I'm a teacher and debate coach at Montgomery Bell Academy.

Put me on the email chain: abrown123564@gmail.com

Here is how you can make me want to give you a ballot + good speaks:

1. Make the debate comfortable and fun. I am not a good judge for you if you get super aggressive, snarky, or rude in round. I am a teacher - treat your partner and opponents the way you'd treat your classmates.

2. Please do not "cut corners" in your prep - I get very sad when I see incomplete DAs, incoherent T arguments, meaningless Adv CP texts, or evidence so un-highlighted it doesn't say anything, etc, deployed for the purpose of winning through out-spreading instead of out-debating. I generally don't think teams should be reading more than 6 off.

3. Do not forget you are in a public speaking activity. I am not evaluating the debate based off your speech doc. You should be clear, and you should flow. Please stop offering or asking for marked docs unless it is absolutely necessary.

4. Please do not abuse tag-team CX in either asking or answering questions.

4a. If you're not debating a new aff/debating as a maverick, and you decide to take CX as prep instead of asking questions, then I will allow the other team to keep reading cards for the remainder of CX.

Sorry if that all came across as grumpy. If you can do all of those things, then I'm happy and I look forward to judging you. I think that policy debate is good and that clash/fairness/etc. are all things which matter. I think debates should not exclude critical perspectives and we should seek to do what best improves the activity overall.

I am a tremendously bad judge for arguments advocating death, human extinction, or nuclear war. I probably just won't vote for them.

Have fun!

I am a psychology professor at Syracuse University. I competed in policy debate for Groves High School from 2003-2007 and coached for Ann Arbor Pioneer High School from 2007-2011. I have judged online debates sporadically in 2020-2022.

You can include me on email chains at sara.emily.burke@gmail.com.

---

I think of policy debate as an educational game that permits the players to contest most of its "rules." In order to make it possible to play the game in a reasonable way, however, there are a few rules that hold regardless of attempts to contest them. The most notable of these are the speech time limits and the order of speeches.

I vote based on arguments made by debaters during their speeches. I do not refute arguments on behalf of debaters. Even for arguments that are very obviously wrong, I believe that there is educational value in learning how to explain why they are wrong. In the context of the round, I accept every argument as true until it is answered, and I treat dropped arguments as completely true.

Framework, theory, and topicality

I vote based on arguments made during the speeches, including arguments about how I should decide who to vote for. I welcome and enjoy debates about framework, theory, and topicality. When in doubt, explain your proposed framework for adjudication rather than leaving it unstated.

A framework argument has to address the debate itself. If you just read a card about a larger philosophical issue without explaining how it relates to the best way to adjudicate a policy debate round, I will not make the connection for you.

I am open to just about any framework, but if teams fail to debate various aspects of how I should decide, I will resort to the following defaults. (These are only defaults and should not be construed as argument preferences.)

- The team whose stance, if implemented, would be expected to yield the best outcome wins. (I will treat the status quo as the negative team's default stance.)

- A "stance" does not necessarily require a governmental policy, but I will assume in the absence of argument that individuals are much less influential over outcomes than the government is.

- If the negative team has multiple conditional stances as of the 2NR, I will vote negative if any of them are better than the affirmative plan. It is acceptable for the status quo to be one of these stances. I strongly encourage teams to be specific about what their stances are rather than relying on defaults. However, if I have no relevant information except for the negative team saying that a CP/K is "conditional," then I will assume that they continue to advocate the status quo at the same time and that I should vote neg if the status quo is preferable to both the plan and the CP/K. If nobody ever asks and the neg never specifies, I will assume that a CP/K is conditional. If the bizarre circumstance arises that the aff wins a "conditionality bad" argument without any explanation of how I should vote, then I will vote aff if the plan is preferable to the combination of all stances the negative has taken in the round.

- It is almost always vital to give me a reason to support your stance (offense) rather than merely disputing the reasons the other team has given to support their stance (defense).

- It is very unusual for the outcomes of both teams' stances to be exactly equal. I have no problem voting for the "lesser of two evils." However, if the outcomes are somehow exactly equal, I will vote for whichever team is advocating the status quo. If the outcomes are equal and neither team is advocating the status quo, I will vote affirmative.

The "voter" on theory or topicality is an argument about how I should decide the round. As with other framework arguments, it is up for discussion. However, given an initial presentation of the idea that a theoretical objection or topicality violation constitutes a voting issue, I will default to the following way of thinking about it unless a team presents an argument advocating an alternative. (If the initial presentation of a theoretical objection does not present it as a voting issue, I will default to considering the objection as a reason to ignore the argument that inspired it.)

- By default, theoretical arguments precede other arguments.

- I evaluate theoretical arguments much like I evaluate the round as a whole (again, only by default). The team whose theoretical stance is expected to yield the best outcome (for example, for policy debate as an educational activity) wins the theory sub-debate.

- It is almost always vital to give me a reason to support your stance (offense) rather than merely disputing the reasons the other team has given to support their stance (defense).

- It is very unusual for the outcomes of both teams' stances to be exactly equal, but if they are, I will ignore the theoretical objection.

- Debaters should note that the above description is different from the way some judges look at theory and topicality. I have no default threshold of severity below which I will ignore a theoretical argument. Any amount of offense is sufficient to win the theory sub-debate -- and, if the team raising the objection wins the voter (e.g., the voter is dropped), any amount of offense justifies a ballot.

- When debating the voter, it is difficult to persuade me that there is an adequate resolution to a convincing topicality argument other than the ballot. In contrast, it is not especially difficult to present a compelling case that a successful theoretical objection should mean ignoring the offending argument rather than voting against the team.

New arguments in rebuttals

I keep track of all arguments made during the round. However, by default, I do not consider new arguments made in rebuttals while making my decision, unless they are 1AR answers (including theoretical objections) to new arguments made in the negative block.

Debaters are welcome to attempt to justify other new arguments made in the 1AR, or even new arguments made in the 2NR, because subsequent speeches have an opportunity to refute the justification for new arguments. I will always ignore new 2AR arguments because they provide no opportunity for refutation.

Reading evidence

I might read evidence from the round, but I prefer to come to a decision without explicitly revisiting the text of cards. If you ask me to read a specific card during the round, I am more likely to do so, but it is still not a guarantee. If there is a dispute over what a card actually says and the outcome of the dispute matters to my decision, I will read the card.

Argument preferences

I try not to let my personal preferences determine the outcome of the round. I often vote for arguments that I dislike. Nonetheless, debaters sometimes like to know how I feel about miscellaneous arguments.

- I like good topicality and theory debates.

- I like debates about the expected consequences of hypothetical policies.

- I like debates about reasonable ethical impacts. Please discuss the merits of giving different ethical claims different levels of priority.

- I like straightforward communication. If your strategy is to supply a string of incoherent jargon and then later "interpret" it in a novel way that decides the round, I am open to viewing that reinterpretation as a new argument warranting new responses.

- I'm not a fan of ASPEC, plan vagueness, nihilistic Ks, objectivism, or Malthus. Unfortunately, I have voted on each of these at one time or another.

Here are a few arguments that I dislike strongly enough to provide specific advice for answering them in front of me. As with all arguments, I accept these arguments as true until they are refuted, but I find the following refutations very persuasive.

- Constitutional convention counterplans. Fiat abuse: too many actors; too many steps; fiat denies best aff answer which should be implausibility; ratification is object fiat.

- Consultation counterplans. Perm. The time frame of the plan was not specified strictly enough to conflict with the time frame of the perm. Perm differs from CP only if consultant says no.

- Offsets counterplans. Perm. Only plan text has burden of topicality.

- State counterplans that involve simultaneous and cooperative action of all fifty states, and counterplans that use the Supreme Court to devolve authority to the states and then fiat state action. Fiat abuse: too many actors; fiat denies best aff answer which should be implausibility; lit doesn't assume simultaneity. For "Lopez," state action is object fiat.

- The framework argument that "fiat is imaginary." The K alt is also purely hypothetical.

Background:

• I debated for Niles West in high school and West Georgia in college.
• BA in Philosophy.
• Currently coaching at Niles West.

Email:

• gershom000@gmail.com

Top level things:

• If you engage in offensive acts (think racism, sexism, homophobia, etc.), you will lose automatically and will be awarded whatever the minimum speaker points offered at that particular tournament is.
• If you make it so that the tags in your document maps are not navigable by taking the "tag" format off of them, I will actively dock your speaker points.
• Quality of argument means a lot to me. I am willing to hold my nose and vote for bad arguments if they're better debated but my threshold for answering those bad arguments is pretty low.
• I’m extremely hesitant to vote on arguments about things that have happened outside of a debate or in previous debates. I can only be sure of what has happened in this particular debate and anything else is non-falsifiable.
• Absolutely no ties and the first team that asks for one will lose my ballot.
• Soliciting any outside assistance during a round will lose my ballot.

Pet peeves:

• Lack of clarity. Clarity > speed 100% of the time.
• The 1AC not being sent out by the time the debate is supposed to start.
• Email-sending related failures.
• Dead time.
• Stealing prep.
• Answering arguments in an order other than the one presented by the other team.
• Asserting things are dropped when they aren't.
• Asking the other team to send you a marked doc when they marked 1-3 cards.
• Marking almost every card in the doc.
• Disappearing after the round.
• Quoting my paradigm in your speeches.
• Sending PDFs instead of Word Docs.

Ethics:

• If you are caught clipping you will receive a loss and the lowest possible points.
• If you make an ethics challenge in a debate in front of me, you must stake the debate on it. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points. If you are proven to have committed an ethics violation, you will lose and be granted the lowest possible points.
• If you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me.

Cross-x:

• Yes, I’m fine with tag-team cx. But dominating your partner’s cx will result in lower points for both of you.
• Questions like "what cards did you read?" are cross-x questions, and I will run the timer accordingly.
• If you fail to ask the status of the off, I will be less inclined to vote for condo.
• If the 1NC responds that "every DA is a NB to every CP" when asked about net benefits in the 1NC even if it makes no sense, I think the 1AR gets a lot of leeway to explain a 2AC "links to the net benefit argument" on any CP as it relates to the DAs.

Inserting evidence or rehighlightings into the debate:

• I won't evaluate it unless you actually read the parts that you are inserting into the debate. If it's like a chart or a map or something like that, that's fine, I don't expect you to literally read that, but if you're rehighlighting some of the other team's evidence, you need to actually read the rehighlighting.

Affirmatives:

• I’m fine with plan or planless affirmatives. However, I believe all affirmatives should advocate for/defend something. What that something entails is up for debate, but I’m hesitant to vote for affirmatives that defend absolutely nothing.

Topicality:

• I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.
• The most important thing for me in T debates is an in-depth explanation of the types of affs your interp would include/exclude and the impact that the inclusion/exclusion would have on debate.
• 5 second ASPEC shells/the like have become nonstarters for me. If I reasonably think the other team could have missed the argument because I didn't think it was a clear argument, I think they probably get new answers. If you drop it twice, that's on you.

Counterplans:

• For me counterplans are more about competition than theory. While I tend to lean more neg on questions of CP theory, I lean aff on a lot of questions of competition, especially in the cases of CPs that compete on the certainty of the plan, normal means cps, and agent cps.

Disads:

• If you're reading a DA that isn't just a case turn, it should go on its own sheet. Failure to do so is super annoying because people end up extending/answering arguments on flows in different orders.

Kritiks:

• The more specific the link the better. Even if your cards aren’t that specific, applying your evidence to the specifics of the affirmative through nuanced analysis is always preferable to a generic link extension.
• ‘You link you lose’ strategies are not my favorite. I’m willing to vote on them if the other team fails to respond properly, but I’m very sympathetic to aff arguments about it being a bad model for debate.
• I find many framework debates end up being two ships passing in the night. Line by line answers to the other team's framework standards goes a long way in helping win framework in front of me.

Theory:

• Almost all theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument, condo is usually the only exception.
• Conditionality is often good. It can be not. I have found myself to be increasingly aff leaning on extreme conditionality (think many plank cps where all of the planks are conditional + 4-5 more conditional options).
• Tell me what my role is on the theory debate - am I determining in-round abuse or am I setting a precedent for the community?

Framework/T-USfg:

• I find impacts about debatability, clash, and iterative testing to be very persuasive.
• I am not really persuaded by fairness impacts, but will vote on it if mishandled.
• I am not really persuaded by impacts about skills/the ability for debate to change the world if we read plans - I think these are not very strategic and easily impact turned by the aff.
• I am pretty sympathetic to negative presumption arguments because I often think the aff has not forwarded an explanation for what the aff does to resolve the impacts they've described.
• I don't think debate is role-playing.

• If the aff drops SSD or the TVA and the 2NR extends it, I will most likely vote neg.

I listen for coherent, persuasive and civil arguments and am swayed by mindful attention to language and consistent integration of critical theory in the framing of warrants, claims and evidence.

I consider civility the sine qua non of public discourse about public policy. It should be evident that you respect your opponent as much as you respect this adversarial exercise. 

Be bold, but remain reasonable in your assertions. No one benefits from ad absurdum reasoning.

Beware of entertaining logical fallacies for rhetorical effect. 

I will listen to all arguments and am open to voting on any argument that you tell me I should vote for. Tell me why it is important and I will listen to both arguments. Please do not presume that I will implicitly understand the importance you are placing on an argument and how that bears on my decision. Mostly, I am open to anything so long as you explain it well. I will give much less credence and weight to arguments that are just left out there hanging rather than argued persuasively. as a frame of reference, I debated in HS and college in the 1990s, but am not constrained by those norms.

My paradigm is very straight forward.  I believe that the participants in the round construct, and determine, the issues, and thoughts that I should find important during the course of the round.  What this means is that I try to decide a debate based on the discussion within that given round.  This allows those in the round to "tell" me how to vote, and why I would vote that particular way.  As a result, I reward people who do comparative assessments between arguments, and those that speak not only to an argument, but also to its impact, and its impact on the ultimate outcome of the debate, including how I should vote. 

I do not have a preference for any particular argument, theory, or style of debate.  I will not automatically vote for, or against anything.  I do not apply any notion of "correct" theoretical argumentation on theory, Kritiks, or anything else for that matter.  I had my turn in the activity, and was very successful during my run, so I try to allow the current debaters to do the debating.

With that being said, the only true bias I have is against people being assholes.  This is an activity that everyone involved can benefit from, regardless of skill level.  So, I will take it out on your speaker points if you treat people like shit.  I will not vote against you for it (Unless the other team makes that an argument that they win), but I will express my displeasure through low speaker points, and an after round discussion that, at least part of, you will not enjoy.  Be competitive, but please just be considerate.

Now, I would not normally focus on my past achievements, but I have not been around the activity for years.  I realize most people will not know who I am, or what to do with my preference sheet.  I remember trying to figure out what to do with that unknown judge that came out of nowhere & could end up having one of my most important ballots in their hands.  So, it has been a long time, but as a result of having the unique pleasure and privilege of debating for John Lawson at Southfield High School, and George Ziegelmueller at Wayne State University, I enjoyed a tremendous amount of success.  I won back to back Class “A” State Championships in Michigan, including dozens of tournament wins, and dozens of top ten speaker awards, including several top speaker awards, in and out of the State of Michigan.  In college, in consecutive years, I made it to the Octa-finals, Quarter-finals, and then Semi-finals of the National Debate Tournament.  My partner, Toby Arquette, and I were a top ten pre-bid team both my junior & senior years.  In fact, we were the 3rd ranked pre-bid my senior year and made it to the Semi-finals, losing on a 4-1 decision to the eventual National Champions.  This was not meant as a bad rendition of Bruce Springsteen’s "Glory Days", I just thought it may be helpful in making your judging decisions. I debated every type of style, speed, theory, position, etc.  Please know that in spite of my time away from the activity, I am extremely confident that I will be able to make coherent decisions predicated on what is presented to me in that particular debate.  Any questions, please feel free to ask. 

Hi everyone,

To give you some background information about me, I debated at Groves HS in the mid-2000s. Following that, I debated at the University of Michigan, and coached for the NAUDL through college. I have occasionally judged since then.

I tend to side in the direction of policy arguments, as that's how I debated. You're welcome to run critical or performance based arguments, but understand that I may need some things explained more thoroughly than with your average judge.

Name – Joe Kelly

Current institutional affiliation – Hired judge

Current role at institution – Hired per tournament

Previous institutional affiliations and role: East Kentwood, Michigan State University - debater. East Lansing High School, Waverly Middle School - director of debate.

Debating experience

High school and college debater – graduated college more than 10 years ago

If you debated what speech did you do most often? 1N/2A

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? If you don’t put me in another paradigm, I will default to trying to choose the best policy option. That said, I'm familiar with policy and kritik debates.

Purpose of Philosophy

In what ways do you intend this judge philosophy to be helpful to debaters? In other words, what would you hope debaters would do with this philosophy?

It has been a few years since I debated, and I will recommend that students adapt in a couple ways:

1) Slow down. I believe the ink on my flow will be maximized if you speak at 85-90% of your top speed.

2) Look at me. I tend to be rather expressive. If I’m not writing something down or if I look confused, it may help you if you elaborate on your position.

Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I don't count flashing /emailing as prep. I will keep track of time.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

If you could email me, that would be great.

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think it provides greater transparency and clarity. I will try to flow your information during the round, and so, I won’t always be able to read your evidence while you are. This is still a speech activity.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

My normal range is 26-29.5. You can lose points by being rude, behaving unethically. You can earn points by speaking clearly, making good strategic choices and good arguments.

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clear. I will also give non-verbal cues. Debaters can check to see if I am flowing or if I look confused.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

I may read evidence if there is a question as to what the evidence says. If evidence is uncontested, I will probably not read it after the round.

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

I may provide commentary about it, but I will try not to let it affect my opinion of the round if it was not brought up.

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

If it is contested.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality

I generally think it is a voting issue, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

Theory is great. I'm generally persuaded to reject the argument, not the team.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff

I think there are some pretty good arguments in favor of the aff having a stable advocacy.

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

Sounds good.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

Could you list out some situations here?

For example, “I prefer a DA and case debate.”

Counterplan, Disadvantage, Case is a pretty good debate. Line-by-line refutation is important. This is just what I’m most familiar with. I’m open to other debates as well.

I coached policy debate at Niles West High School for three years. Prior to that, I competed in Policy debate for four years at Niles West and have also competed in NPDA-Parliamentary and NFA-Lincoln/Douglass debate for four years at the University of Illinois Urbana/Champaign. I served as the Debate Captain for UIUC during my junior year, teaching and coaching new members and running our team's practices. My background is in political science and public policy as well as studying some critical theory so I like to think I am generally well versed in issues usually being discussed during competitive debates.

I highly encourage flowing, clarity, in depth analysis, and argument comparison. (like impact calculus).

I'm very flexible as I have debated very policy as well as critical positions throughout my debate career. I am a flow judge above all else, so if the right arguments are made and extended, I will vote on that. While I have some minor argument preferences, I will generally remove my biases from the round and judge each debater's arguments on its merits.

If you still have questions, ask me before the round or email me.

You can contact me at: Walter.lindwall@gmail.com

I am fairly new judge and find myself generally apathetic towards many things, as such I have very few strong opinions about most topics usually covered in these pages.

I debated for 4 years at Dexter High School and currently debate at Wayne State University

At Dexter I read exclusively traditional policy affs and at Wayne both traditional policy aff and more left affs.

I may make faces during the round that may either mean that I am not a fan of what you are doing or I am tired and cursing myself for getting out of bed that morning. Regardless don't let that deter you from "doin' you."

Short version:

Do whatever you want (there are exceptions dictated below), explain it well, tech over truth, and if both sides have similar qualities of evidence I default to spin.

Longer version:

As an important note to begin that while these opinions may influence how I perceive and think about the round, they are not the end of the discussion. I will do my best to evaluate the round as it happened based on my flow. Just do whatever it is that you want to do, your goal is to convince me that your line of argumentation is best and that as a result I should vote for you.

I tend to default to an Offense/Defense paradigm due to reasons of laziness, however I tend to think it is not a particularly useful way of thinking about things. A simplified version of what I think may be better is to consider risk. This involves a threshold where I think that sufficient defense can convince that something is just as likely not to happen as it is to happen. Slightly more bluntly, a reasonable to high risk of a non extinction event can outweigh a low to minuscule risk of extinction. This also means that with sufficient defense, a more nebulous ontological impact can outweigh even the aff's "seven extinctions."

Case -

Love big case debates - perhaps my favorite strategy while debating is the super specific case turn or the generic but classic impact turn - these debates show off your research, indepth topic/aff knowledge, and are super clash heavy. Pulling this off successfully is to me very impressive. For the aff - I expect y'all to understand the strategy of your aff - I am sure that you put together the 1ac the way you did for a reason, now use it throughout the rest of the debate. My single pet peeve on this front is when 2As just read a large block of text to extend their entire 1ac rather than taking the opportunity to point out strategic points like concessions or flow interactions/tricks - unless you are making good strategic arguments or nuances this overview extension is probably just on my flow as "extend 1ac." Other than that I assume that y'all will just be doing whatever it is you normally do so just do it well.

T v. USFG Plan Action -

I have not really judged many rounds where an attempt was made to turn T into a viable strategic option. In the instance that some attempt was made, it has been too surface level. Given that I haven't seen many of these debate really play out, I don't know exactly what I find compelling - I think that the impact portion of the T debate should be handled much like a disad. You have internal links to an impact based on an interpretation of a word/s of the resolution. This is basically always Fairness or Education in some form. K's of T are fine is handled along the lines of my other thoughts on Kritiks. In this instance though a way I am probably more persuaded by an explanation of how the Kritik of their interpretation affects their Fairness and Education claims.

Also here are one of the above exceptions to the "Do whatever you want" rule - NEVER attempt to make T a RVI (you smirk, you laugh, but enough have tried it in front of me that I feel the need to mention this), the aff has the burden to prove that they are topical is the neg brings it up - I am leaning toward the not even requiring negs to answer it - you will lose speaks, end of discussion.

T v. Not USFG Plan Action -

Similar story as above but I tend to err aff as most neg teams seem to be too whiny or simply lack sufficient defense to aff offense - I find that the most compelling args have to do with policy simulation (not roleplay) good and am potentially willing to buy a big fairness push if it moves beyond the usual tagline "but it is unpredictable and makes it impossible to be neg," this will also require that you answer any access arguments the aff may have. Agonism based Framework arguments are also becoming something that I tend to agree with, but I am still trying to organize my thoughts about this.

In the instance that the aff chooses to K the negs interp, I simply ask that you impact it in a way that makes sense for a procedural question of "whether this debate ought to have occurred." (Yes obvious, but again teams have read them and never explained why it actually answers the negs interp).

Ks -

I have begun to enjoy these debates more now that I am out of high school - I still am not a perfect judge for these debates given that I am not super well read in the various literature - I do know some of it, but it would be better if you assume that I don't get it and then explain arguments rather than blast through with buzz words and other jargon. I tend to think that the neg is well suited by using specific parts of the aff speeches and evidence to help their link/impact story. Framework is very important for both sides, I am lazy, so with out it I find that I default to "well extinction is super bad and stuff." I also can be fairly easily convinced that the K doesn't need to prove that it solves all of the real world issues of X but that it is a better understanding of X and proves that the aff doesn't access said good stuff thus the aff should lose.

DAs -

Super awesome - I think the Link and Internal Link are the most important and often under-utilized part of the debate (I have certainly been guilty of this myself). Not much else to say, I think.

CPs -

Also pretty great - I tend to think that most CPs are fine, this however depends on the topic/aff. CPs like Word PICs and the "Do the aff minus 1 person/penny" are also usually stupid/probably illegitimate. Specific literature goes a long way toward proving CP legitimacy in my mind, at least in terms of Consult and Conditions CPs. In terms of other sorts of questionably legitimate CPs I don't really have many thoughts but in general the further away from aff/topic specific literature the more accepting of aff theory/perm legitimacy I become.

In terms of competition I don't have a ton of thoughts assuming for all other intents and purposes that the CP is legitimate. I think that it is burden of the neg to prove a meaningful opportunity cost to voting aff, which means y'all definitely have to win something more than just a nebulous "solves enough of the aff and I guess makes a sad child slight less sad."

Theory -

I think one or two conditional options are acceptable, any more and I am more receptive to theory arguments. This is magnified if they contradict. Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument or a justification for some other potentially objectionable argument. However conditionality is always a reason to reject the team, the "reject the arg not the team" is nonsensical to me.

Misc -

I really don't want to be at all responsible for timing anything - time yourselves, be honest, I will be upset if have to find a timer or use my phone's timer (it kind of sucks)

Ethics stuff - less serious, stealing prep, first time it is a warning then it comes out of your prep time (which the other team gets to time) and hurts your speaks - more serious, clipping and the like, I will not tape nor call you out on it. If the other team thinks you clipping they can challenge you on it, I will stop the round and ask for a recording and speech doc to determine the validity of the challenge. If I think that you are clipping (consistent, lines - not just you didn't say a word like "a") you will lose the round and recieve zero speaker points, and vis-versa if I think that you are not clipping.

Offensive actions or language or any other type of harassment will also not be policed by myself but the other team may ask to stop the round to address it. It can/should be remedied (in terms of the ballot) with an apology (also assuming it was not intentional/severity) - if the language continues then you may face consequences depending on severity of the action/language.

Be nice (or at least professional/courteous toward your partner and opponents), be smart, and have fun.

Background: I am a senior at U.C. Berkeley majoring in political science. I graduated from St. Andrew's in 2017 and I did two years of PF and two years of local and "circuit" LD.

If you only have two minutes before round: Proceed with caution spreading. I normally find a slower and well explained card is better than an extra card or excessive highlighting. I don't really like theory and I haven't voted on it yet. I do appreciate a couple voters in your last speech. Assume I am not familiar with your critical lit or philosophy and explain it well. I will not vote on something I don't understand. Do what you are best at, following these adaptations. I am just looking for the best arguments. Excessive rudeness could result in a loss. And if you have questions please ask when all debaters are present in a round.

DO: Be clear. Be kind. Be patient. Read what you are best at and what you believe in. Have a content warning when appropriate. Cite properly and clarify what you read. Make good and complete arguments. Time yourself and your opponent. Give voters.

DON'T: Be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Use excessive profanity. Yell at your opponent. Assume I will read your cards for you. Ask me to vote on something that didn't happen in round. Ask me for unwarranted presumptions.

Speed: I would say I can handle like a 4 out of 10. Please don't spread analytics. It's not useful and makes me think you probably don't care about what you have to say. I will say clear if I don't understand you and if I don't understand I won't flow it. If you ignore me you will lose speaker points at the very least, and I know you don't want that.

Framework: I really like to see something that tells me what you think is important in the round, otherwise you leave it up to me. Assume I'm not familiar with your philosopher or theory and please explain it. I will not do the work to connect the dots for you on what your card means in the round.

Role of the Judge/Ballot: I will default to the role of a policymaker in a simulation and the ballot as advocating the best policy. I am open to other options, just argue for what you want.

The K: Explain what your K does and how it functions in the round, because it is not as intuitive as you might think. Also, I haven't read everything and assume I do not know what you're talking about. If I don't understand your K, I won't vote on it. I have the capacity to understand Ks, so it is really up to you to explain it. If you didn't write it, I will probably know.

Plans/Counterplans: Plans are not a requirement. General advocacy is fine as long as you maintain a consistent advocacy through the round. Topics are typically broad and I find most arguments for nontopical plans unconvincing. Please do not run a counterplan that is not well thought out. I think a good permutation can be very effective. Also, a solvency advocate and a written plan text are a necessities for me.

Tech Stuff: When video sharing, please do everything you can to be within the camera and keep an appropriate volume. I expect you to send a file during your prep time but we will wait for it to come through without prep. I also do not always have excellent internet, so everyone be patient. I think file sharing is appropriate, and asking them to delete after round is also fair.

Brad Meloche
he/him pronouns

Email: bradgmu@gmail.com (High School Only: Please include grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com as well.)

(I ALWAYS want to be on the email chain. Please do email chains instead of sharing in the zoom chat/NSDA classroom! PLEASE no google docs if you have the ability to send in Word! If you send docs as PDFs your speaker points will be capped at 28.5)

The short version -

Tech > truth. A dropped argument is assumed to be contingently true. "Tech" is obviously not completely divorced from "truth" but you have to actually make the true argument for it to matter. In general, if your argument has a claim, warrant, and implication then I am willing to vote for it, but there are some arguments that are pretty obviously morally repugnant and I am not going to entertain them. They might have a claim, warrant, and implication, but they have zero (maybe negative?) persuasive value and nothing is going to change that. I'm not going to create an exhaustive list, but any form of "oppression good" and many forms of "death good" fall into this category.

Specifics

Non-traditional – I believe debate is a game. It might be MORE than a game to some folks, but it is still a game. Claims to the contrary are unlikely to gain traction with me. Approaches to answering T/FW that rely on implicit or explicit "killing debate good" arguments are nonstarters.

Related thoughts:

1) I'm not a very good judge for arguments, aff or neg, that involve saying that an argument is your "survival strategy". I don't want the pressure of being the referee for deciding how you should live your life. Similarly, I don't want to mediate debates about things that happened outside the context of the debate round.

2) The aff saying "USFG should" doesn't equate to roleplaying as the USFG

3) I am really not interested in playing (or watching you play) cards, a board game, etc. as an alternative to competitive speaking. Just being honest. "Let's flip a coin to decide who wins and just have a discussion" is a nonstarter.

4) Name-calling based on perceived incongruence between someone's identity and their argument choice is unlikely to be a recipe for success.

Kritiks – If a K does not engage with the substance of the aff it is not a reason to vote negative. A lot of times these debates end and I am left thinking "so what?" and then I vote aff because the plan solves something and the alt doesn't. Good k debaters make their argument topic and aff-specific. I would really prefer I don't waste any of my limited time on this planet thinking about baudrillard/bataille/other high theory nonsense that has nothing to do with anything.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K or to permute an uncompetitive alternative.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, especially when they are introduced as "the alt is compatible with politics" and then become "you dropped the floating PIK to do your aff without your card's allusion to the Godfather" (I thought this was a funny joke until I judged a team that PIKed out of a two word reference to Star Wars. h/t to GBS GS.). In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go.

Theory – theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” are rarely reasons to reject the team. These arguments pretty much have to be dropped and clearly flagged in the speech as reasons to vote against the other team for me to consider voting on them. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to. New affs bad is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals – By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - ...are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual to the tournament, division, round, etc. I am more likely to reward good performance with high points than punish poor performance with below average points. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style. Being rude to your partner or the other team is a good way to persuade me to explore the deepest depths of my point range.

Cheating - I won't initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

I won't evaluate evidence that is "inserted" but not actually read as part of my decision. Inserting a chart where there is nothing to read is ok.

If you are a novice, none of these things apply to you. please just do your best. Your speaks are solely dependent on you being kind and nice to everyone in the room.- I don't need to be on the email chain! You all amaze me every day!

(Policy, Public Forum, then LD)

POLICY

I'm Subbi and I do Policy debate at the University of Iowa. GO HAWKS I debated for 3 years at Niles West.

First things first, make arguments you are comfortable and happy with. This is an activity that is inherently for the students participating in it. Read what you want to read and tell me why it matters and why I should vote on it. That being said please don't say racist/sexist/ableist language during a round. I'm just not gonna vote on racism good.

@Both Aff and Neg- Making fewer arguments that are extremely warranted is better than making more arguments that are not as warranted. I love common sense arguments and analytics. I don't think you need a card for every argument you make. If you make a persuasive analytic I'm all for that. I think debaters should be able and be encouraged to make arguments outside of cards. I prefer structural impacts over extinction-level impacts if you do make an extinction impact, have a really good internal link chain analysis.

@Policy Aff- Policy affs are really precise and garner GOOD SKILLS and I love them. I LOVE theory and I have a very low threshold for voting on it. I don't like really long case overviews. I will always weigh the affirmative unless told otherwise by the Neg. Winning against a one-off K in front of me requires you to at least win the Perm and a no link argument. I am very biased towards structural and ontological impacts like I don't think extinction outweighs everyday mundane violence, that being said have impact defense.

@Non-Traditional Affirmatives- Non-traditional affirmatives are really fun and give good EDUCATION and I love them. Non-Traditional Affs don't have to win that the Ballot is key in front of me, I will hold them to the same standard I hold the policy affs to, which is "you have to prove that the aff is a good idea. I need the aff to at least be reasonably within the bounds of the resolution.

@Policy Neg- Please don't read spark, death good, or PIC/KS.

@K Neg- If you're a one-off K team, please have a good explanation of your Links. You don't need to win an Alt in front of me to win the K, but you have to win impacts and framing, and why your theory means the aff can not solve or turns the case. Please have great answers to the permutation because I think most times the permutation is probably good, and I admit that I lean aff when it comes to permutations In one-off rounds.

@Negs Vs Non-Traditional Affs- If your ammo against non-traditional affs is two off cap and FW, lose the cap in front of me and just read external impacts that the aff can't solve but can be solved by core policy education. Case debates are really good against Non-traditional affs, Utilitarian framing is good, survival strategies are bad, No root cause. All of these are valid and good arguments to read. Don't drop the case ever. Don't let the aff weigh the entire aff against FW because they will almost always win. I like framework debates where the impact isn't fairness but education and skills. If you go for a Kritik against these Kinds of Affirmatives, I will have a high threshold for the aff being able to get a permutation, especially if they don't have an advocacy statement, but you must make this argument. Also, contextualize your Links to their theory/aff.

@cross ex- Look at me and don't laugh at your opponent's answer. Many people have done this with me in the back and it really hurts your ethos. Please be nice to each other, I have hella feelings and I don't wanna vote up a mean team.

Miscellaneous

- Please show up to rounds on time, ESP NOVICE, I will vote on disclosure theory so fast.

-Email subbi45hope@gmail.com

-Cx is a speech- Brian Rubaie 2k16

-I will never judge kick, ever.

-Don't steal prep.

-Have Fun :)

-I'm here to protect the 2NR.

-Will vote you down if you own Air Pods!!

-fam the wilder your alt, the higher the speaks lol.

- I have a low threshold for presumption if you are running a policy aff, I am not voting for presumption against a K aff.

PF

Hey, I actually love and prefer judging PF. People in PF are a lot more polite and they always acknowledge me in the round and I like that.

PRO- Strongly prefer if pro always goes first in speeches and in the crossfire. I think to me a good pro is very persuasive and organized. I would prefer if you have two well-written and well-explained advantages rather than a bunch of shallow ones. I don't need you to extend everything in every speech but you should definitely have your points in the last two speeches if you want me to consider them.

CON- I think I am CON-leaning but that doesn't mean this is an easy ballot. You should offer good counterexamples, and directly answer their points in the last 3 speeches. I prefer that you have less defensive arguments and are more focused on proving the pro harmful.

Crossfire- You get a question, they get a question, then you get a follow-up. I hate hate hate when someone dominates the crossfire and doesn't allow for the other person to question, very rude. Will drop your speaks.

NOTES- I am fine with speed, I will reward politeness. Thank you for debating for me!

LD

Hi so I have only judged a few rounds of LD, I think I have a good enough grasp on what is going on. I give a lot of leeway for the pro because they have a very short speech when answering a very long one. I prefer if this wasn't a debate about super old philosophers. That's right, I am NOT here for a Kant vs Locke debate. Most of these philosophers were super racist and if you want to talk philosophy there are philosophers today that you can reference.

Include me on the speech doc chain nieusmal@gmail.com

I'm not going to read cards unless you tell me to or I think someone is clipping cards.

I do think speech docs make it easier to challenge the quality of your opponent's evidence and if you ask me to, I am happy to compare the quality of the evidence. Make the argument go beyond "our uniqueness is newer". Make arguments to me about the author's qualifications, the quality of the journal that the piece is published in, and extent to which the text supports the tag.

Background

I debated in high school, but only got back into things last year. I'm not a coach or a college debater, so I am not intimately familiar with the topic. Now I am a attorney, so I still make arguments to judges, I just have to do it slowly and wear a suit.

Not only do I not have a problem with speed, I prefer it. My favorite 1NC probably consists of 2 topicality arguments, 2 disads, a counterplan, and then an attack on the case. Do that, give me a clear roadmap, and don't take prep for the 1NR and you are getting at least a 28.

I was an early adopter of technology in debate rounds, I flowed with Excel and read cards off of my computer back when people still threw a fit about that in high school debate. I'm almost certainly more patient about technology issues than most people and I won't charge prep time for sending speech docs or flashing. Don't abuse my trust and use that time to steal prep.

THE K.

If you run the same K every round regardless of the affirmative, it's going to be difficult to pick up my ballot.

I didn't debate in college because I went to a strange college with a classical liberal arts program. I tell you that to explain that despite my aggressively policy debate background, I am very familiar with the western philosophical canon up to and including Hegel. After that, assume that I haven't read whatever you are talking about.

If you understand your K inside and out and can explain to me how the particular aff links, not just "the state is bad and they use the state" you can pick up my ballot, probably a 30, and I will even buy you lunch. Of course, you will still have to win the framework debate, but if you are able to do the first two things, I have every confidence that you can do the third.

Topicality

I have no problem voting on topicality. If T gets read in the 1NC I want to hear the 2AC roadmap (and there should always be a roadmap) say "T at the top ....". I love research, so if you can argue that your interpretation promotes better research I will be nodding and smiling.

Style Points

I don't care if you sit, stand, or lay on the floor while you give your speech. I don't care if you prompt your partner or wear a bunny suit all weekend. I care about the quality of your argument and your analysis. I don't like when CX turns into a shouting match. It's fine to help your partner out, but it doesn't make either of you look great.

Unfun Things

Don't be racist, sexist, or use abusive language in the round. If I think it's a problem I will warn you and give you bad speaker points. If you do it again, I'll drop you. I don't mean saying "you guys", I mean misgendering, slurs, comments about someone's appearance, etc.

Don't clip cards. I won't wait for the other team to say something, I will stop the round and call you out. I'll give you one chance to remark your cards and resend the speech doc, but I will charge you prep time to do it. If you don't fix it, I will drop you. Either way I will let your coach and the tournament director know.

Daniel Oleynik

Experience: I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School (2011-2015), debated for 1.5 years at MSU, and currently a graduate student at UCF studying physics.

Admittedly, it's been a while since I've participated in the debate community (Tabroom has me last judge in 2017) so I'm a bit rusty. However, everything under this introduction should still be accurate. As long as you explain your arguments and debate well, there should be no problem.

COVID-era Disclaimer: With everything being online, I feel its's pertinent to mention I am hard-of-hearing, and wear hearing aids, and that's how I'll hear you (They act as headphones, so all sound goes through them). I will be fine, and I've both debated and judged at the national level, but do with this information what you'd like.

Pre-round

• I’m a fan of all arguments and there’s nothing I won’t vote on. On that note, I’m a large fan on Ks and non-traditional arguments, though I don’t mind a good T debate every now and then.

• I see too many teams doing tagline extensions of cards and think that means they extended the warrants as well, if you want to make a good argument, don’t just extend the card, but make some warranted analysis as well.

• Use Cross-Ex well, but there’s a brightline between a sassy C/X and a rude one.

• Analytics are pretty under-used as arguments, a good analytic can beat evidence a good amount of time

• I don’t take prep for flashing

• Tag-teaming is fine, just don’t let it get abusive or excessive.

• Having debated for Groves, both JL and Ryan influenced me in the opinion of tech vs. truth. I usually prefer tech debates, and will vote on that, but I can be persuaded truth debates are better (though that takes techiness as well…) And if an argument is dropped or conceded, that argument gains full weight unless the team can give me a valid reason why not

• I’m a very clear judge, in the idea that, when speeches will be going, I’ll be making facial expressions and looks. If you see me making a confused look, either move on or provide more explanation for me to get it. If you see me making a pleased face, keep going.

Clipping Cards

Clipping cards is cheating, and any recorded act of it happening will be met with an L and reduced speaker points.

Bad Arguments

I’m not a fan of bad arguments, but at the same time, if a team loses it on because they failed to flow it, and doesn’t answer it throughout the whole speech, that’s on them more than me. To answer bad arguments, just say something along the lines of “this is silly” and move on.

Bad arguments include, but are not limited to: Time Cube CP/K, FIAT solves the link, Plan is bottom of the docket, any of the specification arguments that aren’t ASPEC.

Regarding the top, there are some arguments I will not vote on regardless of concessions or not: Racism/Sexism/Discrimination Good, Torture Good, and RVIs.

Being AFF

Make sure both the 2AC and the 1AR do effective line by line and don’t concede a negative argument.

Case debates are pretty nice, debating the effects of the plan are what the case debate should be about, if the debate becomes more about the impacts and less about the plan, something’s gone wrong.

I have a high threshold for allowing dropped arguments past the 1AR and doing work for the affirmative in pulling across impacts from the 2AC to the 2AR. If you can give me a reason why I should, I’ll look at it, otherwise, make sure 1AR does everything they need to.

Framework

As a former K debater, I’m not a fan of framework debates and I won’t be happy, but I’ll evaluate them the same as any other argument. As long as you win the flow, I see no reason you don’t win the debate.

Fairness and Educations are good, but they’re not specific reasons to vote one side or the other. You’ve got to impact both of them, and give me reasons why your fairness/education is better than the other teams, whether it be decision making, portable skills, ect.

Kritiks

Having read kritiks for most, if not all, of my varsity debate career I’m pretty familiar with most of the literature out there. In terms of authors.
COVID-Updates:

The only small update, is with time, I haven't interacted with these arguments as much. I love DnG and Butler still, but I don't know the "debate" version of them. In that regard, just move all down a rank. Really Familiar is now Familiar, Familiar is now Familiar-ish, ect.
________________

Really Familiar (these are arguments that I can not only follow jargon wise, but I’ll understand a lot of the arguments really well)

DnG, Zizek, Fanon, Lacan, Saldahna, Butler (grievability ethics)

Familiar (these are arguments I’m familiar with, but I’m not exactly perfect on, may need a little more explanation)

Wilderson, Agamben, Foucault, Puar, Heidegger, Butler (feminism)

Familiar-ish (these are arguments that I’m only slightly knowledgeable in, good amount of explanation will be needed)

Baudrillard, Negri, Nietzsche, Wendy Brown, Derrida, Antonio, Camus

Who? (these are arguments where I’ve heard of the person, or have a slight idea of their arguments, otherwise, a lot of explanation needed.)

Mignolo, Deloria, Hardt, (others I haven’t heard of…)

Quick side note: If you have an author, and you’re thinking I’ve never heard of ‘em, at least ask me before the round, I may have forgotten somebody.

Now that that’s out of the way, general idea of kritiks.

These are my favorite arguments and I really enjoy both debating and listening to them.

Notes for Aff

Read a perm

Watch out for arguments like Root Cause, Floating PIKs, Serial Policy Failure and Error Replication arguments, dropping these usually means game over for the aff.

The easiest, and weakest part of the Kritik is the alternative, make sure you try to take it out.

Notes for Neg

Use your link arguments well, they’re usually able to be independent reasons to vote neg.

No matter if I know the argument or the author, you should still explain what the Kritik does, explanation only helps you.

Specific links to the aff make it easier to win the Kritik, but are not necessary to win the Kritik.

Disads

I’m ok with them, don’t love them, don’t hate them.

On DAs, there’s usually three types of debaters I see.

1. They spend too much time on Link/Uniqueness/Internal Link and not enough time on impact analysis

2. They spend too much time explaining the impact and don’t bother doing any link/uniqueness work.

3. They explain all the parts of the Disad equally, with warranted analysis.

Be the third debater.

While I’m not a fan of politics, I like Case Specific DAs, really use these to your advantage and turn the case with them.

Don’t forget to do impact overviews: Mag, Probability, Timeframe, and why DA turns case.

CPs

Counterplans are fine, like with the DA, I’ll evaluate them. I don’t love them, don’t hate them.

Out of all counterplans, I think Process CPs are probably the best, while Agent CPs are my least favorite, but I’m always ready to hear theory arguments debating why I should/shouldn’t listen to either one.

If the counterplan, not including advantage, that relies on a possibility of resulting in the Aff instead of a 100% risk, I’ll evaluate with caution, and this will usually be my last-choice argument. Make sure there’s at least one argument that makes the case that the CP will result in the Aff.

I’ll listen to all theory arguments equally, but conditionality is usually is the most persuasive, especially if the Neg has more than 3 conditional advocacies.

I’m fine with PICs, but make sure you’re ready for theory arguments if they come up.

Topicality

Ironically enough, even as a K debater, I enjoy debating T. Not enough people know how to do it effectively, so a good topicality debate is pretty fun to watch.

If it’s conceded, I’ll default to reasonability and topicality is not a voter, make sure not to concede these.

If topicality is going to get developed, both sides should give examples of bad/absurd affs that one can read on the other’s interpretation.

SPECIFIC TO NON-PLAN AFFS - If debating topicality, or on that note framework, the negative should make sure to make a topical version of the plan. Affirmative should give at least one reason why the topical version doesn’t solve.

Non-Traditional Affs

I’m a fan of watching non-traditional arguments, especially with debate flooded with policy aff after policy aff.

Same with the Kritik, make sure to explain how your plan functions and any jargon that might be involved.

If I, as the judge, can’t understand how the plan solves the impacts or how the solvency mechanism operates because of a lack of bad explanation, I will default Neg to presumption. However, I have a high threshold for what constitutes a “bad explantion”

Aff - Read a role of the ballot, if the neg concedes it, you know have a much better chance of winning this debate.

Speaker Points

Humor is good, the more you can brighten up a judge’s mood, the better.

A lot of it will rely on good ethos moments and how you do on the flow. If you can keep up and not drop/concede key arguments, it’ll go better for you.

Don’t be offensive/rude, this shouldn’t have to be said…

I know that speaks matter, so if you want to know, ask me after the round individually and I’ll happily tell you what you got. It’s not that big of a deal to me.

Seem knowledgeable about the literature base that you’re reading and about the aff.

Specific things to up speaks
Related to humor: make me laugh

Bad puns, bad jokes, making fun of someone you think I know, all will probably make me laugh.

If you do something risky and it works, I’ll reward you.

Niles West '14

UIUC '18

I coach for Niles West debate and have for the past 6 years. I have coached and judged in every level from novice to elimination rounds in varsity divisions. I have also coached and judged on local, regional, and national circuits.

Yes, I would like to be sent speech docs but I will not be flowing off of them --- elipre@d219.org

I debated for three years for Niles West and one year at Michigan State University on the legalization topic. My experience in debate is 50/50 policy and K.

I would like to emphasize that I am totally down for the K as much as I am totally down for a policy debate.

First and foremost: I do not allow my preconceived notions about certain types of arguments affect my decision-making. I view debate as an activity that develops critical thinking and advocacy skills, so do that in whatever way you think is best suited for your situation (granted that it is respectful and not offensive).

Certain arguments:

FYI: dropped arguments are not true arguments --- whoever makes the argument has the burden of proof.

T – love a good T debate. compare interpretations and evidence adequately. the impact level is the most important to me in T debates, and you should be comparing standards/impacts. don't forget the internal link debate. fairness is an impact in and of itself.

DAs – are essential to a good debate I think. impact calc and overviews are important. think we can all agree on that.

Ks and Framework – I love the K, I went for it a lot in high school. they are good for debate *if they answer the affirmative*. Please engage the affirmative. This entails making specific link arguments as well as thorough turns case analysis. I am probably familiar with your literature, however, I will not weigh your buzzwords more than logical aff arguments against your K. If you want my ballot, you need to first and foremost TALK ABOUT THE AFF. Read specific links to the aff’s representations and impacts, not just to the topic in general.

The link debate is crucial – and the aff should recognize if the neg is not doing an adequately specific job explaining their link story. Additionally, you need to make turns case arguments. I will not be compelled by a mere floating pik in the 2NR – that’s cheating. Give me analysis about why the aff reifies its own impacts. Absent this, I usually default to weighing the 1AC heavily against the K.

Relating to framework, I have a high threshold for interpretations that limit out critiques entirely. I would rather see debaters interact with the substance of the criticism than talk shallowly about fairness and predictability (especially if it is a common argument). A lot of the times, framework debates are lazy.

Planless affs: Totally down for them, especially on the criminal justice system reform topic. Perhaps they could be read on the neg, but that does not mean that they should not be read on the aff. This is good news if you are negative going for framework because switch side debate probably solves a lot of aff offense if there is a topical version of the aff. This is also good news for the aff because I can just as likely be persuaded that the reading of your aff in the debate space creates something unique (i.e., whatever you are solving for). A policy action, whether or not it's done by the federal government, should be a priority for the aff to defend. Please just do something that gives the negative a role in the debate. SLOW DOWN on taglines if they are paragraphs.

***

Meta things:

1. Clarity (important for online debate) - I've changed my stance on this since online debate became a thing. Still definitely say words. Sending analytics in speech doc and/or slowing down on analytics 1) helps me which is, in turn, good for you and 2) (at worst) facilitates clash because your opponents can also hear and know what you are saying, which is also good for everyone educationally!

Ideally I would not have to work too hard to hear what you are saying. I am bad at multitasking, so if I’m working too hard I’ll probably miss an argument or two. Please enunciate tag lines especially. If I can’t decipher your answer to an argument, I will consider it dropped.

2. Be respectful – yes, debate is a competitive activity, but it is also an academic thought exercise. I encourage assertiveness and confidence in round, but if you are rude, I will reduce your speaker points. Rudeness includes excessively cutting your opponent off or talking over them in cross-ex, excessively interrupting your partner's speech to prompt them, being unnecessarily snarky towards your opponents, etc. Please just be nice :)

3. Logic - a lot of times, debaters get wrapped up in the technicality of their debates. While tech is important, it shouldn’t come at the expense of doing things like explaining your arguments, pointing out logical flaws in your opponents’ arguments, and telling me how I should evaluate a particular flow in the context of the whole debate. I tend to reward teams that provide consistent, clear, and smart meta-level framing issues – it makes my job 100 times easier, and it minimizes the extent to which I have to intervene to decide the debate. I will not do work for you on an argument even if I am familiar with it – I judge off of my flow exclusively.

4. DO NOT assume that I am following along on the speech doc as you are giving a speech, because I am probably not.

5. Trolly arguments will probably get you low speaks and some eyerolls. Debate is an educational activity. By my standards, "trolly" includes timecube, xenos paradox, turing tests, etc. Y'all are smart people. I think you catch my drift here.

Wylie E. Groves 20'

University of Michigan 24'

add me to the email chain: sathvikrajagopalan213@gmail.com

*** READ THE MISC SECTION AS WELL :) ***

Topicality

** I haven't looked into this topic that much, but that doesn't mean I'm not willing to vote on T --- don't assume I know what your random topic buzzwords mean **

- for the neg limits or nothing. Predicability as a guiding point for the research burden of the resolution is def the move, but it depends on how it is utilized.

- I think that there needs to be a significant amount done on the interpretation debate. On that interpretation debate, standards/rzns to prefer need to be impacted out. For me, personally, I like examples on T debates (ie what ground do you lose, how the affirmative doesn't give it to you, and why that matters). Additionally, there needs to be specific explanations of your standards and how they are better than the affs or vice versa.

- For the Aff, reasonability is not as persuasive for me. That doesn't mean I won't vote on it accordingly. Reasonability can be very deadly and persuasive in debates that involve t-sub where there are a lot of definitions. Thus, substantial heg back on the limits debate paired with reasonability is the best route to go for me.

Counterplans

- How competitive or what type of competition the counterplan must embody is up to debate. However, Functional competition > Textual competition

- I like brief overviews explaining what the cp does and how it solves.

- X cp type is bad arg --- I'm very neg leaning on this, it is quite difficult to convince me that a specific counterplan should be excluded from debate unless it is flat-out dropped.

- I am open to voting on all kinds of PICs and Kritical counter plans as I ran them a solid amount when I debated in high school.

- the more specific and tailored the counterplan is to the aff, the more I will think it solves the case

- For the aff, I am most persuaded by the permutation debate

- I will listen to process CPs, Consult CPs, etc. but again whether they are competitive or legitimate is up for debate. However, I'm neg leaning on the competition debate.

Disads

- Yes. I am the same as my former coach, Dr. Ryan Nierman --- "There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus on why your impacts outweigh and turn the case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line."

- for the Aff, I am persuaded by link turns. Impact turns are fine and do become fun debates to watch and I'm persuaded by them as well, if they are debated properly.

- For politics disad --- the question of uq is very important. Post-dated uq evidence is VERY compelling to me in this arena.

- other aff things for politics like spillover effects, governmental compartmentalization, etc. are nice and I lean aff with them.

Kritiks

I ran all types of kritiks when debating and I'm open to hearing them (in other words yes Baudrillard, DnG, etc.). However, that being said a couple of things need to happen because I am not familiar with all literature. First, buzz words need to be explained, they are very annoying. Second, link to the aff should be clear and articulated clearly. I am not very persuaded by re-highlighted/cut pieces of evidence from the opposing team as links. Reps and scholarship links are rather unpersuasive if the aff has link defense. However, in Rev v Rev debates, if the re-highlight is explained clearly, they could be very impactful in the round. Third, there should be a clear, contingent story of the K from the overview or the line by line. No, this means you cannot read your freakishly long overview, but, if you do, the cross-application to the line by line portion must be explained again and not "cross apply x from the o/v or x author from the ov" for that is confusing. Fourth, the alternative must be clear, resolve the links, and just solve in general. The nexus questions need to be answered: What does the alt do? How does it do it? Does it solve the aff? What does the world look like post alternative?. Without a clear explanation of the alternative, it will be tough for me to go your way. Alternative solvency is very important to me in terms of voting on the K. However, I am open to kicking the alternative and going for the K as a case turn, but make sure you do a solid amount of impact work if you are doing that. Furthermore, "Competition arguments are most persuasive when the aff materially makes the world worse and/or prevents a material alternative" -- Henry Mitchell.

Outside of the proper page, I need to know what the role of the judge/ballot is (if there is one, tell me why that matters), a clear FW for the debate, and why your methodology comes first/is better.

FW makes the game work -- to beat scholarship and reps links the aff should weigh their resolution-focused FW offense against this. I think FW is super important in these types of K debates. Aff teams should always leverage their non-resolutions components as offensive and attempt to outweigh neg offense.

I also think it is super impressive when the aff out-debates the K team on the proper page ie with impact turns to the alternative and contesting the fundamental idea of the K. I find these debates quite entertaining and if done well, I will reward with better speaks. Note, that this doesn't mean that you should go ballistic on it, do what you think is best.

Theory

TLDR: lol.

floating PIKs are ok unless I'm told otherwise and they are rejecting the argument.

vague alts are probs a voting issue ...

- all theory arguments are reject the argument unless I'm told otherwise (if it is otherwise, tell me why they should lose the round on it)

- need to ask the status of the off if condo is legitimate. Else, the neg gets condo indefinitely.

- I will vote on theory if it is dropped/poorly handled

- I have a high threshold for voting on it even then, if it is dropped, cross applications from other theory args are dope.

K Affs

Yes. I ran a bunch of them. I NEED an advocacy statement. I pray that it is in relation to the direction of the resolution and not like reading something into the resolution. Those advocacy statements are actually awful and should never be used.

"In terms of going for framework, clash and fairness seem like generally good ideas. Impact turning these will be harder than defending and outweighing for me. Debate is generally good, but I usually find neg explanations of why generally underwhelming. Establishing limits offense as the negative is easier if you outline a case list that includes both critical and policy affs (but not required).

Counter interps that justify their differences based on something other than a definition of a word in the resolution are models of debate that must also defend their implications on debate beyond the current topic." --- what henry said --- literally my thought exactly.

Policy affs

- I generally don't like soft left affs that much, but you can run one if you wish. However, whoever wins the risk and impact calculus typically is who I vote for when it becomes a question of the adv.

Case turn

- sure, just don't card dump and not explain the card.

these are often very fun debates to watch.

Other notes PLEASE READ THESE (MISC)

- clarity > speed. If you are clear and easy to flow you will most likely get good speaks with me. This is especially important with an online debate where lags can happen and other tech difficulties.

- SEND YOUR SPEECH DOC WITH THE ANALYTICS. IN ONLINE DEBATE, IT CAN BE DIFFICULT TO HEAR SOMETIMES AND A SPEECH DOC MAKES THIS INTERESTING EXPERIENCE BETTER FOR EVERYONE.

- please read the re-highlight, I'm not a fan of when debaters say "insert this re-highlighting" and could disregard the argument entirely

- please don't steal prep and I prefer you all to keep the camera on at all times during the round

- When a debater asked for a marked copy, you are obligated to give it to them. In other words, when you mark a card during your speech, you need to physically mark it.

- Please be nice to each other

- I often reward debaters for using whitty statements and being clever.

- swearing is ok, but excessive swearing and offensive behavior will result in low speaks. 

- Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

- Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

" Finally, don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is." - Ryan Nierman

- Have fun in rounds and let loose

ARE YOU OK WITH THIS AFF? The answer to that question is more often than not yes. I can have my opinions on it, but I will vote on it accordingly if you do the better debating. Whether that is done for the resolution question is up for debate ;).

I am a former debater of Groves High School and a Spartan Debate Institute Alum. I recently graduated with a master's degree in Human Development and Family Studies at MSU. My educational background has taught me to consider not only impacts themselves, but for whom they are relevant. I am more likely to vote based on policy options when a team is able to convince me of the social justice impacts of said policy option. That said, I will consider framework when voting if a team convinces me that the debate should be evaluated a certain way.

As a general rule, I do not vote on kritiks unless the alternative is well-articulated and there is a clear link to the plan or status quo. I especially do not appreciate alternatives that involve doing nothing unless there is clear, convincing evidence as to why that should be done.

I will vote on topicality, but only if there is a clear violation (which rarely occurs). Debates would be better served by focusing on the core issues rather than arguing about the rules of debate unless it relates to how the round should be evaluated overall.

Please be aware that it has been some time since I last judged a round, so I would appreciate debaters slowing down during speeches.

Online Debate Updates:

Debate is still a speech and education activity. The following are things you should certainly read:

0. Cameras on during the debate.

1. Stop marking cards. Your speaks will tank if you mark more than a card (maybe two if the other team runs 8 off). If you aren't reading all the warrants in the card, you are effectively making an analytic, not an evidenced argument. And clipping cards without marking them is cheating. Don't do it.

2. Clarity is key in an online world - if I do not understand what you are saying I absolutely will not vote for it. This means that almost every team should be adapting and slowing down, on tags and analytics especially.

3. To get higher speaks and a higher chance of winning, don't just read your prewritten blocks back and forth. You need to do a line-by-line. Tell me what your 2AC or neg block card is responding too and why you are reading it. Warrant extraction and comparison is an effective way of making yourself more persuasive.

4. I don't kick your CP's, K's, DA's, etc for you. You need to do it yourself and do it properly.

5. Yes I want to be on the email chain. NO I WILL NOT READ YOUR CARDS, TAGS, OR EVIDENCE. Knowing when emails are sent etc helps me make sure that prep is accurately timed in an online world.

6. Prep ends when you hit send on the email (if there is one).

Background:

I debated at Dow High School in Midland, MI for 3 years. I did not debate in college, but have continued to work with the Dow High debate team.

Add me to the email chain: vikram@vikramshanker.com

I aim to be a tabula rasa judge. I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on in the round. I am more likely to vote for you if you make me do very little work for you. However, you can do a number of things to improve the efficacy of your arguments. If you aren’t sure how I view things, looking at the paradigms of Nick Smith and Amanda Bishop ( from whom I copy/paste/edited my paradigm) might help. Please feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the debate.

Specifics:

- As a judge, I believe my default role is a policy maker. You can convince me otherwise in the round.

- I enjoy listening to arguments that people actually understand, rather than only reading your pre-written shells/frontlines/etc. I would rather hear fewer, well developed arguments than a lot of arguments that go under covered. I like things explained to me. Don’t assume because I’ve seen your argument before that I will automatically understand what you are saying.

- You need to signpost so I know where to flow things, when you are starting a new card, etc. At the bare minimum, make sure you say next in between cards/analytics etc. An organized speech, especially on the line by line, will get you a long way. Read your tags slower so I don’t miss things.

- I consider myself middle of the road with speed. I view spreading as a means to making more arguments in the round. Being faster or slower won’t impact your speaker points. If you are a crazy fast team, you might consider slowing down a little bit for me, especially on tags. If I don’t get it down on my flow, I won’t vote for it. I will say “clear” when I don’t understand what you are saying and will attempt to continue flowing.

- I think that in-round critical thinking, analytics, etc are under-valued in policy debates. Simple empirics can be more convincing than a random piece of evidence that is taken out of context.

- I will not call for evidence unless there are conflicting claims about what a piece of evidence says. My job is to judge the round and what the debaters said, not what the cards say. I do not want to intervene.

- The quality and relevancy of evidence is more important than the amount of evidence.

- I’m not a topic expert, please explain your arguments.

- I need to be told what to vote on at the end of the round and what my decision should be based off of/how it should be framed. When it comes to framework, you need to impact your framework. Why is your framework the best and why should I vote on it? If you don't frame the round I am left up to deciding who is best on my own. That being said, I need impact calc and weighing at the end of the round.

- I like T and think while it isn’t always the most fun thing, it is important. I went for T a number of times myself as a high school debater. While the neg needs to win all parts of the flow to win T, I judge it bottom up. The neg needs to win the voters for me to vote on it. Then I will evaluate the standards to decide which definition to use. I will then consider the top of the flow to see if the aff meets the better definition. If you go for T in the 2NR, it should likely be the only thing you are going for.

- I like a good counterplan debate. Make sure you slow down for the plan text. Case specific counterplans are probably my favorite kind of neg argument. For the neg to win the counterplan, they must prove the world of the CP is better than the world of the plan. Presumption will flip aff on the CP.

- While I am not familiar with most K’s, I am open to voting for them. Please know that if your K evidence has tags that are 50+ words long, I am probably going to miss at least part of the tag, so either really slow down or edit your tags. Signposting will also help you a lot (see above). Running K’s with specific links are more convincing. Explaining what the world of the alt is and how we get there is also very convincing. Alts that only say deconstruct or imagine are likely open themselves up for attack from the aff. However, the aff has to make these arguments in the round.

-I enjoy a good case debate. I mostly ran policy affs with some critical advantages. I think a lot of people don't use their case to their full advantage. Cross applying is important and the neg should not ignore the case. Case work is always good. The case needs to be extended for the entirety of the round. Disads are usually underutilized in my opinion.

-Tag teaming in cross is fine, as long as it isn't excessive. Tag teaming to add something to a partner's speech is okay as well. Just don't dominate. I've watched debaters give their partners speech and I won't flow it until the person whose speech it is actually says it.

- I default to believing the aff should be about the debate topic for the year. That being said, I’m open to listening to non-topical affs/performance affs/etc. But know that I am not familiar with your argument, and that you may need to adjust a bit to make sure that your arguments are best understood by me. If the neg runs T/theory on what debate is about/etc, I am willing to vote on that. Performance affs in particular should probably use FW to make sure that I understand why your form of performance is good for debate.

I'm generally tabula rasa; I'll vote on anything as long as it's well-explained. I'm a bit rusty as a judge so not TOO fast, please. I rarely vote on T unless the violation is egregious or the other team drops it. Extend your arguments, weigh the round, tell me the story of how I should vote in final rebuttals. For speaker points, be clear, don't be a jerk, and don't be racist/misogynist etc.

I debated for HH Dow for four years and now coach/judge for the high school. I attend Michigan State University, but I do not debate there. 

• Critical/non-topical aff's are fine as long as there's FW. 
• Dropped arguments are true arguments. 
• Tech > truth.
• I love topicality as an argument and will vote on it if explained well. I tend to believe the aff should be topical and will be receptive to these arguments. 
• Impact calc/weighing at the end of the round is important
• Counterplans, K's, DA's are all fine. 
• Theory arguments are okay. 

Email: rtimm4341@gmail.com (went years opposing being on the email chain on the grounds that it removes the debate from what is actually claimed by the debaters, but zoom debate being what it is, maintaining a purist stance is not practicable)

I have been involved with debate since 2003. As you might suspect of something I've been doing longer than most people reading this will have been alive, I'm here because I genuinely believe in and enjoy the activity. Hopefully you feel the same way! Happy, fun teams make happy, fun judges make happy, fun, high point rounds.

Tech > truth. There's virtually no argument that can't win if argued well. The places where truth matters more are generally structural issues with debate, e.g., barring a drop, you can't tech uniqueness arguments into controlling the direction of the link or a non-competitive advocacy out of the perm. Other than that, I judge with the least possible intervention whatever my (often strong) thoughts on the argument may be. I tend to read VERY little evidence, as few teams actually make sufficient use of their evidence for it to be relevant to my decision. Evidence is an argument support system, not an argument itself, meaning that you need to actually flag a card and focus on its warrants for it to stand a chance at directly coming into my decision.

Far too much impact calculus is incredibly shallow. The majority of rounds, impact calc consists of noting an untouched extinction impact and asserting then asserting an immediate timeframe and 100% probability. This is as silly inside a debate round as it would be in the real world. You're much better served making specific, probabilistic arguments drawing on carded warrants and comparing them to your mitigation of their impacts. Relatedly, too many teams simply let impacts stand untouched, hoping instead to mitigate at the link and uniqueness levels. This tends to result in me having to grumpily parse whether to vote in favor of the side claiming two extinction events that may not be unique or the side claiming three extinction events that may not link. Impact defense and (be still my beating heart!) impact turns therefore tend to result in cleaner, more fun rounds.

CPs: I am extremely aff-leaning on most questions of competition. If your CP competes off the definition of normal means or certainty, it doesn't. That goes for consult, delay, condition, what have you: if perm do the counterplan is in the 2AR, you will almost certainly lose. No, perm do the counterplan as a response to your sweet consult Turkmenistan CP does not sever out of anything. Yes, that does make your CP almost impossible to run.

States CPs are often theoretically illegitimate, but I'm actually unusually sympathetic to them this year. The vast majority of our criminal justice system is controlled by states rather than the feds, meaning that there is an unusually rich literature supporting state-level solutions.

Critiques: I'll openly admit to being one of the least sympathetic judges on the circuit to the theory behind most critical arguments in debate. There's tons of great and interesting philosophy being written and read every day. Unfortunately, almost none of it is what we as a community have decided to use to write our Ks. The vast majority of "high theory" authors are embarrassing hack frauds. Every time I wind up being exposed to Zizek or Baudrillard or the like reminds me of Schopenhauer's famous comments that Hegel "was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense" and wrote "such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not." (Note: if you don't know what I'm talking about, you almost certainly do not have a strong enough background in philosophy to actually understand the arguments you are making.)

That said, I have a slightly above 50% lifetime voting record in favor of the K. Good K debaters make their argument as specific to the aff as possible, something especially easy on the criminal justice topic. You will always be better off engaging with the substance of the aff. Good K debaters also try not to let the round devolve into a seeming stream of consciousness in no particular order. The average high school K 2NC/1NR seems to skip up and down the flow with no regard for structure or responsiveness. Structureless speeches result in messy flows result in frustrated judges trying to parse implicit clash after the round.

Non-traditional/performance: Debate is a game, and the only rule that can't be disputed is the length of your speeches. However, I'm never going to be a particularly good judge for performance affs. All things being equal, the neg will usually have the advantage on T/framework for two reasons: 1) empirically, almost every performance debate is a meta-debate with almost no topic-specific education after the 1AC; and 2) especially on a topic like CJR, virtually everything done by non-traditional affs could also be done topically, requiring actual engagement with your performance. That is to say, no, the aff saying "the USFG should" is not the same thing as roleplaying as the USFG.

Theory: theory arguments outside the "conditionality bad" family are almost never reasons to reject the team. This goes double for blippy little nothing arguments in the middle of a block being labelled an independent voter. However, arguments like severance or floating PIKs are often extremely useful. If you go for a CP/K, I will not compare the plan to the status quo without an extremely compelling argument why I should.

Topicality: Unless told otherwise, I default to evaluating T through a competing interpretations lens. A-spec and similar arguments are rarely a winner.

Add me to the email chain: william.wang822@gmail.com

Background: I debated at H. H. Dow High School and now at the University of Michigan.

Preferences that probably distinguish me from a generic judge:

The evidence says whatever you tell me it says; it's unfair for me to read all of it and decide for all of you.

Do evidence comparison beyond "they're wrong because our author disagrees."

"Permutation is intrinsic/severance" requires substantial explanation.

I can definitely do fast, but I prefer relatively slow.

Kritikal Affs:

These rounds are difficult for everyone involved because it seems like every judge has a different take on every argument. However, even though I certainly have predispositions here, it's unstrategic for you adjust to me because there aren't any framework arguments on aff nor neg that I've heard that I wouldn't vote on.

I have sparse experience with K v K rounds, but I wouldn't necessarily feel lost in one.

Kritiks:

Policy aff vs neg K comes down to framework almost every time for me.

Describe to me the threshold for both voting aff and neg.

Counterplans:

If you start your speech with 'the counterplan solves 100% of the aff and avoids the net benefit,' you should follow up with a plan-specific explanation for both.

If your counterplan doesn't 'cheat' then it's probably not good enough to go for.

I do not kick a counterplan for you.

Theory:

I'm sympathetic to aff theory, especially on counterplans.

Incomprehensible two second theory shells are not voters.