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.

I competed in policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and I have been coaching since 2001. I would consider myself a tabula rasa judge, as much as that is possible. I feel comfortable with any line of argumentation, but expect clear articulation of said argumentation. I want you to provide me with compelling reasons why you should win the debate. Generic argumentation, weak links, and time sucks are not appreciated. I don't judge a ton (in my local circuit I am in tab a lot), but I did judge at NSDA Nationals in 2020 including some late Elim rounds. I keep a detailed flow so staying organized is key to winning my ballot. Pronouns: she/her/hers. If you have questions, feel free to ask before the round starts. Email for the chain: amdahl-masona@nclack.k12.or.us.

UPDATE AS OF SEPTEMBER 1, 2022: Please be aware that as of February 24, 2022, the post-Cold War geopolitical/international security world underwent a monumental (and likely permanent) change. If you are going to make any arguments -- whether you're AFF or NEG, asserting internal links or existential impacts -- built around a conventional war in Europe; America's, NATO's, or Russia's propensities to escalate; the threshold between conventional and nuclear conflict; etc., please ensure that your evidence is up-to-date and timely (and, yes, that probably means written sometime after February 24, 2022) and/or please be prepared and able to explain logically and analytically how any older evidence/logic still applies in light of real-world developments in Central and Eastern Europe. Also be aware that if you read evidence (or make an argument) that fails to take account of Russia's invasion of Ukraine, I will almost certainly accept your opponent's analytical arguments -- provided they're logical and persuasive in post-February 24 terms -- as more valid than out-of-date evidence and pre-invasion academic theorizing. And your opponents should feel free to ask you, in CX, to explain how and why any pre-February 24 evidence/arguments are still applicable to the position you're advocating or negating. I'm not trying to be difficult, but the world of geopolitics and international security has been radically altered over the past six months. Also, be aware that I spent a large chunk of my 30-year diplomatic career working on NATO issues (including stints at NATO headquarters and on the NATO desk at the State Department). While I don't expect high school debaters to understand or appreciate every detail or nuance of how the Alliance functions on a day-to-day or issue-to-issue basis, please do your best to avoid completely mischaracterizing NATO decision-making or policy implementation.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Note on Timekeeping: In all forms of debate I expect competitors to keep their own time (to include tracking prep time for both themselves and their opponents). Also, debaters should keep track of their opponent’s time (including prep). I will make an exception for novices at their first few tournaments, but otherwise time yourselves, please.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

After retiring from a three-decade career in the U.S. Foreign Service, I returned to high school debate as a (volunteer) coach and frequent judge in 2013. I'm no longer the head coach at Oak Hill School (as of June 2020), but I still provide some assistance (to South Eugene High School) and judge fairly regularly. Beyond that, I teach public policy and international affairs -- as adjunct faculty -- at the Univ. of Oregon.

CX Paradigm (you should read this even I'm judging you in a different debate format because it speaks to my overall approach): My judging style and philosophy has evolved significantly over the past decade. While I still consider myself more of a truth-over-tech/policymaking-paradigm judge, I don't believe -- as some would suggest -- that policymaker automatically equates with a simple utilitarian approach. Far from it. Essentially, I view the two teams as playing the role of competing actors within a government or other policymaking body, each trying to convince me to endorse their policy option. But I remain open to an alternative framework if one of the teams can convince me that that alternative framework should or best applies.

And while I have an inherent bias toward the realistic (particular as it involves global security issues such as nuclear weapons, NATO and Russia, and the nature and distribution of power and influence within the international state system), I'm fine with K debate. That said, although I know my Marx/Engels/Lenin pretty well from my academic training and Foreign Service experience in Moscow and the former Soviet bloc, if you want to run French post-modernist arguments -- or anything of that sort -- you'll need to explain it to me in terms I can understand and appreciate. And that may mean slowing down enough to make yourself more comprehensible and persuasive. I would also advise you against running any sort of performance AFF...I'll judge it if you run it, but it's as difficult for me to evaluate as Dramatic Interp. For better or worse, I still view the resolution as the starting point of any policy debate, and I still believe that an AFF case needs some version -- however abbreviated -- of a case and a plan. And case matters. A significant percentage of the AFF ballots I write end up noting that NEG essentially conceded case...that shouldn’t be the norm. (And, yes, on the other side of that I still very much believe that presumption lies with the NEG...and that going for it is a legit approach that can easily win a debate for NEG if AFF fails to meet its burdens.) Unless something is truly and grossly abusive, I am not particularly keen on RVIs or similar arguments for a behavior as opposed to a policy issue on the flow.

As for T, I am more than open to T arguments and will vote NEG on T if the AFF can't make a coherent topicality defense. But be aware that I have a very inclusive topicality threshold (to put it in 2014-15 oceans topic terms, if a case involved salt water I was ready to accept it as reasonable... provided the AFF made that argument).

I'm good with aggressive spreading, but recommend you slow down enough to allow me to hear and easily flow your tag lines and organizational structure; sign-posting may seem old-fashioned, but if you want me to flow your argument in the correct spot, intelligible sign-posting remains an important element in the process. Pet peeve addressed to 1NCs: LABEL YOUR ARGUMENTS, please. 'Next' is not a label. Off-case, tell me whether you're reading T, a DISAD, a CP, a K, or something else. Similarly, ‘case’ is not a label. Tell me where you want your argument flowed. It may seem 100% clear to you, but it may not be as clear to me (even if I have your speech within the email chain). Assuming there is an email chain, I expect to be part of it: eddinska@gmail.com.

Tag-team CX is fine, but recognize that if the debater who is the designated questioner or respondent is completely overwhelmed by their partner, both team members will likely receive reduced speaker points.

Lincoln-Douglas and Parli Paradigm: I'm pretty much tabula rasa in both these formats, happy to judge the debate as it's presented and debated. I will always be a flow judge (who values line-by-line clash as much as possible). But I'm generally more 'progressive' in judging LD and Parli than I am in judging Policy. Go figure. In both LD and Parli, I very much appreciate theory/framework arguments. I also think both LD and Parli debates benefit from explicit plans/advocacies, which thus opens up the NEG option of CPs/counter-advocacies. Ditto K debate in LD and Parli...go for it, provided you know what you're doing (and can present the K clearly and coherently). Basically, the more LD and Parli resemble Policy, the better.

Public Forum Paradigm: You should follow the rules, of course, but I'm comfortable with pushing the limits (in terms of advocacies and counter-advocacies and such)...that said, I'm open to the other team pushing back on PF rules/norms regarding plans and CPs and such. I see framework as a key element of PF; it's important to establish (and win) your framework (and then, having secured the framework, explain how and why it matters to your case). I will always evaluate the debate off my flow, so line-by-line clash and full coverage of the key issues are important. That means spreading is fine with me...you don't have much time in PF, I know, so use what you have to the fullest. Ditto theory (to the extent theory exists in PF). Again, PF is kinda/sorta Policy Lite, and I'll always prefer -- but not insist upon -- a more Policy-like approach.

put me on the email chain: zoe.gallagher.anna@gmail.com

Hey ya'll what's up I'm Zoe,

Update 10/17: If you are reading an aff under this topic with heg/econ impacts and don't even mention structural violence related to the criminal justice system,,,, what is wrong w you??

Update 11/13: Unless the 50 states CP is straight-up conceded by the affirmative, I will not vote on it :) (most of the time). Ks don't get to fiat unless you explain why that's good for education.

Update 11/14: Negative, I understand reform is probably bad and quells movement, why does the aff uniquely trigger this ? Someone please make me vote neg

Experience: I debated for four years in high school at Baltimore City College (I was a K debater), I'm a sophomore Public Policy and German major at the University of Maryland. I don't really know too much about this topic (I wasn't involved with any camps or anything but I do have a pretty broad understanding of American criminal justice just from personal research) so acronyms and such need to be explained.

Paradigm: Just a general overview of how I judge debates: I'm fine with spreading as long as you are clear enough (FOR ONLINE DEBATING SLOW DOWN ON ANALYTICS). I will listen to almost anything as long as it's argued well, to be honest though I really am not a fan of superrr policy rounds (ie 6 off and case). A dropped argument is a true argument (within reason). I like competitive spirit but don't be a terrible person. By that I mean you can get fiery in your speeches and cross-ex but personal attacks are not cool unless they are really out of line (i.e. they said something outright offensive: racist, sexist, patriarchal, heteronormative,etc.). I want to see a good debate so run what you're comfortable with and know what you're talking about please. please actually try and understand the arguments you run and not just read off the blocks your coach or whatever wrote you, I'm not really persuaded by blippy truth claims that aren't elaborated. If you are aff I would like a really clear internal link chain of how your plan solves its impacts, this goes for policy and K affs.

My favorite types of debates are Policy Affs vs a one off K, I think the most important part of these debates are framing, even if your alternative is not super great if you're neg, if i am super convinced that your framing is a pre-req or whatever I will probably vote for you. This is not to say I will always default neg v a policy aff.

I love K affs but please prove why it isn't just the status quo, +.2 speaker points if the 2nr goes for something other than fw/t usfg

To be honest if you want a super nuanced RFD about your high theory K aff don't pref me super high but also I will listen to what you have to say, just explain it really well.

I tend to personally bias things like hegemony, imperialism, and capitalism bad but if you don't explain that in round or give warranted reasons as to why they're bad I'm not just gonna vote for you.

Aff: Read your thing, don't drop case, answer the DAs please, don't make me vote on T that doesn't make sense

Neg: I actually really like topicality when it's reasonable, good framework debates are fun but you're gonna go for a TVA I would really appreciate it to solve at least some of the aff's impacts, I love a good 1 off K round

I WILL VOTE NEG ON PRESUMPTION

Novices:

Read what you'd like, not sure if non-traditional affs should be a thing in a division where most don't even know how to make a 1nc on their own

Extinction level impacts are usually stupid and have an incoherent internal link chain, think about the endless affs that have not actually happened and whether or not extinction is imminent

neg: can ya'll not find anything better than the 50 states CP??? will be super irrelevant after jan 5th, find something else.

Show me your flows at the end of the round for +.1 speaker points

If you are even reading this, good job keep it up, let me know you read my paradigm and i'll give you +.1

Background:

Director of Debate at Georgetown Day School.

Please add me to the email chain - georgetowndaydebate@gmail.com.

For questions or other emails - gkoo@gds.org.

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

Big Picture:

Read what you want. Have fun. I know you all put a lot time into this activity, so I am excited to hear what you all bring!

Policy Debate

Things I like:

• 2AR and 2NRs that tell me a story. I want to know why I am voting the way I am. I think debaters who take a step back, paint me the key points of clash, and explain why those points resolve for their win fare better than debaters who think every line by line argument is supposed to be stitched together to make the ballot.
• Warrants. A debater who can explain and impact a mediocre piece of evidence will fare much better than a fantastic card with no in-round explanation. What I want to avoid is reconstructing your argument based off my interpretation of a piece of evidence. I don't open speech docs to follow along, and I don't read evidence unless its contested in the round or pivotal to a point of clash.
• Simplicity. I am more impressed with a debater that can simplify a complex concept. Not overcomplicating your jargon (especially K's) is better for your speaker points.
• Topicality (against policy Aff's). This fiscal redistribution topic seems quite large so the better you represent your vision of the topic the better this will go for you. Please don't list out random Aff's without explaining them as a case list because I am not very knowledgeable on what they are.
• Case debates. I think a lot of cases have very incredulous internal links to their impacts. I think terminal defense can exist and then presumption stays with the Neg. I'm waiting for the day someone goes 8 minutes of case in the 1NC. That'd be fantastic, and if done well would be the first 30 I'd give. Just please do case debates.
• Advantage CP's and case turns. Process CP's are fine as well, but I much prefer a well researched debate on internal links than a debate about what the definition of "resolved" "the" and "should"" are. Don't get me wrong though, I am still impressed by well thought out CP competition.
• Debates, if both teams are ready to go, that start early. I also don't think speeches have to be full length, if you accomplished what you had to in your speech then you can end early. Novice debaters, this does not apply to you. Novices should try to fill up their speech time for the practice.
• Varsity debaters being nice to novices and not purposefully outspreading them or going for dropped arguments.

Things:

• K Affirmatives and Framework/T. I'm familiar and coached teams in a wide variety of strategies. Make your neg strategy whatever you're good at. Advice for the Aff: Answer all FW tricks so you have access to your case. Use your case as offense against the Neg's interpretation. You're probably not going to win that you do not link to the limits DA at least a little, so you should spend more time turning the Neg's version of limits in the context of your vision of debate and how the community has evolved. I believe well developed counter-interpretations and explanations how they resolve for the Neg's standards is the best defense you can play. Advice for the Neg: Read all the turns and solves case arguments. Soft left framework arguments never really work out in my opinion because it mitigates your own offense. Just go for limits and impact that out. Generally the winning 2NR is able to compartmentalize the case from the rest of the debate with some FW trick (TVA, SSD, presumption, etc.) and then outweigh on a standard. If you aren't using your standards to turn the case, or playing defense on the case flow, then you are probably not going to win.
• Role of the Ballot. I don't know why role of the ballot/judge arguments are distinct arguments from impact calculus or framework. It seems to me the reason the judge's role should change is always justified by the impacts in the round or the framework of the round. I'm pretty convinced by "who did the better debating." But that better debating may convince me that I should judge in a certain way. Hence why I think impact calculus or framework arguments are implicit ROB/ROJ arguments.
• Tech vs. truth. I'd probably say I am tech over truth. But truth makes it much easier for an argument to be technically won. For example, a dropped permutation is a dropped permutation. I will vote on that in an instant. But an illogical permutation can be answered very quickly and called out that there was no explanation for how the permutation works. Also the weaker the argument, the more likely it can be answered by cross applications and extrapolations from established arguments.
• Kritiks. I find that K turns case, specific case links, or generic case defense arguments are very important. Without them I feel it is easy for the Aff to win case outweighs and/or FW that debates become "you link, you lose." I think the best K debaters also have the best case negs or case links. In my opinion, I think K debaters get fixated on trying to get to extinction that they forget that real policies are rejected for moral objections that are much more grounded. For example, I don't need the security kritik to lead to endless war when you can provide evidence about how the security politics in Eastern Europe has eroded the rights and quality of life of people living there. This coupled with good case defense about the Aff's sensational plan is in my opinion more convincing.

Things I like less:

• Stealing prep. Prep time ends when the email is sent or the flash drive is removed. If you read extra cards during your speech, sending that over before cross-ex is also prep time. I'm a stickler for efficient rounds, dead time between speeches is my biggest pet peeve. When prep time is over, you should not be typing/writing or talking to your partner. If you want to talk to your partner about non-debate related topics, you should do so loud enough so that the other team can also tell you are not stealing prep. You cannot use remaining cross-ex time as prep.
• Debaters saying "skip that next card" or announcing to the other team that you did not read xyz cards. It is the other team's job to flow.
• Open cross. In my opinion it just hurts your prep time. There are obvious exceptions when partners beneficially tag team. But generally if you interrupt your partner in cross-ex or answer a question for them and especially ask a question for them, there better be a good reason for it because you should be prepping for your next speech
• 2NC K coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads paragraphs on the links, impacts, and alt that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 2NC T/FW coverage that has a 6 min overview and reads extensions on your standards when that could have been extended on the line by line.
• 10 off. That should be punished with conditionality or straight turning an argument. I think going for conditionality is not done enough by Affirmative teams.
• Card clipping is any misrepresentation of what was read in a speech including not marking properly, skipping lines, or not marking at all. Intent does not matter. A team may call a violation only with audio or video proof, and I will stop the round there to evaluate if an ethics violation has happened. If a team does not have audio or video proof they should not call an ethics violation. However, I listen to the text of the cards. If I suspect a debater is clipping cards, I will start following along in the document to confirm. If a tournament has specific rules or procedures regarding ethics violations, you may assume that their interpretations override mine.

PF Debate:

• Second rebuttal must frontline, you can't wait till the second summary.
• If it takes you more than 1 minute to send a card, I will automatically strike it from my flow. This includes when I call for a card. I will also disregard evidence if all there is a website link. Cards must be properly cut and cited with the relevant continuous paragraphs. Cards without full paragraph text, a link, a title, author name, and date are not cards.
• You are only obligated to send over evidence. Analytics do not need to be sent, the other team should be flowing.
• Asking questions about cards or arguments made on the flow is prep time or crossfire time.
• If it isn't in the summary, it's new in the final focus.
• Kritiks in PF, go for it! Beware though that I'm used to CX and may not be hip on how PF debaters may run Kritiks.

put me on the email chain/if you have any questions: emee.liu@gmail.com

You can read whatever you want just make sure you can explain it well. I'm tabula rosa. Speed is ok but clarity is critical if you try to be fast. I can't flow what isn't clear.

River Hill '13
Wake Forest '17 with double majors in Communication and Religion and '19 MA in Bioethics

email: andrewlopez700 @ gmail . com

Updated throughout before 2022 GDS:

2022-2023 Res: I haven't worked at a camp but currently work in and studied bioethics, wrote a thesis on AI in medicine and existential phenomenology, and would love to hear a debate about areas of the topic you find interesting or important. The lit bases and quandries affecting or soon to affect our lives are vaster than debate allows discussion for. If your Aff is all about NATO and cyber stuff that's cool too, educate us.

Each team gets 5 minutes of tech time to send out docs, after that I time prep.

"Invisibilizing" (the macro in verbatim for taking away all of a card but the highlighted portions) is cheating and I will end the round immediately. Its happened far too often in front of me. The same goes for any kind of speech doc shenanigans during Zoom debate.

Strategy: I'd rather hear a more in-depth and developed strategy over throwing arguments at the wall in hopes that one will stick.

Argument Preferences: Whatever you do, specific over generic strategy and engagement with the other team's arguments is great. 

Case debates's obviously awesome, especially when paired with CP's with Net Benefits specific to the aff.

Creative politics DA's are cool. Generic ones without good evidence are a tough sell.

Critiques are great but work best when refuting the case. A K as one big case turn is fun.

Love judging T in policy debates.

I read and coached K Affs most of the time and voted both ways, recently (end of the 2021-2022 season) probably more so aff. In FW debates, why your form of debating (or not debating) what you say the topic is is a must. I've voted neg on FW in more technical decisions and aff on more "performance outweighs, form affects content" decisions.

Any argument on debate being bad should address what we should be doing then, or why it matters whatever I do with a ballot in front of me. If you're answering this, please justify debate at least while we're stuck here.

Paperless: Yes, I would like speech docs. I try to flow warrants of cards and read to follow your research. Read great cards and emphasize their best parts in evidence comparison to your opponents' evidence.

Speaking/Flowing: Speed is the # of arguments effectively communicated to the judge that the other team must be held accountable to answer.

Slow down for theory, and ESPECIALLY 2ac's/1ar's on the case, or any long blocks of all analytics. I flow straight down and find that when I try lining up each team's arguments it distracts me from the argument being made, so go line by line and sign post but mainly just be sure that you are making a full argument. 

Overviews are great, the best ones compare a ballot for you to the ballot for the other team, and weigh the question the ballot decides between the two. Doing this through any part of the debate first before the line-by-line helps to decide what's most important, an important skill to practice.

Numbering arguments helps me follow the flow order you intended.

I try my best to flow CX. Utilize CX later in the debate and I'll connect the flows. A lot of debates are decided based on 15 seconds of a good CX.

Tech vs Truth: Communicating what, why, and how you won, whether on the flow or being "actually right" through scholarship, knowledge of the lit, the world etc. Truth can transcend tech if what, why, or how you're debating supercedes the flow. But even when one team explains well their own side of the story, if they don't answer the most crucial part of the other side then more ballots on a technical decision address the lack of a interaction on important questions.

Many rounds with panel or team disagreement comes down to disagreeing on whether tech or truth mattered more. Its round context dependent and the best debaters spend at least the bare minimum time addressing it somehow. Could be on the impact debate, the link debate, overview, wherever it matters to you.

Teams excelling at tech inevitably debate those excelling at truth, and judging comes down to arguing about prioritizing either being "actually right", versus who moved debate-arg pieces to check-mate. Argue why your style should be preferred.

Make impact calculus arguments for tech, why specific drops on the flow matter. Everyone has a different flow. Many debaters assert arguments were dropped without impacting what dropping the argument means for the ballot, or how it fits into other parts of the flow. I favor technical debating when you are super clear. If you're not communicating clearly then its hard to know how you want my flow to be.

True decisions (who knows what's True) not based on tech are difficult unless you show through amazing cards, examples, and storytelling on your idea of what's true. Any style of debate works better if you can show why you have better scholarship, and why your forms of scholarship matter. This can be for policy, critical, any which way round or between. 

If something on another flow implicity answers a "dropped" argument and there's a coherent explanation of this connection, it's not dropped.

An new argument can be justified if it is explained as crucial to making the decision. These justifications can also be debated.

Offense-Defense: I will use it unless an alternate paradigm is introduced and is argued as superior. Evidence on this question would be awesome.

In a T/Theory debate, TELL ME WHAT PARADIGM TO USE. Whoever controls this generally wins.

I will vote on low-risk=no-risk. Poking holes in internal link chains is underrated.

Cheap Shots: Are not the best route to victory. I will be willing to vote for you more if you pair them with a more comprehensive strategy.

Intrinsicness: When explained criticizing opportunity cost decision-making taught by debate links, is not a cheap shot, but works best in conjunction with other arguments. 

Critical Intrinsicness? K Affs critiquing opportunity cost thinking as a method or otherwise applied to Neg strategy, especially K link claims about performative or material problems of the aff, are extremely persuasive for why Affs get perms in method debates or just why the perm wins. If your K has links to scenario planning, economics, policy thinking or statecraft, etc. then your lit probably also critiques opportunity cost decisionmaking based on scarcity of choice, i.e. the Aff/Perm forecloses the Neg/Alt because of the links. If the Neg/Alt doesn't engage in some form of action, thinking, organizing, planning on what should be done that performatively or materially denies the aff as an ethical option, then how does the Neg/Alt solve the links? I've rarely seen this debated out by either side but it would go far to answer why debate has a unique role to do whatever you want it to, and why the Neg's argument is not competitive, or the meaning of mutually exclusive performances.

If the Neg wins their performance is good but doesn't win that the Aff's is bad, then that's not a method debate its a presentation of a possible method without refuting the other.

Methods: What's a methodology is a good often undebated question. I'll assume its your approach to answering a question, politics, the topic, your performance, life, debate, whatever.

Everyone has some mode of debating, justify yours. If you think having a methodological approach is bad, explain why. This is where you could get into why debate or your form of it matters.

A policy without methodological support for why its a good idea is not fully argued or researched. Policy teams justifying their method and prepared with answers to K teams' various methods can be very persuasive.

Neg teams that explain what their method is and means, impacted with how your method's differences with the aff matter or are DA's to the aff, are persuasive.

Please don't just assert that its a method debate without a warrant for what that means, who your method is for and in what context, why it is a method debate, and how that changes my paradigm for evaluating the round. Answering the perm just by saying "it's a method debate" doesn't mean anything without a reason and impact.

Topicality: Love it. I don't have a huge preference between reasonability or competing interps. Having education offense for your interpretation is a must. Limits and ground are internal links and not impacts by themselves. This debate, along with FW, is a question of competing worlds of debating the topic.

Reasonability shifts the paradigm for evaluating topicality away from competing interpretations to a "good enough" interpretation for the topic. Its a critique or impact turn to Offense-Defense T debating and the perfective push of competing interpretations aiming for the best possible (only possible) topic.

Competing interpretations should justify why we should strive for the best possible topic and how the aff is not only unreasonable but that settling for the aff's topic would be bad, or that we shouldn't settle for an unideal topic, why the topic matters at all.

Reasonability is NOT a reason that you meet their interpretation reasonably enough. This means you must have an interpretation extended in order to win with reasonability. "We reasonably meet their interpretation" is a we meet argument and confusing blended with reasonability/competing interpretations.

Theory: These debates are unnecessarily messy and should forefront key impacts instead of extending bullet point defense that generally doesn't affect the decision. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument and not the team. Conditionality is an exception, but only with specific in-round examples of how affirmative strategy was affected. More than 2 conditional worlds, the neg better have a good defense of their practice. Just 2 conditional worlds or less, the aff better have an example of in-round abuse.

If you must go for theory as a reason to reject the other team, dedicate your whole final speech to it. If not, concede the other team's "reject the argument" and show how rejecting that will set up the rest of your winning strategy. EX: reject the process cp, now the case outweighs their DA.

No, I will not kick the CP/Alt for you. Use those decision-making skills and make an actual strategic decision. The 2AR shouldn't be expected to read my mind to figure out which world they are debating. I'll assume that 1NC CX saying that "status quo is always an option" is about the neg and not me after the debate.

Counterplan Theory: I prefer anything with plan specific solvency advocates, and if the neg lacks one the aff should make a big deal of this. I'll admit I'm not the best at thinking through the minutiae of process counterplan competition and would be willing to reject the argument for sketchy CP's that compete off of arbitrary things. If you have a really interesting CP with specific solvency and competition evidence, I'll evaluate things much more in the neg's favor and expect the aff to have answers to an argument within their lit base.

FW when Aff against a K: I won't vote a team down for reading a critique. I will also probably give them access to an alternative. You're better off problematizing the alt's ability to solve because it can't change institutions, etc, while defending the justifications for the 1ac. The Neg on the FW debate should tell me what sort of debate I should prioritize.

FW against a K Aff: Both teams need arguments favoring their form of debate against the other team. Not sure how to vote without a justification of how debate should be.

A lot of debate practices are good and a lot are bad, but what does my ballot mean towards changing that? Is it better to improve the bad parts of debate and keep the good, or is debate so bad it should be abandoned? If abandoned, what do we do while here? How do we leave debate within norms of debating? How are you against or changing those norms? Is changing debate better than leaving it? How do we do either?

Interact with the other team's offense. If you ONLY read FW in your 1NC, it's most persuasive if argued as the ONLY way to clash with the 1AC. If you had other great arguments to read, let's talk about those lol. If you didn't, then practice FW. It's a waste if you read only FW to excuse never engaging other teams at all.

FW's persuasiveness increases when the other team skirts links to other 1NC positions. I've voted for FW many times, but you'd still be better off trying to think of something more creative beyond FW/CAP.

My favorite FW style is like a K about the necessity and inevitability of state and topic engagement showing how not engaging the state or topic turns their Aff AND other topic areas and you'll be much more persuasive than "but limits, judge". Tell me why we're learning about the topic at all. Limits upon an unethical and meaningless topic is a bad idea. Tell me why the topic is ethical and meaningful to learn about.

Decision Time: I will try to decide quickly not because it was a bad debate but because taking too long generally means I end up overthinking the round, as I often do. I will try to read as few pieces of evidence as possible. I expect you to articulate the warrants for cards the first time they are read so that I don't have to figure out what they say after the round.

Be funny, be nice, not over the top screaming at each other. Use analogies!

Longer (older but little has changed) philosophy:

A brief warning: I have not worked at a camp this summer, so I have little Oceans topic knowledge. If there are any intricacies of how the topic, your aff, or really anything operates that I should know in order to vote for you, please tell me. It'll show your expertise on your arguments, which will get you higher speaks, and make my decision much easier.

I do not care what arguments you make, just be passionate about them and execute them in a way that demonstrates that passion. Understand however that some arguments are of higher quality than others. While I will not be unwilling to hear a throwdown on the "The" PIC, my value to life may decrease because of it.

One caveat to the first statement about "run what you want". If you make an argument that is morally repugnant, I will feel no remorse when voting against you. Impact turns such as Racism Good, Sexism Good, Homophobia Good, Transphobia Good etc. are unjustifiable and I would like to think that the debate community is above that in terms of promoting meaningful education and argumentative strategy. If this is just your thing, you are always welcome to strike me. I'm sure we'd both be happier that way.

Also, some people may consider me a "point fairy." Just throwing that out there.


Since I have little preference about what specific arguments you do read, here are some meta issues that I think will better describe how I evaluate debates:

I will try my best to stick to the flow and not to intervene in my decision, HOWEVER no judge is perfectly objective. Judges are humans and not flow-bots. There are certain aspects of debate, argumentation, and communication that cannot be understood by staring at long pieces of paper with various colors of scribbles scrawled upon them. This means persuasion is not solely based on logic, but also emotional connection and personal credibility communicated to the judge. Odds are that if you combine these three factors, you will receive substantially higher speaker points and, if the stars align, you might just win.

Cross-X is very important and I try to flow it. Take time to think this through just as you would any other speech. Good cross-x's that get utilized in later speeches will earn you higher speaker points.

An argument consists of a claim, a warrant, and an impact. Without one of these, you do not have an argument.
Similarly, fewer arguments with more warranted and impacted analysis is always superior to more arguments with fewer warranted and impacted analysis.

Speed is the number of arguments effectively communicated to the judge that the other team must be held accountable to answer. This means I need to have your argument understood and somehow, somewhere written down on my flow AND this argument must be developed in a way that it holds enough importance that the other team has to answer it. I would rather you be clear and flowable than blazing "fast" and impossible to understand.
On a related note, I like to flow the warrants of cards. If you are unclear when reading evidence, it will decrease the persuasiveness of your argument because I will not have a full understanding of what your card actually says.
Unlike many other judges, I will not yell "clear" if I cannot understand you. If you are unflowable, that is not my problem, it's yours. Pick up on visual cues such as my facial expressions or inability to write things down and you can probably tell just how unflowable you are. Please, just be clear and we will never run into problems. If this requires you to slow down and read fewer cards than you would have otherwise, trust me it's probably worth it.

Quality over quantity. Always. I cannot stress this enough. I'd much rather you have a well developed, specific neg strategy with fewer, longer, more warranted cards that apply directly to the affirmative then a 1NC that throws arguments at the wall in hopes that something sticks. The same applies for 1AC's. A well developed advantage with fewer impacts that have many warrants is preferable to one shoddy internal link and solvency claim followed by endless number of impact cards.
Innovation is awesome and will be greatly rewarded. Just know that your new argument should still make sense. Some arguments aren't run for a reason.

Tech vs truth is entirely situational. If an argument is "conceded", it better have a claim, warrant, and impact in order to then count as "true" within the confines of the debate. If something elsewhere on other flows implicitly answers the argument and the other team provides a coherent explanation of this connection, the argument is not "conceded." If an argument is conceded, it does not automatically win the debate. It needs further explanation about what that concession means in relation to the other arguments in the debate.

The debaters who often win and receive the highest speaker points are those who make meta-level "framing issue" arguments, such as reasons to prefer only certain kinds of evidence, impacts, responses etc. If there is something that you think the other team has no game on, please tell me what that is, why it matters, and how it implicates how I evaluate everything else.

In this same vein, it is VERY, VERY, VERY important to tell me how to evaluate certain arguments, mainly permutations and framework arguments, often beyond the simple "perm's are tests of competition" or "we should weigh our plan." Tell me what it means for you to win the perm or framework, how they interact with other arguments on the flow. If the aff wins the perm, but the neg wins their framework, what does that mean? Impact these important portions of the flow so I know how arguments work together on the flow.

Evidence makes arguments, but so should debaters. Just because you have a card on something does not mean you will win. Sensible analytic arguments will be valued as highly as evidence, and definitely higher than shoddy evidence.

Offense-Defense is a useful heuristic for evaluating risk. However, I do think that there is such thing as terminal defense. It is still safer to extend offense.
PLEASE tell me whether or not I should use an offense-defense paradigm, and give reasons for this too. This is especially important in topicality and theory debates when it can be harder to win substantive offense.

Impact calculus is extremely important. The triumvirate of Magnitude, Timeframe, and Probability are overrated though. Certainly make these arguments, but explain them and why they are important/more important than the other team's impact. Impact calculus should tell a story. I want to know what the world, or lack thereof, will look like post-ballot. This is ESPECIALLY important in critique debates where the impacts can be more ethereal.

Theory debates can get messy, so clean them up and you'll probably win. If you clean up the flow and make larger, conceptual framing arguments as opposed to bullet point extensions of your theory block, you will be rewarded with good speaks and maybe even a ballot.
Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument and not the team. If you do wish to go for theory in the 2AR, you will win if you overcome this threshold.

The only strong theory bias I hold is against "judge kick." I do not think that the 2NR can go for both the CP/Alt AND the status quo, meaning that during the decision the judge should be able to kick the advocacy and vote for the status quo. The 2NR is very hard, but the 2AR should not be expected to read the judge's mind and debate in both the world where the neg's advocacy is kicked and where it's not. 2N's should make strategic choices by actually making a choice of what you want to go for. If you defend judge kick in the 2NR, I will be very unhappy and will probably not end up kicking the advocacy (unless the 2AR really drops the ball on this theory question AND there's no other way to resolve the debate).

If in cross-x the neg says "status quo is always an option", I assume that means that it's always an option for the neg and that they can kick the advocacy and go for the status quo and NOT that I can judge kick. To counter this form of negative shadiness, 1NC CX should always include questions of the status of advocacies AND whether the judge can kick the advocacy after the debate. It takes 10 seconds tops and is well worth your time.
If the 1NC does defend "judge kick", please make this into a separate theory argument in the 2AC. It's not a round winner, but bringing it up will hopefully deter this practice in some way.

I love debate, but understand it has LOTS of problems and is in serious need of improvement. However, it is still the most rewarding activity I have ever had the privilege of participating in.

If your argument claims that debates in the status quo are exclusionary/oppressive/pure-evil, then I am perfectly willing to vote for you if you provide an alternate method capable of changing debate for the better. We are about to be in a debate, after-all.

This can even include "burn it down" style arguments, but I want to know what myself as a judge can do while in debate about debate. This does not necessarily have to be framed in terms of a typical critique "alternative", but I would just like to know what ideal debates would look like after I sign my ballot.

Having said that, I think all forms debate can be highly educational. Whether one likes to call arguments performative, non-traditional, or anything else, it's all still arguments.

Framework arguments have varying levels of persuasiveness against these forms of debate. I find framework most persuasive when you paint a picture of what their world of debate looks like for both aff and neg teams, for debate research, for judges, for the community overall etc. and not simply by rehashing limits and ground arguments.

Topical versions of the aff need fleshing out and I hold a higher standard for explanation on how they actually address not just the advantage of the aff but also their solvency approach as well. Topical versions of the aff supported by evidence are much more persuasive. Think of them as counterplans with FW being the net benefit.

The same goes for other forms of topicality arguments. Limits and ground are internal links and not impacts by themselves. Debate about what debate should/shouldn't be like.

Conversely, teams having framework run against them need a defense of their argument's form, content (explanation for whether there is even a difference between those things), and a reason why their version of debate is superior to the other team's.

I've rethought my policy on paperless prep time. Prep time stops when you save the speech and the other team has access to it, whether this means you hand it to them on a flashdrive or you sent it to them through an email chain. Please just be quick about it or be a more efficient prepper.

Debate is built on trust. Cheating or unethical behavior will not be tolerated. If a team is proven to have debated unethically, that team will receive extremely low speaker points and will lose the round. However, if the team accusing the other fails to prove that any unethical behavior occurred, that team will receive the same punishment. This is to prevent off-the-cuff accusations of cheating that delegitimize actual, warranted charges.
Another important thing to note here: these accusations are not to be evaluated with an "offense-defense" paradigm. There can be no grey area. You must prove that the other team performed unethically using substantive evidence. The best example of this is a recording of the debate along with a copy of the speech.


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

Also, have fun!! Debate is competitive, but don't let that get in the way of your enjoyment of the whole process =]

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.

* if you're any degree of sick, covid or otherwise, wear a mask, my immune system sucks. I care about your safety, I hope you care about mine. I will personally find a mask for you if necessary. *

neutral or they/them pronouns // aprilmayma@gmail.com

4 yrs circuit/TOC policy @ Blue Valley West ('19) // BA Political Science @ UC Berkeley ('22) // Current PhD student of Political Science @ Johns Hopkins. did not debate in college.

coached/judged for: college prep (2019-present), georgetown day (2023-present)

judging stats: aff-neg, 99-121 [45% aff, 55% neg], sat 4x.

***I do not know the topic this year, just chill out on the acronyms please***

___

juj preferences

[me] I debated in proximinty to/am influenced primarily by ex-KU debaters and other Kansas diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. K-affs r my gray area, more below. I do not care that much about respectability, but ego posturing/nastiness and confidence/good faith are distinct. non-debate (personal) disputes are not up to the ballot. I am a mandated reporter.

[rfd] I like an easy ballot - have not debated in 4+ years. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them unless its not close - read: judge instructions necessary. Otherwise, I resolve the impact level first - who solves what, does it even matter, impact framing, etc. I might read a card only if teams have explicitly extended it for the entire debate or given a reason I should read it (misrepresented warrants, shrunken text, etc) other ev work is the debaters' job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful (if consistent). i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.

[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN; I will clear you once per speech.

[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.

[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will try to meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech - if you can win in 3 mins, do it. i do not read "inserts", teams are responsible for reading recuts or interpreting visuals/charts. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.

___

argument notes

[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must call an ethics violation to stop the round. if its verified/valid, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] clipping ballots usually necessitate recording the round, contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible & not marking.**I am following the 1AC and 1NC - read every word of the card. seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! if I notice clipping and no one else calls it out, I will not stop the round, but your speaks will reflect what I hear.

[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?

[K-aff] okay, but not my neck of the woods. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs should solve something/change the squo. KvK debate is fine when i can keep up. don't miss the forest for the trees- I need overviews and line-by-line (duh) but often one loses the other, ex: extremely thorough LBL responds to the 1AR but fails to contextualize to the entire debate. I find myself often w a lot of info w/o reasons to vote. the more judge instruction, the less judge intervention.

[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm kinda familiar with most cap/security/ontology-relevant K's (or at least some of the lit bases). idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, wtv). K tricks r dope, if you can explain them

[disads] yes. impact turns are awesome. turns case analysis is also awesome. line by line? awesome

[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. blips like "sufficiency framing" are meaningless w/o explanation. I don't weigh the CP unless i think there's a risk of the net benefit. remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text. challenge mode: explain your perms????

[T] yes. default to competing interps. caselists are helpful in ground debates. SIGNPOSTING is a huge issue here. I tend to miss stuff while flowing so slow down. plus speaks for T debate that goes off the flow. the last good policy T db8 I watched was in 2020. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it! [re: T vs. K-aff]: I admittedly lean neg for limits & personal familiarity of args, affs do well turning it rather than no linking. in many rounds coherence/consistency/organization of the T page is the biggest obstacle to the W, please keep that in mind.

[theory] rule of thumb: equal input, equal-ish output. aka, blipped theory warrants blipped answers - just don't drop it. dropped theory (depending on how arbitrary the argument is) doesnt mean an auto ballot; if you want me to treat theory seriously enough to vote for you, YOU should too. a lot of teams have taken "dropped = true" WAY too seriously. do not expect a good rfd on theory if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. If you are going for it, I want to hear every word. and no i will not flow off the doc.

[speaker points] i am anti speaks inflation. everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for the aforementioned, + disorganization, offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary debates. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.

High threshold for framework but don’t be afraid to read T in front of me.

Need to be sold on impacts for FW

dont be racist, sexist or homophobic, or it will be reflected on your RFD

and/or speaker points.

I have an extensive history in performative/Krikal debate but also in traditional policy. So no real preference for either side just enjoy judging competitive debates

Prefer clarity over speed just like most humans

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 graduated from Mamaroneck High School in 2019. I debated there 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. My good debate opinions come from Ken Karas.

Put me on the email chain: eaorfanos1[at]gmail[dot]com AND mhsdebatedocs[at]googlegroups[dot]com. The email title 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. If you tell me before I submit my ballot (try to do this right after the 2AR since sometimes I vote really quickly), you get +0.2 speaker points. I will also look at everyone's wikis before the round starts, and good wikis will receive between +0.1 and +0.3 points depending on how good the disclosure is.

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.

Being funny will give you good speaks. Jokes about my friends/any current or former Mamaroneck or Georgetown debater or coach will give you +0.2 or +0.3 speaker points depending on how good the joke is. Bad jokes will be -0.1 or -0.2 points depending on how bad the joke is.

I adjust speaker points based on the division and quality of competition. I generally start at a 28.5 and move up or down from there. I reward debaters who are strategic and creative. Do not ask for a 30 or high speaks. That's not how this works. You get what you get and you don't get upset.

Clipping or cross-reading 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 yours 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 sustainability).

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 like topicality debates, BUT they often 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 and it's 3-4+ condo.

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.

Policy Debate

It is the responsibility of the debater to look at the paradigm before the start of each round and ask any clarifying questions. I will evaluate the round under the assumption it has been read regardless if you did it or not. I will not check to see if you read my paradigm, nor will I give warnings of any kind on anything related to my paradigm. If you don't abide by it you will reap what you sow I am tired of debaters ignoring it, and myself in a debate round my patience has officially run out.

1. I hate spreading slow down if you want me to flow your arguments if it is not on my flow, it is not a part of the round. It doesn't matter how well it is explained or extended. At best, depending on the speech, it will be a new argument or analytical argument and will be evaluated from then forth as such. I do want to be part of the email chain, my email is thehitman.310@gmail.com, note that just because I am part of the email chain does not mean I flow everything I read. I only flow what I hear so make sure I can hear your arguments. Beware I will be following along to make sure no one is cutting cards and I will call out teams for cutting cards so be sure to do things correctly. I will drop cards before the team and continued cutting will result in me stopping the round and contacting tab. Additionally, I will not yell clear, and I will not give time signals except to inform you your time is up. I find doing this splits my attention in a way that is unfair to the debater and often distracts debaters when called out. You will have my undivided attention.

2. I hate theory and have only voted on it once (current as of 4/12/22). In particular, I do not like disclosure theory and think it's a bogus argument, as I come from a time when there was no debate wiki; as a result, I am highly biased against this argument and don't advise running it in my round. Also, regardless of the argument, I prefer they be related to the topic. I am just as interested in the topic as I expect debaters to be. On that note, I am willing to listen to just about anything as long as they are well articulated and explained(See 3). I have heard some pretty wild arguments so anything new will be fun to hear. Know in order for me to vote on an argument, there needs to be an impact on it, and I need to know how we arrive at the impact. But I want to know more than A + B = C, I need to know the story of how we arrive at your impact and why they matter. I will not simply vote on a dropped argument unless there is no other way to vote and I need to make a decision, I consider this Judge intervention, and I hate doing this. You, as a debater, should be telling me how to vote I will have to deduct speaker points if I have to do any work for you. Keep this in mind during your rebuttals.

3. At the beginning of each round, I am a blank slate; think of me like a 6 or 7-year-old. Explain arguments to me as such. I only evaluate things said in a round; my own personal knowledge and opinion will not affect me. For example, if someone in a round says the sky is purple, reads evidence the sky is purple, and it goes uncontested, then the sky is purple. I believe this is important because I consider anything else judge's intervention which I am highly opposed to and, again, will result in a speaker point deduction. That being said, I default to a standard policy-making framework at the beginning of each round unless I am told otherwise. This also applies in the context of evidence, your interpretation of the evidence is law unless challenged. Once challenged, I will read the evidence and make a decision based on my understanding of the evidence and how it was challenged, this may result in my decision on an argument flipping, the evidence being disregarded, and/or the ballot being flipped.

4. Be aware I do keep track of Speech times, and Prep, and go solely by my timer. My timer counts down and will only stop when you say stop prep. Once you say "Stop prep" I expect you to be ready to send the file. I do not want to hear I need to copy arguments to a file to send as a part of an email chain. I will run prep for that. It should not take long to send a prepared file through the email chain, and I will wait until all participants receive the file before allowing the following speech to start but do not think you can abuse this I will restart prep if it takes an abnormal amount of time. Also extremely important to note I will not stop my timer for any reason once speech has started for any reason outside of extreme circumstances, and technical difficulties do not count. If you choose to stop your timer to resolve your issue before resuming, know that my time has not stopped and your speech time is being consumed. Also, aside from using your phone as a timer, I expect all debaters to not be on their phones during the round (this includes in between speeches and during prep). I think it is disrespectful to debate as an activity and to your opponent(s), and will deduct speaker points for it. Keeping that in mind, I will not evaluate any argument read off a phone, especially if you have a laptop in the round.

5. In JV and VCX, Cross-X is closed, period. NCX, I will only allow it if you ask. If you don't, it is closed. If you decide to have an open CX anyway, I will deduct speaker points.

6. Last but not least, be respectful to me and to each other, and I would appreciate a good show of sportsmanship at the beginning and end of each round. Any disrespect will result in a speaker point deduction on a per-incident basis. Continued disrespect will result in notifying tournament staff and lower-than-average speaker points. Although I do not expect it will go that far.

E-Debate:

A. Cameras must be on at all times. I will not flow teams with cameras off. Do not be surprised if you lose because I did not flow it you have been warned. I will not be lenient with this as I have been in the past.

B. Prep time will be run until speeches are received in the email chain. DO NOT assume you control the time as mentioned above. I am keeping time and will go by my timer. I WILL start the speech timer if you end prep AND THEN send the speech. I have zero tolerance for this, as teams consistently abuse this to steal prep. You should know how to send an email; it should not take long. If you are having genuine technical issues, let me know as the tournament has Tech Time, I can run that timer instead, otherwise, I will run speech time. DO NOT make light of this I am tired of being ignored as if I am not a part of a debate round.

C. Make sure I'm ready this should be common sense, but for some reason, I have to mention it. If you start a speech before I am ready, I will miss some arguments on my flow, and I will be highly annoyed. Your speaker points will reflect this, and you may lose the round as a result if it was a key argument that I did not flow.

D. Also, spreading on camera is a terrible idea, and I highly advise against it from a technical perspective and my general disdain for spreading. E-Debates are tricky enough with varying devices, internet speeds, and audio equipment affecting the quality of the stream, spreading in my experience is exceptionally disadvantageous, do so at your own risk.

E. REMINDER, I Control speech and prep timers, and speeches DO NOT stop because you are reading the wrong speech or can't find where you are at on a document; once the timer has started, it stays running until speech time is over. I do not know why I have to mention this, but recent judging experiences have told me it must be mentioned.

Lincoln-Douglas

I am very new to judging Lincoln-Douglas Debates. As such, I am relying on the debater to frame the debate for me, particularly in the rebuttal. Arguments should always be responsive to what your opponent is saying if you wish to win them. Explain how your arguments interact, and your line of argumentation means that line of argumentation weighs in your favor. In general, I think all arguments should be filtered through the lens of your values and criterion. That work must be done by the debater, not the judge. Additionally if what you say matches what is on my flow the chances of you winning are high.

I want to be on an email change, I ike to follow along as evidence is being read. My email is thehitman.310@gmail.com

Particularly in rebuttals make sure you are filtering aregumens through Value, Criterion and FW.

hello! i started as a novice at gmu where i debated for 5 years. i then went and coached at binghamton for 2 years and then back to mason for 3.

my email is mthomasgmu@gmail.com

for hybrid, I tend to keep my camera on during speeches. If my camera is off please assume I am not there and do not begin. I’m probably not far from my computer but if it’s been a while shoot me an email. '

Do whatever you do best. i was a flex 2n and read both k affs and policy affs, so i am down for just about anything

FW - this is a huge chunk of the db8s i have judged/debated during my now decade long tenure in debate, so i have heard just about it all. i find clash impacts more persuasive than fairness. topic education das are generally not a winner in front of me - the process of debate does not translate well to the real world so i dont believe you when you say debating w/e topic is going to make you a more persuasive advocate or a better congress person. most of us are far too busy between school, debate, work, etc for this to leave the space so lets not pretend like it will. take advantage of the other teams screw ups - if their counter interp is nonsense, take advantage of that. meanwhile, make sure your tva is relevant and can actually engage with the content of the aff. please also always answer the aff - presumption and turns case args are your friends! side note, if the aff gives you disads or impact turns, i far prefer that debate and will be very grumpy if you chose to go for fw instead.

for answering fw - please defend some sort of action that solves some sort of impact. it obvi doesnt have to be capital T Topical, tho preferably it is in the direction or spirit of the revolution. i have voted for affs with no relevance to the topic, but i have a much lower threshold for fw in that world.

t - again i know little to nothing about the topic but i love a good t debate. ive voted on my fair share of bad t args before (shout out to t subs) because aff teams never seem to provide a meaningful limit with their c/i. i need it explained to me exactly what the case list is under either interp, and what ground was lost. i obvi dont really know the aff/neg ground on this topic but i like to think i can follow along.

Counterplans - not the biggest fan of cheaty cps. condo is good up until a point (probably max 3, preferably 2). dont like perf con or condo planks. not a fan of states but i guess y'all dont really have a choice this year.

case debate - big big fan of good impact turn debates. presumption is also a useful argument.

K - it would be cool if your link would be about the aff - i have judged too many clashless debates where the neg just goes on some adjacent historical tangent but never brings it back to the aff. i like alts but they are not necessary - win the framework debate and you're golden. idk why theres a trend to go for a cap k and then spend a ton of time on framework when it is functionally an impact turn debate??

some odds and ends -

im typically a big picture thinker, so meta level questions and framing args are critical to instructing my ballot, especially in debates involving a k. im very interested in what the ballots relationship is to voting for whichever side, particularly in issues involving things within and outside my social location. i dont really like being perceived as a judge, but what does my ballot as a white queer woman mean? (aka i find the ballot k persuasive more often than not)

if im in a straight up policy debate, i dont get these too terribly often, so id recommend not making it too big - id prefer depth over breadth.

ive found im a pretty expressive judge, and if i am confused or cant understand you my face will make that clear.

Have fun, be clear, be clever.

I have 7 years of both debate and judging experience combined, ill go into deeper detail before an actual debate round (feeling lazy)

I consider myself to be an all around judge, in the sense that my sole purpose in the debate round is to evaluate it and vote on who made the most convincing argument. 

David Trigaux

Former (HS + College) debater, 15+ years experienced coach / increasingly old

Director, Washington Urban Debate League (WUDL)

10 Sec Summary:

I judge 30 rounds at national circuit tournaments each year, cut A LOT of cards on each topic, and am in the middle of the argumentation spectrum. I often judge clash debates. I have some slight preferences (see below), but do your best, be creative, and I am excited to hear whatever style/substance of argumentation you'd like to make.

Accessibility:

I run an Urban Debate League; debate is my full-time job. I work with 500+ students per season, ranging from brand new MS students refining their literacy skills and speaking in front of someone else for the first time to national circuit teams looking to innovate and reach the TOC. Both debaters are equally valuable members of the community and accessibility is a big issue for me. I see the primary role of a judge as giving you thoughtful and actionable feedback on your scholarship and strategies as presented to me in round.

5 Min Before Round Notes:

• Speed: I can handle whatever you throw at me (debate used to be faster than it is now). 75% Speed + emotive is always better than squeezing in that last card or two.
• Policy v Kritik: I was a flex debater and generally coach the same way, though I have run/coached 1 off K and 1 off policy strategies. Teams that adapt and have a specific strategy against the other team almost always do better than those that try to just do one thing and hope it matches up well.
• Theory: I often find these debates shallow/lacking details and trading-off with more educational, common-sense arguments. Use when needed and show me why you don't have other options.
• Creativity + Scholarship: *Moving up for emphasis* I heartily reward hard work, creative thinking, and original research. Be clever, do something I haven't heard before. I will give very high speaker points to folks who can demonstrate these criteria, even in defeat. (Read: Don't barf Open Ev Downloads you can't contextualize) Go do some research!
• Performance: “Back in my day….” Performance Affs were just being invented, and they had a lot more actual “performance” to them (music, costume, choreography, etc.). Spreading 3 lines of poetry and never talking about it again doesn't cut it. I have coached a few performative teams and find myself more and more excited about them....when there is a point to the performance. Focus on why / what the net benefit is of the unique argument / argumentation style.
• Shadow Extending: I literally don’t flow author’s names in Varsity rounds, so if you are trying to extend your "Smith" evidence, talk to me about the warrants or I won’t know what you are talking about and won't do the work for you. Novices get a lot of latitude here; I am always down to help folks develop the fundamentals. Try extending things even if it isn't perfect.
• Email Chains: This is a persuasive activity. If I don’t hear it/flow it, you didn't do enough to win the point and I’m not going to read along and do work for you. I’ll look through the cards after the round if the substance of a card will impact my decision, or if I want to appropriate your citations.
• About "the State": I was born and live in Washington D.C., have a graduate degree in Political Science, and worked in electoral politics and on public policy issues. This has shaped a pre-disposition that governance of some kind is inevitable. The US government has a poor track-record on many issues, but I find generic "state bad" links unpersuasive, historically untrue, and/or insufficiently nuanced. I think you are better than that, and I challenge you to make nuanced, well researched claims instead. Teams that do usually win and get exceedingly high speaker points, while those that don't usually lose badly. This background also makes me more interested in implementation and methodology of change (government, social movement, or otherwise) than the average judge, so specific and beyond-the-buzzword contextualization on plan/alt, etc. solvency are great.
• Artificial Intelligence: I am going to flesh out these thoughts as the season goes, and as I talk to the great, thoughtful peers in the community, but initially, reading rebuttals written by generative AI seems to be cheating, and actively anti-educational, so if you are doing that, don't, and if you suspect the other team is, raise it as an issue.

Ways to Lose Rounds / Speaker Points:

1. Be a douchebag--I am very flexible with speaker points, heavily rewarding good research, wit, and humor, and am very willing to nuke your speaker points or stop the round if you are rude, demeaning, racist/sexist, etc.
2. Leave D.C. Out: Don't leave D.C. out of your States CP Text or other relevant advocacy statements. There is a racialized history of erasure and abuse of the 750,000 + majority black residents who live here and experience taxation without representation. Don't perpetuate it.
3. Make Debate Less Accessible: I run an Urban Debate League; it is my professional responsibility to make debate more accessible.
1. If you erect a barrier to accessing this activity for someone else, I will vote you down, give you the lowest possible speaker points, report you to TAB, complain to your coach, and anything else I can think of to make your time at this tournament less enjoyable and successful.
2. This includes not having an effective way to share evidence with a team debating on paper (such as a 3rd, "viewing" laptop, or being willing to share one of your own) when in person. This is a big accessibility question for the activity that gets overlooked a lot, many of our debaters still use paper files.
4. Rude Post-Rounding (especially if it is by a coach who didn't watch the round): I will contact tab and vigorously reduce speaker points for your team after submission.
5. Multi-Minute Overviews: Enough Said
6. Extinction Good: This is an objectionable school of argumentation that usually has some nasty racial undertones. Don't be a troll, get a better strategy.
7. Intentionally Trolly or Technobabble Arguments: If you just want to demonstrate how good you are that you can make up nonsense and win anyway, strike me. There should be a point to what you say which contributes to our understanding of the world.
8. Highly Inaccurate Email Chains: Unfortunately, some folks put a giant pile of cards they couldn’t possibly get through in the email chain, and skip around to the point of confusion, making refutation (and flowing) difficult. It’s lazy at best and a cheap move at worst and will impact your speaks if I feel like it is intentional.

In the Weeds on Specific Argument Structures:

Do: Better Speaks, increase likelihood of winning the round

Don’t: Worse speaks, decrease likelihood of winning the round

Disadvantages:

· I like DAs. Too many debates lack a DA of some kind in the 1NC.

o Do:

§ Research! Cut Updates! Quote a card from this week! I am a huge sucker for new evidence and post-dating, and will make it rain speaker points. Have some creative/Topic/Aff specific DAs.

o Don’t:

§ Read an Elections DA after the election / not know when an election is, or be wrong about what the bill you are talking about does on Agenda Politics DAs.

o Politics DA: Given my background in professional politics, I am a big fan of a well-run/researched politics DA. I read Politico and The Hill daily, enjoy C-SPAN, and many of my best friends work for Congress -- I nerd out for this stuff. I also know that there just isn't a logical scenario some weekends. Do your research, I’ll know if you haven’t.

Counterplans:

· I like a substantive counterplan debate.

o Do:

§ Run a Topic/Aff specific CP, with a detailed, well written/explained CP Texts and/or have some topic specific nuance for Generics (like Courts).

§ Clearly explained net benefit stories.

§ Questionably competitive counterplans (consult, PIC, condition, etc.) that are supported by strong, real world solvency advocates.

§ Substantive, non-theoretical responses (even if uncarded) to CPs.

o Don’t:

§ Forget to perm.

§ Fake a net benefit

§ Default to theory in the 2AC without at least trying to make substantive responses too.

Procedurals/Topicality:

· Can be a strong strategy if used appropriately/creatively. If you go into the average round hoping to win on Condo, strike me.

o Do:

§ Prove harm

§ Have qualified evidence and intent to define

§ Slow down. Less jargon, more examples

§ Creative Violations

o Don’t:

§ Use procedurals just to out-tech your opponents, especially if this isn't Varsity.

Case Debate:

· More folks should debate the case, cards or not. Do your homework pre-tournament!

o Do:

§ Have specific attacks on the mechanism or advantage scenarios of the Aff, even if just smart analytics.

§ Make fun impact and link turns that aren't arguing that racism / sexism, etc. is good.

o Don’t:

§ Concede the case for no reason

§ Spend a lot of time reading arguments you can’t go for later or reading new cards that have the same warrants already in the 1AC

Kritiks:

· I started my debate career as a 1 off K Debater and grew to see it as part of a balanced strategy, a good strategy against some affs and not others.

o Do:

§ Read a K that fits the Aff. Reading the same K against every Aff on a topic isn't often the most strategic thing to do.

§ Read Aff specific links. Identifying evidence, actions, rhetoric, representations, etc. in the 1AC that are links.

§ Have coherent Alt solvency with real world examples that a non-debater can understand without having read your solvency author.

§ Tell a non-jargony story in your overview and tags

o Don’t:

§ Read hybrid Ks whose authors wouldn't agree with one another.

§ Read a K you can’t explain in your own words or one that you can’t articulate why it is being discussing a competitive forum or what my role listening to your words is.

§ Generic Links. See note about "The State" above

o Literature: I have read a lot of K literature (Security, Cap, Fem, Anti-Blackness, etc.) but nobody is well versed in all literature bases. Explain your theory as if I haven't read the book.

o Role of the Ballot: I default to serving as a policymaker but will embrace alternative roles if you are clear what I should do instead in your first speech.

· Update: I find myself judging a lot of psychoanalysis arguments, which I find frustratingly unfalsifiable or just hard to believe or follow. I'd love to be proven wrong, but run at your own risk.

Public Forum: (Stolen from Sim Low, couldn't have said it better)

I'm sorry that you're unlucky enough to get me as a judge. I'll be grumpy and tell how PF was created as a result of white flight and the American pursuit of Anti-Intellectualism far more than you want to hear (but less than you need, if you are still doing PF). If you do not have cards with proper citations, you paraphrase, and/or you don't have full text evidence ready to share with the other team pre-round, I will immediately vote for your opponents. If both of you happen to ignore academic integrity, I will put my feet up, not flow, and vote based on.....whatever vibes come to me, or who I agree with more. I also might extend my RFD to the length of a policy round to actually develop some of the possibilities of your arguments. Without academic integrity, this is a Speech event and will be judged accordingly.

OES (Oregon Episcopal School) '20

UC Berkeley '24

she/her

email chain: alexactsai@gmail.com

TL;DR: I'm probably not the best judge for you if you're a K debater, and definitely not a good judge for you if you don't defend a topical plan.

- I pretty much only read policy arguments in high school.

- If you're reading a K, please have an actual link (not a link of omission or a link to the status quo). The alternative should do something, and I usually don't understand why you would kick the alt. The affirmative should get to weigh the plan against the K.

- Please do line-by-line, slow down on analytics and theory blocks, and emphasize the most important arguments in the debate. Judge instruction is always appreciated!

- Don't steal prep or clip cards.

- Turn on your camera (if you are able to)!

- I would prefer not to judge a debate where I have to make a decision based on a debater's personal identity.

- Be nice :)

Good luck and have fun!

General Info:

Miana Vega

Proud Boriqua Educator and Artist

Middle-School Debate Coach at John D. Wells, MS. 50

Full-time Undergraduate Student at John Jay College of Criminal Justice

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 28-29.5

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.

Debated at Wake Forest University (2016-21) and Little Rock Central High School (2012-16)

Currently coaching for Berkeley Prep

- Put me on the email chain: williamsd.j.jr@gmail.com

Please be as clear as possible. I'd rather you slow down than continue stumbling over words and making it painful for all involved.

Be relatively friendly to one another. It's annoying watching a team mock their opponents without reason.

I don't have an argument preference but I am more familiar with K/K affs. However, I was initially trained in "traditional" policy style arguments. So, say whatever just do it well and help me out with policy acronyms/jargon (especially topic specific stuff).

Lastly, it is imperative that you explain to me what voting or not voting aff/neg means. I find it frustrating when I have to construct the big picture at the end of the debate. I expect you to write my ballot for me by a) explaining what offense you are winning or going to win by the end of the speech and 2) contextualizing those arguments to the other team's.

If you have any questions about certain arguments or misc. preferences, please don't hesitate to ask!

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!