of trying to fuse the two works best, but you do you (in most instances, debate is a game is probably most strategic route). I can be fairly easily convinced that K-Affs make debate less fair, but not enough teams are going the distance and explaining why fairness is an inherent good or important. If its an impact and not just an internal link, justify that! Also, why aren't people going for agonism on FW anymore, that's a fun argument. For the aff, even if the neg says that you can't leverage the 1AC against FW, it doesn't hurt to try. Make sure to flag central pieces of offense against FW for me at the top of your flow!

K-Affs: I ran only K-Affs from my sophomore year onward, and prefer evaluating them to policy affs. I'm down with any branch of K literature u chose to use, and I'd really like for there to be SOME kind of relation to the topic, the extent of that is up to you. (like 8 minutes of an interpretive dance where you repeatedly chant "CJR" or something). That being said, if you're trying to no-link framework fairness claims, the closer you are to the topic, the better that'll work out for you. If you're ready to tell me fairness doesn't matter, the world is your oyster. In my eyes, you don't need to have an advocacy text, nor be constrained to auditory forms of communication, nor even be speaking in English, unless the other team says you need those things, in which case y'all can debate it out. Neg should try to run something other than/in addition to just framework against K-Affs, as the aff has most likely prepped the hell out of your arguments. Get some good ol' fashioned case debate in there too!

Other side-notes:

Don't ever: be blatantly racist, sexist, etc, you know the drill. If it happens, you'll get an auto-loss, 0 speaks, and I'll have a conversation with your coach. Don't make me take time out of my day to do that.

Troll arguments: Go for it, there's very few things I won't vote for, and they were just mentioned above. I fall under the Calum Matheson school of thought, wherein if you truly think an argument is incredibly asinine, you should have no problem answering it, and if you can't answer it, you deserve to lose. However, trolling in cross-ex is a form of performance in my eyes, so be sure you know what you're getting yourself into, and how it relates to your arguments.

Intervention: I don't like it, don't make me fill in blanks for u

Speaker points: I debated fairly recently so I know what speaks should look like in this day and age. I'll give higher speaks for bold strategic choices, creative arguments, a good knowledge of your arguments, and confidence in what you're saying. Jokes are also very welcome and appreciated and can boost your speaks, especially if they concern my old debate partner, there's a lot about him to roast. Entertain me.

For LD:

Im not a fan of overly heavy theory. I’ve learned that people in LD tend to un-clearly spread thru their pre-written theory analytics, and I have no desire to write down points 1-17 for why X is a voter when you’re slurring words at 400 WPM.

I don’t have super strong opinions on Phil stuff. I think it’s interesting for sure, and I have a good degree of familiarity with the authors, but I don’t think it makes for good or meaningful debate. Run it if u must, but if the entire debate ends up entirely coming down to Kant or Spinoza I will not be happy.

Trix are an interesting gray area for me. I guess I'll vote on it if you win, but if I have to evaluate whatever the fuck "firmly determined" means or something along those lines, my disappointment will be reflected in speaker points. I draw a distinction between trix and general trolling. Trolling is all good if it’s justified.

I think I’m really good for the K, for K-aff’s, and for framework. I elaborate on those in detail above in my Policy paradigm. I encourage you to read that before figuring out where to pref me.

If you know anything about debating in front of judges who've only ever done Policy debate, that's how you should probably try to adapt. I have, however, judged enough LD rounds at this point where I feel like I’m fairly familiar with all the ways this activity is different than Policy, so it’s chillin.

Cheaters lose. Clipping cards is cheating. Reading K-aff's is certainly not cheating unless you convince me that it is. Tech > Truth. Please make the round entertaining for me!!! It could only help ur speaks.

**EMAIL FOR EVIDENCE CHAIN**: aubrey.semple@successacademies.org

Coaching Background
Policy Debate Coach @

Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (Present)

NYCUDL Travel Team (2015-2019)

Brooklyn Technical High School (2008-2015)
Baccalaureate School for Global Education (2008-2010)
Benjamin Banneker Academy (2007-2008)
Paul Robeson HS (2006-2007)

Administrative Background
Program Director - New York City Urban Debate League (September 2014 - July 2020)

Director of Debate - Success Academy HS for the Liberal Arts (August 2020 - Present)

Debater Background
New York Coalition of Colleges (NYU/CUNY) (2006- 2009)
Paul Robeson High School (New York Urban Debate League) (2003-2006)

Judging Background
Years Judging: 15 (Local UDL tournament to National Circuit/TOC)

Policy Short Version:

** 12/1/21 - 2021 NY FALL FACE OFF UPDATE**

This will be my first tournament on the water protections topic and my first time judging remote in a while so I ask that you prioritize clarity over speed as I will be flowing on paper and if I can't catch your arguments because I can't hear you then those arguments will not be evaluated in my decision.

I try to let you, the debaters decide what the round is about and what debate should be. However, as I grow older in this activity, I will admit that certain debate styles and trends that exist from convoluted plan texts/advocacy statements where no one defends anything and worse; debaters that purposely and intentionally go out of their way to make competitors and judges and even spectators feel uncomfortable through fear tactics such as calling people out in debate because one doesn't agree with the other's politics, utilizing social media to air out their slanderous statements about people in the debate community and so on is tired and absolutely uncalled for. I say this because this has been an on-going occurrence far TOO often and it has placed me in a position where I'm starting to lose interest in the pedagogical advantages of policy debate due to these particular positions. As a result, I've become more and more disinterested in judging these debates. Not to say that I won't judge it fairly but the worst thing you can do in terms of winning my ballot fails to explain what your argument is and not tell me what the ballot signifies. So, if you are the type of team that can't defend what your aff does or how it relates to the topic and solely survives off of grandiose rhetoric and/or fear tactics... STRIKE ME!

Long Version:

The Semantics of "So-Called" Rules or Norms for Debate Rounds


THE INTRO: I try to have zero substantive or procedural predispositions prior to the round. But as I judge, judge, and judge policy debates, that tends to shift. So, in out of all honesty, I say to you that all debaters will have the opportunity to argue why you should win off with a clean slate. If you win a round-ending argument, I won't shy away from voting for you just because I think it's stupid. Of course, I expect your arguments to be backed up by persuasive reasoning (or whatever else you find persuasive), but if you fail to explain why you should win, I will feel personally licensed by you all to make things up. So at the end of the day, don’t make me have to do the work to adjudicate the round… you do it. DON'T MAKE ME HAVE TO DO THE WORK THAT YOU SHOULD DO IN THE ROUND!!! I don't mind reading evidence at the end of a debate, but don't assume that I will call for evidence, make sure that if you want me to evaluate your argument with your evidence at the end of the round just tell me what I should review, and I'll review the argument for you. Also, if you intend to use acronyms, please give me the full name before you go shorthand on me.

TOPICALITY: I've come to enjoy T debates, especially by those that are REALLY good at it. If you are that T hack that can go for T in the 2NR then I am a lot better for you than others who seem to think that T isn’t a legitimate issue. I do, which doesn’t mean I will vote for you just because you run it. It means that if you win it, that brings major weight when it is time for adjudication. FYI, T is genocide and RVIs are not the best arguments in the world for these debates but I will pull the trigger on the argument is justified. (and I mean REALLY justified). Voting on reasonability or a competing interpretation as a default paradigm for evaluating T is up for grabs, but as always I need to know how the argument should be evaluated and why it is preferable before I decide to listen to the T debate in the 2NR (e.g. predictable limits key to topic education).

COUNTERPLANS: I don’t mind listening to a good (and I mean) good CP debate. I don’t really have any set opinions about issues like whether conditionality is okay and whether PICs are legitimate. I award debaters that are creative and can create CPs that are well researched and are competitive with the AFF plan. Those types of debates are always up in the air but please note that in my experience that debaters should be on top of things when it comes to CP theory. Those debates, if executed poorly are typically unacceptably messy and impossible to resolve so be careful with running theory args on CP debates that A) makes ZERO sense, B) that is blimpy, and C) that is not necessary to run when there is no abuse. Violation of any of the three will result in me giving you a dumb look in your speech and low speaks. And it really doesn't hurt to articulate a net benefit to the CP for that would win you some offense.

DISADVANTAGE: I evaluate Disads based on the link story presented by the negative in the 1NC and what is impacted in the 2NR. To win my vote, the story needs to be clear in terms of how specifically does the affirmative link to the DA. Any case can link but it’s how specific the link is and the calculus of the impact that makes me lean more towards the neg.

KRITIKS: I can handle K debates, considering the majority of my debate career has been under critical arguments (i.e. Capitalism, Statism, Racism, Biopower…) But, if you are a team that relies on the judge being hyped up by fancy rhetoric that you learn from camp, practice, or a debate video on YouTube, you don’t want me. In fact, some of you love to read insanely complicated stuff really fast without doing enough to explain what the hell you’re saying. I like a fast debate like anyone else, but if you read the overview to your tortuously complex Kritik at top speed, you’re going to lose me. If your kritik is not overly complex, go nuts with speed. I will vote on offensive arguments such as "K Debate Bad/Good or the perm to the alt solves or turns to the K, as long as you win them. Overall, I’m cool with the K game, ya dig. All I ask of you all is a comprehensive link story for me to understand... an impact and what does the alternative world looks like and how that is more desirable than the aff policy option. "Reject the aff" as the alt text.... very long stretch on winning the K if I don't know what it means.

FRAMEWORK: Like Topicality, I also enjoy framework debates, if done properly. And like topicality, I try to not have a default preference in terms of defaulting to policymaker or activist or whatever in the fairness of approaching the debate round from a clean slate. At the end of the debate, I need to know what the round should be evaluated and what is my jurisdiction as a judge to evaluate the debate on a particular framework versus the opponent's competitive framework (if they choose to present one). If there isn't a competitive framework, I'll simply default to the original framework mentioned in the debate. In essence, if I am not presented with a framework of how to evaluate the argument, I'll take the easy way out and evaluate the argument as a policymaker. However, it is up to the debaters to shape the debate, NOT ME.

PERFORMANCE/ K Affs: I'm slowly starting to dislike judging these types of debates. Not because I don't like to hear them (I've ran critical affirmatives and neg positions both in high school and in college) but more and more I'm stuck judging a debate where at the end of round, I've spent nearly two hours judging and I've learned little to nothing about the topic/subject matter but instead subjected to grandiose rhetoric and buzzwords that make no sense to me. I really dislike these debates and the fact that these types of debates are growing more and more places me in a position where I'd rather not judge these rounds at all. As a judge, I shouldn't have to feel confused about what you are saying. I shouldn't have to feel pressured into voting a certain way because of one's pessimistic view of the debate space. Granted, we all have our issues with policy debate but if you don't like the game... then don't play it. Changing the debate space where diversity is acknowledged is fine but when we lose sight of talking about the resolution in lieu of solely talking about one's personal politics only becomes self-serving and counter-productive. For that, I am not the right judge for you.

That said, if you want to run your K aff or "performance" affirmative, do what you do best. The only burden you have is that you need to win how your level of discourse engages the resolution. If you cannot meet that burden then framework/procedural arguments become an easy way to vote you down. If you can get through that prerequisite then the following is pretty straightforward: 1) I just want you to explain what you are doing, why you are doing it, what my role is, and how I’m supposed to decide the round. 2) If you want me to engage the debate via a comparison of methodologies, you need to explain what it is and how it functions in the context of the resolution and prove that its preferable against your opponent or vise-versa. 3) I want you to act like the other team actually exists, and to address the things they say (or the dances they do, or whatever). If you feel like I should intuit the content of your args from your performance/K Affs with no explicit help from you, you don’t want me, in fact, you will just hate me when I give you lower speaks. However, if you are entertaining, funny, or poignant, and the above constraints don’t bother you, I’m fine. 4) If you answer performance/ K Affs arguments with well-thought-out and researched arguments and procedurals, you’ll easily pick up my ballot.

THEORY: This is something that I must say is extremely important to mention, given that this is greatly a big issue in policy debate today, especially in the national circuit. So let me be clear that I have experienced highly complex theoretical debates that made virtually NO sense because everyone is ready to pull out their blocks to "Condo Bad" or "Vagueness Good" or "Agent CPs Bad" without actually listening to the theoretical objection. With that I say, please pay attention. Good teams would provide an interpretation of how to evaluate a theory argument. Like a procedural argument, you should prove why your interpretation of the theoretical argument is preferred for debate. It would also help you to SLOW, SLOW, SLOW down on the theory debates, especially if that is the route that you're willing to go to for the 2NR/2AR. If the affirmative or negative are planning to go for theory, either you go all in or not at all. Make sure that if you're going for theory, impact it. Otherwise, I'm left to believe that it's a reason to reject the argument, not the team.

FLASHING EVIDENCE/EMAIL CHAIN: I have a love-hate relationship with paperless debate but I can accept it. That being said, please be aware that I will stop the prep time once the flash drive is out of the computer of the team that is about to speak. I take this very seriously considering the ongoing mishaps of technical issues that are making the paperless debate, in general, a notorious culprit of tournament delays, considering the flashing of the evidence, the opponents searching for the correct speech file, and the infamous "my computer crashed, I need to reset it" line. If you are capable of having a viewing computer... make it accessible. I'm also cool with email chains. You can send me your speeches to semplenyc@gmail.com. Same rules on flashing apply to email chains as well.

BEHAVIOR STYLE: To be aggressive is fine, to be a jerk is not. I am ok if debates get a bit heated but that does not allow debaters to be just plain rude and ignorant to each other. That said, please be nice to each other. I don't want to sound like the elementary school teacher telling children to behave themselves, but given the experience of some debaters that simply forgot that they are in an activity that requires discipline and manners... just chill out and have fun. For example, POINTLESSLY HOSTILE CROSS-EXAMINATIONS really grinds my gears. Chill out, people. Hostility is only good in cross-ex if you making a point. And oh yeah, be nice to your partner. At the end of the day, they're the ones you have to go back to practice with.

Remember, competitive debate is a privilege, not a right. Not all students have the opportunity to compete in this activity on their spare weekends for various reasons (academic and socio-economic disadvantages to name a few). Remember that debate gives you an opportunity to express yourselves on a given subject and should be taken advantage of. Although I don't want to limit individuals of their individuality when presenting arguments however I will not condone arguments that may be sexist, racist, or just plain idiotic. Remember to respect the privilege of competition, respect the competitors and hosts of the tournament and most importantly respect yourselves.

HAVE FUN AND BEST OF LUCK!!!

Edgemont '20

Harvard '24

Put me on the chain: roshah17@gmail.com

Do what you do best; everything I've said below is assumptive of totally even debating on both sides which is often not the case. I put a premium on big-picture strategic thinking, efficient line-by-line, and quality evidence. It's vital to identify the parts of the debate you're winning and why they matter more than / how they interact with the parts of the debate your opponents are winning.

My views on debate issues have largely been shaped by the following people: Brian Manuel, Amar Sandhu, Sydney Pasquinelli, my lab leaders at Michigan State and Michigan (Brett Bricker, Will Repko, Dave Strauss, Kristiana Baez, Kevin Hirn, Eric Forslund, Brianna Lewis, Dana Randall), Roman Ugarte, Aden Barton, Ethan Muse, Grace Kessler. I refer you to their paradigms as well.

For Online:

- Please keep your camera on unless it's absolutely necessary for it to be off. Let's just try to simulate in-person debate the best we can.

Specifics:

- Tech over truth. Good evidence is essential to a winning strategy, but good spin nearly always outweighs evidence when I resolve arguments.

- The more I judge, I'm beginning to realize I make decisions pretty quickly and actively look for ways out rather than trying to wade through a large, complex, and insoluble argument load. It will absolutely benefit you to go for the strategy that makes my RFD the easiest and clearest, which may often mean executing a riskier-than-normal set of arguments.

- Perhaps different from some judges, I consider my decision as the debate goes on, and arrive at a makeshift or contingent decision right after the 2AR ends. In the majority of debates, this contingent decision comports with my post-round deliberation. In rare cases, my scrutiny of the original assessment can lead me to conclude differently than I had first anticipated, but these are few and far between.

- I know next to nothing about the high school topic; just provide more explanation than you otherwise might be used to.

- DAs: Carded turns case is important. "Framing contentions" are not responsive to DAs.

- CPs: Explicitly tell me to judge-kick. I probably lean neg on conditionality, aff on CPs that compete based on the immediacy/certainty of the plan. Smart, intuitive analytic advantage CPs or 2NC CPs out of add-ons do not require solvency advocates.

- T: My lack of direct involvement in high school debate this year means I'm not really programmed by specific community norms, which is likely good for affs that avoid the core of the topic or topicality interpretations that have been disregarded by consensus. I think I am more amenable to "legal precision" arguments than most. Frame impact calculus through the competing realms of predictability and debatability.

- Ks: It will be difficult to convince me not to weigh the aff. I think plans are normative statements about institutional action, and as a result, I do not care that fiat isn't a thing. However, I have no profound ideological opposition to any specific criticism. Ks of fiat are bad, Ks of reps are fine. Links to the plan are optimal.

- FW: I went for framework many, many, many times in high school. If anything, this probably sets a higher bar for what I consider a well-executed iteration of the argument. These debates are pretty boring to judge, so truly innovative takes on either side of the policy - K divide will be rewarded.

- K v K Debates: I've been preffed for a few of these, and while it is unlikely I will be listening to a ton of K v K debates, I enjoy judging them way more than framework debates and would honestly love to be in the back for more of them. Take a chance on me.

- Impact Turns: Yes. Debate uniquely affords us the opportunity to defend ideas that run contrary to conventional academic wisdom on any number of subjects; use this to experiment and entertain.

- Have fun! Make debate enjoyable for yourself and others.

LD:

- I have relatively little experience judging this activity. If possible, I would appreciate it if these debates closely resembled policy debate in terms of structure, content, and level of analytical rigor.

- No "tricks."

PF:

- Do whatever short of stuff that is academically dishonest. Don't paraphrase.

- Maximize disclosure -- send evidence, docs, etc to your opponents prior to the speech. Please minimize dead time; I really don't like waiting five minutes for one piece of evidence to be transmitted between teams.

- I'll give points bonuses if teams don't take any prep.

- Theory and Ks in PF are usually incoherent - don't make me evaluate incomplete arguments. I reward high-quality research and teams who answer arguments in the order in which they were presented.

- I'm not super familiar with PF jargon (i.e. de-linking, etc), so try to make it sound policy-ish or save yourself the trouble and just explain how the arguments you are winning or ahead on interact with / outweigh / matter more than / otherwise complicate the arguments they are ahead on.

Experience:
- 11 Years Policy Debate
- Weber State and University of West Georgia
- Coach at Juan Diego Catholic High

1. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence of interrogation in speeches and cross-examination.

2. I often vote for the team that can make complex arguments sound like common sense. Clarity of thought is paramount

3. If there is an “easy” way to vote, that's warranted, I’m likely to take it.

4. I appreciate technical execution and direct refutation over implied argumentation.

5. The earlier in debate that teams collapse down to lower quantities of positions and/or arguments, the more likely I am to latch on to what is going on and make a decent decision.

6. Identifying what I have to resolve behooves you. Debates are won or lost on a few primary debatable questions. If you are the first to identify and answer those questions thoroughly, you will be ahead in my mind.

Shirley Update

The only topic work I’ve done for Personhood is digging up my old plant ontology files, go slow and tell me your stuff.

If my camera is off I am not present - don’t start.

Short

I've read every kind of aff from straight up heg good to baudrillard, I care way less about what arguments you make than how well you defend them.

I went for the K a lot in high school and still do, but I also love a good policy round, and would much rather you debate to your strengths than to what arguments you think I'll like.

Put me on the email chain, alexsherman99@gmail.com I won't be reading along, unless you read a card that I think is so good I want to recut it for my teams, or if there's a dispute about something that was read.

Long version

I flow on paper. This means that you going slightly slower, and having a clear story will be quite helpful. I'm at the tail-end of year 10 competing and year 5 judging, so this doesn't mean you have to talk to me like I'm a parent judge, but it does mean that if you go full speed through 8 minutes of blocks, to not be surprised when I miss an argument or two. The easy fix to this, for all of you speed demons out there, is to label your arguments with a flowable tag. We already do this with cards, why not do it with our analytics too?

When making my decision. I first write up the most important arguments for both sides. This usually comes down to about 2-3 things, though that may just be because I only judge clash rounds. I then look over my flow, and try to write up an explanation of each, and what it means for both sides. I then compare these, and look for responses that the other team has forwarded. What this means for you, is that it is in your interest to identify what you think the 2-3 most important arguments for either side are, tell me why you're winning them, or why you should still win in the event that you don't win these arguments. If you do not do this, I will still do my best to identify these arguments, but, what I think is important and what you do may not line up, and as a result, our perceptions of the winner may not line up either.

When doing this, I often try as hard as I can to not read evidence. This is because I am very committed to my belief that debate is an activity about communication, and that if you did not effectively communicate an argument to me, it does not matter if you read an amazing card. While I obviously still care about research and evidence quality, I feel that the impulse to read all of the evidence to decide the round makes me more interventionist (which I would like to avoid) and also seems to fall outside of the terms of debate. I.e. outside of teams dropping stuff, if i were to just decide the round based on the cards you read, and not what you said about them, why should I even be sitting there for two hours listening to you? Couldn't you just send me your cards and have me decide at the end whose I thought were better?

This applies less and less if both sides are comparing a piece of evidence, or questioning it's qualifications, or implication, but the "this card is fire, please read it judge" has never been something I have been that inclined to do.

I judge a majority clash debates (around 80% when I last checked) and have found that oftentimes the winners in this debates are the ones who engage with the other side's approach to the world, rather than just explaining why their approach is better. While we obviously should still care about drops, and they are often useful in making decisions in these rounds, I've found that it's useful for both teams to invest a substantial amount of time in looking to where the other team clashed, as much as where they didn't.

I've noticed that I may sound kind of grumpy when giving rfds. This very rarely reflects my distaste at having to judge your round, and more so reflects that I am displeased at having to get 5 or 6 hours of sleep.

My favorite judges in high school were always the ones who seemed really excited to be there judging my round, and the ones who emphasized voting on what was in the round. I love debate and I know you care about the activity to be giving up your weekends to compete in it, and it would be rude of me if I didn’t put all my effort into making the best decision I can. If you don’t think I’m paying enough attention, go ahead and call me out. Nothing here is set in stone, but, if you don't tell me to change how I'd evaluate any of these, then they're my defaults.

1 Tech Over truth, but to an extent. True arguments require less technical explanation for me to buy what you're selling. Oftentimes when making decisions, I find that I am looking at dropped words on my flow, but am unsure how to piece them together to make a cohesive rfd. It is in your best interest to not only tell me what was dropped, but then tell me what I should think about the drops.

2 Mediocre strategies may win in front of me, but, speaker points will likely suffer. If the 1ar drops aspec that was at the bottom of your t overview, and that’s your a-strat, I’m probably not the judge for you. I prefer debates with either really tricky and nuanced strategies, or teams that are willing to just bet it all on black and go for impact turns. I've found that teams that do a better job articulating how I should evaluate arguments do better in front of me than teams that just wait for me to reconstruct what an argument means for my decision. I'm not smart so if you tell me how arguments implicate the rest of the debate, you'll be in a better spot.

3 Protecting the 2nr. There's nothing worse than giving what you think is a fire 2nr and then watching the judge nod along with an argument you're certain wasn't in the 1ar. 2ars should have a high standard for drawing arguments from the 1ar unless they were clear in the speech. I.E. new 2ar cross applications should be justified in the speech/flagged in the 1ar. If I don’t think I could have seen it coming, I probably will think it’s new.

4 Counterplans: They should compete with the aff. Theory arguments are usually just reasons to reject the counterplan, but this is primarily because most folks are afraid of going all in. If your solvency deficit is mediocre, theory is probably a good way out. You don't need a solvency advocate, but having one definitely makes your job easier. Exploit generic link chains in affs.

Generic pics are awful, and specific pics are one of the fastest ways to get good speaks, but in both cases, pics bad needs to come back with a vengeance. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR.

5 Disads: 2acs with bold strats, i.e. straight turning a disad would increase my value to life, and your speaker points. I am very much in the camp that a disad that isn't a full argument in the 1nc is a terrible strategic decision hint: 1a's pull out your impact turns. Outside of that though, I really do like them, whether you're a plug and chug politics team, or a team with the amazing topic link card that no one else has found.

6 Kritiks I like them, they’re probably my favorite argument. I’m really into high theory, and probably am a good judge for you if you like to run kritiks. I’ve run all kinds of things, mainstream stuff like cap, and apoc rhet, to stuff like dng, baudrillard, and halberstam. Examples, explanation and re-contextualization will be integral to your success. These rounds are often more about controlling the narrative than many others, which makes sense given that the focus of the debate is on whether the assumptions that the other team has forwarded are valid.

You don’t need to have an alt to win, but you should justify why. Your links should be specific to the aff. Obviously this is a sliding scale, and if you're reading a K of realism against an aff from John Mearsheimer, I won't be rolling my eyes wishing you had a card specific to the aff, but, If I can’t tell what aff your debating in your 2nc on the k, we’re both gonna have a bad time.

I was always pretty frustrated after giving a 2nr on the K when the judge was just like. "I know you both read a bunch of stuff on framework, but I couldn't really decide who won so I kinda just picked a middle option that both teams never said" Not only does this seem to heavily favor the affirmative, but also reflects a combination of arguments that was never advocated for by either team. I think the best strategy for the aff is just to have some arguments that presume that they (gasp) have to defend why their representations and scholarship are good. Given that most k's are some kind of argument about how the affirmative's theory of IR justifies violence, it doesn't seem that hard to identify the strain of IR that you have affirmed, and provide a defense of why you think about the world the way you do. If the neg has said debate is about how we craft our subjectivity, and said that the subjectivity they endorse opposes a particular world view, why wouldn't this equally apply to the aff, and the defensive realist subjectivity of the taiwan aff be a reason why you should get to say your impacts still matter.

Generally though, I think that affs need to be doing a lot better job answering k's. Please talk about your aff more and generic backfile cards less. Most cases outweigh the k, and extinction impacts are often pretty persuasive. I really do not want to die, and presume that most people do not want to die either, and one thing that always confused me was when there were debates where that comparison didnt really start until the last two rebuttals.

I also think more affs should just bite the link and impact turn the K. Obvi dont read racism/sexism/ableism good, thats the quickest way to a 25 and an L short of conceding the round, but, every K makes other claims that you can, and probably should consider reading offense against.

Two side thoughts

1. Most people read utterly incoherent theories of international relations. I.E. Ikenberry and Mearsheimer may both think that leadership is good, but are not as buddy buddy as people would like me to believe. Obviously just being like "lmao these cards are a double turn" does not meet the threshold of an argument, but, "the aff de-prioritizes the role of institutions because ___ this means that you should be skeptical of their ability to solve for the liberal international order, which Ikenberry says is cohered through a strong commitment to international institutions" is. The latter will shock and impress me, and put your baseline speaks at a 29.

2. Most people have turned against the "not our x" Sometimes this is fair, because the team is lying to get out of links. But, I don't particularly understand why a team should be punished because their author had a bad idea that they don't defend or talk about in the 1ac or 1nc. Consider if we applied this same standard to policy rounds, and the neg read a politics card from nate silver about a specific seat in the midterms. The affirmative responded with a card that said "nate silver was way off on this one super unrelated prediction" and read a card indicting the method of that poll specifically. Why would the neg be tied to defending the poll that they have not cited, and is not intrinsic to their argument? This doesn't mean that I'm waiting to vote on not our x, but, that I will be pleased if both teams can defend why their argument is or is not distinct from x, by demonstrating a command of the literature base that they are deploying.

7 Topicality: Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't really understand ground arguments - if you don't have generics ready to go for core topic areas, or arguments that make debating the aff irrelevant (impact turns, process cp's etc) that seems like a you problem. I get some affs are really small and don't do much, but either they have an absurd impact claim that you can turn or outweigh, or they'd need such a contrived interpretation of the topic to be T that you could just go for limits.

Reasonability has never really made sense to me either, because usually those debates just boil down into the same silly buzzwords that everyone uses. I think reasonability can be an incredibly gnarly argument if it's framed more in the form of an explanation of why offense/defense is bad for topicality debates. Scotty P wrote a really good explanation of what that would look like here https://hsimpact.wordpress.com/2016/01/20/what-is-reasonability/

8 Speaks

Things that will get you good speaks

5 minutes of Antonio in the 2nr (not joking)

9 Clipping- Don’t do it. I’ll be sad, and have to give you a 0

10 No argument too strange- I can be convinced to vote on anything if you do well. T is a rvi, double win theory, normativity k, silence k. If you think you can pull it off, and want to risk a ballot on it go ahead. If you execute it poorly, I'll probably be annoyed, but at the same time, no one ever did anything to radically change debate without taking a lot of risks.

11 Non-traditional affs. I think I’m a pretty good judge for these. I think these affirmatives are unfair, but, don't really know why that's bad (fairness is not an impact). I don’t really think framework is deployed effectively very often, which is unfortunate, because I oftentimes think that many of the claims from framework teams make a lot of intuitive sense. I ended up voting against framework about 60% of the time last year, but I'd attribute that a lot more to what happened in the rounds I judged than to a general predisposition.

For the neg. When I vote neg on T, it's because the negative has successfully done one of two things.

1. Proven that their impact turns the aff's offense.

2. Proven that the aff doesn't solve their offense, and have mitigated the application of case to T in a way beyond the sentence blurb "they don't get to weigh the aff because t is a procedural"

I've found that the topical version of the aff has become less persuasive to me the more clash rounds I've judged. This is not due to the argument being not strategic, but rather, me being left confused about how the topical version resolves offense that the affirmative has deployed, (and a secondary problem of most topical versions of the aff not meeting the standard of being a topical aff in a policy v policy round). The solution to this is easy. Instead of repeating any disad to the topical version doesn't prove it isn't an answer, it just proves neg ground, take some time thinking about the offense that the other team is deploying.

A second problem, is that most people seem to forget they're reading a topicality argument. I have judged almost 30 framework debates this year, and in about 5 of them, I've been clear on how the counterinterpretation solved the aff's disads, and included their affirmative. If the aff read a counterinterp they didn't meet on T-Pearson, or that didn't solve the aff's overlimiting offense why wouldn't you point that out? There's a reason why you're reading interpretations, and why we call framework a topicality argument, you should debate your shell as such.

I've also found that the repetitive "but what do you do?" presumption argument, is wholly unpersuasive. Most affs say they do something, and the neg says, but what do you do, the aff says what they do, and the neg says, yeah, but what do you do? I think this can also be fixed pretty easily, instead of carrying over this, but what do you do argument, make the implied follow on argument, which is something to the effect of, if x structure is so totalizing as their theory says it is, their method is insufficient to resolve it. Think about x as a similar example, which failed for y reason.

All this being said, I'm more than willing to vote on T, as it is obviously a strategic position, and I'm very sympathetic to teams (especially without substantial coaching resources) who would rather prepare to get really good at one argument that would answer all no plan affs, as opposed to specific critiques/disads.

For the aff - Have a clear counterinterp, tight impact turn story, and exploit the weakness of most teams at answering arguments that they are mostly unfamiliar with.

You have to answer disads, even if you dont defend hypothetical implementation of usfg action. This doesn't mean I'm waiting to vote on the aff flips the 2020 election, but rather that if you can think of a nuanced way to articulate a link I wont be a super tough sell on the aff has to defend the consequences of their epistemology. I.e. if an aff says that executive power is bad, I feel like John Yoo would have some things to say about that, even if the aff doesn't implement a policy.

I also really enjoy K vs K debates, as this gives me a break from hearing about what Steinberg and Freely need to tell me about decisionmaking, and allows both sides to engage literature bases that are often not brought into connection with each other. One side note is that I tend to find that the theory of power debate is far less compelling than specific applications. Most folks in the 2nr and 2ar tend to just be like, they dropped our theory of power, game over!!

Questions? Email me at alexsherman99@gmail.com. The longer you wait, the less specific my comments may be, but I have noticed that I recall my thoughts about rounds more than I don't.

I do not have a personal history in debate. Therefore, I am not as comfortable with spreading. I feel that I can be more affective in judging when teams do not spread. I do have a history in speech. I am a novice at judging policy debate, although I do enjoy judging them. I may request that teams do not use debate 'lingo" but provide more of a layperson perspective when presenting their positions.

My philosophy as a judge is to remain as neutral as possible and not allow my personal beliefs/convictions to interefere with the positions presented. I believe that my work as a health care provider, has helped me to remain neutral to topics when I have previously judged policy debates.

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.

ksoropoulos@gmail.com

I am a salmon

BIO and General

Hi,

I debated policy at Mamaroneck for 3 years (2016-2019). I would prefer the debate to go the way you want it to, meaning feel free to reading critical and policy arguments.

I subscribe to tabula rasa but FYI I ran almost exclusively policy. Know your authors and what you are reading. This is true for critical as well as policy arguments: I will make no arguments for your opponent's if you do end up expounding an argument that is not in your cards as I feel it is your opponent's responsibility to call you out, but I will also not give you a free pass if the arguments do not link and are made-up.

please do not just read blocks, it hurts your speaks and your chances of winning. debate the line by line, respond to arguments, use warrants. I love a good line by line argument. Speak on your feet, not just regurgitating the same BS from your cards.

Specifics

- I assign the last two speeches in the round to be the most important. If an argument is not in the last two speeches I will not vote on it. Tell me why you have won and provide warrants and weighing, write my ballot for me.

- I think the single most important thing in debates, regardless of style, is the link chain. Too often teams forget about telling me how you get to your impacts in favor of large spectacles of violence. I like the ending to dr strangelove as much as the next man but tell me how you get there.

- CP: Will vote on any competitive counterplan, some are better than others, try to have a net benefit if you want the ballot.

- DA: As I said, link chain is important.

- T: I really like technical T debates. I think debaters should slow down by a few degrees when they are debating the standards (especially virtual debates). Probably lean to towards reasonability but I can be dissuaded.

- K: Do not like Kritiks because most debaters are blithering idiots when it comes to understanding the cards. They do not know what the cards are really arguing. This is largely due to the theoretical nature of most kritiks. I believe good K's have examples, not conjecture. I will vote on the K but that requires you to know what you are talking about, please do not read blocks after blocks, I much prefer debating than listening to you read out loud.

-FW:Well argued framework is a work of art

- ROTB/ROTJ: if you are arguing for education gained in the round as a reason to vote for the K you better have a pretty compelling warrant, I need to understand why you uniquely require the ballot, why is a W on tabroom essential to your method? Why do you need the ballot if the room has already been educated? These questions and others are ones you should seek answers for. Saying ROTB is to spread communism is not enough for me. Substantiate your argument.

- K affs: see above, pretty much the same opinions, prove why the topic/resolution is bad. Have some link. Explain why you need the ballot and why reading the 1ac isnt enough.

Debate is a game, with potential real world impacts. The impacts of eduaction and preserving/improving the consuction of the game are more important than any 1 round.

IN SUM

I value the real world value and impact of debate. Switch side is good. Debate has real potential to form policymakers, Nixon and Karl Rove are prime examples ;) I will ultimately vote on many issues, including the K (which i despise with the passion of a thousand suns) if you can prove a real impact and connect it to this you will do well.

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

I debated policy in high school in Michigan (East Kentwood High School class of 2000). I also debated parliamentary style debate throughout college. I have stuck around in the judging pool for CX, LD, and PF since then at tournaments in Utah, Illinois, and Texas.

I try to be open in my judging philosophy. I will sit in any box that you persuasively put me in and will vote on any position, regardless of what I believe in real life. I do put a lot of stock in debaters weighing issues in the round and arguing, rather than merely asserting how and why I should vote. I reserve the right to vote on my own biases or gut feeling if you don't adequately weigh your impacts for me, however. I want the debaters to make my job easy by telling me why they've won.

That said, I believe that debate should at least tangentially be about the topic and the resolution. I am skeptical of cases which are clearly run on both the Aff and the Neg and which have nothing to do with the resolution. I will listen to and vote on any position which is well-argued, but I find certain forms of argumentation inherently less persuasive. If your case doesn't primarily support or negate the resolution you should probably strike me.

Stjsuben@gmail.com

Mamaroneck '20

Binghamton '24

assistant coach @ Berkeley Prep

As of fall 2021, I no longer actively debate. This was not by my own choice, but rather the result of partner scarcity/other people quitting at a small program, and is something I am sort of sad about. It does however, mean a few things:

1. My engagement with the activity entirely takes place through coaching/judging, thus, I will be especially committed to making these debates as good as possible in whatever ways I can.

2. Many of the views and/or biases (particularly concerning k debate) stated in this paradigm are far more weakly held than they were even a few months ago. You probably get away with anything if you do it well.

In high school I was flex but went for the K very often. I would typically go for topicality against critical affs. I have predispositions towards both sides of the clash of civs depending on issue. My closest mentors in the activity were/are "policy-leaning" and my brief college career was largely k-oriented. Do with all that what you will.

I read a great deal in my spare time and as part of my academic career. This mostly focuses on putatively "critical" bases of literature like world-systems analysis, Russian Studies, Marxism, and development economics. I strive to be neutral but I believe that judges who are highly engaged with scholarship outside of the activity should not try to pretend that it doesn't influence how they think about debates.

Basic predispositions:

+0.3 speaks if you opensource after the debate and tell me

tech determines the direction of truth

protecting the 2nr = yes

not your baudrillard

I will not evaluate arguments made outside of speech times and thus will stop flowing if you continue after the timer

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc

an expressive judge, but tend to express my feelings about extremely irrelevant things and make difficult to discern expressions

horrible with eye contact

speed = good

I am extremely unlikely to vote in favor of mandating pref disclosure

Do not ask for high speaks

Moralizing is prohibited

I would frankly prefer not to hear fascist and genocidal arguments about "first striking" Russia or China or Iran

other than that, more general "death good" is fine

"kritik affs"/planless affs/t-usfg/framework:

Debate is a game. It is also 1) A game with potentially meaningful effects on the social/political consciousness of the participants and 2) A game with a community, culture, and history. This history may mean that even if an argument is narrowly true, the actual enforcement/implementation of a rule may have historically been used as a tool of exclusion. On the flipside, without rules to the game it might cease to function entirely, and then whatever benefits there are to it would be lost. I can be convinced of either of these things.

affs should not defend a moral truism

i will lean more strongly towards the policy side of these debates when affs do not clearly advocate for something and more strongly towards the critical side when negatives make very racist or orientalist arguments

critiques generally:

Critical debates are good when done well. As mentioned above, I am very knowledgeable about literature bases related to Marxism, critiques of imperialism, or orientalism. I am also conversant in baudrillard, foucault, wilderson, etc -- most of the literature that is conventionally read in debates.

links to the plan + alts that function as counterplans OR links that function as impact turns are the most enjoyable k debates for me. these debates produce the most interesting revolutionary research. this doesn't change at all that affs that can't justify weighing the plan will lose in front of me.

I think "weighing the aff" is not all-or-nothing, insofar as the aff is attached to a number of things (political and educational methodology, engagement with certain structures, goals, etc) besides its scenarios which these debates are almost entirely about

Impact turns when well explained and well carded are often a good strategy.

t vs policy affs

I default to competing interpretations.

reasonability is not a thing

not much else to say here

disads

I read most if not all evidence

uq + link + internal link + impact

counterplans:

I like well-researched, specific, techy, creative, etc counterplans. I am a big fan of the advantage cp. I especially enjoy cps that rely on a macroeconomic or ir theory to ground solvency (mmt, prolif good, etc). uniqueness cps are cool

Process counterplans become better the more they are grounded in topic literature. Process counterplans become worse the more they use neg fiat to manufacture an opportunity cost or lead to the aff. Theory will be covered below.

Sufficiency framing >>>>

Logical arguments or arguments based on obvious holes in the aff don't necessarily need solvency advocates

obviously you can kick specific planks

theory:

lean negative on: condo, pics (including plan-inclusive alts), no plan no perm

lean affirmative on: fifty state fiat, multi-actor fiat generally, agent counterplans generally, process counterplans that don't very obviously compete

i am open to intrinsic perms being okay to punish shitty process cps

LD:

Same views as in policy apply for the most part. Best for larp or structural k debates.

Biases in no plan debates significantly weaker in this activity

I do not know much about analytic phil. I know a decent amount about continental and political phil.

People who have influenced how I debate/judge/view debate:

Ronak Ahuja, Ken Karas, Atticus Glen, Daryl Burch

If you make (nice) jokes at the expense of someone from Mamaroneck chances are that I will laugh, especially if it is Sonia Suben

Всё идёт по плану - YouTube

Info below is hopefully helpful, but please don't hesitate to let me know if you have any questions, preferences, accommodations, etc. for me to answer/keep in mind!

The biggest things to keep in mind when debating in front of me are:

• Make sure your tagline actually corresponds with the body of your cards! Misrepresentative tags go against your argument and speaker points.
• I'm comfortable with spreading, but you need to prioritize clarity over volume. If you have one less link card or can't manage to get the final impact analysis in but are speaking much more clearly and intelligibly, that's a good tradeoff. Slowing down on the tagline and author is especially critical. That's not to say that clarity in the body of a card/argument is unimportant; mumbling through these parts to the point that I cannot understand you essentially takes away the warrants, which leads me to not put much weight on your claim.
• I'm fine with stock, T, Theory, Ks, etc., but each argument should be fundamentally sound: explain to me, be it via evidence or analytics, the logical flow between your links and impacts.
• Speaking of evidence and analytics, both are fine, and while strong cards with credible authors are great, incisive or powerful analytics can take out arguments where one might have otherwise resorted to a string of cards. Point out logical fallacies in the other side's arguments, and explain why your claims, links, and impact exhibit logical consistencies. I look favorably upon counterarguments where you point out the flaw in the logic or credibility of your opponent's card, as they're more efficient and usually more grounded than just reading blocks.
• Impact calc & framing debates, especially in the final speeches, is critical. Give me voters, of course, but also give me reasons why your voters and/or value and criterion and the implications they have are more important than the other side's (magnitude vs. timeframe vs. probability; stock vs. systemic; connections between your impacts/values/criterions and those of the other side).
• Points made intelligently in CX through suggestive questioning will be noted on the flow and considered elsewhere in the round. For that reason, mentioning an argument and the fact that it was brought up in CX (assuming it was) will count—no need to reiterate a point that’s been made already.
• In LD, the value/criterion debate is important, and showing me why your pair outweighs/is a prereq to/etc. your opponent’s pair is essential. However, I’m very receptive to non-stock Neg arguments, impact calc, explanations of how your impacts apply to your opponent’s value/criterion pair, etc.
• Be assertive, but not rude. It’s a fine line, but it’s an important one. Assertive debaters look intelligent and gain speaker points for masterful handling of the clash and confusion in a debate. Being assertive will gain you speaker points. Being rude will likely bring down your speaker points.

Background:

I am a former student debater with the University of Miami British Parliamentary Debate Team and continue to judge BP at college level, I have also been judging policy (among other formats) high school tournaments for 6 years now.

A Note on PF/World Schools and other lay formats:

Although I am usually a tech judge, when the format dictates a lay judge I will judge as a lay judge. That means that if you spread or run a K in a PF round, you will be dropped. LD I dont consider a lay format, so go all out if you wish.

General Notes:

I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me.

Signposting is good, fully flushing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to me missing something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong team line upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, dont expect me to tie your loose ends for you, thats a sure way to an L.

Please make sure to flush out your arguments, if you dont give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I wont judge on it.

Misrepresenting your oppositions arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they dont call you out on it), but it sure wont win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.

Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.

Although evidence is expected, dont hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, its about applying your own critical thinking.

Specifics:

Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it, remember that the burden lies with the negative to show why the affirmative definition is abusive, and it better be a good reason. Show me why the debate is worse off as a result of affirmative's definitions, dont just say that it is. Also be sure to provide your alternative interpretations, the best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs what the affirmative made it out to be.

Counter-Plan: CP's are always fun, but remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than CP+ or else affirm gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you dont contradict yourself and give room to affirmative to debate it, anything else is abusive. More than 2 conditional args is abusive and will be judged down.

Kritik: Another very fun thing to judge, make sure to explain your K well. Dont just tell me that the paradigm that the affirmative accepted is bad, show me specifically how the plan worsens the outcome as a result of your kritik and its implications. Doing anything less will not win you the argument. Keep in mind that I am generally not a fan of heavy-theory rounds, any theory arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.

2AR/2NR: NO NEW ARGUMENTATION IN THE LAST TWO SPEECHES. New argumentation wont be judged on and will heavily influence speaker points. The only exception to this is as rebuttal to new argumentation brought up in the previous speech, that said its a fine line, so tread carefully.

Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine, but will impact speaker points accordingly. When asking questions, allow the person to answer, avoid interruptions if possible.

Ethics: Dont clip cards, dont mis-represent evidence, dont use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.

Speaker Points: I will generally limit myself to 25-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). Generally my points will fall somewhere along a standard distribution curve, so 26-28 on average. In general I will look at the following in no particular order: Technical proficiency, argumentation, clarity, engagement with opposition arguments, jokes/puns (we all like to laugh every once in a while).

Hello Debaters,

I am a first-time judge for any type of Speech and Debate Tournament. To help me judge you better, please speak slowly, and please don't run too many technical arguments.

Thank you,

Wishing you all the best!

Pallavi

Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)

Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist

Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University

I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.

Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.

Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.

Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.

For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.

Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.

Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.

Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.

Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.

Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences

--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards

--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.

--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX

I would like to be on the email chain – misty.tippets9@gmail.com

Email for chains or questions: undercommonscustomerservice@gmail.com

Background

Influences: Will Baker, Alex Sherman, Taylor Brough

Pronouns: he/they

Experience:
2016-2020 Debater @ Bronx Science -- Qual'ed to TOC
2020-2024 Debater @ NYU -- CEDA quarterfinalist, 2x NDT
2020-2022 Head CX Coach @ Bronx Science
2023-2024 Assistant PF, LD Coach @ Collegiate

Conflicts:Collegiate, Bronx Science, U. Chicago Lab, NYU

Last Updated: Updated for TOC 04/16/2024

Policy and LD general: Good for anything, mostly read Ks in high school and college. "Debate is a game" is a silly argument. You don't need to go for the alt on the K or a CP to win, but I won't judge kick unless instructed to. I actively coach multiple events and keep up to date with research, so I will have fairly decent topic knowledge.

Policy specific: Fairness might be an impact, but you need to prove it. I don't care if you read a plan, you just need to justify it. Strongly convinced by K condo arguments and I disfavor contradictory K arguments.

LD specific: Honestly fine for anything except tricks. I don't inflate speaks. Order of experience would probably be K > LARP >> phil > trad >> tricks.

PF Paradigm: Don't paraphrase. Cut cards, not corners. Read whatever you want in front of me. I don't care if you spread. Please read theory properly.

IMPORTANT if I am in the back of your debate:

1. 1AC should be sent 3 minutes before start time, emails should be collected before that. If sending the 1AC pushes us more than 5 minutes past the start time, I will take all additional time past 5 minutes from you as prep.
2. Pen time is important, slow down a bit if you want me to get something down. Speeding through a 40 point 2AC block will not result in all 40 points on my flow. I flow your speeches, not your doc.
3. Stop stealing prep. Depending on how I'm feeling I'll call you out for it, but regardless of how I'm feeling I'll drop your speaks.
4. I assign speaks according to the speaker point guide provided to me by Tabroom. It is the most standardizable method and consistently lowers the standard deviation of speaker points when provided to judges. Please do not email me after the debate asking for a justification of your speaker points. They should speak for themselves.
5. If you are consuming products that I am aware are on the BDS list, I will drop your speaks by 2 full points. Throw out your Starbucks before I see you. This is non-negotiable and excludes computers.

Last updated: 10/6/2021

If you just got the pairing and don’t have much time (we’ve all been there) here’s the big picture: do what you do best. I reward smart debaters who debate to their strengths, have strategic vision, and have become experts in the literature base that interests them. Whether that is traditionally “policy” or “critical” arguments is up to you; I’ll listen to it all.

I am a sophomore at Harvard. I competed on the policy national circuit for the Liberal Arts and Science Academy (LASA EU and LASA CU). All of my growth in this activity is directly due to the coaching of Yao Yao Chen and Mason Marriott-Voss, so I would imagine many of my predispositions and takes on debate are largely inspired by them. I am most familiar with policy v. policy debates, but I read planless affs for large portions of my competitive career.

If there is an email chain, please put me on it: rcugarte@gmail.com.

Meta Issues:

• Tech over truth. I evaluate a dropped argument as true. This has a few exceptions and workarounds. I will not vote on arguments that I find morally reprehensible (for obvious reasons) and shot-gunning short theory arguments hoping that the other teams drop them will not be rewarded with my ballot.

• Do line-by-line, but take a look at the big picture. The best debates that I have seen or participated in include very persuasive, ethos-y parts of the final rebuttals. Robotic, “they said X, but Y” is a useful tool for beginners, but I believe higher-level debates should be largely embedded clash over a few core thesis claims that distinguish the two teams.

• Have fun. You have spent your summers, weekends, and free time on this activity for a reason. I will actively try to create an atmosphere that is conducive to what makes debate so great in the first place, and I expect you to do the same.

Framework:

• I find myself voting affirmative when any of the following things happen. (1) The 2AR has a large DA to the negative’s interpretation, impact calculus, and a counter-interpretation that mitigates the negative’s strongest internal links and impacts. (2) The affirmative is winning an impact turn to the negative’s best standards that is contextualized in the context of their literature base/theory of power. If your 2AR strategy generally centers around a counter-interpretation, you should read one and only one in the 2AC. All of the other ones are generally nonsensical and waste my ink.

• 2AC “tricks” almost never work in your favor. If you choose not to send analytics, you forfeit the ability in my book to spam short DAs and counter-interpretations, hoping that one of them is conceded. A 1AR that introduces new articulation of the DA (internal link work, impact comparison, etc.) justifies new 2NR answers.

• My default state is that fairness is not an impact, but I can be persuaded otherwise. 2Ns that don’t have a persuasive moment in any of their speeches explaining why it’s an impact would be better served with an education-based standard.

• I would much prefer if you: cut the 2NC overview, had aff-specific standard contextualization, and actually flagged and answer the aff’s DAs.

K v. K:

• I believe the affirmative should get a permutation, but an affirmative team that is unable to articulate why they get one deserves to lose.

• If the 2AC against the K seems to be a substantial departure from the 1AC, I will be much less swayed by link turn and permutation arguments. A 2AR that sums up to “We were the K the whole time!” better be right.

Topicality:

• I read large, core-of-the-topic affs for most of high school, which means I have been in very few close T debates. I understand the strategic value of small, tricky affs, but that comes with a responsibility to have a well-rehearsed, consistent angle against T.

Kritiks:

• Winning K blocks and 2NRs, in my opinion: have a substantial time investment in contesting affirmative solvency and truth claims, have link explanation highly contextualized to the case (even better if it’s off the flow), have clean line-by-line, and capitalize on moments in affirmative speeches and cross-examinations.

• I think an alternative should be extended unless the Framework debate is very one-sided in your favor.

• From Yao Yao: “Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Usually, I find myself somewhere in the middle: the neg always has the right to read kritiks, but the aff should have the right to access their advantages. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.”

• Floating PIKs must be clearly identifiable as a Floating PIK in the 2NC.

Counterplans:

• They are oftentimes very successful in setting up a “CP sufficiently solves case, small risk of net benefit outweighs” ballot, but be honest with yourself about whether or not it actually solves their impacts. Nothing is more frustrating than a 2AR that capitalizes on a 2NR that extended an unhelpful CP instead of going to case.

Disadvantages:

• I would much prefer to judge a well-researched, updated topic DA than a new questionable politics or agent DA.

• Against soft-left affs, negative teams with a robust defense of the DA’s representations and an evidenced turns case argument makes voting negative much easier.

Theory:

• If the theory debate is extremely close and well-executed by both teams, I generally default to the view that CPs that compete off of uncertainty or immediacy are illegitimate. With that being said, I will willingly (but begrudgingly) vote for these CPs if the negative is ahead on theory, but my bar may just be slightly above other judges on this issue.

• I am a better judge than most for conditionality bad—I went for it a fair amount my senior year—but I'd prefer if you went for it if and only if it's the cleanest, most strategic 2AR option you have.

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions. Please put BOTH of these on chains: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com and lrchdebatedocs@gmail.com.

Virtual Debate Updates:

I am almost always using two computers so I can watch you speak and flow/look at docs. I would prefer that you debate with your camera on so that I can watch you speak, but PLEASE do feel free to turn it off if doing so stabilizes your audio.

Do NOT start at top speed. You should start a little slower anyway to allow judges to get acclimated to your speaking style, but I think this is especially important in virtual debate.

Do I understand why you don't want to flash theory/overviews/analytics? Of course. Do you have to do it? No. Will I be mad at you if you don't? Of course not. Would it help me flow better in many virtual debates? YES.

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is exhausting and I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away. My voting record is a pretty clear indication that I judge a wide variety of debates. Who/what I coach(ed) are generally good indications of what I am about. Update: I've found myself recently in some seven off rounds. I really hate to say I am bad for any kind of debate, but I am bad for these rounds. Late-breaking debates make me tired and grumpy, and I find myself having to do way too much work in these debates to resolve them. If seven off is your thing, and I am your judge, do what you do I guess, but know this is probably the only explicit "don't pref me" in this whole paradigm.

Evidence/Argumentation/General

I care a lot about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make.

I think I flow pretty throughly. I often flow in direct quotes. I do this for me, but I feel like it helps teams understand my decision as we talk after a round. I reward organized speakers and meaningful overviews. I am easily frustrated by a messy card doc.

I listen closely to cross-ex.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

jvt.debate@gmail.com

---

I did Policy Debate for 8 years at Solorio HS in Chicago (2016-2020) and at Dartmouth College (2020-2024).

Debate is a research-based, communicative activity. Arguments that are divorced from external scholarship are not persuasive to me.

Answer arguments in the order presented.

I am at my best in debates where the Affirmative has presented a topical plan and the Negative strategy involves a counterplan and/or disadvantage.

I tend to evaluate impacts based on the relative probability of the internal link chain more than magnitude.

Criticisms are fine, but I generally think Links should be about the plan and/or its justifications. If your speeches sound like they could be about any affirmative, I am unlikely to vote for you.

In Topicality debates (against policy or planless affirmatives) I am more persuaded by arguments about limits than ground.

Basically no patience for debate shenanigans. The answer to "hmm,, is X a debate shenanigan?" is likely "yes." This is especially true of egregious Negative practices of conditionality.

I flow on paper, I am not following along with the speech docs so that I can understand what is happening in the debate in front of me. Please don't make a card doc for me after the debate, I will ask each team after the 2AR to send me the set of cards I need to decide the debate. (ex: "Neg can you send me the DA link cards, Aff can you send me the internal link for Y").

There are adults in the activity that enjoy when cross-examination turns into a heated exchange between the debaters. I do not.

Random Note: Most people like to engage in small talk with their judges. I am very awkward with people I don't know, so this is actually my nightmare. I will not ignore you, but if my responses are not the friendliest that is why.

I miss One Direction, they broke up right when they found their style and were finally starting to mature as a band #Zouis

Unironically have read Tuck & Yang 2012 one centillion times.

---

ONLINE DEBATE:

If my camera is off, please assume that I am not at my computer and do not start speaking.

General Info:

Call me Vega!

SHE/THEY

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full time Paraprofessional in Brooklyn, NYC

Debate Career:

ACORN Community High School 2012-16: Policy Debate

Coached Leon M. Goldstien from 2016-17

Judging Policy and Public Forum from 2015- Present

Judging LD from 2018- Present

Judging Congressional and Speech from 2019- Present

For the majority of my debate career I was double 2s, and later became 2N, 1A.

Overall Rules and Expectations:

I do not count sharing evidence as prep unless you take a century.

I believe that judges are NOT supposed to intervene in round under any circumstances, unless in the case of an extreme emergency.

I shouldn't have to tell you be respectful or to not use hateful, racist, ableist, sexist, or homophobic language. If I hear it, I will automatically give the ballot to the other team. ABSOLUTELY NOT TOLERATED.

Some may think petty debaters or debaters with attitudes are amusing or cute, I don't. Treat your competitors with respect or it will affect your speaker points.

Judge Philosophy:

I believe that it is my responsibility as the judge of the round to remove any pre-existing notions or biases from my mind on whatever topic you chose to debate over, and act as an objective observer who decides whether or not the AFF is a good idea. Unless told otherwise in the round, this is the perspective I default to.

Minimal expectations are the following: If the NEG does not provide any DAs to voting AFF then I will vote AFF. If the AFF does not prove that the AFF is better than the status quo and has an actual solvency method, then I will vote NEG.

It is in your best interest (speaker points) to go far beyond these basic debate expectations. I'm generous with speaker points if you keep me engaged and make sure I understand you, they usually range from 27-29.5

I don't have any specific preference when it comes to argumentation and I will vote on virtually anything you want me to if explained well, but DO NOT assume I know anything.

Update for Loyola 2020

Honestly, not much has changed since this last LD update in 2018 except that I now teach at Success Academy in NYC.

Update for Voices / LD Oct 2018:

I coach Policy debate at the Polytechnic School in Pasadena, CA. It has been a while since I have judged LD. I tend to do it once a or twice a year.

You do you: I've been involved in judging debate for over 10 years, so please just do whatever you would like to do with the round. I am familiar with the literature base of most postmodern K authors, but I have not recently studied classical /enlightenment philosophers.

It's okay to read Disads: I'm very happy to judge a debate involving a plan, DAs and counter-plans with no Ks involved as well. Just because I coach at a school that runs the K a lot doesn't mean that's the only type of argument I like / respect / am interested in.

Framework: I am open to "traditional" and "non-traditional" frameworks. Whether your want the round to be whole res, plan focused, or performative is fine with me. If there's a plan, I default to being a policymaker unless told otherwise.

Theory: I get it - you don't have a 2AC so sometimes it's all or nothing. I don't like resolving these debates. You won't like me resolving these debates. If you must go for theory, please make sure you are creating the right interpretation/violation. I find many LD debaters correctly identify that cheating has occurred, but are unable to identify in what way. I tend to lean education over fairness if they're not weighed by the debaters.

LD Things I don't Understand: If the Aff doesn't read a plan, and the Neg reads a CP, you may not be satisfied with how my decision comes out - I don't have a default understanding of this situation which I hear is possible in LD.

Other thoughts: Condo is probably a bad thing in LD.

.

.

Update for Jack Howe / Policy Sep 2018: (Sep 20, 2018 at 9:28 PM)

Update Pending

Please use the link below to access my paradigm. RIP Wikispaces.

http://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Vepa%2C+Teja

I debated 4 years in High School in Kansas. Ran some Ks but mostly Politics. I live in the DC area (MD side) and judge about once a month but not elite high speed rounds.

I am happy to answer any questions before rounds.

Speed: I haven't been judging super fast rounds in a while. So if you do speed be clear and sign post.

Topicality: I think plans should be topical but I am willing to listen to reasons why not.

DAs: They are good. Link is always the most important part for me. I ran a lot of politics so I encourage it if possible but it doesnt mean I will automatically vote for it.

Ks: I don't know all philosophy ever written. So if you run something make sure you explain it well. I also like Framework to be run with a K. It just helps me know how you want me to judge the round a little better.

Last Updated: February 8, 2024

Assistant Policy Debate Coach @ Berkeley Preparatory School.

Debated at Little Rock Central High School (TOC Finalist '16) and Wake Forest University (NDT 1st round '19).

- Put me on the email chain: williamsd.j.jr@gmail.com

General/TLDR:

Please be CLEAR. I will not yell "clear" at you doing the round. If I can't understand you, having debated, judged, and coached at the highest level for 10+ years, then your speaking is egregious, and I WON'T flow it. I will also lower your speaks

I don't have an argument style preference and willing to judge everything. I primarily read Ks/K affs; however, I was introduced to debate as a "traditional" policy debater and read T, DAs, and CPs throughout my career. I prefer not to evaluate arguments about debater's character/behavior outside of the round, UNLESS you got receipts and it's relevant to the round. If it happens during the round, go for it.

Tech over truth; however, I find myself overly frustrated with the throwing everything at the wall and see what sticks strategy. I will not likely resolve an entire debate on an underdeveloped (i.e. no impact) "dropped" arguments unless the argument isn't answered in two speeches.

Personally, I view debate as a game. That being said, I do think there is value to debate outside of competitive success. Debate has changed and will continue to change many people's lives. I can be persuaded that something else is equally, if not more important, than wins and losses.

"Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.

One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it." -- Sam Gustavson

Framework/Non-Traditional Affs:

I am a fan of clash debates, and I willing to vote for both sides.

I believe affs should be in the direction of the topic (i.e. at the very least questioning the assumptions undergirding the resolution). I am not likely to vote on aff that is completely unrelated to the topic, assuming the team goes for FW. Affs that discuss the topic and link turn FW (e.g. explain why they access education, clash, or fairness impacts) are more persuasive to me than trying to label framework as violent or impact turning everything. If you take the latter route, make sure to explain how voting aff solves. You will also need to win some defense to FW no matter which strategy you employ.

Fairness can be a terminal impact or an internal link, but it depends on how it's debated. Saying "debate is a game," "you follow certain rules," or "you expect the judge to adjudicate fairly" is not always enough for me, but at worst will be evaluated as defense to the aff's model of debate. I am more compelled by a team that clearly articulates all of the following: their conception of a fair debate, how the other team has impeded your ability to access fairness, how your interpretation ensures fairness, and why preserving fairness matters (e.g. participation, debatability, etc.). Winning fairness is an intrinsic good is be an uphill battle in front of me, though not impossible. These arguments sound circular and often lack a clear impact (e.g. "debate is a game, so it needs to be fair because it's a game"). I want to know why the game matters. Whether that's competition or some other external offense, it needs to be contextualized to the debate and the other team's offense.

I believe debate CAN (not does) shape subjectivity; however, I don't think this argument is unique offense for K affs because: 1) Other things influence our subjectivity as well. However, I am not persuaded by the neg just listing various things that influence our subjectivity and labelling them as alt causes. You will have to either read evidence or make arguments explaining why those other things have a greater/significant enough influence on subject formation. 2) Policy debates can also influence subjectivity for good. I am a fan of negative teams that take this route. Explain to my why your model of debate is preferable for crafting people who are ethical and possess the necessary skills to solve some external impact or the aff's impacts. 3) I don't believe all subjectivity crafted in debate is uniquely good. The onus is on you to explain which form of subjectivity is preferable.

I prefer testing/clash/education impacts because they serves as a better internal link to the why debate matters and encourages more interaction with the aff and vice versa. If you explain to me why having limited/ predictable debaters produces some external value/solves some external impact the aff can't, you will be in a great position. Even better, if this is combined with a specific TVA(s) or SSD arguments. This will force the aff to not only defend the intrinsic value of reading their 1AC but also why their model of debate outweighs, which I find is harder to do.

Counter-interpretations matter. You don't have to counter define specific words in the resolution, but I do need to understand the role of the aff and neg in order for me to evaluate offense and defense. I am not a fan of self-serving counter-interps (e.g. "squo + our aff" or "affirm X methodology"). I think you ended up linking to a lot of your own exclusion offense, and it requires you winning a specific uniqueness argument about the nature of debate or academic scholarship. Just articulate what your vision of debate is and why those debates are good.

Kritiks (vs. Policy Affs):

The more specific the better. I prefer you have specific links to the plan with clear impacts/turns case arguments. This allows you to win the debate without an alternative or winning FW. Nevertheless, I will evaluate links to the aff's rhetoric, reps, epistemology, impacts, etc. Generic links will require you at least winning FW (i.e. arguing that I should view the debate in some way other than "weighing the consequences of the plan vs. squo/alt"), and will find it hard to beat the traditional aff presses (e.g. case outweighs, try-or-die, alt fails, perms) in a close debate.

Make strategic 2NR decisions.Don't go for every link, DA to the perm, framework DA, etc.

Kritiks (vs. K Affs):

ESKETIT!!! May the more well read team win lol.

In all seriousness, too many of these debates devolve down to root cause debates or disagreements about scholarship without impacting out what it means one's analysis of the problem is wrong. Don't just try to out theorize the other team, but explain the significance of my ballot.

I'm pretty familiar with most critical theory. I primarily read arguments related to race, but I have a lot of experience in postmodernism as well.

Role of the ballot claims are typically too self-serving. I'd prefer these debates to mimic FW debates in plan v. K debates. Give me the guidelines for evaluating what's important (e.g. material solvency, ethics, epistemology, etc.) and why. I will default to whatever evaluating metric I'm given in debates in which the ROB is well-developed or completely dropped.

Perms usually win this debate for me, when the K is not specific to the aff. DAs to the perm need to be impact out in order for the vote on them. I might still vote on a perm if the neg just extends blippy DAs or perm theory that lacks an impact.

I typically end up reading a lot of evidence when deciding these debates, so make sure your arguments are extrapolating too much from the warrants in your cards.

Topicality:

I enjoy these debates. Just make sure to have a clear impact in the 2NR and not get too focused on just proving the violation. Give case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff's interp, explanation for why debates under your interp are better, etc. The aff needs to do the same.

T is being under utilized by everyone, especially by K teams going up against questionably topical soft left affs. I enjoy listening to debates where Kritikal teams extend topicality. I did this a lot in high school, and it was very helpful for setting up links because T forces the aff to clearly define what it thinks the aff does.

I typically default to competing interps rather than reasonability because any metric I would employ to establish that standard is arbitrary and infinitely regressive. However, I am open to voting on this argument, assuming the aff team explains why their interp is capable of providing sufficient ground for the aff and neg, equitable research burdens, and quality debates. This requires you establishing a threshold for your reasonability standard and explaining why it is a better model of debate for deciding topicality debates.

Saying the following: "plan text in vacuum" without explaining why this standard is best to interpret the meaning and scope of words in the plan, "functional limits check" without a warrant for why your interp preserves equitable ground, "intent to define" without justification, etc. mean nothing to me.

Counterplans:

Prefer CPs to be specific to the aff. Generics and PICs are fine though. Must have a net benefit. I prefer the net benefit to disprove the desirability of the plan (i.e. politics, spending DA vs. internal net benefit).CPs should be at least functionally competitive, but I would prefer them to also be textually competitive as well. I apply the same standard to permutations as well.

Aff should have offense against the CP (e.g. solvency deficit, DA to CP, aff/perm links less to the net benefit than the CP, etc).

Perms aren't advocacies, just a test of competition. Saying "perm do both," "perm do the cp," "perm do each," etc. means nothing to me without a warrants about how it's function challenges mutual exclusivity.

I am easily persuaded on conditionality being good (at least 1 CP/ 1 K is fine), but I am willing to vote on conditionality bad, especially when the neg has multiple contradicting positions. I'm not a fan of multiple plank counterplans, when each plank is conditional. This greatly skews the aff's strategy and disincentives them researching the CP or reading a 2AC add on.

Don't make a sufficiency framing argument without doing the work to explain why the CP does not need to solve the entire aff or why I should prefer it as long as it solves most/certain parts of the aff. You have to instruct me on what is "sufficient" and how that influences the way I should evaluate impacts.

Disadvantages:

Prefer aff/topic specific DAs to politics, but I don't really care if there's good link debating.

Please explain the DA in the overview whether or not it is conceded. Go through each part (uniqueness, link, internal link, impact) before the line by line.

Evidence quality matters. Many times in closed debates I will base my decision based on the warrants provided in the evidence.

Impact comparison is really important.Arguments about timeframe and probability are more persuasive to me than magnitude, assuming both teams have an existential impact. Neg teams that make quality turns case arguments are typically successful in front of me because it helps me weigh the significance of an impact.

Aff teams should attack the internal link more so than reading impact defense. I am more persuaded by the fact that economic decline doesn't lead to nuclear war, especially when teams don't articulate the specifics of their scenario (e.g. which countries go to war, what's unique about this economic downturn, etc.) rather than nuclear war/warming/etc. not causing extinction. The latter typically requires more scientific explanation that many teams (myself included) are not well versed enough to evaluate the truth of. The former requires more common sense, empirics.

Last Updated: March 11 2023

Spencer ("SkyCat") – never "judge" – he/him

Was the Assistant Coach at Edgemont

OES 2020 (3 years of HS Policy, 8 bids)

Yes email chain, please include an informational title – spencersunwilliams@gmail.com

Important: I am currently on chemotherapy. This means I am very tired and will likely give short RFDs. I debated on the treaties topic 3 years ago for Harvard Debate and I read a NATO aff. I have been out of college and debate and college since to pursue cancer treatments.

Short Version:

1) Do what you do best, be smart and passionate, and you'll be fine.

2) Tech determines truth unless your argument is offensive or an insult to obvious reality. The content of my paradigm only states my predisposed beliefs, but you can convince me of anything if you debate well.

3) As a debater, I am most frustrated with RFDs that are removed from the reality of the round. Whether that be allowing new rebuttal answers, voting based on predetermined personal beliefs, or not flowing, I will try to correct against those things as much as possible as a judge.

4) Clarity over speed. I will stop flowing if I have to "slow" or "clear" you more than 3 times.

5) I am increasingly frustrated by teams that ask for massive flow clarifications. This includes: "Before cross begins, did you read X card?" and "Can you send out a version of the speech doc that excludes the cards you didn't read?" If you do this, then it is clear you aren't flowing, and I will dock your speaks. :(

K Debates:

On K's in general:

I do not hack for any argument. This means "big if true" claims such as people of color already live in a state of extinction that outweighs biological extinction, Blackness is ontological, subjectivity is shaped by debate, the aff causes queer genocide, etc., require substantive proof just like any other argument.

In terms of running a K on the neg, if you do not extend an alt, you need to explain to me what that means for the rest of the K. No big overviews please, just do line by line. Also, links of omission are silly.

On K affs:

These are my favorite affs to judge! I love judging good K affs, but I believe that the affirmative needs to have a sustainable interpretation of what the topic looks like to win. What that looks like is up to you, but I am not persuaded by interpretations of the topic that do not leave a role for the negative to adequately engage with the affirmative.

Topicality arguments are not prescriptively violent. I am more persuaded by affirmatives that respond to framework by introducing a more effective model for political or institutional engagement than affirmatives that argue all politics or institutions are irredeemable. Affirmatives that prescribe homogeneity based on one identifying factor for an otherwise diverse group of people will have difficulty convincing me.

Most out of my element in K v K debates. Explain your position thoroughly and have clear reasons why your theories of power are incompatible.

T Debates:

The quality of evidence matters when it comes to T. A good T card should have intent to define, intent to exclude, and compelling author qualifications. It isn't impossible to win without those three qualities in front of me, but the T argument is significantly more convincing with them. If your opponent's card is lacking, point out specifically what the piece of evidence needs to be persuasive.

Impact and caselist comparisons are essential to winning my ballot; I probably value them more than the average judge does. In T debates, argument interaction and clash are especially critical to prevent running circles around arguments.

Unpack and compare, do not rely on buzzwords. Your T blocks should be specific to the argument you're running. "Vote neg because our interp sets a limit on the topic" or "vote neg for limits and ground" are neither warranted nor complete arguments unless you explain why and how the topic established by the negative's interpretation is net better than the affirmative's for reasons of better education, deeper clashing debates, etc.

Non-Negotiables:

Rehighlightings must be read and not inserted unless they were read in CX.

Speech times are not flexible. I will not flow your partner if they interrupt during your speech unless they are speaking as part of a rehearsed 1AC/1NC.

I will not explicitly intervene in any debate round unless a debater makes it clear that they do not want the round to continue. I believe in the educational value of allowing a debate to happen. If there is clipping in a round, however, I will dock your speaks and email your coach(es) with the evidence/recording.

I will drop you if you misgender anyone.

Speaker Points:

Stolen from Zidao. <3

If you opensource everything, let me know before the RFD and I'll add .3 to your speaks.

29.5+: One of the top speakers of the tournament. Should be in deep elims.

29-29.5: Good debater that I expect to break and get a speaker award.

28.5-28.9: Competent debater with good grasp of fundamentals. Not at the level of clearing yet.

Good luck at the tournament and take care!

Updated January 2024

About me:

I am currently the speech and debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt HS.

I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.

I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

TL;DR version:

I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and warrant arguments. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Evidence Standards:

Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.

Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/

You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.

Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.

If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.

Prep Time Standards:

Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.

If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.

Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.

-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.

-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.

-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.

-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.

Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.


CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.

DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.

Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

A former policy debater, but a first-time judge. Please keep your delivery clear. I appreciate a clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

I would like to be on email chain, please include a useful title – xionguu@bu.edu

she/her/hers

You don't lose until I sign the ballot - feel free to do any changes on a mid-round to turn the situation.

If you read high theory, do not pref me unless you are willing to explain your argument. My area of study is in human physiology, so I am not hitting up the latest post-modern/structuralist/etc. papers.

Last, I do not appreciate spreading. If you decide to spread to push the other team out, and they make an abusive argument or criticism of your practices I will most likely vote against you.

I expect all teams to leave their cameras on at all times, not only just during their speeches.

Please do not be hesitate to contact me. Let me know if you are experiencing any technology problems and we will try to work around them.

Sydney Young

Rowland Hall ‘19

Harvard ‘23

syd8796@gmail.com

Top Level: Tech > Truth (to an extent, of course. I would not vote for a “dropped” 2016 elections DA). Evidence quality is important, but good spin, logic, and explanation can overcome mediocre evidence. I am best in policy-oriented debates since I primarily went for these arguments in high school, but I believe that kritiks are pedagogically valuable and will vote for them. I will reject any argument that is blatantly offensive.

Topicality: Love good T debates. Illustrate your world of the topic. Evidence comparison and impact calculus matters. Precision is under-utilized as an impact — a definition must be researchable in order for it to set a limit on the topic. Most limits claims are rendered moot if they rely on an unpredictable definition. Reasonability is most persuasive when paired with a precision argument.

DA: Fun with a CP, more fun if you go for DA and case alone. Turns case and impact comparison are essential. “DA turns case because it also causes structural violence” is not a turns case argument.

Case: Good case debate wins rounds. Good analytics that dispute the aff’s internal links can be extremely valuable. Will vote on presumption if the aff is truly egregious and defies all logic.

K’s: Contextualize links and prove that something about the aff (plan, advantages, rhetoric, etc.) is bad and mutually exclusive with the alt. Explain your terminology and literature well (avoid a heavy reliance on buzzwords) because I am not as well-versed in K literature.

CPs: Process CPs are fine, especially on topics where there is virtually no neg ground. That being said, Functional + Textual > Functional > Textual Competition. Smart CPs cut from solvency advocates or well-researched advantage CPs are preferable. Will only kick CPs if you win that doing so is theoretically legitimate.

Theory: Contextualize theory to the topic/the argument. I am sympathetic to teams that initially miss a super-fast, barely audible, cheap-shot theory argument as long as they answer it later (I’m looking at you, ASPEC). A new aff does not justify a negative free-for-all unless you win that new affs are bad.

Condo: I tend to err neg on condo. It grants the negative a greater degree of flexibility to test the plan from multiple angles and check against a topic with extensive aff side-bias. There is no distinction between 2, 3, or 6 condo. I am most persuaded by aff arguments about why conditionality disincentivizes the negative from producing a well-developed response to any particular policy proposal.

T – USFG/K Affs: I primarily went for T-USFG against K affs in high school. Fairness is probably an impact, but I could be persuaded otherwise. SSD and TVA arguments should be contextualized to the aff and function as defense to their model of debate. Always answer case.

Aff teams — Control the uniqueness debate. Establish why this one round/ballot does not matter for the neg’s impact but does for your own. Impact turn framework and have DAs with internal links specific to the aff. Both teams should have solid impact comparison.

Speaker Points: Clarity, efficiency, quality of explanation, and organization will be rewarded, as will bold strategies, good decisions, and smart “even if” statements that frame the debate.