Forensics is a speaking competition in which the art of rhetoric is utilized - speaking effectively to persuade or influence [the judge].

I take Socrates's remarks in Plato's Apology as the basis of my judging: "...when I do not know, neither do I think I know...I am likely to be wiser than he to this small extent, that I do not think I know when I do not know" (Ap. 21d-e).

My paradigm of any round is derived from: CLARITY!!!

All things said in the round need to be clear! Whatever it is you want me to comprehend, vote on, and so forth, needs to be clearly articulated, while one is speaking. This stipulation should not be interpreted as: I am ignorant about debate - I am simply placing the burden on the debater to debate; it is his or her responsibility to explain all the arguments presented. Furthermore, any argument has the same criteria; therefore, clash, at the substantive level, is a must!

First and foremost, I follow each debate league's constitution, per the tournament.

Secondly, general information, for all debate forms, is as follows:

1) Speed: As long as I can understand you well enough to flow the round, since I vote per the flow!, then you can speak as slow or fast as you deem necessary. I do not yell clear, for we are not in practice round, and that's judge interference. Also, unless there is "clear abuse," I do not call for cards, for then I am debating. One does not have to spread - especially in PF.

2) Case: I am a tab judge; I will vote the way in which you explain to me to do so; thus I do not have a preference, or any predispositions, to the arguments you run. It should be noted that in a PF round, non-traditional/abstract arguments should be expressed in terms of why they are being used, and how it relates to the round.

Set a metric in the round, then tell me why you/y'all have won your metric, while your opponent(s) has lost their metric and/or you/y'all have absorbed their metric.

The job of any debater is to persuade the judge, by way of logical reasoning, to vote in his or her favor, while maintaining one's position, and discrediting his or her opponent's position. So long as the round is such, I say good luck to all!

Ask any other clarification questions before the round!

I competed in LD debate for Catalina Foothills High School in Tucson, AZ and graduated in 2007. I attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison for undergrad and the University of Iowa for grad school. I have a business and finance background, and have been working in the corporate world for 10 years. I currently live in Las Vegas, NV.

From 2008 to 2015, I judged at local tournaments (in WI and IA) as well as TOC bid tournaments in the Midwest, and I briefly coached as well. I am pretty open minded and will listen to creative arguments, theory, etc. as long as they're explained well. That being said, I have been removed from debate for the past 4 years or so. If you have specific questions, just ask before the round. In terms of speed, please go a little bit slower due to the debate being virtual. I'll judge off the flow and extensions should be made clearly, and I will give 30 speaks for clear extensions turned to voting issues. Please email me your case before the round at kcagrawal7@gmail.com.

Please talk slowly, I don't like debate speed speaking. If you're speaking too quick and I miss something, it won't be on my flow. 

Background: I was in speech and debate at East Ridge High School in Minnesota and graduated in 2018. I did info and OO in speech. I mainly did congress while I was in debate, but I also competed in PF decently often, and in World Schools at nationals. I also did IPPF and extemp debate.

I graduated from the University of Minnesota - Carlson School of Management in December 2021 with a degree in finance. I work at Travelers in fixed income investments, i.e. the bond market. I am currently pursuing my CFA designation. With that educational and professional background, I tend to favor economic arguments. These are usually easier for me to keep up with and are very enjoyable for me to listen to! I do love a creative argument though. 

Debate philosophy: I think debate is a great academic activity that teaches critical thinking, research, speaking, and other life skills. I'm a "Truth > tech" judge. In all debates, I would rather a competitor have 2 thorough, nuanced contentions than 4 thin, poorly defended contentions. I enjoy being persuaded, not being told at.

In congress, I like either new arguments, or a rebuttal speech. Please do not recycle arguments, and please do not recycle rebuttals - both don't move the debate forward. I tended to PO a lot in high school, so I have a healthy appreciation for a well run chamber. Feel free to use puns and other methods to improve your speaking stylization!

tahir.ahsan0@gmail.com

Debate Bio

LD debater in MN (2012-2016)

Irregular LD Judge (2018-present)

Comfort with non-stock material

If you've sought out my paradigm, this is probably the relevant material for you. As a general note, it's been 5 years since I last encountered the following with any regularity.

Theory: I'll accept it in relevant applications. Unless there is an extreme case, I default to drop the argument when accepting the theory shell.

Kritiks: I'm not entirely opposed to kritiks, but if they are lacking a strong connection to the opposing case and/or come across as something being read regardless of what your opponent brings to the round, they won't mean much to me.

With both theory shells and kritiks, I do not look favorably to instances where these are used merely to create timesinks in the opponent's next speech.

Preferences

Don't misgender your opponent when their pronouns have been provided (seriously, this happens about once a tournament and the most common reason I decrease speaker points). Better yet, just refer to them as "the Aff" or "the Neg."

I am fine with most speed. Please do keep in mind that remote debating conditions may change this. Slow down for tags, sources/authors, and key elements. Arguments that rely on your opponent missing them are not good arguments.

Always roadmap before your speech. I will ask for one before rebuttal starts if it isn't provided. It doesn't have to be a "quick roadmap" either as long as you aren't making arguments during it. The more specific you are the better; it's fine to deviate from the roadmap due to time constraints during the actual speech. Note that you should still be signposting your arguments in the speech.

Flex prep is allowed.

Unless the difference between the values is significant, don't spend time on them. I've spent too many hours hearing meaningless value debates.

Unless the standard/criterion has been conceded (or very one-sided), you'll be much more likely to get my ballot by connecting your impacts into both frameworks.

I won't make your extensions for you. Refuting your opponents argument does not constitute an extension. They are separate. A good extension will be able to inform a late audience member on a round's key argument and it's importance in framework(s) while staying concise.

Weigh the arguments. You should be telling me why your impacts should win you the round even if I didn't buy your rebuttals against the opposing impacts.

Speaker Points

I average 28 on the 30 point scale. Speaks will be lowered as a result of any condescension, bigotry, or over aggressiveness.

Lincoln-Douglas Coach at Walt Whitman High School. Competed in both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate in high school and two years of College Policy Debate at Binghamton University.

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

TOC 2024 Paradigm.

Background: I have spent considerable time judging and researching the military presence topic so I'm confident I will understand most arguments related to the topic.

I'm a good clash judge and a great judge for K v K debates. You have better judge options for everything else, but I am somebody who will evaluate almost anything.

My subjective feelings and opinions.

I'm not opposed to voting on any particular argument, as long as you don't do anything illegal.

I will REALLY appreciate a well debated T debate, especially at the TOC. I think T vs policy AFFs can be an excellent strategy and I think creative 1AR's to topicality are an amazing demonstration of work and well thought out topic research.

New AFF's are good, especially at the TOC. I do not not think you have to disclose if you are breaking new. [THIS DOES NOT MEAN YOU SHOULD DROP ARGUMENTS]

In the past, I have been WAY TOO lenient with negative teams, and I'm doing my best to correct for that. I will not be giving any negative ballots to a 2NR filled with tagline extensions (unless the AFF is worse).

I think framework debates in Policy vs K rounds are usually very badly debated. Framework refers to any set of arguments that provide instructions about how to understand other arguments. At some level, ALL weighing arguments are framework arguments.

Enthymemes in debate are a big problem.

I think the AFF gets a permutation.

I do not default judge kick. I can be easily persuaded that judge kick is bad by the 2AR.

Consult counterplans should have a solvency advocate.

Pics are sometimes some of the best research and sometimes the worst.

29.5+ = deep elim contender. 29+ = You should make it to elims.

How to get my ballot.

1. Tell me what the ballot does. IDC what the round is about, judge instruction and ballot framing is ALWAYS important. The first question I ask myself is always, what does it mean to vote aff/neg?

2. Quality > Quantity. One good argument can beat out 10 bad ones.

3. Be better - this is a competition, don't lose.

kenan.s.anderson@gmail.com

UPDATE for Minneapple 2021:

I haven't judged Varsity LD since... I don't even know when. So slow down A LOT and anything invented in the last 1.5 years I probably won't know about.

I have a strong natural inclination to consequentialism. If your framework is not consequentialist, especially if it's a critical ROB or ROJ, you need to explain VERY DIRECTLY and VERY BLUNTLY how it filters offense. Otherwise, I'll probably not understand and evaluate the round differently than you would like.

I debated on the circuit for four years. In general, I think debate would be better if it was slightly slower, much more topic-focused, more accessible to lay folks, and had way way way less theory. I'm saddened by the number of rounds that are not resolved by whether the core issue of the topic is good/bad. You should win because you have good arguments, not because you tricked your opponent in some technical game of extensions and cross applications. Disclosure is probably good. Needlessly specific disclosure shells are probably not.

A Note On Speaker Points: Evaluating some sort of "subjective" skill in a single debate is hard. Instead, I use speaker points to reward what I consider good, educational, and persuasive models of debate. This means your speaks will be low if you try and win on frivolous theory or short "X is an independent voting issue" and you'll get great speaks for smart affirmative cases or well thought-out negative strategies. Bonus points for not reading the same plan/DA/K/ etc as everyone else on the topic.

Bonus data because I'm a nerd - looking at varsity rounds only I vote neg 52% of the time (a pretty minor bias given the sample size). Feel free to use this to answer bad (NEG SIDE BIAS JUSTIFIES XXXXX) arguments. Also in out rounds I squirrel 20% of the time. If you're interested in stats for your or a judge you know lmk. I have a python script that does it really fast.

Add me to the email chain: sdandersondebate@gmail.com. I prefer email chain to Speechdrop, but either work.

Background

I competed in LD from 2009-2013 and have been the LD coach at Eagan (MN) since 2014 and judge 100+ rounds a season. I qualified debaters to the TOC from 2021-2023 who won the Minneapple and Dowling twice. One primarily read phil and tricks while the other primarily read policy arguments, so I am pretty ideologically flexible and have coached across the spectrum.

If you're not at a circuit tournament, scroll to the bottom for my traditional LD paradigm.

Big Questions 2024

Without having coached it and seen what the topic literature looks like (or if it even exists), this seems like the worst topic I have ever judged. If there's a way to define "incompatible" that lends itself to interesting, balanced, and substantive debates, then by all means read it and emphasize how great your definition is. Otherwise, it's hard to see how the resolution isn't trivially true or false depending on the definitions, so a lot of time should be spent there.

Sections/State 2024 Updates

Not a new update per se, but read the traditional LD section of my paradigm to see what I consider the permissible limits of "national circuit" arguments in LD. TL;DR, uphold your side of the resolution "as a general principle".

I'm somewhat agnostic on the MSHSL full source citations rule -- I do think it's a good norm for debate without email chains, but if you want me to enforce it, that should be hashed out preround.

Rounds on this topic are difficult to resolve. It seems like most of them come down to cards with opposite assertions: status quo deterrence is working/failing, China can/can't fill in, etc, and I struggle to figure out who to side with when it comes down to different authors making different forecasts based on the same basic set of facts and a lot of uncertainty. I encourage you to think really, really hard about the story you're telling, the specific warrants in the pieces of evidence you read and how they interact with the assumptions being made by opposing authors, etc. Alternatively, finding offense that's external to these core issues (whether that's phil offense or a independent impact scenario) can be another way to clean up the round. As a reminder: tagline extensions are no good, and "my card says X" by itself is not a warrant -- it just means that one person in the entire world agrees with you.

General Info

• I won't vote for arguments without warrants, arguments I didn't flow in the first speech, or arguments that I can't articulate in my own words at the end of the round. This applies especially to blippy and underdeveloped arguments.

• I think of the round in terms of a pre- and post-fiat layer when it comes to any argument that shifts focus from the resolution or plan (theory, Ks, etc.). I don't think the phrase "role of the ballot" means much – it's all just impacts, the strength of link matters, and your ROB is probably impact-justified (i.e. instrumentally valuable and arbitrarily narrow).

• I tend to evaluate arguments on a sliding scale rather than a binary yes/no. I believe in near-zero risk, I think you can argue that near-zero risk should be rounded down to zero, but by default I think there’s almost always a risk of offense.

• As a corollary to the above two points, I will vote on very frivolous theory or IVIs if there’s no offense against it, so make sure you are not just defensive in response. “This crowds out substance which is valuable because [explicit warrant]” is an offensive response, and is probably the most coherent way to articulate reasonability.

• I reserve the right to vote on what your evidence actually says, not what you claim it says.

• As a corollary to the above, you can insert rehighlighting if you're just pointing out problems with your opponent's evidence, but if you do then you're just asking me to make a judgment call and agree with you, and I might not. If it's ambiguous, I'll avoid inserting my own interpretation of the card, and if you insert a frivolous rehighlighting I'll likely just disagree with you. If you want to gain an offensive warrant, you need to read the rehighlighting out loud.

• Facts that can be easily verified don't need a card.

• I'm skeptical of late-breaking arguments, given how few speeches LD has. It's hard to draw a precise line, but in general, after the 1N, arguments should be *directly* responsive to arguments made in the previous speech or a straightforward extrapolation of arguments made in previous speeches. "Here's new link evidence" is not a response to "no link". "DA turns case, if society collapses due to climate change we won't be able to colonize space" is fine in the 2N but "DA turns case, warming kills heg, Walt 20:" should be in the 1N.

• Any specific issue in this paradigm, except where otherwise noted, is a heuristic or default that can be overcome with technical debating.

Ks

This is the area of debate I'm least familiar with – I've spent the least time coaching here and I'm not very well-read in any K lit base. Reps Ks and stock Ks (cap, security, etc.) are okay, identity Ks are okay especially if you lean in more heavily on IVI-type offense, high theory Ks are probably not the best idea (I'll try my best to evaluate them but no promises).

• The less the links directly explain why the aff is a bad idea, the more you'll need to rely on framework, particularly if the K is structured like "everything is bad, the aff is bad because it uses the state and tries to make the world better, the alt is to reject everything". If you want me to vote on the overall thesis of your K being true, you should explain why your theory is an accurate model of the world with lots of references to history and macro trends, less jargon and internal K warranting with occasional reference to singular anecdotes.

• Conversely, if you're aff you lose by neglecting framework. If you spend all of 10 seconds saying "let me weigh case – clash and dogmatism" then spend the rest of your speech weighing case, you're putting yourself in a bad position. I don't start out with a strong presumption that the aff should be able to weigh case or that the debate should be about whether "the aff is a good idea".

• For pess Ks, I'll likely be confused about why voting for you does anything at all. You need a coherent explanation here.

• I don't think "the role of the ballot is to vote for the better debater" means much. I'm going to vote for the person who I think did the better debating, but that's kind of vacuous. If your opponent wins the argument that I ought to vote for them because they read a cool poem, then they did the better debating. You need to win offensive warrants on framework.

• I’m bad for K arguments that are more rhetorical than literal, e.g. “X group is already facing extinction in the status quo” – that’s just defining words differently.

• Not a fan of arguments that implicate the identity of debaters in the round. There's no explicit rule against them, but I'm disinclined to vote for them and they're usually underwarranted (e.g. if they're not attached to a piece of evidence they're probably making an empirical claim without an empirical warrant and your opponent should say that in response).

• K affs: not automatically opposed, not the ideal judge either. I'm probably biased towards K affs being unfair and fairness being important, but the neg still needs to weigh impacts. I’m very unlikely to vote on anallytic RVIs/IVIs like T is violent, silencing, policing, etc. unless outright dropped – impacts turns should be grounded in external scholarship, and the neg should contest their applicability to the debate round. You also need a good explanation of how the ballot solves your impacts or else presumption makes sense. "Debate terminally bad" is silly – just don't do debate then.

Policy

This is what I spend most of my time thinking about as a coach. Expect me to be well-read on the topic lit.

• There is no "debate truth" that says a carded argument always beats an uncarded argument, that a more specific card always beats a more general card, or that I'm required to give more credence to flimsy scenarios than warranted. Smart analytics can severely mitigate bad link chains. It is wildly implausible that banning megaconstellations would tank business confidence, causing immediate economic collapse and nuclear war – your cards *almost certainly* either don’t say that or aren’t coming from credible sources.

• Probabilistic reasoning is good – I don't think "what is the precise brightline" or "why hasn't this already happened" are damning questions against impacts that, say, democracy, unipolarity, or strong international institutions reduce the overall risk of war.

• Plan vagueness is bad. I guess plan text in a vacuum makes sense, but I don’t think vagueness should be resolved in a way that benefits the aff.

• I’m baffled by the norm that debaters can round up to extinction. In my eyes, laundry list cards are just floating internal links until you read impacts, and if your opponent points that out I don’t know what you could say in response. I encourage you to have good terminal impact evidence (particularly evidence from the existential risk literature that explicitly argues X actually can lead to extinction or raise overall extinction risk) and to be pedantic about your opponent's. Phrases like “threatens humanity”, “existential”, etc. are not necessarily synonyms for human extinction.

• Pointing out your opponent’s lack of highlighting can make their argument non-viable even if they’re reading high-quality evidence – you don’t get credit for the small text.

• Some circumvention arguments are legitimate and can't just be answered by saying "durable fiat solves".

Counterplans

• In general, I lean towards the view that the 1N should make an argument for how the counterplan competes and why. I think 2N definition dumps are too late-breaking (although reading more definitions in the 2N to corroborate the 1N definition may be fine).

• Perms should have a net benefit unless they truly solve 100% of the negative’s net benefit or you give me an alternative to offense/defense framing, because otherwise I will likely vote neg if they can articulate a *coherent* risk. E.g. if the 2AR against consult goes for perms without any semblance of a solvency deficit, perm do both will likely lose to a risk of genuine consultation key and the lie perm will likely lose to a risk of leaks – even if the risk is vanishingly small, “why take the chance?” is how I view things by default.

• I think counterplans should have solvency advocates and analytic counterplans are bad except in the most trivial of cases. E.g. if the aff advantage is that compulsory voting will increase youth turnout and result in cannabis legalization, then “legalize cannabis” makes sense as a counterplan because that’s directly in the government’s power. Otherwise, you should have evidence saying that the policy you defend will result in the outcome that you want.

• Normal means competition is silly. It’s neither logical nor theoretically defensible if debated competently.

• There’s probably nothing in any given resolution that actually implies immediacy and certainty, but it’s still the aff’s job to counter-define words in the resolution.

• I spent a good amount of time coaching process counterplans and have some fondness for them, but as for whether they’re theoretically desirable, I pretty much view them as “break glass in case of underlimited topic”. A 2N on a process counterplan is more “substantive” in my eyes than a 2N on Nebel, cap, or warming good. If you read one and the 1AR mishandles it, the 2N definitely should go for it because they make for the cleanest neg ballots. I’ve judged at least a few rounds that in my eyes had no possible winning 2AR against a process counterplan.

Theory

• I consider myself a middle of the road judge on theory. Feel free to go for standard policy theory (condo, various cheaty CPs bad, spec, new affs bad, etc.) or LD theory (NIBs / a prioris bad, combo shells against tricky strats, RVIs, etc.), I won't necessarily think it's frivolous or be disinclined to vote for it. On the other hand, I don’t like purely strategic and frivolous theory along the lines of "must put spikes on top", etc. I'm also not great at evaluating theory on a tech level because it mostly consists of nothing but short analytics that I struggle to flow.

• Checks on frivolous theory are great, but competing interps makes more sense to evaluate based on my views on offense/defense generally. Reasonability should come with judge instruction on what that means and how I evaluate it – if it means that I should make a subjective determination of whether I consider the abuse reasonable, that's fine, just make that explicit. The articulation that makes the most sense to me is that debating substance is valuable so I should weigh the abuse from the shell against the harm of substance crowd-out.

• Both sides of the 1AR theory good/bad debate are probably true – 1AR theory is undesirable given how late-breaking it is but also necessary to check abuse. Being able to articulate a middle ground between "no 1AR theory" and "endless one-sentence drop the debater 1AR shells" is good. The better developed the 1AR shell is, the more compelling it is as a reason to drop the debater.

T

• If debated evenly, I tend to think limits and precision are the most important impacts (or rather internal links, jurisdiction is a fake impact). There can be an interesting debate if the neg reads a somewhat more arbitrary interpretation that produces better limits, but when the opposite is true, where the neg reads a better-supported interpretation and the aff response is that it overlimits and kills innovation, I am quite neg-leaning.

• Nebel T: I’m open to it. It’s one of the few T interps where I think the overlimiting/innovation impact is real, but some LD topics genuinely are unworkably big (e.g. “Wealthy nations have a moral obligation to provide development assistance to other nations”). The neg should show that they actually understand the grammar arguments they’re making, and the aff’s semantics responses should not be severely miscut or out of context. “Semantics are oppressive” is a wildly implausible response. I view “semantics is just an internal link to pragmatics” as sort of vacuously true – the neg should articulate the “pragmatic” benefits of a model of debate where the aff defends the most (or sufficiently) precise interpretation of a topic instead of one that is “close enough”, or else just blow up the limits impact.

• RVIs on T are bad… but please don’t just blow them off. You need to answer them, and if your shell says that fairness is the highest impact then your “RVIs on T bad” offense probably should have fairness impacts.

Phil

• I debated in a time when the meta was much more phil dominant and I coached a debater who primarily ran phil so this is something I'm familiar with. That being said, heavy phil rounds can be some of the most difficult to evaluate. I'm best for carded analytic moral philosophy -- Kant, virtue ethics, contractarianism, libertarianism, etc. I'm worse for tricky phil or hybrid K-phil strategies (agonism, Deleuze, Levinas, etc.).
• By default I evaluate framework debate in the same offense-defense paradigm I evaluate anything else which means I'm using the framework with the stronger justification. Winning a defensive argument against a framework is not *automatically* terminal defense. This means you're likely better off with a well-developed primary syllogism than with a scattershot approach of multiple short independent justifications. Phenomenal introspection is a better argument than "pain is nonbinding", and the main Kantian syllogisms are better arguments than "degrees of wrongness".
• If you'd rather not have a phil debate, feel free to uplayer with a TJF, AFC, IVIs, etc. I also don't feel like I ever hear great responses to "extinction first because of moral uncertainty", more like 1-2 okay responses and 3-4 bad ones, so that may be another path of least resistance against large framework dumps.
• If you're going for a framework K, I still need some way to evaluate impacts, and it's better if you make that explicit. Okay, extinction-focus is a link to the K, but is utilitarianism actually wrong, and if so what ethical principles should I instead be using to make decisions?

Tricks

I'm comfortable with a lot of arguments that fall somewhere under the tricks umbrella -- truth testing, presumption and permissibility triggers, calc indicts, NIBs that you can defend substantively, etc. That being said, I'm not a good judge for pure tricks debate either -- evaluate the round after X speech, neg must line by line every 1AC argument, indexicals, "Merriam-Webster's defines 'single' as unmarried but all health care systems are unmarried", "you can never prove anything with 100% certainty therefore skep is true and the resolution is false", etc. I don't have the flowing skill to keep up with these, many of these arguments I consider too incoherent to vote for even if dropped (and I'm perfectly happy for that to be my RFD), and I really don't like arguments that don't even have the pretense of being defensible. I also think arguments need clear implications in their first speech, so tricks strategies along the lines of "you conceded this argument for why permissibility negates but actually it's an argument for why the resolution is automatically false" are usually too new for me to vote for.

Non-negotiables

• I have a strong expectation that debaters be respectful and a low tolerance for rudeness, overt hostility, etc.
• If you’re a circuit debater hitting someone who is obviously a traditional debater at a circuit tournament, my only request is that you not read disclosure theory *if* preround disclosure occurred (the aff sends the 1AC and the neg sends past speech docs and discloses past 2Ns 30 minutes prior). If they have no wiki or contact info, disclosure theory is totally fair game. Beyond that, I will probably give somewhat higher speaks if you read positions that they can engage with, but that’s not a rule or expectation. If you’re a traditional debater intending to make arguments about accessibility, I’ll evaluate them, but I will have zero sympathy – a local tournament would be far more accessible to you than a circuit tournament, and if there’s not a local tournament on some particular weekend, that simply is not your opponent’s problem.
• I reserve the right to ignore hidden arguments – there’s obviously no exact brightline but I don’t view that as an intrinsic debate skill to be incentivized. At minimum, voting issues should be delineated and put in the speech doc, arguments should be grouped together in some logical way (not “1. US-China war coming now, 2. Causes extinction and resolved means firmly determined, 3. Plan solves”).
• I’ll drop you for serious breaches of evidence ethics that significantly distort the card. If it’s borderline or a trivial mistake that confers no competitive advantage, it should be debated on the flow and I’m open to dropping the argument. I don’t really understand the practice of staking the round on evidence ethics; if the round has been staked and I’m forced to make a decision (e.g. in an elims round), I’m more comfortable with deciding that you slightly distorted the evidence so you should lose instead of you distorted the evidence but not enough so your opponent should lose.
• I’ll drop you for blatant misdisclosure or playing egregious disclosure games. I’d rather not intervene for minute differences but completely new advantages, scenarios, framing, major changes to the plan text, etc. are grounds to drop you. Lying is bad.

Traditional LD Paradigm

• This is my paradigm for evaluating traditional LD. This applies at tournaments that do not issue TOC bids (with the exception of JV, but not novice, divisions at bid tournaments -- I'll treat those like circuit tournaments). It does not apply if you are at a circuit tournament and one debater happens to be a traditional debater. And if you're not at a bid tournament but you both want to have a circuit round, you also can disregard this.
• Good traditional debate for me is not lay debate. Going slower may mean you sacrifice some amount of depth, but not rigor.
• The following is a pretty hard rule: "Each debater has the equal burden to prove the validity of their side of the resolution as a general principle." At NSDA Nationals, this is written on the ballot and I treat that as binding. Outside of nats, I still think it's a good norm because I believe my ballot should reflect relevant debate skills. I do not expect traditional debaters to know how to answer theory, role of the ballot arguments, plans, non-T affs, etc. Outside of circuit tournaments, one side should not auto-win because they know how to run these arguments and their opponent doesn't. However, "circuit" arguments that fall within these bounds are fair game -- read extinction impacts, counterplans, dense phil, skep, politics DAs, topical Ks, whatever, as long as you explain why they affirm or negate the resolution.
• As a caveat to the above statement, what it means to affirm or negate the resolution as a general principle is something that is up for debate and depends on the specific wording of the resolution. I'm totally open to observations and burden structures that interpret the resolution in creative or abusive ways, and think those strategies are often underutilized. If one side drops the other's observation about how to interpret the resolution, the round can be over 15 seconds into rebuttals. They just need to come with a plausible argument for why they meet that constraint.
• Another caveat: I think theoretical arguments can be deployed as a reason to drop the argument, and I'll listen to IVI-type arguments the same way (like this argument is repugnant so you shouldn't evaluate it). They're just not voting issues in their own right.
• You cannot clip or paraphrase evidence and need a full written citation, regardless of your local circuit's norms. The usual evidence rules still apply.
• Your opponent has the right to review any piece of evidence you read, even if you're not spreading.
• Flex prep is fine -- you can ask clarification questions during prep time.
• Because (typically) there's no speech doc and few checks on low-quality or distorted evidence, I will hold you to a high standard of explaining your evidence in rebuttals. Tagline extensions aren't good enough. "Extend Johnson 20, studies show that affirming reduces economic growth by 20%" -- what does that number represent, where does it come from? This is especially true for evidence read in rebuttals which can't be scrutinized in CX -- I will be paying very close attention to what I was able to flow in the body of the card the first time you read it.
• Burdens and advocacies should be explicit. Saying "we could do X to solve this problem instead" isn't a complete argument -- I *could* vote for you, but I won't. This can take the form of a counterplan text / saying "I advocate X", or a burden structure that says "Winning X is sufficient for you to vote negative because [warrant]" -- it just needs to be delineated.
• Even if you're not reading a big stick impact, you still benefit a lot by reading terminal impact evidence and weighing it against your opponents' (or lack thereof). When the debate comes down to e.g. a federal jobs guarantee reducing unemployment vs. causing inflation, even though both of those are intuitively bad things, it's really hard to evaluate the round without either debater reading evidence that describes how many people are affected, how severely, etc.
• Normative philosophy is important as a substantive issue, but the value and criterion are not important as procedural issues. I do not mechanically evaluate debates by first deciding who wins the value debate, and then deciding which criterion best links into that value, and then deciding who best links into that criterion. Ideally your criterion will be a comprehensive moral theory, like util or Kant, but if not then it's your proactive burden to explain why the arguments made at the framework level matters, why they mean your offense is more important than your opponent's. This applies when the criterion is vague, arbitrarily narrow, identifies something that is instrumentally rather than intrinsically valuable, etc. (Side note: oppression / structural violence frameworks almost always fall into one of the latter two categories, sometimes the first.)

Note// I am a very expressive judge. If I do not like or buy an argument, you will see it on my face. Do what you will with this information

TLDR:

Edited mid-Harvard Tournament: after reading a few other judges paradigms I have come to the conclusion that I will add this, I do not like args that say "I can do x because I am y identity group", especially when the x that you want to do is "abusive". This does not mean I won't vote on it, it just means that my threshold for responses is lower than most other arguments.

Dont like: really messy substance debates, blippy 1ar theory that is collapsed to in the 2ar (no 10 second shells!), tricks, performance affs that drop their performance in the 1AR/2AR, new in the 2 >:(, speaking past time, etc.

Likes: clarity, overviews + why you are winning; weighing & IMBEDDED weighing; if running k, on THEME K debates (w/prefiat analysis); EXTENSIONS, etc.

I want to be on the email chain- kristenarnold1221@gmail.com

Run anything except tricks! How to pref me:

Reps/K: 1

T/Theory: 1 (Lower if you are going to spread through all your analytics)

Larp: 1-3

Phil: 2-4 (I love Phil but not when you spread analytics)

Tricks: strike

Hi y'all! A lil background on me: I debated for Pinnacle High School in Phoenix, AZ for 4 years from 2015-2019. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I at-larged to the TOC my Senior year and debated almost entirely locally my freshman and sophomore year so I am comfortable with more traditional style debating as well as progressive. I have run every type of argument that exists in LD debate so I will try my best to adjudicate rounds as tab as possible but I will provide a disclaimer to you that I tend to give more weight to Reps than most judges because I very often ran Reps myself as a debater- that does not mean reading reps is an auto win so just make good args.

Things to keep in mind: I will let you know by saying "Clear" 3 times before I start docking speaks. Also when switching between flows: say 1, 2, .., etc so I can keep my flows separate. I am generally a messy flow-er and I do not think that will change. If I miss something because you didn't listen to me when I cleared you, that is on you. Also if something is really important, SLOW DOWN. You do not want me to miss your ballot story.

General thoughts on Progressive vs Traditional debates: I do not think you should have to go out of your comfort zone to try to match a traditional debater. If they ask you to slow down, please do. If they ask you to explain your arguments, please do. I will not hurt your speaks for your strategy but being not nice warrants at the highest a 27. If you both explain and maintain a slower pace, I will be a points fairy.

How I view rounds:

Layers of debate (obviously negotiable- but my defaults- pls do weighing and change my mind)

Reps

T

Theory

K

Substance

My defaults on theory: Drop the debater & Competing interps

Phil: I did this a lot in high school but if you are running a less well-known philosopher in debate, please take time to slow down and explain how the framework operates. I ran a lot of tricky framework args in high school to auto-win framework so I am fairly well versed in how these debates run. Default epistemic confidence.

Aff K's: I ran these but also debated them so I have no default opinion. I have both read and responded to T against these but if it is the type of debate you are most comfortable with or feel like you have a strong message, please read them. Just make sure to give me a ballot story or I don't know how to evaluate your AC.

K: I love the K but pls if you don't understand your K and cannot give a 2N on it, do not run it. Your speaks will be very disappointed in you. Other than that, give me a ROTB and prove that the alt solves the impacts you read and I will evaluate your K. Pretty well versed on almost every K- legit all reps, Cap, Anthro, Antiblackness (mostly ran Wilderson), Set col, Nietzsche (wouldn't suggest running it unless you are very confident because I have pretty low threshold for responses to it), Fem, Security, Baudrillard (but really just who on heck* is Baudrillard), etc. K's I don't know much about: Psychoanalysis (tried to avoid these debates by uplayering) and Bataille. God, please stop reading Deleuze and Baudrillard with me as a judge. I do not like it, and you do not explain it well.

T: I love T and imbedding reps into it-- Shoutout to the OG Sai Karavadi for being an icon at doing this. That being said, I would run 3 T shells if the aff violated so I love these debates. 2N should collapse and weigh. I don't have any defaults but Nebel T is kinda funny although I ran it all the time so I think it's a legit arg (or time suck). RVIs are great, go for them.

Theory: I mean go for it. I will vote on bad args if they win. Just pls read paradigm issues. RVIs are great, go for them.

1AR theory: I do not like the 5 second condo bad shells, please read something that you can grandstand on in the 2AR without making a ton of new args. That being said, please read 1AR theory because I will vote on it if you win it and win weighing.

DISCLOSURE: PLEASE DISCLOSE. I have been both pro and anti disclosure through my debate career but by the end of my senior year, I can say that I am a very strong advocate of disclosure. If your opponent does not have a wiki, find them on facebook or in person and ask for their case. If they are a traditional debater, they are still required to give it to you. I think disclosure theory is always valid if you have asked and they have declined to give it to you (Esp if they know what the wiki is). However, if you could not find your opponent and their case is very traditional and you have blocks to it, please read those instead.

Tricks: No pls no. If you do read them, I believe in new in the 2 responses and will provide a very low threshold to responses. Auto 26 speaks if you ask, "What's an a priori?" to someone asking if you have any a prioris.

Larp: Go for it! I love love love when debaters make it easy with weighing (prob, mag, duration, tf, etc) and also if you weigh between them (Prob vs mag) I will love you and your speaks will notice.

CP: I default condo and I do not judge kick.

Long U/V: Go for it.

Speaker Points Scale (I tend to evaluate this more on strat than how you speak because I would never dock points for a stutter or speech impediment).

30: You'll win the tournament IMO -OR- you did everything I wanted you to and I have no constructive criticism

29.5-29.9: Clear win, my ballot was written in 3 seconds, thank you for your service.

29-29.4: Great strategy, you won, but it wasn't crystal clear at the end of the round.

28.5-28.9: More muddled but I knew what you were going for.

28-28.4: Round was messy and it was hard to evaluate.

27.5-27.9: You really had no idea what your strat was but pulled something together.

27-27.4: I wanted to rip my hair out writing this ballot.

26: You are not nice.

UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

Overview Stuff:

She/They

Hi, I’m Aphe Astrachan (Aphe pronounced aff-ee). I debated at Durham Academy for two years, and am currently a sophmore at Duke University. I experienced a fair amount of success on both the local and the national circuit, so although I tend to prefer more progressive forms of argumentation, I’m still open to your standard value/value criterion debate. Yes, I want to be on the email chain: aa424 at duke dot edu. I want to be on the email chain regardless of whether or not you’re spreading- it’ll save me time if I have to call for evidence, and it’s the only real way I have to see if you’re miscutting cards. Record your speeches, we're not doin speech redos. Also please stop saying stuff like "my time starts on my first word," it's annoying, patronizing, and makes you look like a dweeb.

March/April 22 specifics:

I am big fan of epistemological arguments on this debate, especially critiquing or supporting dialectically constructed standpoint epistemologies.

Quick Prefs:

Larp/Theory/Topicality : 1

Postmodernism K’s: 2 (with the exception of Baudrillard 1, and queer futurism/rage/pess : 1)(I've probably read your lit)

Non postmodern K’s: 3

Identity K's: 2

Phil: 2-3

Tricks: 5.

Cliffnotes:

Howdy folks. I try to be tech over truth in all instances, but that doesn’t mean I hold the same threshold of argumentation for everything. I have especially low thresholds for answering a-prioris, truth-testing, and anything which is clearly untrue. I’m willing to vote off of anything with the exception of racist/ableist/sexist/homophobic/xenophobic… arguments. Also on this: Don’t read identity cases if you’re not the identity being represented in case (with the exception of you reading a card at the top of case which makes an argument for why you should be able to read it). My favorite form of debate while I was debating was LARP with healthy doses of theory and topicality mixed in: I’ll vote off of exempted or paragraph theory, but please send analytics if your opponent asks for them. Although it wasn't my favorite while I was debating, I think that introduction to critical literature is the most important thing which debate actually achieves, and thus value K's highly. I didn't run too many K's as a debater but I've read an extensive amount of postmodern theory and should be able to understand most arguments made in most K's. I default to a comparing worlds paradigm, and if you don’t present any framework in round I’ll assume we’re having a nice wholesome util debate.

ALSO

Although I love doing LARP debate, I think that problem of induction is a really good arg against it, and will definitely evaluate it. I highly encourage debaters going up against LARP cases that aren't running a LARP case themself to at least run it as a one off because it's currently a glaring hole in the middle of most debates that isn't paid enough attention to. Especially phil v Larp rounds please give it a shot, preferably not Hume's version :P

More in depth stuff:

LARP: Hell yeah. This is the good stuff right here. For most of my Debate career, policy/LARP arguments were my bread and butter. I love fun/spicy plans/counterplans, and will vote off of most any type of plan/counterplan. I have nothing against agent cps, delay cps, consult cps, or anything else of the like. If you’re running a plan aff, still be prepared to answer topicality. Just because I think it’s topical doesn’t mean you no longer have the burden to prove you’re topical. I really enjoy arguments that I haven’t seen before, and am always willing to talk about geo-engineering after the round. All of that being said, be prepared to answer argumentation that calls fiat into judgement, and I will accept that none of your plan actually occurs even post fiat given the proper argumentation.

Theory/Topicality: Also a huge fan of these forms of arguments. I’ve been known to extempt and collapse on theory, often going for what others might call frivolous theory. I’ll vote on anything with paradigm issues and voters, so make sure you tell me in the theory shell how I or your opponent should deal with it. Same thing goes for topicality. I’m not a huge fan of Nebel-T, but that hasn’t stopped me from winning rounds on it. Go for the RVIs too, those debates are often exciting and get into meta-theory really quickly, which I personally like. Yet again, I have a high threshold for arguments like “evaluate the ____ after the ______,” but won’t just drop them on face.

Tricks: Aight boiz, here’s where things get kind of tricky. Tricks, unfortunately, are real arguments, and I, unfortunately, will vote off of them. With that being said, if your form of tricks is running twenty different spikes layered throughout case, I’m probably not the judge for you. Spikes are ableist, and unless you say “spikes on the bottom,” and proceed to put spikes on the bottom, I’ll have a super low threshold for answering any of the spikes, and will heavily dock your speaks for it. However, I also think tricks can be really fun. Nail-bomb cases and fun theory or pre fiat offense is always fun, whether it be solving a rubick’s cube or doing Tik-Tok dances for the ballot.

K’s: Go for em, run ‘em. I’m most familiar with afropess/wake work/queer futurity/queer pess/queer rage/Baudrillard/Set-Col/Hauntology/Libidinal economy stuff/Necropolitics/Gillespie/Most epistemological or metaphysical applications on ontology and am currently reading D+G, but don’t let that stop you from running your K. Regardless if I’m familiar with your K or not, you still have to explain it fully in round. I won’t vote off of something that’s not explained. Make it clear what the alt does, whether or not you affirm/negate the resolution, and any stances you take. I honestly don’t really get what the difference between the role of the judge and the role of the ballot is, but go for it anyway, just explain it please :) (also K's have real world ramifications feel free to LARP about those if you want idc)(Edelman> Muñoz).

Phil: I enjoy philosophy a lot outside of debate, and am always open to talk about it. That being said, I’m not the biggest fan of phil arguments in round. Things can get really nitpicky, and people end up yelling at one another about how human evolution dictates emotion, and often stumble into making arguments that are perturbing at best and eugenicist at worst. Yet again, if you like em, go for em. Just explain them. I’m probably familiar with any philosopher you’re reading, even if it’s postmodern. Hegel is annoying. Locke and Kant are both ableist, and Kant is racist, but you can still run em if you want. Please read problem of induction against LARP cases its such a good arg that functions as terminal defense.

Speed stuff: I haven't debated in a hot minute, but I've been doing spreading drills every now and again just cuz. I should be able to understand you just fine, but if my comprehension skills are more rusty than I think, I will call clear twice before I stop flowing. That being said, you should be good for anything speedwise.

Speaks: I think I give decently high speaks most of the time, but also am not scared to give 25s because of violence in round. I start round at a base level of a 28, and go up or down from there. +.1 speaks for using pog in round B)

Misc. Im always down to talk about whatever before round starts if we're just waiting for something to happen, so here are some of my interests: Music (https://open.spotify.com/playlist/7pdYJ8smYJSsOCMinuGEL4?si=111f1dc5e0a94d33), postmodern philosophy, drain gang, yeule, lamp, blue period, JJBA, communism, One Piece, bein trans. Also, if you ask me for my email im going to assume you havent read my paradigm, cuz its in here.

Background about me: I debated LD for 5 years for Hopkins High School in MN (2009-2014) and coached for Loyola Blakefield High School in Maryland for 2 years (2014-2016). As a debater I had moderate success, breaking at most bid tournaments, reaching 6 bid rounds, and qualified to NSDA Nationals my sophomore year. I am currently a staffer on Capitol Hill.

I am old and have only just started judging again. I do not know all the new trends/abbreviations and I am not great with speed. Please start at 40% and ramp up (especially since WIFI and computers can be weird). Maybe don't use some weird trick or spike in the round, or at least be very, very clear about what you're doing and how it impacts the round as early as possible. I like Ks and philosophy, policy is fine, theory and tricks are not my thing. I want to be on the email chain: Berman.mia11@gmail.com and if you ask for my email I am going to assume you didn't read my paradigm, which will make me sad :(

Re: Theory and T, it is not my thing and I don't think I would be great at evaluating it. HOWEVER, if there is real abuse don't let my inexperience dissuade you from running it, just explain why it's needed. For instance, on the LAWs topic, if someone runs an Aff about landmines, I think the Neg is justified in running T. I just don't recommend Theory or T as a strategy in front of me. I also do not tend to find Theory/T compelling against Ks, but you may be able to convince me otherwise.

.

.

.

.

.

.

.

The below paradigm is from the last time I judged: 2015. Don't hold me to any of it and ask questions about it before the round.

I advise caution when discussing sensitive issues. I will listen to these arguments, but would appreciate if you first offer a trigger warning and/or ask your opponent whether or not they would be comfortable debating it. This is not an excuse for you (if you are the opponent) to stop them from running this argument if you simply don't feel like debating it, but a way of not having to be triggered by such a sensitive issue in round. If you are opposing an argument like this in round, I ask you to be sensitive and respectful in how you respond to it. There are non-offensive and smart arguments to make, or you can simply preclude the arguments, or argue why you cannot argue against these. Happy to clarify this before the beginning of the round.

TLDR; Don't be offensive or rude.

If you can't find what you're looking for in here, feel free to ask before the round.

Short version:

--I will yell clear/slow if needed If I have to yell clear more than 3 times in a single speech you're getting 27.5 speaks max
--Please don’t run disclosure theory in front of me, it will result in poor speaks
--If you run "must run a plan" or "AFC,” you will get poor speaks
--Being sketchy is not ok
--I reserve the right to dock speaks for extreme rudeness or for being offensive
--Weird arguments/alternative approaches to debate and the topic are fun and good as long as you explain them
--Extinction good is fine
--Have fun, be nice

Long version:

Theory
I default reasonability, RVIs, and drop the argument. These are just defaults and can be overridden, however I personally find theory silly. If you like to run theory as the A strat I am not the judge for you. I will listen to fairness and education aren't voters arguments. If there is genuine abuse, I am glad to listen to shells that accurately point out the abuse and why it is bad. That being said, if you can prove why the abuse isn't there, I will vote on that too. Semantic "I meets" are silly and I have a low threshold for responses to those. Furthermore, I do not find theory against K's particularly persuasive. Specifically if the debater running the K makes arguments how your conception of fairness or education is coming from the dominate powers perspective, I will often find myself persuaded to look at the K before theory. In these situations, I would rather you either engage the K or preclude it with your case. I think some of the arguments that are often made against Ks and put into a theory format can potentially be persuasive, but when structured as a theory shell they become much easier to beat. (If you have questions about what I mean or how these arguments would function, feel free to ask)

Larp/Util
I didn't run straight up larp much as a debater, but that's not to say I won't judge it like anything else, however I am probably not the best to evaluate these rounds. Don't assume I know the technicalities of these arguments and make sure to explain how everything functions.

K's/Critical cases
Go ahead! As a debater, especially towards the end of my career, this was what I enjoyed running most. That being said, if I don't understand it after CX, I can't expect your opponent to understand it either and will have a difficult time voting on it. Don't be purposefully confusing; make it clear how the case functions and where I am supposed to vote. If you are running something denser than fem/cap/colonialism/anthro, please try to go a bit slower than normal to make sure it is clear. If I have to say clear/slow several times and I still look confused, there is a problem and you likely won't be able to fix it in later speeches.

Speaker Points
I assign speaker points based off diversity and development of argumentation, fluency/clearness, and general disposition/attitude. Humor can go a long way, as long as it is not at another's expense. If I have to yell clear more than 3 times I will begin to dock speaks, .5 each additional time.

Dense Philosophical Positions
In college I majored in philosophy and I find it fascinating, however I don't know every philosophical position and don't read your case at me like I do. If you know your position is more obscure and denser, make sure to slow down and be clear about explaining it in cross-ex and your rebuttals.

Sketchy
Don't. If you're going to do it, own up to it.

Overall Round Evaluation
I evaluate the round in layers. I tend to care more about the line by line but can be swayed by the big picture. I appreciate weighing, it is going to have to happen at some point, so either you can do it for me, or I will do it and you will likely be upset. Don't waste your time on arguments that don't matter; only go for what you need to in order to win. If that takes the entire time, use it. If you can win the round in 2 minutes in the 2N, I would rather you sit down than ramble for the remainder of your time.

Overall, I am here to judge you and hopefully the round can be enjoyable and educational for all of us. Choose well! :)

Anthony Berryhill (MBA, M.Phil., M.A., CSM, CSPO) | Judge Paradigm- updated 9/2/2023
email (for speech docs): anthony@elitecollegehacker.com

Experience:

• Professional background: Former Vice President of Learning (executive) at PIMCO, a leading fixed income firm. Stanford (BA) and Yale (PhD Candidate) alumnus--both in political science with a focus on contemporary political theory
• Current job: Running college admissions company (MBA/MD/PhD/undergrad) at www.elitecollegehacker.com.
• Recent Debate Career Highlights: Coach of 3 national champions (College PF, HS LD @ 2019 NCFL, HS PF - International TOC) | 6x LD Wording Committee member | NSDA Final Round Judge (Policy 2022, LD 2019-2022) | Former Managing Director at VBI | LD (TOC-NSDA-NCFL)/Extemp (NCFL)/Congress (NSDA Senate+NCFL) Qualified student @ Isidore Newman (1996-2000)

How I vote (in brief): I vote for the debater who -- through the appropriate decision rule (values, burdens, argument layer) -- convinces me that I should vote for their side of the resolution (and/or performance) above the other debater.

Style info:

Good debate is good debate - I have judged late TOC and NSDA elims of all styles and historically have very successfully coached traditional, policy, performance (at the LD TOC), and K debaters.

I strongly prefer debates about the topic, but can be convinced otherwise if you pull it off well.

Speed is ok if you are clear, avoid monotone, and if you include me on the speech docs.

How to win my ballot and get high points (preferences):

1. I strongly prefer debaters who do the work to cross apply, connect arguments together, extend evidence, signpost, and keep the flow clean. These students get wins and 29.5s+ with shocking consistency.
2. I look for the easiest, most clear way to vote, so I can minimize/avoid intervention (within reason). I am not a judge who will reconstruct a round and read cards for 30 min after a debate. That's the debaters' job. The more work you do to write the ballot, the more weight I will give to your interpretations and positions.
3. In-round analysis and smart strategy counts: Weighing, closing doors (telling me where you can lose and doing the hard work in detail to stop me from doing so), crystallization, and extensions will help you sway the ballot to your side.
4. Clarity matters: I am biased toward debaters who do the work to explain very complicated ideas in a simple, clear, and accessible way. As a former PhD in critical theory @ Yale, I appreciate good argumentation, depth, and skill at explanation.

What I strongly dislike/what you will want to avoid:

1. High Mental/Cognitive load/confusion -> judge intervention: It is in your interest to collapse arguments down in order to reduce how much I have to evaluate or consider. Otherwise, I get to be dangerously creative and decide how I want to vote, which I'd rather not do.

2. Misbehavior in rounds and debate politics. I judge by the "any given sunday" principle. I do not hack--and have never--hacked for anyone, any position, or at any time. Therefore any debater can win in front of me if they adapt. Make sure to avoid behavior that is out of bounds (swearing, use of inappropriate words, and other actions that parents/principals would disapprove).

3. A note about theory and identity arguments. If you need theory or identity based arguments, go for it. HOWEVER, frivolous theory or blippy arguments are not strategic in front of me.

Also, as one of the first students in circuit LD to run heavily race/gender based arguments (in the late 90s) I'm especially sensitive to students treating these arguments with the seriousness they demand.

Therefore, if you run identity arguments, please do not treat these as strategic pawns to be deployed without regard to ethics (i.e., I've seen some folks use racially insensitive language as a strategy, lie about misgendering/pronouns to trap opponents, claim that only people of a certain race can make certain positions, etc.) As an intersectionalist by training, I'm opposed to essentialism, stereotyping, and authenticity policing. Let's do none of that please.

Good luck!

Aight this’ll probably change throughout the course of my like judging career but yeah, here we go for now.

edit for grapevine: pls don't go at ur top speed, school is already scrambling my brain and its the first tournament of the year. 70-90% is good but above that I'm def gonna miss arguments

ADD ME TO THE CHAIN: sbraithwaite@guilford.edu

***If you're addressing me call me X. I will doc your speaks by 0.5 if you call me anything else but judge or X***

I’m X, aka Newark Science SB (she/they), i’ve done LD debate since I was a freshman and policy debate a couple of times since I was a junior. I qualled twice to the TOC (2019 & 2020) and took two tourneys my junior year, Byram Hills and Ridge, and got to bid rounds of policy tournaments with 3 different partners. I almost exclusively read identity-based arguments from the time I was a sophomore until my senior year. My literature base consists of Alexis P. Gumbs, Saidiya Hartman, Nadia Brown, Lisa Young, etc. This should tell you a little bit about my stance towards Ks

A few paradigm issues (aka TLDR):

1. Ks/K affs/Performance/Non-T>K Theory>T>Theory>Policy>Tricks

2. YOUR 2NR/2AR SHOULD BE WRITING MY BALLOT FOR ME- The best way to get high speaks/my ballot is for my RFD to sound damn near like those 2 speeches. closing the debate is reallllly important, especially in close rounds. I won't do the work for you.

Things I default to-

1. Truth > Tech: Techy arguments make it so that important conversations about race, sex, positionality, etc. get drown out by things that don’t matter like a debater dropping subpoint A8 of impact 35. By truth I mean, big picture debate, not claims that are literally true. Ex: The aff says that black women should sacrifice themselves to save the entire world. The neg should engage with this idea, it’s clearly a bad one. The way tech is used against K debaters is unable to hold them accountable for the ways in which they add to a violent debate space. That brings me to my second point.

2. Debate is not a game. Debate has material impacts for those who engage in it, especially POC. Please be mindful that debate is sometimes some debater’s only option when it comes to funding college or having a platform to speak freely. Also it’s just not unreasonable to consider how it can be a game for some and not for others. You have a high threshold to prove to me why it is (hint: maybe find better, more strategic T shells, friend)

3. Word PICs against K affs are not a good look whatsoever. Unless they do something OVERTLY wrong, like saying the N-word without being black, etc. don’t read it infront of me. It’s violent and abstracts from infinite violence against the group of people they’re talking about. So you’re telling me changing the ‘e’ to an ‘x’ in women will change discourse about black women in gender studies? Yeah aight. Anyways, it’s a form of infinite policing and promotes a bad model of debate. But if you feel like there’s a legit reason to read a PIC go for it! I exclusively read PIKs in the latter half of my senior year.

4. Util framing is kinda ridiculous and anti-black. Not saying I won’t evaluate it, but if your opponent warrants why it is, given that the claim is literally just true, you’re gonna be held at a higher threshold to prove why it’s not. Just saying.

Now the fun stuff:

Ks/Ks affs/Performance: This is what I LIVE for. But only if you know what you’re talking about. If you’re just doing just to do it or for my ballot and execute it poorly, I won’t hack for you. K debate takes work, dedication and reading. If you think that you can override all three layers, read some K off the Wake backfiles and get my ballot, it’s gon be a sad day for you.

Theory/Tricks: Friv theory belongs with tricks, don’t like it, it’s violent, will not even flow it. Disclosure theory is fine EXCEPT when you are debating a black person or you are one. 1. Niggas don’t have to disclose to you 2. Disclose to niggas. Besides that, theory can be really creative and fun and actually substantive/responsive.

T: Traumatizing, mentally exhausting and often times whiney. Fairness isn’t a voter, read it and I will not flow it as an impact. T is often used against black debaters to get out of hard convos. Also like if we being REAL right now, I think theres probably like one or two completely untopical affs per year. Y’all like to run T against K affs to silence their relation to the topic because it’s “too hard to engage with”. Boo-Hoo for you. Ask your coach how to engage. It’s what they’re paid for.

***EDIT AS OF 1/1/2021: I do like a good T debate but please please please don’t read from some K aff block. make it nuanced. make it relevant. make it meaningful.

Policy: This is lowkey an unknown for me if i’m being honest. Never debated in a policy way, it’s towards the bottom because I don’t trust myself to judge policy, but if you do, hey, go off.

*Speaker points for me aren’t based off of aesthetics of debate norms, but big picture debate. Meaning if I vote you up on T USFG or something like it, it’ll be a low point win.

clarity = speed of delivery. pleaseslow down on tags, texts, interpretations, advocacies, analytical arguments, authors, or any argument you want me to get in detail verbatim on my flow. please keep in mind that your speed will always be faster than my keyboarding skills/flowcabulary. i do not flow off the document and will not backflow arguments from the document

i am a great judge for technical, mechanical line-by-line debate

judge instruction is axiomatic. most judging philosophies say "judge instructions please" because debaters rarely do enough of it and judges are left to decide debates on their own devices which leads to inevitable intervention and at least one unhappy debater. please - judge instructions! yes, go for your arguments, say how they outweigh, sure, magnitude timeframe sure, but tell me what to do with them/everything else at the end of the debate

what you debate is up to you - i do not have a preference for how you stylistically debate or which arguments you choose to read. this is my 20th year in debate and i have been around long enough that i have probably heard, debated, coached, and/or judged almost any/every argument you could say or do within reason. all arguments are fair game within reason - do not be violent, racist, et cetera. i consider myself an incredibly flexible coach that believes debaters get the most out of the activity through a student-centered model of debate where the debater is in the argumentative captain's seat and my job as a debate coach is to coach debaters at what they want to do to the best of my ability

i obviously have preferences - every debate judge does - but i try to keep those out of the decision calculus for deciding who wins the debate. given that, the following might help you out while either filling out your pref sheet or in the pre-round prep:

i am an awesome to great to okay judge for almost all arguments that come from policy debate - disads, counterplans, plans, not plans, performance, kritiks, k affs, theory, topicality, the politics da, conditionality bad, et cetera

i am an okay-ish judge for kant/phil - did a lot of academic research in uni on kant, but often struggle with how ld does kant. if you are going to read a bunch of dense cards about the categorical imperative, you are a-okay. if you are spamming a bunch of paradoxes, i would probably take another judge

i'm getting increasingly better for "tricks". a couple years ago this would have said no tricks, but i find myself increasingly voting on arguments like "role of the ballot spec", random ivis, and such when explained/impacted properly. i will only evaluate the debate after the 2ar

my voting record is historically bad for the neg on "t-usfg/framework/must larp/instrumentally defend the topic" and would advise engaging the affirmative

the aff is 29-0 in front of me over the past 5 years when the nr goes for "t-nebel/whole resolution/cannot specify/no plans"

some judge intricacies:

i will not judge kick unless you explicitly make judge kick an option in your speech

team no risk - there is zero risk that i will win the gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games

debaters must speaketh the rehighlighting - you can only re-insert text that has already been read

speaker point floor typically 29.0

i do not have a "poker face" and am unabashedly human

I am a lay judge who does not understand jargon (e.g. words such as solvency, counterplan, kritik, disad). Treat the debate like a performance. Do not spread or use progressive arguments. I do flow. I prefer truth over tech. I like when you do impact calculus and make my decision easier for me. I do not care what you wear. Please do not run theory. If you have written a storytelling version of your AC or NC, you should read that instead of reading a traditional LD case with all your cards cut. I listen to cross-ex, but I do not pay much attention. You should set up a big picture that is easy for me to follow in your later speeches.

I have coached LD at Strake Jesuit in Houston, Tx since 2009. I judge a lot and do a decent amount of topic research. Mostly on the national/toc circuit but also locally. Feel free to ask questions before the round. Add me to email chains. Jchriscastillo@gmail.com.

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. The best debaters will 1. Focus on argument explanation over argument quantity. 2. Provide clear judge instruction.

I do not flow off the doc.

Evidence:

1. I rarely read evidence after debates.
2. Evidence should be highlighted so it's grammatically coherent and makes a complete argument.
3. Smart analytics can beat bad evidence
4. Compare and talk about evidence, don't just read more cards

Theory:

1. I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types.
2. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness.
3. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T/Planless affs: I'm good with these. I'm most compelled by affirmatives that 1. Can explain what the role of the neg is 2. Explain why the ballot is key.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity. I do not disclose speaks.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/sexist/homophobic (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. I will not vote on "evaluate after X speech" arguments.

I debated LD for Lexington (MA) and graduated in 2015. I now coach LD at Walt Whitman (MD).

General Preferences:

Speed is fine as long as you are clear. I will say clear as many times as necessary but I will get frustrated if you don’t slow down and make an actual effort to be clear. Don’t start your speech at full speed because it can take me a few seconds to get used to your voice and be able to understand you spreading. I don’t read your speech docs while I flow, so be clear on advocacy texts, interpretations, tags, and author names.

I am very comfortable not voting for an argument because I could not understand it in the first speech even if it is crystal clear in your final speech. I am also very comfortable not voting for nonsense arguments, even if they are dropped.

If you are sharing docs, prep time stops when you save the document. Email only one compiled document. Don't compile speech docs or pull up files outside of prep time.

I went mostly for policy-type arguments in high school so I believe they are the debates that I am best at evaluating.

I am not the most well-read judge for a lot of philosophical debates. That said, I think that I can understand most frameworks as long as you present them clearly.

I enjoy good theory debates, but I think most of the theory debates I have ever seen are a form of argument avoidance. A lot of generic shells frustrate and bore me. I like when debaters read cards to support T standards. I think RVIs are logical. I don’t think textuality make any sense as a voter on topicality because as long as both debaters have a definition, they both are textual. From there, topicality is a question of whose interpretation is best for fairness, education, or advocacy skills. I won’t vote off of an offensive counterinterpretation unless you provide an RVI or have standards that justify the offensive plank of the interpretation.

I like kritikal debates and encourage you to read Ks in front of me. I don’t care if your aff is topical or not. I am, however, comfortable voting on T against non-topical affs.

Defaults:

In the absence of any arguments otherwise, this is how I will evaluate debates. This, however, is not an indication of preferences.

-Theory is an issue of reasonability.

-Aff does not get an RVI on theory.

-Theory is a reason to drop the argument.

-Theory is a question of norm setting.

-I will evaluate debates through comparative worlds.

-Neg defends the status quo.

-Counterplans are conditional and judge can kick the counterplan for the neg.

Arguments that I am not a fan of (but I will still vote on):

-Presumption and permissibility triggers

-Skepticism

-Meta-theory

-Affirmative framework choice and affirmative contention choice

-Theoretically justified frameworks

-Theory about case order (ethical frameworks first, role of the ballot first, etc.)

-Indexicals

-Most spikes

-Most a prioris

-Contingent standards

Arguments I won’t vote on (even if dropped):

-All neg theory arguments are counterinterps

-Evaluate the round after the 1AR or 2NR

-Resolved a priori

Here are the things you can do to get higher speaks:

-Spreading drills

-Provide a clear ballot story

-Be respectful

-Use all 3 minutes of CX asking questions. I’m okay with using prep time to continue CX, but I prefer that you don’t use CX time to prep.

-2NR and 2AR overviews

-Word economy

-Proper prioritization of flows

-Don't go for too many arguments in rebuttals.

-Don’t read obviously frivolous theory.

I don’t like disclosing your speaks while your opponent is present, but if you find me individually or email me (email given below) I will tell you what your speaks were.

Evidence ethics:

The round stops when an accusation of evidence ethics is made. This includes card clipping and misrepresenting evidence. I will evaluate the accusation to the best of my ability. If I find that a debater has cheated they will be given a loss and zero speaker points. If a debater makes a false accusation, they will lose. I have not yet figured out what to do for speaks in that scenario.

Contact Info:

preetham.chippada@gmail.com

Email: cisssh18@wfu.edu

Do what you do best and have fun.

Apply here for the presidential scholarship at Wake Forest due November 15th. It's a $16,000 scholarship for four years to a top 30 school in the country if you're interested.

LD

- 1ars should try to read cards.

PF

- Fine with speed.

CX

- #Cards

Head Coach @ Jordan HS

Wake Forest University – 2022

Jack C Hays High School – 2019

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

General
I have been told that my paradigm is too short and non-specific. In lieu of adding a bunch of words that may or may not help you, here is a list of people that I regularly talk about debate with and/or tend to think about debate similarly: Patrick Fox (former debate partner), Holden Bukowsky (former teammate), Dylan Jones, Roberto Fernandez, Bryce Piotrowski, Eric Schwerdtfeger

speed is good, pls slow down a little on analytics

if harm has occurred in the round, i will generally let the debater that has been harmed decide whether they would like the debate to continue or not. in egregious instances, i reserve the right to end the debate with 0 speaks and contact tab. violence in the debate space is never ok and i will hold the line. if you have safety concerns about being around your opponent for any reason, please tell me via email or in round.

i am an educator first. that means that my first concern in every debate is that all students are able to access the space. doing things that make the round inaccessible like spreading when your opponent has asked you not to will result in low speaker points at a minimum. racism, transphobia, etc are obviously non-starters

you can use any pronouns for me

For online debate: you should always be recording locally in case of a tech issue

please do not send me a google doc - if your case is on google docs, download it as a PDF and send it as a PDF. Word docs > anything else

Specific arguments:

K/K affs: yes - you should err on the side of more alt/method explanation than less


Framework:

I view fw as a debate about models of debate - I agree a lot with Roberto Fernandez's paradigm on this

I tend to lean aff on fw debates for the sole reason that I think most neg framework debaters are terminally unable to get off of the doc and contextualize offense to the aff. If you can do that, I will be much more likely to vote neg. The issue that I find with k teams is that they rely too much on the top level arguments and neglect the line by line, so please be cognizant of both on the affirmative - and a smart negative team will exploit this. impact turns have their place but i am becoming increasingly less persuaded by them the more i judge. For the neg - the further from the resolution the aff is, the more persuaded i am by fw. your framework shell must interact with the aff in some meaningful way to be persuasive. the overarching theme here is interaction with the aff

To me, framework is a less persuasive option against k affs. Use your coaches, talk to your friends in the community, and learn how to engage in the specifics of k affs instead of only relying on framework to get the W.

DA/CP/Other policy arguments: I tend not to judge policy v policy debates but I like them. I was coached by traditional policy debaters, so I think things like delay counterplans are fun and am happy to vote on them. Please don't make me read evidence at the end of the round - you should be able to explain to me what your evidence says, what your opponents evidence says, and why yours is better.

Topicality/Theory:

I dont like friv theory (ex water bottle theory). absent a response, ill vote on it, but i have a very low threshold for answers.

I will vote on disclosure theory. disclosure is good.

Condo is fine, the amount of conditional off case positions/planks is directly related to how persuaded I am by condo as a 2ar option. it will be very difficult to win condo vs 1 condo off, but it will be very easy to win condo vs 6 condo off.

all theory shells should have a clear in round abuse story


LD Specific:

Tricks:
no thanks

LD Framework/phil:
Explain - If you understand it well enough to explain it to me I will understand it well enough to evaluate it fairly.

STMA '20

UMN '24

(they/she)

2023 CEDA Octofinalist

2X NDT Qualifier

Email: ryandavistx@gmail.com

TLDR: Do whatever you do best, just be nice :)

General:

I did 4 years of LD in high school, now I do policy in college. Run whatever. Write my ballot for me. I care the most about accessibility in the round, so please make sure that you make the round as accessible as possible. I don't think you need a card for everything--good answers don't need them. Answer questions during cx--I'm over "i DoN'T hAvE a cArD for that". Please don't call me judge, it's weird. Don't ask for time to preflow--do it beforehand or do it during prep. Please respect both me and your opponent during the round, if you do anything blatantly disrespectful, I will tank speaks. Add me to the chain, it's at the top. If you have any questions feel free to ask me before or after the round, or you can email me after the round if you have any questions too :)

Specifics:

Kritiks: I'm familiar with very few K's but I'm totally open to any. Clear links are very important and links of omission shouldn't be the only thing that you are going for. You need to clearly explain the alternative/explicitly kick it. It's very important that you take the time to contextual the K to the round. I'm not a fan of K affs that don't have some relation to the topic/are about the debate space itself, I'm not going to say don't read them but....

DAs: I love them! The way to make sure you win is to do clear impact calc and tell the story of the DA.

CPs: They're fine, they need to be competitive and have a net benefit. No net benefit means that I probably won't vote for it. PICS are fine.

Topicality: I'm not the best person for T debates, but it's hard when there is little discussion about the world of the topic according to each side's interp and good impact calc coming from both sides.

Theory: Please stop reading under views in the 1AC--I don't care, you can read theory in the 1AR--READ MORE CARDS. If you're going to read it, go slower on it and make sure that you do really clear impact calc. I'm very sympathetic if I think there is clear abuse. I also will vote on dropped theory pretty easily (do with that info what you will). I will protect the 2NR when it comes to theory debates because 2ARs are getting away with too many new arguments when going for theory. Despite being a 2A it's hard to convince me of condo, usually, if the neg is running bad blippy args I'll vote on it, but otherwise, it's tough to get me to vote aff. Perf con is probably fine.

Impact Turns: If you're going to do it go for the good ones that actually are worth debating(Heg Bad, Dedev, or Prolif), I don't like spark (you can still read it I guess). Don't double turn yourself

Speed: I'm fine with speed, but you need to be clear and give me time to switch pages. If I can't understand you I'll yell clear, but it's your job to adjust from there. Make sure that you go slower on analytics, perms, theory, or anything where specific wording matters/I can't find it in the speech doc.

Spikes/Tricks: Please just don't. They're so bad for debate and a waste of everyone's time.

Other: If you're on the circuit please be nice to lay debaters and just be nice to people in general. For accessibility reasons, if you can, please send a speech doc. It's even better if it includes analytics and anything with specific wording (perms, theory, etc.), but I get you're pressed for time, so if you can't it's ok, just slow down. I will tank your speaks if you continually misgender someone, are racist, homophobic, etc. Please make the round a safe place. If you feel unsafe in the round, please just let me know however you're most comfortable and I will intervene.

Email: thejd2020@gmail.com

Hi! I’m a first-year out, and I debated LD at Lake Highland for 4 years.

First, please be nice in round :) There's no need to be rude or mean to your opponent in round even if it is a competitive event. I understand that for virtual tournaments there are bound to be tech and wifi issues, and will be as accommodating as I can.

I’m fine with pretty much any arguments you read, so read what you’re most comfortable with and can explain well. I’m not the biggest fan of tricks but I’ll vote on them if you warrant and explain them really well. I expect extensions and explanations of arguments to have a clear claim, warrant, and impact. If you read anything racist, sexist, homophobic, etc or otherwise discriminatory and exclusionary in round I'll probably drop you and will definitely tank your speaks.

If you're reading a position that's more dense or confusing, you need to explain it clearly. Don't assume that I'll be familiar with it and will just vote on it because I or my teammates read something from a similar literature base. If you're reading blippy arguments or tricks, make sure you slow down enough so I can flow them completely, especially if you're planning on going for conceded blippy arguments - make sure they were clear enough in the first speech for me to flow them. I really don't understand tricks very well so although I'm not opposed to voting on them I really need you to explain them well if you want me to vote on them.

Arguments should be extended with a clear claim, warrant, and impact and need to be extended throughout the entire round if you plan on going for them. My threshold will be a bit lower if the argument is conceded, but if you want me to vote on the argument, you need to do more than just say the card name.

Please weigh between different layers of the debate! This is really important for me understanding how you expect me to evaluate your arguments in the round. I always appreciate when debaters take a few seconds at the end of their speech to break down how you think the round should be evaluated and what arguments you think should come first based on the weighing you did. If you provide absolutely no weighing between arguments, here are some things I will default to:

- Theory > K

- No RVIs

If you talk about the environment there's a chance I might give you higher speaks :)

As a debater, I focused on a few different things each year, but spent most of my senior year on K debate. However, that doesn't mean that you should read a K in front of me if that's not what you're most familiar with. I am somewhat familiar with Deleuzian literature but again expect clear explanations and warranting for whatever you're reading. I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I focused on tech debate for most of my time in debate, but am familiar with Lay debate too and will evaluate it based on your arguments, responses, and extensions throughout the round.

This is how I would rate my familiarity with some common types of arguments, 1 being the most familiar and 4 being the least.

K (1)

Theory/T (2)

Phil (3)

Tricks/Spikes (4)

Here are some norms I think should be followed for the virtual debate space:

- I think it's even more important virtually than in person to get clear confirmation that both your opponent and the judge are ready for your speech

- For Minneapple, the tournament allows for 10 minutes total in the round to accommodate any tech issues anyone is having. Please make sure you don't abuse this time if you're not having technical difficulties but I will be as understanding as I can if you are. If you know your computer is acting up or your wifi is spotty let me know at the beginning of the round so we can make a plan in case something goes wrong!

- Be prepared to adapt your debating style depending on the technical situations of your opponent and judge. I have no problem with spreading in a normal round but make sure that your opponent can understand and respond to your arguments.

If you have any specific questions you can email, Facebook message, or ask me before the round.

This is my first year judging Lincoln Douglas, but I have a decade's worth of experience in Forensics, mostly concentrated in Speech. I strongly appreciate signposting and adherence to framework. I also prefer that arguments be specifically targeted to the resolution with thorough research; while generic moral arguments are valuable, they ought to support a more defined and evidence-based argument. To that end, I find a deeper argument more persuasive than a broad array of surface-level contentions.

Regarding speed, I do not have enough practice evaluating top-circuit speed. However, I can tolerate faster speeds as long as the arguments are well signposted and the card names are spoken clearly. Additionally, during cross examination, please allow the questioner to pose their questions - this is helpful to me as a judge so I don't have to evaluate crosstalk and it's respectful of your opponent (better speaker points).

My knowledge of French philosophy is stronger than most of the other schools, but in general you can assume that you need to explain your philosophic arguments for my benefit. I am unaccustomed to much of the jargon, so you'll benefit from sacrificing a little time to better elaborate your reasoning.

I value good speeches that use rhetorical devices (ethos, logos, and pathos) paired with good statistical evidence. Speaker points will reflect the quality of speeches. I give speaker points in the range of 25 - 28. I am unexperienced in "flow" debate.

Be culturally component and aware of your privileges when making general statements, truly try to understand someone else's experience before conducting a stereotype.

(recently updated)

Email: danidosch@gmail.com

I am an assistant coach for Immaculate Heart High School. I debated for Immaculate Heart for four years. I am now a 4th year philosophy student at UC Berkeley.

Most important stuff:

I try my best to not let my argument preferences influence my decision in a debate; I have no problem voting for arguments that I disagree with. That said, I will only vote on arguments — that is, claims with warrants — and I have no problem not voting for an "argument" because it is not properly warranted.

I will not vote on arguments that I don't understand or didn't have flowed. I do not flow from the doc; I think the increasing tendency of judges to do this is abetting the issue of students being literally incomprehensible. I will occasionally say clear, but I think the onus is on you to be comprehensible.

You must send to your opponent whatever evidence you plan to read before you begin your speech; you do not need to send analytics. If you mark cards during a speech — that is, if you begin reading a card but do not finish reading that card — then you must indicate where in the card you stopped, and you should send a marked doc immediately after your speech. You do not need to send a document excluding cards that were not at all read.

If you want to ask your opponent what was read/not read, or what arguments were made on a certain page, you of course may, but you must do it in CX or prep. There is no flow clarification time slot in a debate!

The upshot of the last few comments is that I think flowing is a very important skill, and we should endorse practices that cultivate that skill.

You will auto-lose the debate if you clip cards. Prep ends once the speech doc has been sent. If you want to advance an evidence ethics violation, you must stake the debate on it.

Be respectful to your opponent. This is a community.

Other stuff:

Above all, I like clash-heavy debates between well-researched positions.

My favorite negative strategies include impact turns, counterplans, and NCs. My favorite affirmative strategies are plans with “big-stick” or “soft-left” advantages.

I don't really like "tricks" of any genre because I think overwhelmingly they simply lack warrants.

I don't like strategies that depend entirely on framework or framing arguments to exclude your opponent's offense. You should always answer the case even if you are reading a framework/impact framing argument that explains why I should prioritize your offense over your opponent's.

As I said, I will never not vote on an argument simply because I disagree with it. I will, however, ignore arguments that are not warranted, and I think certain claims are very difficult, if not impossible, to provide a warrant for.

Here are some examples of claims that I think are very difficult to provide a warrant for:

• It would be better if debates lacked a point of stasis.

• The outcome of a given debate is capable of changing people's minds/preferences.

• It would be better if the negative could not read advocacies conditionally.

• I should win the debate solely because I, in fact, did not do anything that was unfair or uneducational.

• There is a time skew between the aff and neg in a debate.

• A 100% risk of extinction does not matter under my non-utilitarian/non-consequentialist framework.

• My 1ar theory argument should come procedurally prior to the negative's topicality argument.

• There is something paradoxical about our understanding of space/time, so you should vote for me.

Here are some claims that I will never vote on, whether you try to warrant them or not:

• That which is morally repugnant

• This debate should be about the moral character of my opponent

• X is a voting issue simply because I labeled it as such.

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

I am a PhD student in philosophy at MIT.

I debated from 2012-2016 and coached actively from 2016-2021.

Since the 2020-21 season, I have done very little meaningful coaching/judging. I have attended 1-2 tournaments per year and have not judged many debates at those tournaments. If I am judging you at Harvard, then I have not listened to spreading in almost a year and you should not expect me to know much (anything) about the topic, nor about recent trends in debate. I am quite confident that I can still follow most debates and render competent decisions about them, but it does fall to you to slow down some, explain key bits of jargon, etc.

Email: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com

Here is an older and longer version of my paradigm. Everything on the longer version remains true.

Short version: If you are aff, you should read a well-researched affirmative that defends someone doing something. If you are neg, you should read something that meaningfully engages with the aff.

Here are some things that it will be useful to know if I am judging you.

[1] I don’t flow author names.

[2] Please slow down on analytics, probably more than you think you need to.

[3] I am best suited to judge well-researched debates about a clear point of contestation in which both sides are clear about what they’re defending. Policy-style, K, T, 'phil,' and many theory debates are all fine.

[4] I will not vote for exceptionally bad theory arguments. Exceptionally bad arguments include but are not limited to: so-called "role of the ballot spec," "neg may only make 2 arguments," "must spec CP status in speech," "must read an explicit standard text," "must contest the aff framework," and "must spec what you meant when you said 'competing interps.'" By contrast, arguments that are fair game are CP theory, plans good/bad, stuff like that.

If you’re unsure whether an argument counts as exceptionally bad, err on the side of caution. You should err on the side of caution on very specific / demanding disclosure theory arguments.

[5] Other theory predispositions:

I think it's good to keep topics fairly small, which makes me good for the neg in many T debates.

It's pretty hard to convince me that 1 condo is bad. 2 starts to push it, and I think 3+ is probably bad. I'm increasingly convinced PICs should have a solvency advocate. And I'm pretty in the middle with respect to whether process counterplans & the like are good.

[6] No tricks. I won't vote on them. If you think your argument might count as a trick, don't read it. If you do go for tricks, you will not win and your speaks will not exceed 26.

[7] I value explanation a lot. I vote aff in a lot of debates in which the neg goes for a ton of arguments, each of which could be a winning 2NR but end up getting very under-explained. I have also voted for a lot of debaters whose evidence is not amazing but who give very good explanations/spin for that evidence.

[8] I am unlikely to be convinced that something categorically outweighs something else (e.g. extinction outweighs regardless of probability, tiny unfairness outweighs all education no matter what, etc.). Weighing arguments should be contextual and comparative.

[9] No "inserting highlighting" or inserting a list of what the aff defends. You have to read it.

[10] Debaters should disclose, and the aff should tell the neg what aff they’re reading before the debate unless it is new. No one should lie when disclosing. It is very hard to convince me that disclosure isn’t good.

[11] Clipping and reading miscut evidence will result in an automatic loss, regardless of whether your opponent notices / mentions it. More on that here.

[12] I will not vote on: tricks (broadly construed), "paradox" tricks (e.g. Zeno's Paradox, the "Good Samaritan" Paradox), a prioris, oppression good (if you concede that your position entails that oppression is good, then your position is that oppression is good), skepticism ("both frameworks are wrong; therefore, 'permissibility'" is skep), trivialism, arguments that the other side cannot make arguments / that I should evaluate (any part of) the debate at the end of a speech other than the 2AR, or awful theory arguments. These arguments are bad for debate.

PF:

TLDR:

Weigh

Please do not give me a line-by-line in Final Focus. If possible, I don't want it in summary. Write my RFD for me in summary and FF.

Signpost.

Please collapse. Good extensions and weighing requires this.

If you don't read warrant names in summary and FF, you probably will not win the round. The team that makes the best and most strategic extensions almost always wins, and dropping warrants irretrievably weakens your offense.

Don't extend offense that your opponent kicked unless you're extending a turn on it.

Cross-applications and grouped responses in rebuttal, when used sparingly and handily, can be useful.

I don't need a roadmap for expected strategies (ex. no need for "it's gonna be their case, then my case")

You are free to collapse grand cross if you'd like.

If it takes longer than one minute to find a (singular) card that is called for, prep starts.

#

(heavily drawing from the brilliant Mollie Clark throughout)

The Rebuttal
For both teams, I like to see layered responses and very clear road-mapping, when necessary, and sign-posting. The refutations should cover both the entire contention and also examine specific warrants and impacts, with weighing at these levels when possible. Frontlining defense seems to be the new standard, and I think that that's a good strategy. Extend framework if you want me to use it in order to weigh in the summary and final focus. I love a good overview. I loathe a bad overview.

Extensions
It’s important to note that to get an argument through to the final focus the team must extend the claim, warrant, and impact. If a single piece is missing, then it significantly weakens the point’s weight in the round. If an argument is dropped at any time, it will not be extended and you’d be better off spending your time elsewhere. WARRANT AND IMPACT EXTENSIONS ARE WHAT MOST LIKELY WILL WIN YOU THE ROUND. Extensions are the backbones of debate, a high-level debater should be able to allocate time and extend their offense and defense effectively. You will not have time to extend everything, and attempting to do so shows a major deficit in your ability to discern the central and successful arguments in the debate. Part of the challenge of this activity is making smart decisions about what to extend and what to drop on the the fly.

Speed and Speaking
I tend not to penalize speed with speaker points. I do penalize for incomprehensibility. Make sure you enunciate and are clear so that your opponent can understand you. Efficiency, eloquence, extensions, and strategy in later speeches will define your speaks. Basically, go as fast as you want so long as you're clear. Lack of clarity welcomes penalty.
I like to see strong engagement of the issues in CX and appreciate a deeper analysis than simple clarifying questions. Issues in CX will not be weighed in the round unless brought up in a following speech. CX is not binding, but speakers may use concessions in CX as offense in subsequent speeches. I say CX is not binding to encourage an earnest conversation in CX, rather than constantly defensive, abrasive, or self-conscious exchanges. I will, however, nonetheless take a good response to offense brought in from cross by the opposing speakers seriously if they contextualize that concession and produce sound analysis that supports them.
Organization through all speeches is essential, and is especially paramount in summary. Make sure I know exactly where you are so that I can help you get as much ink on the flow as possible.

I tend to give high speaks in general. 28.3-28.5 is a pretty common/average score from me at tournaments that utilize one tenth decimals. I find myself usually giving 28.8-29.1 in strong circuit rounds, though I did come across an array of really remarkable speakers at Yale, Bronx, and Blue Key who scored higher. I will, however, strictly adhere to a points rubric offered by any tournament when provided. This may elevate or deflate my speaker points to an extent. At tournaments that utilized a tradition scale with .5 increments (i.e. Glenbrooks), strong circuit debaters tended to score at 28.5-29.5, with generically good speakers at around 28 and average speakers at 27.

The extra stuff: I studied English @ Columbia, where I spent a lot of reading/writing about poetry and other things, critical theory, and the history of esotericism. I competed in many circuit PF tournaments in high school and judged many in college. I now write about curation, museology, and the poetics of the museum as a Henry Evans Fellow "at" the British Museum, and work in the Capital Markets group at a corporate law firm in New York. This is to say that I may not be extraordinarily studied in the things most directly related to what we're doing in round. But! I have consciousness and subjectivity and am, therefore, more than qualified to be in round. Be thorough in your analysis and don't make assumptions. I'm excited to learn with you + I'm excited to watch you have fun. I want to take every measure to resist elitism/inaccessibility in debate, so let's mitigate it! Please be courteous to your opponents, especially when it seems evident that there is an imbalance in resources/access in and out of round. A normal circuit round is accessible to me, but it may not be for your opponents. Please accommodate + make the round as accessible for your opponents as possible. If it is clear that you are being accommodating and kind, your speaker points will benefit!

LD:

I have a mostly basic knowledge of how this form works, yet I've nonetheless found myself in the position of having to judge 20+ rounds of it. Essentially, my decisions will be better when debaters read their tags somewhat slowly, try to explain things as early and coherently as possible, and order/analyze my decision for me. If you make assumptions about what you think I already know, my decision will likely be worse. Also, shouldn't really need to say this, but you need to impact your arguments and signpost clearly on the flow -- no shockers here. I really like the kinds of conversations that tend to emerge specifically from LD rounds, but you may have to be generous and accommodating about some of the more idiosyncratic qualities of the style.

Specifics:

Speed: If speed is important to your style or strategy, roll with what is necessary for you, but I'd prefer you give me about a 3/10 if you put your speed potential on a spectrum, if that makes sense. Most importantly, I'd really like you to slow down on the following: tag lines, spikes, blips, theory interps, and advocacy texts. Note: I don't want to have to yell clear...like ever, but I might throw it in the chat if I need to (I also might not and then miss a lot on the flow). In general, I'm probably a judge that you need to send a case doc to.

Theory: Honestly, I've always been okay with theory. If it's ridiculous, I'm obviously not going to vote for it. Just be smart.

Framework: Framework debate is critical, usually. If it's important, spend time on this. This debate should also heavily determine how I evaluate the round. Make this clear for me.

Ks: These can end up being pretty neat, but like I said before, don't assume I know anything. Lean toward overexplanation. You are going to have to do substantial work situating the K into the discourse posited by the topic, and superseding your opponent's arguments with the K. I suppose saying something like this would also imply that I think topicality is a somewhat important arena to address if you are a K debater.

But don't get the wrong idea: I am amenable to K debate; probably more than most other judges! I just really want to understand what's being said, which I do think that I have the capacity to do (see above about my study of critical theory).

A note: Be ethical in your practice of K debate. It is going to be hard for me to vote for you if it seems glaring that you are employing K debate as an opportunistic strategy to win rounds. For example, there is no reason for a white debater to be running an afropessimism K.

Value and criterion: What even are these? Why are these? These are probably vestigial to LD, yeah?? Or if they aren't, convince me otherwise?

You will want to pref me if you are reading: Max Weber, Jack Halberstam, Judith Butler, Saidiya Hartman, Fred Moten, Hortense Spillers, Frank Wilderson, or Sylvia Winter.

If I didn't cover something in this paradigm, just ask me in round. I want to be as transparent as possible.

Speaks:

This isn't the important part. Generally, when not given a speaks matrix by the tournament that dictates how I give these, I'm gonna treat every round like it's a bubble round + give speaks based on who should break and who shouldn't. 29-29.5 is a good typical breaking score.

Please be respectful. Respect lends itself to better speaks.

Another note: If you are unhappy with my decision, know that I, unfailingly, vote for whichever debater was most persuasive. Even if you are totally convinced that you have made transcendent, pristine argumentation, clearly some disconnect or error occurred in round that prevent me from, well, achieving transcendence alongside you. This means it is absolutely essential, even if you are the smartest high school debater in the world, to communicate clearly to me. I can't vote on what I don't understand, and it isn't my fault as a judge for being unable to comprehend 20 arguments/minute or some extraordinarily clunky analytic on techno-capitalism etc.

I want to be included on all email chains de2365@columbia.edu

Westlake High School (CA) '20, UC Berkeley '24

wlhsdebate@gmail.com

New:

I've become dramatically more tab as my involvement with debate has waned.

A note about philosophy (quoting Whit Jackson): Debate should be fun and I want to see you have fun and excel at what you do best. Please don't adjust your debating too much to me. Everything below that isn't described as a hard and fast rule should be treated as a mild suggestion about quirks in my judging. I regularly vote for arguments and strategies I passionately disagree with and vice versa. No matter what strategy you defend, act as if my prior knowledge of it is close to 0. Even if you're right, I will judge and hold you accountable for warranting your arguments as if my knowledge was in fact 0. I treat judging as a serious obligation and no matter what you do, I'll give you my full attention and effort!

Non-negotiables:

1] Clipping: Debaters' clarity has gone down post-Covid. Please make sure you are saying every word you highlight. I will say CLEAR if I think you're skipping words and will reject the team if I find you have skipped either 2-3 words several times or 5 words at once.

2] Other evidence ethics: miscutting evidence, scrolling ahead, and outside communication are all reasons to reject the team.

3] Disclosure: full-text at a minimum. Please strike me if your disclosure does not meet this standard.

4] Flowing: I will read the highlights in your constructive in real time to check for clipping. I will not read tags or backflow analytics that were not clear / long enough to be flowed the first time around.

Preferences:

1] Please look at me periodically during your speeches. I will react according to how I think you're doing.

• Nod = good
• Raised hands / stretching / bored face = move on
• Confused face = you're messing up

2] Stuff I expect from you

• Slow for plan texts / theory interpretations
• Physically marking cards with line breaks and a verbal announcement of the last word. "Mark the card there" is not good enough
• Argument resolution

3] Random paradigmatic stuff:

• Anything where exact wording matters needs to be at 50% speed (max). Examples: topicality interpretations, advocacy texts (including PDB and PDCP)
• Plan aff "not defending implementation" doesn't make sense to me
• Insert/read re-highlighting: when a team reads evidence, they are responsible for ensuring its quality. If you are re-highlighting, you can do one of two things. 1) Make a developed analytic argument that explains why their card is bad and insert a rehighlighting as proof; or 2) tag the card as "goes neg", read the rehighlighting, and leave it to me to read the evidence at the end of the round. I am worried about the incentive created by allowing several low-quality rehighlightings to be inserted into the debate with no accountability for the rehighlighter.
• 1AR doesn't get add ons. 2NR doesn't get new uniqueness, links, etc. Aff burden to figure out what the alt is and what parts of the aff the K disagrees with (plan especially).
• Independent voters don't exist; everything is tied to some framing mechanism. Pre/post fiat divide is fake. "Is a voting issue" = drop the argument unless DTD is specifically warranted (condo and T aside). A one word "deterrence" voter is not sufficient.
• See the K section below; my thoughts haven't changed too much.

If you're having an issue flowing because of something your opponent is doing (e.g. spreading through three un-numbered analytics, ranting and refusing to do line-by-line, speaking very unclearly, making 6-word "arguments"), please call that out and explain why what they're doing should cause me to strike X arguments off the flow/forgive minor technical drops/err towards your side/whatever remedy you think is reasonable and appropriate. These types of judgments feel less interventionist when I am aware that one side is struggling due to the other side's poor practices.

Old

Short

x is where I am, o is where I think the average judge at a midwest tournament is.

lots of wasted time in round -------------------o---------------------x being literally as fast as you can

quantity ----------------------------------o-------------x--------------- quality

shenanigans ---------------------------------o-x------------------------ clash

states cp cheating -----------------o------------x----------------------- not cheating (more cheating as you fiat out of aff solvency deficits)

no evidence ethics ------------------------------------o----------------x evidence ethics (this means reading all of the words you highlight, unless you're cutting the card)

ld --------------------------o------------x-------------------------------- policy-style

new arguments ---------------------o------------------x---------------- holding the line on the 2nr

off-time "can you tell me what wasn't read" -------------o------------x flow or ask this question in cx

vs sketchy affs, process cp -----------o-------------x------------------- topicality

topic-specific ----------x--------------------------------------------o---- reading the same argument for 4 years

switching sides -----------------x-------------o--------------------------- cheating

fairness ---x---------------------------------------------o----------------- education (fairness>>>research>>>>>>>>>topic specific skills)

People who have influenced my thinking: Scott Phillips, Whit Jackson, Raffi Piliero, David Asafu-Adjaye, Jacob Nails, Paras Kumar, Tej Gedela, Rex Evans, Jonathan Jeong, Danielle Dosch, Scott Wheeler, Asher Towner

The most important thing that I can tell you to do is to make my decision for me. Sometimes it will take me a bit to resolve a debate round. This usually happens when there isn't enough argument resolution on the most decisive issue(s).

If you're having an issue understanding your opponent because they are unclear, or if your opponent makes it hard for you to flow because they are just ranting and aren't doing line-by-line, please call that out and explain why what they're doing should cause me to strike X arguments off the flow/forgive minor technical drops/err towards your side/whatever remedy you think is reasonable and appropriate, rather than expecting me to make that judgment on my own.

I've tried to provide examples for most things I want to see. Feel free to email me or message me on Facebook if you have any questions.

Defaults

Easily changeable: judge kick, conditionality good, plan focus, offense-defense, consequentialism, comparing worlds, epistemic confidence, dropped arguments are true

Harder to change: fairness is a real impact, suffering is bad, T comes before substance when facing a policy aff

Procedures

I dig efficient technical execution and good line-by-line.

Please do argument resolution for me. Ideally you want me to do as little resolution as possible because you might be unhappy if I do it and it's not what you're expecting. Absent your directions, I will create competing comparisons for each side and use what I subjectively think makes more sense.

Please avoid long overviews.

My decisions might take a bit because I like to read evidence (especially if it's on a contested issue).

Form

1] You're going too fast on analytics and tags. This is a problem in 70% of my debates and most people I’ve talked to have the same problem. I won’t backflow or read from the doc except to check for clipping. If your constructives sound good, I will boost your speaks. Please don't scream or have a "spreading voice" if you can help it - it's hard on the ears and will make your voice run out quickly.

2] New arguments warrant new responses and shifting stances in later speeches is bad. Some instances I can think of for these are: announcing the alternative is a floating PIK/explaining a theory of power for the first time in the 2NR, announcing for the first time in the 1AR that the affirmative does not defend implementation/clarifying the plan to spike links to DAs, etc.

3] Analytic arguments need ~15 words to be considered credible. I won't be persuaded when the 1AR says only "drop the debater for deterrence." You can bolster your argumentation with empirical examples and nuance. I don't see substantive issues as absolute, but rather as matters of risk. That means I don't think a DA will have zero risk, but will happily vote on "any solvency deficit to the states counterplan, no matter how small, outweighs the marginal risk of the politics DA."

Evidence

1] Some things I consider cheating:

2] When marking a card, it is insufficient to say “mark the card there” – you must physically mark it in your computer with a few returns or other suitable method and must verbally say what word you are marking the card at.

3] Good evidence is awesome and if you tell me it is I will reward your speaks.

4] I'm way better than most for evidence ethics. Evidence that is strawpersonned, cut from the middle of the paragraph, or modified without any indication in the author qualifications / tag / with brackets, etc are reasons to reject the team. You can stop the round or debate it as a separate off. Accused teams get some time to make their case if the round stops. Accusing teams should be absolutely sure they have a violation (i.e. many say the Balzacq ev is cut from the middle of a paragraph, but there are some editions of his chapter where the paragraph is actually broken in two, so the accused team has a defense).

If evidence is mistagged, I think that it should be rejected. If the tag says the opposite of what the card says, it's a gray area between rejecting the evidence and rejecting the team. This is an example of cheating for which I would reject the team.

Some pieces of evidence that I will disregard if read and award a loss to the reader if their opponent says something: the Searle evidence read in support of skepticism (he just summarizes an argument but doesn't think it's true). I will update this list as I see more strawperson evidence.

5] You clip, you lose. I think clipping happens when five or more words have been represented as read and have not been. If there is an accusation, I will stop the round and consider the evidence (you should have a recording that you've played back in prep time to verify that there has been clipping for your own sake). If you accuse and you're wrong, then you get the loss. If I think someone is clipping, I will scroll along the speech document as they are reading it to check. If I determine that clipping has occurred, I will stop the round after the speech ends and award a loss to that debater. Please don't clip.

Case/CPs/DAs

1] Defaults: judge kick, offense-defense, consequentialism, conditionality good, comparing worlds, epistemic confidence, plan focus (all reversible).

2] I'm relatively unpersuaded by strategies that attempt to overwhelm the other side with quantity. AFFs should attempt to collapse the debate by having a few outs after the 1AR (i.e. conditionality/PICs/uniform 50 states fiat bad, impact turning a DA that doesn't link to a CP, reading an addon that 1NC CPs don't solve).

3] Process counterplans – they're interesting. If debated equally, affs should be able to win with good permutation and theory blocks versus generic process counterplans. Versus a case-specific process counterplan, affs should have substantive answers / should reduce reliance on theory to make the permutation legitimate. I don't think that alternate actor fiat makes sense, but I can be more easily persuaded that a counterplan that competes off aff choice of actor is legitimate (i.e. Courts CP vs Congress aff when the resolution says USFG).

4] Case debate right now = ☹️. Affs should have extensions of each argument each card makes in their 1AC pre-written and modularized to answer 1NC blocks. 2NRs should go for the case page more. Affs are betting that they won't go for it seriously in the 2NR, so they undercover it. 2NRs should call the 1AR's bluff! The number of debates where the 2NR is just too scared to go for an obviously conceded or mishandled case turn is boggling to me.

6] If you're going for extinction outweighs, your terminal impact evidence should say the words! If a card says a few hundred million and the tag says extinction/humanity ending/etc, the other side should point this out.

The K

1] Most people don't understand how the alternative works. Proposing an orientation is fine if you're winning framework (NEG), but I think it's cheating to fiat private action. Affirmatives should win by outweighing the links' impacts. They should point out that the K links don't inherently connect to the terminal impact to their theory of power.

2] If it wasn't clear above, affirmatives should defend and weigh the 1AC. The reason why structural pessimism is so strategic in front of many is that questions of political ontology, etc obviate the entire 1AC much of the time. I don't like seeing the perm versus pessimism. Affs should stick to their guns and strategically collapse to some combination of (extinction outweighs ontology/framework/ontology wrong/psychoanalysis wrong/empirics disprove/pessimism is America-centric/ontology bad/consequentialism).

3] This article.

4] TKOs are TKOs. Affs shouldn't spend much time on them but you should give them lip service (either by pointing out how they were unwarranted in the 2NR or answering them substantively).

Critical Affs

1] My flowing abilities are most tested during the critical affirmative's 1AR. I find policy 2ACs manageable in high school and college, but LD has really pushed K 1ARs to light speed. I'd really rather hear quality over quantity. I'm very sympathetic to 2NRs that say something along the lines of "The 1AR decided to spread through their answers to framework without numbering or developing them. You should disregard small procedural drops that are inevitably blown up in the 2AR because they're sandbagging the actual argument for the last speech which is unfair/bad for clash."

2] I think fairness is an intrinsic good and 2NRs should point out that many AFF decisions are based on competition (i.e. confining to speech times, breaking new, trying to convince judges that they deserve their ballots.)

3] Y'all should really update your 1NCs. They can probably be 1:30 max. Impacts: Fairness > Poscher/Switch-Side Debate > Fun > Topic Education >>>>>> Role-playing.

4] Affs that are explicitly unrelated to the topic don't need a TVA. They can be read on the neg. If the TVA did in fact "solve" them, then it seems like the neg wouldn't have much of a limits claim.

5] Presumption is underrated.

Topicality (vs plan affs)

1] Some arguments I've been unpersuaded by: RVIs, RANT if the neg wins topicality (RANT = reject the argument not the team), extra-T is RANT, plan-in-a-vacuum. I think affirmatives should read RVIs versus tricks debaters, but in every other debate they shouldn't.

2] I think I'm a very good judge for topicality. Some T arguments I've gone for in my career (ranked from best to worst): T-USfg/Framework (All), T-Authoritarian Regimes (JF19), T-Eliminate (ND19/JF20), T-Plural (most topics), T-Bare Plurals. The best T debates happen when both sides can present a good vision of the topic and cut cards supporting their arguments. I'd rather you go for T (assuming you have good evidence) than a generic process counterplan or a K.

3] In a vacuum, I value predictability and precision quite highly.

4] Negative teams should go for T or circumvention and a DA versus small/framing affs. Discursive offense is almost certainly extra-topical.

5] It's fine just to read definition cards and omit the "interpretation" assuming the definition makes it clear what the interp/violation is (example).

Philosophy

I find myself believing that normative justifications are important for philosophy. This means that if you are reading a Heidegger critique of technology, you should read a thesis card that explains what enframing is and why it is bad. If you're reading Afropessimism, you should psychoanalytically justify the structural antagonism and not sandbag explanation of ontology until the 2NR. If you're defending utilitarianism, please actively justify why we should treat pleasure as moral goodness and pain as moral badness, rather than just "governments must aggregate" or other takeouts to the opposing framework. Same for Kant and all other philosophies, whether classical or more modern/postmodern. All this means that I'll be very happy when you weigh your framework justifications versus theirs. ("Our Kant framework outweighs their capitalism role of the ballot since their card just says capitalism is bad and assumes consequentialism which we've proven is unreliable above"). I'm also down to vote on more "tricky" NCs, i.e. "any state action must have the support of 100% of its constituents, otherwise it is immoral," as long as it's justified properly.

Disclosure

1] It's good. You should strike me if you don't disclose at least first three/last three + cites + tags.

2] You can still get me on Full Text Bad, See Open Source Bad, Round Reports, etc, but I won't hack like I will for disclosure.

Miscellaneous

1] Some more arguments I find unpersuasive: not defending implementation, tricks.

2] For something to be a voting issue, it has to have a warrant for why it is a voting issue (exceptions are conditionality bad and topicality). Otherwise, I'll treat VI as RANT unless otherwise justified.

3] Negation theory – negatives can do what they want to disprove the plan assuming they've justified conditionality. I see no problems with a T and critique strategy, nor do I take issue with a 4 off strategy that includes a pessimism argument and a states counterplan. Too many off-case positions is a bad strategy because the quality of individual argumentation will inevitably be low, and the 2AR will get new arguments to respond to your new 2NR development. In these debates, 1ARs should collapse the debate by reading conditionality, impact turning a net benefit that doesn't link to any counterplan, and grouping off-case positions.

4] CX is pretty cool because it basically lets you set up your arguments in your speeches and lets you spend far less time on explanation than you normally would. Don't forget about it folks! Don't just give your opponents your 2AC/1AR, however. I find the best CX strategies to be either open-ended, which can help you poke holes more easily, or to be deliberately misleading to the opponent (into valuable concessions). ("Who goes to war?" for the first, so you can read more specific impact defense that prevents 1AR "clarification" out of what you read, or "Why doesn't technology mitigate the impact of warming?" for the latter, say when you're running a critique of apocalyptic rhetoric versus a climate aff). After 3 minutes is up, finishing an answer = ok, finishing a question = not ok.

Email: rexyman212@gmail.com

Santa Monica High School 2020

Tech>truth but arguments must contain a claim, warrant, and impact—I'm likely to hold the line on underdeveloped arguments and will only vote on arguments I understand as presented in the debate.

Strong impact calculus wins debates whether it's policy, theory, philosophy, kritiks, or topicality. This is often the first place I look when making my decision. You should do comparative impact calculus and answer your opponent's.

Not a fan of most theory arguments--reasonability and reject the argument are often quite persuasive.

Speaks reflect a combination of strategic choices, clarity, quality evidence, and quality arguments.

Please feel free to ask me questions about my paradigm before the round starts. For email chains: anguse@live.unc.edu. I did LD for four years with North Meck HS and NCSSM. Currently double majoring in Philosophy and Math at UNC.

General

- Speed is fine up to the point where you have to resort to breathing techniques. This does not mean go the same speed you would and cause yourself to pass out.

- Especially in circuit debate – post rounding is a-ok by me. I know I don’t have as much experience with circuit LD, and so the more feedback I get and engagement on my judging, the better I think I am going to be in the future for it.

- I know this makes me sound super lay, but like, PLZ do not read me whatever boring stock util. case you have prepped for lay judges, I hear about enough of this on the local circuit – I want to see something exciting.

-Your job is to write my ballot for me.

Authors I am very comfortable with: DnG, Heidegger, Baudrillard, Foucault, Kant, Adorno.

Intervention

I take as minimal an approach to judge intervention as possible. However, there are certain standards for what I just will not accept:

-New in the 2; I won’t drop you but I don’t flow new arguments in the 2. Not flowing it means it didn’t happen.

-Blatantly false claims: racism good, climate change not real, etc.

Plans and CPs: I’m not the biggest fan of these sorts of debates but I’ll certainly put up with it. Just make sure you execute well.

Policy vs Policy: Compare evidence quality (authors, methodology, sample size, etc.). I could not possible care less about the number of cards you have compared to your opponent.

Topicality: CPs must be competitive. There are a few ways I have seen this violated:

- CP: do the AFF except some absurdly minimal aspect;

- CP not mutually exclusive with the AC

- Resolution doesn’t spec. an actor, but the CP only changes the actor. This is especially relevant to ACs which don’t provide a plan. This is just a more specific case of the first example and – I think – a more egregious violation.

Additionally, please give cards for T; I won’t drop you if you don’t, but your speaks will probably suffer. The more absurdly technical the T debate, the better. Conditional CPs are immensely cringe. I’m also fine with Nebel T, watching people cry about how they might not be able to read an absurdly specific plan is hilarious.

K Debate

I’m most comfortable with Cap Ks, but if you read me cards from Tankies, Maoists, or the like… RIP your speaks. An important note in K debate is please do not try to obfuscate your way to victory.

- Signpost and go line-by-line.

- The more explicit the link the better.

- What does the K do or accomplish concretely? (K-Affs especially)

- Unless it makes sense in lieu of your FW, I’ll prolyl dock your speaks for reading me HuffPo, etc.

- Give a framework for the K!

- If you struggle with providing examples when asked in CX, it probably tells me you have no idea what you’re talking about.

I’ll give you 30 speaks if you read some Neg-Dialectics K about how you should always negate because affirming always traps concepts in a fashion which runs opposite to the dialectical Idea of truth. It would be really funny and would make my day.

FW Debate

I’m probably most comfortable with this. I did a lot of Kant FWs in my time, so I’ll be very comfortable with those. Consequently, I am fine with the idea of not having impact calculus – but only in rounds where you have demonstrated that consequences need not be considered; the default in debate seems to be some sort of util.

I am not a fan of testing the plausibility of a theory based on how a majority of people feel about it (something about Ideology and so on and so forth *sniff*).

Meta-ethics are dope and cool.

I will not penalize you on neg. for just going insane on reading turns and conceding FW, unless you do something insanely stupid like concede a Kant FW and then read impact turns (which I have seen people do). Like???

LOCAL TOURNAMENTS: FOR THE LOVE OF GOD WARRANT YOUR FW IN A SUBSTANTIVE MANNER. If you don’t, do not expect to get above a 28.

Theory Debates

Go ahead, but I don’t have a lot of experience here so don’t be surprised if it goes bad for you (I mean it will still be my fault, but just know it’s likely to happen). If you do read theory: PLEASE stay away from jargon! I am putting in the work to better understand the evaluation of theory debates, but I’m not quite there.

Spikes: fine. A prirois: cringe. NIBs: cringe. Burdens: fine. Triggers: cringe. I’m not chill with RVIs just yet until I feel I have a better handle on them. Sorry .

NoBro 2020

Harvard 2024

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

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

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

HS Topic Knowledge: none.

Non-Negotiables:

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

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

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

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

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

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

Preferences:

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

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

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

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

Hello! I'm Sudeshna Fisch. I am a traditional parent judge.

1. DO NOT spread. Make sure you make clear persuasive arguments, quality over quantity.

2. Tech over truth but obviously don’t read like crazy arguments and never make personal attacks on an opponent.

3. Don’t read Ks and CPs or any technical arguments.

I am not trying to tell you how and what to debate about, but just trying to make it so I will understand what is happening. FW wise- read basic stuff, offer good cards and explain your POV! Attack FW, weigh, and give your voting issues at the end. Don’t use any jargon.

4. Email me the case prior to start.

5. In my reasons for decision if I ever say I "agree" with your position I don't mean personally or philosophically but in the round you were able to convince me that your argument is true under the value and value criterion.

Updated for Northwestern: It occurs to me I haven't touched this thing in awhile. They often feel quite self-aggrandizing, so I'm hoping to keep this short and informative.

For college debates, please add

caldebatechain@gmail.com

For HS, please add

nathankarlfleming@gmail.com

Ks & Framework: I like clash. I think debate is special because of the depth of debate it allows. That means if your K aff is only for you, I'm not. If your K aff defends topic DAs and has a cool spin on the topic though, I'm your guy. I don't believe that heg good isn't offense, and people should feel comfortable going for impact turns against the K in front of me, because it's cleaner than T a lot of the time. Fairness is an impact, but it's way worse than skills.

Theory: the primary concern is the predictability of the interp. In order for it to be predictable, it needs to be based in a logical interpretation of the resolution. This precludes the vast majority of theory arguments. People seem to be souring on conditionality --- I am not one of those people. I've yet to hear an objection to it not solved by writing and reading higher quality arguments.

A few closing comments: unsorted

-I'm kind of an ev hack. I try not to read cards unless instructed, but if you read great ev, you should be loud and clear about telling me to read it, and if it's as good as you say, then speaker points may be in order.

-Sometimes recutting the other team's card to answer their argument is better than reading one of your own. If you want me to read their card on your terms, include highlighting in another color so we're on the same page on what part you think goes the other way.

-Arguments I won't vote for

-X other debater is individually a bad person for something that didn't happen in the debate

-saying violence to other people in the debate is a good idea

-speech times are bad or anything that literally breaks the debate

-new affs bad

Lincoln Douglas

I judge this now, but I'm still getting used to it, so go easy on me. So far, my policy debate knowledge has carried me through most of these debates just fine, but as far as I can tell these are the things worth knowing about how I judge these debates.

-Theory doesn't become a good argument because speech times are messed up. Dispo is still a joke. Neg flex is still important. That doesn't mean counter plans automatically compete off certainty/immediacy, and it doesn't mean topicality doesn't matter. It does mean that hail-marry 2AR on 15 seconds of condo isn't gonna cut it tho.

-Judge instruction feels more important than ever for the aff in these debates because the speech times are wonky.

-I generally feel confident w/ critical literature, but not all of the stuff in Policy is in LD and visa-versa. So if you're talking about like, Kant, or some other funny LD stuff, go slow and gimme some time.

-This activity seems to have been more-or-less cannibalized by bad theory arguments and T cards written by coaches. I will be difficult to persuade on those issues.

-I don’t flow RVIs.

Public Forum

Copy-Pasting Achten's.

First, I strongly oppose the practice of paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches. My above stated opposition to the insertion of brackets is also relevant here. Words should never be inserted into or deleted from evidence.

Second, there is far too much untimed evidence exchange happening in debates. I will want all teams to set up an email chain to exchange cases in their entirety to forego the lost time of asking for specific pieces of evidence. You can add me to the email chain as well and that way after the debate I will not need to ask for evidence.

This is not negotiable if I'm your judge - you should not fear your opponents having your evidence. Under no circumstances will there be untimed exchange of evidence during the debate. Any exchange of evidence that is not part of the email chain will come out of the prep time of the team asking for the evidence. The only exception to this is if one team chooses not to participate in the email thread and the other team does then all time used for evidence exchanges will be taken from the prep time of the team who does NOT email their cases.

I'm Jayanne [ JAY - Ann ], a.k.a. Jay.

I debated for Fort Lauderdale HS (FL) for 4 years in LD and Policy. I am a pre-med Columbia University (NY) alumna, with a BA in African American and African Diaspora studies. I currently coach for Lake Highland Preparatory school.

My email is mayjay144@gmail.com. Start an email chain, Speechdrop, or use file share on NSDA Campus. DO NOT share me to a google doc of your case, but feel free to send me a google doc link with view-only access.

quick prefs:

Policy arguments & T - 1

Critical arguments/Ks - 1 [non-topical AFFs: 2, not my fave if they could have been T with same lit base as the framing]

Theory - 3

Frivolous theory/trolling/tricks - 4/5/strike

** note: I get triggered by graphic depictions of anti-black violence (e.g. very graphic examples of police brutality, slavery etc) and sexual assault. If you plan to read afro-pessimism, please read a trigger warning or simply take out horrific examples of gratuitous violence. Black violence is not a spectacle for an audience, these are real people with real experiences.**

LD/POLICY:

- I don't disclose speaker points. I base speaks off the clarity of speech, the quality of arguments, and the strategic choices in the debate.

- I don't want to flow off speech docs, speak clearly and slow down on tags + author names. PLEASE PAUSE BETWEEN CARDS.Internet connection and computer issues do not grant you extra prep time. If debating virtually please locally record your speeches.

- I get annoyed by asking for "marked docs" when there are marginal things cut out (e.g. one card is marked, cards at the end of the doc aren't read, etc.). I think knowing how to flow, and not exclusively flowing off a doc solves this.

- I'm not a big fan of complex theory/skep/tricks or heavily pre-written stuff that you do not understand. I encourage you to do whatever you are passionate about, just take the round seriously.

- I think there are productive ways to engage in critical race theory. I don’t think that non-black debaters should be reading radical Black advocacies (e.g. afropessimism, Black nihilism etc.). Read your social justice positions, but please leave our radical Black authors/groups out of it. If you're not Black and you read aforementioned positions I will not vote on it. If you say any racial slur written by the author (or just on your own whim) I will drop you and give you zero speaker points.

PF:

Hi! I did not do PF in high school but I have coaching experience. You can read anything in front of me, but the onus is still on you to explain your arguments! Collapse and weigh impacts clearly for good speaks and an easy decision.

PSA: If you say anything blatantly anti-black, misogynistic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. and your opponent calls you out, I will drop you. Debate should be a home space for everyone and you are responsible for the things you say because it is a speaking activity.

0. tl;dr - read this before rounds

"takes his job seriously, but not himself." i judge an extremely large volume of debates every year. these days, it's mostly an even mix of very dense disad, case, and counterplan debates and the more technical side of K debates, but in years past i would likely have best been described as a professional clash judge. i get substantially fewer performance debates and LD "phil" rounds, so i lack comparative experience in those areas, but i am still probably better for them than an average judge, and i enjoy them when executed well. i read policy strategies in high school and the K in college, so i enjoy judging both and am loyal to voting for neither. i evaluate debates as offense/defense, but risk calculus still matters a lot to me and i am (semi-)willing to pull the trigger on zero risk. i try to be very flow-centric and value "technical" execution and direct refutation above "truth", but i don't think that means bad arguments aren't still bad. i don't flow off the doc, so you can go as fast as you want but i will be unforgiving of low clarity. while i did most of our aff writing in college, i am, at my core, a die-hard 2N. that probably tells you more useful info about my debate views than anything else in this paradigm, but you can scroll down to the specifics section regarding arguments in the round you're expecting to have - most of the meat of this paradigm is here for doing prefs. i'm very expressive, but probably overall a bit grumpy for reasons unrelated to you. Wheaton's law is axiomatic, so please be kind, and show me you're having fun. please don't call me "judge", "Mr.", or "sir" - patrick, pat, fox, or p.fox are fine. "act like you've been here."

I. operating procedure + non-negotiables

1. he/him/his - you should not misgender people.

2. pleaselearntoflow@gmail.com -

a. I strongly prefer email chains. Please have the doc sent before start time. If the round starts at 2:00, I expect the 1AC email at 1:58 so we can start at start time. Every minute the chain is late after start time is -0.1 speaks for the 1A – things are getting ridiculous. You should avoid any risk of any of this by just setting up the email chain when you do disclosure at the pairing. Format subject lines for email chains as "Tournament Round - Aff Entry vs Neg Entry" (e.g: "NDT 2019 Octos - Wake EF vs Bing AY").

b. Prep ends when the doc is sent. It is 2023, you should know how to compile and send a speech document efficiently, stop stealing prep. If you are having difficulty, I suggest Verbatim drills. No, that is not a joke.

3. I flow on my laptop. I have hearing damage in my left ear, so ideally I am positioned to the right of whoever is speaking. I sometimes get sensory overload issues, so I may close my eyes/put my head down/stare off into the distance during speeches - I promise I'm not sleeping or zoned out, and even if not looking at my screen, I will definitely still be flowing.

4. i will make minimal eye contact during any given debate, and will likely have a resting grumpy face, so don’t worry much about those specific things. That said, I'm comically expressive. It's not on purpose, and I've tried to stop it with no luck - I just have a truly terrible poker face. I shake my head and scowl at nonsense, I grin and nod when I think you're doing the right thing, I shrug when I am lukewarm on an argument, I cock my head and raise my eyebrows if I am confused, and I chuckle if you make reference to any of these reactions in the speech (which I am fine with).

5. the safety of students is my utmost concern above the content of any debate. crossing this line is the only way you can legitimately piss me off. Avoid it. Racism, transphobia, misogyny, etc. will not be tolerated under any circumstances, and I am more willing to act on this on my own accord than most judges you have had (i.e: I have submitted a ballot mid-1AR before due to egregious misconduct). You should not attempt to toe this line.

6. entirely uninterested in adjudicating the character of minors i don't know. there are channels for these issues and mechanisms to resolve them, but debates and ballots are not among them. if you have genuine concerns about safety regarding the person you are debating, i am happy to be an advocate for you and get you in touch with the appropriate tournament tab staff to resolve the issue. if you genuinely feel this way, please take me up on this offer - just let me know discreetly via email, messenger, etc. keep in mind, as an employee of a state institution, i am a mandatory reporter.

- people seem to think they're smart in saying that this means "you can't vote on disclosure" - this is false for two reasons: a. i can vote on anything i want, and b. round starts at the pairing, not just the 1AC.

II. core principles

1. debate is a competitive activity centered around research and persuasion, one winner and loser, no outside participation, nothing worse than PG13, the usual.

2. debated for Kealing, Jack C Hays, and University of Houston. if i were to describe my career with a word, it would be "unremarkable". if i get five words, i'd add "irrelevant to this paradigm". i coach HS policy at Dulles, HSLD at a few different places, and help out Houston. former coaches include J.D. Sanford, Richard Garner, Rob Glass, James Allan, and Michael Wimsatt. favorite judges included Alex McVey, DML, Devane Murphy, Scott Harris, Kris Wright, and David Kilpatrick. colleagues (and former students) i likely align with include Eric Schwerdtfeger, David Bernstein, Ali Abdulla, Sean Wallace, Luna Schultz, Avery Wilson. of all these people, i align particularly closely with Garner, Bernstein, Abdulla, and Avery.

3. i think the ethos of judging is best distilled by Yao Yao: "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck". That means I will not be half-flowing speeches while texting friends, I will not be checking Twitter or spacing out during CX, I will not "rep out", and I will not rush my decision to get back to my own team faster. The most important factor in my own growth as a debater and the most helpful info as a coach has always been well-thought judge feedback, and I think – especially during and post-eDebate – the attention span and work ethic of the average judge has massively declined. I refuse to contribute to what I find to be an alarming trend in many people shirking their responsibility to the community to adjudicate even "boring" or "low-level" debates to the best of their ability. I fundamentally believe no debate is any less or more important than any other, so expect me to judge NCX R1 as if it was TOC finals. i judge a lot - in for ~100 debates a season - for three reasons: a. I think judging is a skill, and requires practice to maintain, b. judging makes me better at coaching and strategically benefits my students, and c. I love debate. some judges seem to have lost the zeal by now, but i still get excited about novel critical affs, interesting disads and turn case arguments, and dense competition debates. I am at a tournament almost every weekend, so I am reasonably aware of community norms and have decent experience with the techne of judging. Just focus on executing, and don't be afraid to take risks.

4. i get my core ideology for judging from Richard Garner: "I try to evaluate the round via the concepts the debaters in the round deploy (immanent construction) and I try to check my personal beliefs at the door (impersonality). These principles structure all other positions herein." "non-interventionist" is silly, because intervention is inevitable. everyone has a different threshold on "too new", "unpredictable cross-applications", "good evidence", because we all resolve implicit questions differently due to prior knowledge and personal affinities. if debaters instruct us to resolve those questions explicitly, it saves me the effort of doing my own evaluations, which means less work for me, which is indicative of better debating by you. I care much less about ideological alignment than a consistent threshold of quality at the level of form (clear claim, sufficient warrant, complete implication). overall, i try to be a good judge for any research-heavy strategy, and I think the best rounds are small, vertically dense debates over a stable controversy. i have voted on "killing all white people good", heg good, "Kant's humanist ethics solves all of racism", death good, the Tetlock counterplan, and condo bad (twice, wholly dropped). each of these arguments is worse than the last, but i voted on all of them. take this as you will.

5. even with the above, probably not a true blank slate – I would consider myself a worse judge than average for theory arguments as reasons to drop the debater, "tricks", counterplans that fiat actors not used by the 1AC or lack germane net benefits, "clash" impacts, the "ballot PIK", the politics disad, condo bad, "RVIs", and “1% risk of extinction”, and much better for skills impacts and fairness, critical affirmatives that counterdefine words, “uniqueness controls the link”, counterplanning in/out of offense and general “negative terrorism”, presumption against critical affs, framework arguments that “delete the plan”, and extra-topical plans. I tend to have a high threshold for a warrant, a low threshold to punish bad-faith practices, and I value quality evidence highly. This is not exhaustive, and may indicate my inclinations to reward or penalize with speaker points. However, if any of these views kick in during my decision, the debating at play was either very lacking or absolutely perfect. Short of a few very baseline things (offense/defense, flowing, decision times, Toulmin model, etc), any of these predispositions can be reversed. if i were coaching someone to win in front of me, my principal advice would be to be as explicit about how I should piece the debate together as humanly possible, so as to minimize the risk of any of my predispositions coming into play.

III. topic thoughts

this section is under construction - you can check back after policy camp!

IV. specifics

1. disads + case

a. evidence: this applies to everything, but putting it in this section since it's first and i'm grumpy about it. generally agree with Dallas Perkins: “if you can’t find a single sentence from your author that states the thesis of your argument, you may have difficulty selling it to me.” how i conclude on the quality of evidence relates to its production (authors, methodologies), its context (specificity, recency), and it's presentation (spin, highlighting/cutting). lots of old heads are signaling concerns about the third lately, which i enthusiastically co-sign - i am unsure why debater getting faster than ever correlates to cards being highlighted to say less, not more, but i would like it to stop. also agree very much with David Bernstein: “Intuitive and well reasoned analytics are frequently better uses of your time than reading a low quality card. I would prefer to reward debaters that demonstrate full understanding of their positions and think through the logical implications of arguments rather than rewarding the team that happens to have a card on some random issue.” generally think that lots of advantages, disads, and counterplans lose to 10 seconds internal link and solvency takeouts, but teams are too scared to make arguments without cards. i think this is due to the assumption that all cards are of sufficient quality to meet the standard of "evidence" - i think many (possibly most, these days) do not. I try to restrain my natural ev hack tendencies, but will take any opportunity given to exercise them - this means that while i will reward good and punish bad evidence, the onus is on the debaters to tell me what lens i should read cards through to make that happen.

b. most of what i judge these days and read in high school lives here. “turns case/disad” usually path to victory. dense engagement with internal links and close readings of evidence usually path to “turns case/disad”. ideally, these args are carded, but maybe not necessary if straightforward. good debating is comparative here, i.e: impact calc isn't "yes/no impact" but "higher/lower risk bc..." - anything else is fundamentally inconsistent with the basis of offense/defense.

c. uq probably controls link, but care less about this in the abstract and more when debated relative to specific scenarios – large enough link might overwhelm small uq (econ disad), but maybe uq/link are just yes no (agenda politics).

d. straight turning the case likely all-time favorite thing to judge. uniqueness good, might not be necessary with sufficiently comparative evidence.

e. politics disad legitimacy negatively correlates to stupidness of arg. agenda or court capital kinda dumb but probably allowed, but rider disad = total non-starter. can conceivably vote aff on intrinsicness/theory vs agenda politics, but unsure theory is worth effort vs just beating them, they're bad args. teams should include args in 2ACs to elections about the fact that American voters are often dumber than rocks.

f. inserting rehighlighting fine for “concludes neg”, “concedes thumpers”, etc, but offensive/new arguments should probably be read aloud. debaters likely need to put ink on this for me to disregard insertions of the latter kind, but particularly egregious instances may warrant intervention on my part. i think a lot of old heads' gripes with this practice is that debaters tend to not actually debate rehighlightings as evidence and explain what they mean, they just use them as a "gotcha" and never implicate it, which encourages laziness. don't do this.

2. counterplans

a. comfortable. i think about these debates for fun the most. state of counterplan (and plan) texts + solvency advocates is an atrocity. this should implicate more debates than it does. my favorite debates to judge are likely old-school advantage counterplan debates, but i am not a priori bad for process/competition strategies.

b. most modern process counterplans have large disconnects between solvency and impact evidence for the net benefit and, if thought about for all of three seconds, are patently insane ideas that would likely collapse basic principles of government and be perceived as such by anyone watching (this is a subtweet of uncooperative federalism - all 50 states immediately ending all cooperation with the fed over a super niche issue would set the economy, our alliances, legal precedent, and basically everything else on fire). both of these issues should be the primary basis of 2AC deficits and defense.

c. competition is fully yes/no, because it's a procedural question. other than that, offense/defense - 2N/ARs should frame my ballot in terms of the impact to the risk of a deficit vs the risk of a net benefit. i care a lot about arguments like sufficiency framing, uniqueness, and try-or-die here.

d. more 2ARs should go for perm shields link/counterplan links to net benefit. most counterplans are kind of stupid and fiat more sweeping things than solvency advocates actually assume (i.e: states, concon). teams seem to be scared of having these debates absent evidence, but shouldn't be.

e. “do both” and “do counterplan” are not arguments, they are taglines. if said with no further analysis, they will be evaluated as such. permutations other than "do both" or "do counterplan" require precise texts (inserting it in the doc is fine, but function should be explained fully during the speech).

f. functional competition is good, important in real-world decisions, and i am comfortable with these debates. textual competition bad, largely irrelevant, and has never made sense to me. positional competition induces feelings in me too dark and evil to name here. "normal means" is just the most likely process by which the mandate of the plan brings about its effects. quality of evidence for both definitions and normal means determines ability to win counterplan competition/legitimacy.

g. unsure why debaters seem to think "certainty" or "immediacy" are key to neg ground/legitimate basis for competition, when zero neg literature ever assumes either because that's not how real world policy works. also unsure why the mandate of the plan being immediate/certain means the effects must also be. more aff teams should point both these things out in competition debates.

h. default no judge kick. can be compelled to do so, but have yet to judge a single debate in my many years where me kicking the counterplan has helped the negative. probably more worth it to just actually pick a 2NR and either go all in on the counterplan or case.

3. kritik

a. familiar (understatement). most of what i coach and read in college lives here. best advice for neg debaters is for the love of god, delete your overview. just start on the line by line, your speeches will be so much better. best advice for aff debaters is use the aff more, and probably read fewer cards. i care substantially less about a2 afropessimism card #9 compared to evidence or explanations about how 1AC internal links interact with/disprove the K. while i personally agree with the K's politics more of the time, in my heart and soul i think about debate like a policy 2N - in my mind, the best versions of these debates play out as aggressive, detailed disagreements about the value of the aff backed by lots of cards. as such, i tend to vote neg when the K team precludes the 2AR on "case o/w" through some combination of framework, turning the case, detailed alternative debating, and having a real impact, and i vote aff when the policy team has robustly defended their aff and internal links as both a counterexample to and offense against the K through some combination of framework, impact or link turns, serious objections to the alternative, and impact comparison. the less that one side does this (i.e: the fiat K, brute forcing heg with the card dump and nothing else, etc) the more i start thinking about voting the other way.

b. framework debating often frustratingly shallow. often unsure what win conditions are under neg models of debate or how winning it actually changes how i evaluate the round. often unsure what terminal to aff offense is and how it interacts with neg args about scholarship. refuse to do the “middle ground” thing if nobody tells me to, though, and generally think you’re better off just saying “delete the plan” or “plan focus” anyways. compromise is cowardly in these debates.

c. K 2NRs tend to be too wide and not deep. extend fewer arguments, do more analysis and answer more aff args. link/impact turns case is good, but framework or alt solves case might make it unnecessary, so why do all three?

d. aff teams link turn and impact turn in the 2AC and pretend it’s coherent. Neg teams should punish this more. aff teams should defend what their aff is equipped to defend and not pretend it can or will do anything else. permutations are overrated. Case outweighs + deficit + framework usually easier and better. most perms are just do both wearing different silly hats and glasses. perm double bind stupid argument.

e. “extinction first” can be a great asset, but it’s not the end all be all, and most teams forget that even if extinction isn’t automatically first, their impact is still probably bad. similarly, care less about “extinction focus bad” than “the way the aff deploys extinction in their scenario is bad bc”. “alt can’t solve case” is usually true, but not relevant if they win turns case/K o/w. “alt can’t solve links/impacts” is much more interesting and persuasive. Root cause args are often stupid.

4. critical affirmatives/framework

ADDENDUM - February '24: i find myself voting affirmative in framework debates more often than i used to. i am not worse for framework - i still think debates are likely on-balance better when the aff is constrained by a plan (despite my reputation for thinking otherwise), so i suspect this is due to two reasons: a. neg teams are getting sloppier at actually line-by-lining or responding to aff arguments (bad), while aff teams are getting more technical and comparative (good), and b. neg teams are not answering case or extending an external impact, they're just rambling about "clash" and have no offense beyond a vague turns case arg without uniqueness. I suspect this is caused by teams being so terrified by the word "subjectivity" that they are unwilling to actually say "yes, debate changes you, and we think the way our model changes you is good and outweighs the aff's offense". this is both unstrategic and cowardly, and the 2AC is going to say that stuff anyways, even if you try to dodge the link.

So, I think there are two solutions to this problem:

1. Make neg teams read real impacts again. Big skills impacts with cards are valuable because they are always external to the case and usually much larger, and give you access to the same genre of turns case arguments as "clash", but also let you have something that outweighs the aff.
   
2. Debate case more. Neg teams need to directly answer 1AC thesis arguments about things like affect/desire/ontology/scholarship/etc to preclude the 2AR from (smartly) weaponizing conceded thesis args as uniqueness/solvency for their offense.
   

if you extended the econ disad against the econ aff, but forgot to extend a uniqueness argument or answer aff internal links, you would not be surprised when you lost. Unsure why people are surprised in this context when it's the exact same issue.tl;dr - "clash" is stupid, read a real skills impact, preferably with cards. rant end.

a. good for both sides of clash debates, but i have judged (too) many, so lots of things about them annoy me. on balance, i am inclined to think debate is a game, and like any game it's benefits and incentives are inevitably structured to reward playing for keeps, but it should probably be worth playing for more than it's own sake, and can be played in more than one way. i am not a priori bad for planless affs, but i think a model of debate that doesn't force some constraints on aff creativity and some degree of side-switching seems to lack both competitive viability and intellectual interest.full disclosure: i am likely to give lower speaks in framework debates than other debates of similar quality, due to constant déjà vu robbing any joy from the content. speaks go back up when debaters stay organized and do deep engagement instead of just dueling with blocks.

b. neg teams historically win my ballot in framework debates more because they tend to do more judge instruction and stay organized.aff pet peeves are 1ACs that say and do nothing, very amenable to presumption. aff teams also tend to grandstand too much in rebuttals and not give organized speeches - don't do that. neg pet peeves are taking begged questions as self-evident, usually makes link to aff offense better. neg teams tend to not contextualize arguments to 1AC theories and also forget to explain an impact - do that stuff. i think both 2N/ARs would be better served doing more work with the language of impact calculus, i.e: "turns case/turns framework", "outweighs", "uniqueness controls direction of offense", etc - teams are generally okay at warranting their impact but bad at implicating it.

c. debates are cleaner the earlier the neg picks one single impact and sits on it. "clash" is kind of fake and never amounts to more than a case turn, skills arguments are criminally underrated, and nobody seems to explain fairness particularly well. ssd and tva are often overprioritized over smarter defense to aff args, but also underutilized as offensive arguments in their own right - i actually think the most interesting part of debate is the way being aff or neg on a given topic force you to apply research and theories to the specifics of a topical advocacy or a link argument, and tend to think models that don't make debaters do these things end up robbing debate of most of it's intellectual rigor.

d. people forget K affs are affs. this means normal arguments about functional competition probably apply to silly PICs ("frame subtraction"), and also means solvency and impact debates are fair game. if evenly debated, i think turning the case is likely always harder to answer and more interesting to judge than framework, given that the aff has way more practice. seems weird we all agree topicality against every policy aff would be an insane neg prep regimen, even if it's occasionally strategic, but we do this for K affs. the 2N in me truly thinks there's always a best answer to every aff, and while sometimes that answer is indeed topicality, it's not nearly the answer as often as round reports would lead you to believe.

e. idk why the neg gets counterplans if the aff doesn’t read a plan. if the basis of neg fiat is that counterplans present an opportunity cost, the only non-arbitrary actor the negative gets to fiat is the aff one, which means if the aff doesn’t fiat government policy, seems weird we think the neg gets to just because. makes more sense to read “policy engagement good, k2 check populism/’cede the political’/etc” as a disad or alternative argument vs these affs.

f. i would very much like to judge more critical affs with plans. i think most neg teams are much worse at justifying utilitarianism and liberal policy-making than they should be, and would consider myself to be extremely good for teams that contest extinction first, consequentialism, and the like. a team that executed this well in front of me would get speaker points bordering on stupidly high.

g. K v K debates live and die by the quality of negative link args and net benefits for the permutation. i always went for the cap K in these debates in college because i found most 2ACs to it to be sloppy and easily answered by a robust knowledge of marxism and history, and think this also applies to most other Ks you can read in these debates, but lots of these debates suck because 2Ns explain links and alternatives badly, which lets the 2AR get away with murder. lots of these rounds collapse into who can shout "root cause" louder, but i usually care much more about impact calculus and the direction of turns case and solvency (and these args are usually much truer anyways). 2A/NC framework arguments are usually missing and missed in these debates. i definitely live on the more technical side of K debate, but i'm not anti-performance-y stuff at all, and enjoy those debates a lot when i get them.

5. topicality

a. better than average for it, most likely. evidence matters a lot – i would say inasmuch as i am an "ev hack", it's most likely to matter in these debates. in the absence of good evidence on either side (most debates these days), i will likely lean affirmative, but few things are of such beauty as sniping an aff on a well-carded T violation that has clearly been thought through. predictability and topic controversies matter much more to me than limits as an intrinsic good, which makes me worse but gettable for args about "its", "in", etc, and probably bad for args solely about grammar.

b. lots of negative evidence is abhorrent in terms of actually establishing a violation (i.e: intent to exclude), lots of aff evidence is trash at actually defining things how the aff claims (i.e: intent to include). reubttals should make this matter more, either to make we-meets/violations more compelling or magnify links to precision/limits.

c. PTIV is possibly not the greatest model, but alternatives are usually badly explained in ways that devolve into positional competition which is godless.

d. violations are yes/no, and so we meets do not require external offense or defense. other than that, offense/defense means i value impact calculus and comparative analysis (caselists, etc) highly. reasonability is a question of the aff interpretation, and not just the specific 1AC. it can be extremely powerful and very viable, but has to be framed offensively beyond just "you get politics, we promise".

6. theory

a. generally, very neg leaning, but neg teams need to answer warranted arguments. very good for “negative terrorism”. condo good most likely my strongest personal conviction, followed by RVIs being nonsense. fine for counterplanning out of straight turns, fine for lots of kickable planks, don’t care about “performative contradictions”, anything is a "PIC" or can "result in the aff", etc. “infinite prep time + only neg burden is rejoinder + arbitrary” is mostly unbeatable vs these flavor of objections.

b. counterpoint is that i'm also great for affirmative counter-terror. big fan of intrinsic perms and theory against suspect counterplans, etc. reasonability is powerful when framed offensively. if evenly debated, i will likely never conclude the states counterplan (or any counterplan that fiats a different actor) is legitimate (but also likely not a reason to reject the team). neg theory args usually amount to pure laziness and are solved by “make 2Ns work for it”.

c. restating for emphasis: condo good, RVIs bad. unless truly and wholly conceded when properly warranted at first introduction, consider these arguments unworkable with me. Most 2ACs are blips that lack warrants, which often makes it moot when conceded anyways.

d. would be very interested to see theory arguments impacted out beyond drop the arg/debater. if states counterplan fiats uniformity, might be reasonable to say aff should get to fiat out of circumvention args about sub-federal actors. if aff fiats through an enforcement question, neg might get to fiat out of related deficits, etc. nobody's done this yet, but seems very worth exploring.

7. LD things

a. better than you'd think for phil, but likely not your best pref. hand-holding is likely required for anything more complicated than kant, but i vote for these positions more often than you’d expect and am familiar with them in a non-debate context. the blippier and less cohesive the framework, the more likely you are to lose me. i am barely old enough to remember when phil and tricks debate weren't synonymous, and miss it. i actually think phil affs are insanely strategic against lots of Ks, so these interactions interest me the most.

b. lots of policy judges tend to cop out and use modesty or other things by default to avoid having to actually judge phil debates - i promise to not do this, as i think it encourages debaters to just be bad at answering phil. that being said, i'm bad for truth testing - it's never made sense to me, offense/defense is kind of just fundamental to how i was taught debate and these arguments contradict a few fundamental assumptions i have about how debate works. it is likely difficult to get me to vote solely on skep, permissibility, etc. as these just kind of seem like purely defensive arguments.

c. bad pref for tricks. consider this both a plea and a warning.

V. misc

- If I want a card doc, I'll ask, usually for the relevant cards by name. Otherwise, assume I'm good.

- COVID things: I am vaccinated and boosted, and I take COVID tests before traveling to any given tournament. Put on masks if asked. I will have extra. not negotiable conduct.

- CX is a speech, my favorite part of the debate when done well, and a lost art. i flow it (albeit not as closely), its probably binding, and it impacts evaluation of the debate and speaker points. one debater from each team should be the primary speaker in each CX - some interjections, elaborations, or clarifications are obviously fine, but while excessive tag teaming will not be disallowed, it may impact speaks and perception negatively.

- flowing is good, and "flow clarification" is not a timeslot in the debate - questions such as "did you read X card/arg in the doc" are for CX. If you ask this and you haven't started a timer for it yet, i will start one for you. if you ask "can you send a doc without all the cards you didn't read", the other team does not have to do that, because that is not what a marked doc is. if you answer arguments that were not read, but were in the doc, you are getting a 27.5.

- Ethics challenges/cheating – this one is longer because people seem to care more about this these days. I have a high bar for voting on it. I do not think power-tagging evidence, cutting an article that concludes the other way later on, etc. are voting issues - you should simply say "this card is bad/concludes neg" as an argument. If you are making the accusation that your opponent has fabricated, miscut, or improperly cited evidence, I will evaluate it with the presumption of good-faith error by the accused. I do not think skipping portions of tags or analytics counts as clipping. Those things are not evidence, so I do not know why they require being held to the standard of evidence ethics. If you are accusing the other team of clipping the highlighted text of evidence, you need a recording to prove it - I will never notice this myself because I will not have docs open during speeches, and I think that if the debate comes down to this debaters have a right to some proof. I will also apply the same standard of good-faith error. This means barring something particularly egregious as to reasonably suggest the criminal negligence if not malicious intent, I will probably err towards not punishing debaters, as I think anything else incentivizes cheap shot wins on dead links in citations, leaving out the last word of a paragraph that was OCR'd badly, or skipping two words in a card on accident. If you read any of these things as a theory argument, I will not flow it, and I will ask after the speech if you are staking the debate on it - if not, I will happily inform your opponent they do not need to answer it. I am open to being asked if I consider certain accusations to meet the threshold of ending the debate on it - my answers will not be negotiable, but they will be honest. I am also willing (I would actually encourage it) to entertain debaters negotiating proportional responses to violations outside of me ending the debate, as I think my role as educator ideally precedes my role as a referee - I'd much rather we all agree to scratch a card that can't be accessed online anymore or that was accidentally clipped than just not have a debate. Otherwise, the party found to be at fault (either the guilty or an incorrect accuser) will receive a loss and the lowest speaks allowed. The other party will get a win and a 28.5/6. All of this goes out the window if the tabroom tells me to do a different thing than what I've outlined above, as their authority obviously supersedes mine.

- speaks are largely arbitrary, but I try to start at 28.4 for a team I'd expect to go 3-3, and i try and keep it relative to the tournament pool. below 28 and I think you are in the wrong division, below 27.5 and you have likely done something bad in a moral sense. I tend to reward quality evidence and good argument choice, well-organized speeches, smart strategic choices, and debating with character. I tend to penalize unnecessary meanness, bad arguments and cowardice, and sloppy debating. i am, at my core, white trash, so i tend to enjoy some friendly trash talk more than the average judge - i stop enjoying it when it strays from the topic of debate and/or becomes overly mean spirited. Not a big believer in low-point wins - if the 2NR makes a dumb decision, but the 2AR doesn't capitalize on it, the 2AR is probably dumber for fumbling a bag. I will not "disclose speaks".

- i tend to give long RFDs because i think most decisions have a tendency to hand-wave details and i'd rather be thorough. that said, there's a point of diminishing returns and i usually overshoot it. will not be offended if you just pack up and dip while i'm yapping. i welcome post-round questions

Good luck, thanks for letting me judge, and see you in round!

- pat

I have little experience in judging debate, but I will try my best to evaluate your arguments. Framing the debate as a narrative and engaging your opponents' arguments will make it easier for me to vote for you. Clarity and organization are also very important, and will be rewarded with higher speaker points. I will try to evaluate arguments based off my "flow," but, also, I have little experience in recording debate rounds.

Background:

- I'm a parent judge (judge both PF and LD)

- I'm knowledgable about economics and international relations

Argument Preferences:

Keep it within the topic, don't try to skirt the main debate either. Explain philosophy thoroughly if you're going to do it

Use speed at your own risk--it's probably not a good idea.

Do weighing somewhere, arguments that intuitively are more probable are going to be considered more probable by me.

In terms of jargon, keep it to a minimum.

Final update - April 2024

Docs: speechdrop.net

Directing the DebateDrills Club Team for 2023-25 - here are incident reporting forms, roster, and MPJ/ conflict info.

Enloe HS '20 + UPenn '24. 2x LD TOC qual (cleared junior year/ skipped senior year) + 13 bids. I primarily read policy args + T/theory. I am fairly familiar with but do not particularly care for philosophy, tricks, or the K; however, I will not insert my preferences absent a poorly resolved debate - read what you feel comfortable with.

Debating

Debate is a competitive game that imparts useful life skills, flow clarification is CX, CX isn't prep, speaks are my choice and not yours

Speaks boost for taking less prep and sitting down early if you've clearly won

You should disclose properly, and it doesn't take 30 minutes to "make changes" to the aff

Not voting on:

---Args that deny the badness of racism/ sexism/ homophobia/ etc (potential auto-loss given severity)

---Death/ suffering good (spark/ wipeout type stuff is fine)

---Ad-homs or args based on out of round actions or a debater's appearance/ location/ etc (except disclosure screenshots)

---Arguments that are "vote for me because I’m x" or "I get [to do] y because I'm x"

---Independent voters that are not labeled as such in the speech they are introduced with a reason why they are

Defaults: fairness and education are voters, drop the debater, competing interps, no RVIs, comparative worlds, util, epistemic confidence, policy presumption, OCIs incoherent, perm theory is drop the arg

Tell me to read ev if you want me to

Judge kick requires winning an argument for it

Read rehighlightings if they make a new/ different argument - insert them if they show x thing is in y context, and explain any insertions

1ARs should probably read theory and 2NRs should probably answer it

Consequences probably matter but perhaps you can convince me otherwise

Tricks tend not to have warrants in the speech they're introduced or in the speech they're extended in

Ks need to prove that the aff is a bad idea, affs probably get to weigh case and extinction probably outweighs

I seem to vote for Ks far more vs phil affs than vs policy affs

K affs need to do something but usually do not

I do not want to adjudicate personal survival strategies or callouts

T framework - fairness and clash/ research > skills/ movements

Things I shouldn’t have to say

---All arguments need to be both originally made with and extended with a coherent warrant

---Won’t vote on arguments that I don’t understand the warrant for in the first speech they're introduced

---Delineate and explain arguments and their implications throughout the debate

Cheating

Clipping: Ending the debate if I catch it. If you have a recording, you can stake the round. Skipping 3+ words multiple times probably constitutes clipping.

Ev Ethics: If I catch a violation, speaks will plummet and the card will be ignored. These constitute a violation such that I'd act or you can stake the round/ make a challenge:

---Card starts/ends in the middle of a sentence or paragraph

---Text has been added to or removed from the original text of the cited article within the start/end of the card

---Card has been cut/highlighted/bracketed to make a claim that the article does not warrant

You can read any of these or any other violation you want as theory. If another part of the article contradicts the argument made in the card, I'd prefer to see a recutting of the article read as an argument.

add me to your chains, email: isaakgibson@gmail.com

i go by isaak or shinnosuke, he/him/his

note for policy & TOC LD: especially in the era of online debate, i ask you to please SEND ALL YOUR BLOCKS. no matter how amazing me or anyone else in the room may be at flowing, i can guarantee you whether it's audio problems or bad headphones or any other issues i and many other judges will be missing a lot of the stuff on the flow, so if you want detailed decisions and comments and speaks send everything you read.

about me:

debated for 3 years in high school with the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League, currently debating at Fullerton College.

i'm a k debater with a background primarily in anti-capitalism, afropess (and related), set col, queer/quare theory, model minority and orientalism. that being said, i am plenty familiar with policy stuff having read a decent amount of policy stuff in high school early on.

general notes:

do not be offensive/violent to anyone in the room. i know sometimes people make mistakes, but please try your best to not be an asshole. this means things blatantly racist, queerphobic, sexist, etc can result in significantly lower speaks and possibly me voting you down or stopping the round.

be very careful with spreading especially with analytics and rebuttals, make sure you are clear and heard. you never know who in the room it will benefit.

judging stuff:

there are a few big things that i think about debate that have a big effect on how i make decisions and think about the round as a whole. here they are in no particular order:

1. competitively, i should vote for whoever did the better debating (duh). this means that winning on a technical level is important: strong analysis of the technical aspects of the debate (meaning things like dropped arguments and points of direct clash) you are having is a great way of getting a ballot.

2. educationally, i should consider what the debaters are actually getting out of the debate. are the debaters learning new things about the topic or about debate itself? are there skills of some kind being developed? are there things being talked about that can be applied outside of debate when y'all leave? these things are important to me as someone that has had the privilege of learning through debate, and it often means that teams who can prove to me they learn and teach things better than the other team are more persuasive to me.

3. ethically, i have an obligation to evaluate the knowledge being produced in the round. i have to consider if that knowledge is violent, if it is liberatory, and what those things mean for me as a judge. what that does not mean is that i will necessarily let my truths dictate what i vote for (unless you do some really bad shit like i said above), but rather that you all as debaters have the burden of proving that your knowledge is not violent and/or that it is liberatory when that is questioned. proving those kinds of things can win you the ballot.

if you have any questions that weren't answered by the stuff above feel free to email me or to ask me before round, i'll do my best to answer them

Mike Girouard

Years involved in debate: 20+ (policy 20+years, PF 7yrs, LD 7yrs)

Coached at Baylor, Kansas State, U of Rochester, The New School, Augustana College, The Asian Debate League and several High Schools - Debated at Univ of North Texas

I hate people who try to pigeon-hole judges into fitting a particular mold or label them as hacks that only vote for certain args or certain types of arguments. That being said I would say that I feel as though I can judge and evaluate any kind of debate that you want to have. I have some feeling about args and I will discuss those more in detail below, but it’s important to keep in mind that when you debate in front of me you should be comfortable in yourself and your arg and you should be fine. Have the debate that you want to have, because in the end that will make it more enjoyable and educational for everyone involved.

One last caveat, as this year has progressed and with the transition to paperless debate I find myself calling for less and less evidence after the round. I feel as though you should be doing the debating in the round. If it is a question of what the card says or doesn’t say I will probably call for the evidence, but don’t expect me to piece together your argument by reading all of your evidence after the round. I feel as though this does a disservice to a team that is at least attempting to do the argumentation on the line-by-line.

Prep Time – my default is that prep time should stop when the other team is flashing their evid. That being said if there is blatant disregard for this or abusing of this I will revert to prep-time not ending till after the speech has been flashed and given to the opponents. Before this does occur I will say something in the round.

CP’s – I love a good PIC. I think it should be the burden of the Aff to defend every aspect of the plan and should have some defense of including it in the plan. I really don’t like to vote on theory, but I will if that is what you want the debate to be about. As far as perms go, use them as you like. Just justify your theory and your fine. If you are going for a CP in front of me keep a few things in mind: it must have a net benefit and some sort of DA to the perm, it doesn’t necessarily have to solve for all of the Aff, but you need to have something to answer the portions that you don’t solve for, you can have a critical net benefit if you like, just explain how it functions in relationship to the Aff and the advocacy of the CP.

DA’s – Not really a whole lot to say here. I like U cards to have some sort of a warrant. Debate the warrants in the round and don’t make me have to evaluate 15+ U cards to help settle that debate. I would prefer fewer cards with more warrants to help settle this problem. Make sure you are giving me some sort of impact calc in the last few speeches and weighing all the potential outcomes of the impacts (i.e. – even, if statements). If the aff reads a K of your impacts you have to justify them or you will probably lose that argument. I prefer scenarios with fewer and more warranted internal links as to avoid the proliferation of outlandish impact scenarios. Make sure there is a solid link and you are weighing everything in the last few speeches and you should be fine.

The K – I am open to most K’s. I don’t believe that Realism/Framework is the end all answer to the K. Try engaging in the arguments that are being run and you have a better chance of picking up the ballot in front of me. Arguments that question your representations or epistemological starting point are best answered by providing an offensive justification for your reps or your starting point. Just make sure you are explaining how you want me to evaluate your K in relationship to the Aff. What are the impacts, what are the implications, do you have an alt, and what is the link. Make sure all of these things are in the debate and you will be fine. I do find that most people don’t answer one fundamental question in these types of rounds: What is the role of the critic? Just answer or at least recognize that these questions exist and you should be alright.

Topicality – My default is that this debate should be about competing interpretations. You should attempt to answer the question: which interpretation is better for both this debate round and the community as a whole. This being said, if you don’t want me to evaluate it based on competing interpretations just make the arg and justify it with warranted args and you should be fine. If you are going for T in front of me you probably need to spend a little bit of time on it in the 2NR. I’m not saying that you have to go for T and nothing else, but I think it’s an arg that requires a little bit of time for you to adequately go for it. Things I look for in a T debate: Clear distinction between interpretations, warranted reasons for why your interp is better as well as why the other interp is bad, and the impact these have on not only the round but the community at large.

Theory – Not a big theory hack, but will vote on it from time to time, especially in instances of clear articulated in round abuse. Just make sure you are giving warranted reasons why your theory is legit, the specific abuse that has occurred and the impact of them being allowed to do what they did. That being said, theory should be more than just a whine, engage their args and make sure that you are at least answering their args. If you expect for me to vote on theory you should devote some time to it in the last couple of speeches.

Performance – I’m fine with different styles of debate. There are instances where you can ask me to not flow or be so “flogo-centric” and assuming there is a warranted reason why this is legit I will be alright. A few things to keep in mind if you do chose to do this in front of me: why is your method better than what exists now? why should it be preferred and what are the larger implications on the debate community? Just make sure you are attempting to at least perceptually engage the other teams args and you will be fine.

Add me to the chain: goel.arya24@gmail.com

I competed in LD and Policy for Dougherty Valley for 4 years.

Call me Arya not judge plz.

General Beliefs:

I won't vote on things that happen outside of debate (except for disclosure, need a ss for this ) and won't vote on arguments about a persons appearance.

When I debated, I rlly disliked judges who evaluated arguments as a "wash" bc they were lazy, so I try my hardest to not do this.

Argument preferences: CP + DA >>> by far my fav 2nr, then smartly thought out T args, then Ks and phil.

CP/DA:

Love these arguments and am probably most qualified to judge debates involving these. Here are some general thoughts.

- I'm forgetful, so you'll have to remind me if you want me to judge kick.

- I dont rlly care about condo but try not having more than 2-3

- Love case specific DA's but politics and process cps just work

-

Please weigh. Please. 2nr and 2ar impact calc are not new arguments but the earlier you start weighing the better it is for both me and you.

Judge Instruction is key for close debates and high speaks.

Theory:

Here it is again: I'm not voting on someone's appearance

Defaults: C/I; Drop the arg; No Rvis

-Disclosure is almost mandatory. Most def a hack for disclosure (need a ss) - there is a line though, round report theory or "must use citebox" is frivolous if you opensource with highlighting. The more arbitrary your interp gets, the less likely I care about it.

-I wont vote on args I didn't flow or catch, so if even if your 8 word condo blip is dropped im not going to feel guilty about dropping you. Especially important because online debate is already bad enough without 3 seconds blips.

This doesn't mean you cant read paragraph theory, just that instead of reading 4 3-second blips, spend 15 seconds on one, well warranted arg.

-Counterplan theory other than condo is almost always a question of predictability. The negative should prove that their cp is grounded in the literature and the aff should prove the opposite. Counterplan theory is almost never a drop the debater issue.

Topicality:

Love these arguments when done with lots of good evidence and evidence comparison. So many counterinterps are just cards that say words but don't actually define them, or they're pulled from completely different contexts that make them useless. Thus evidence with intent to define makes me unbelievably happy.

-Not a fan of T args where the only topical aff is the whole res, this means I don't really like Nebel (still will vote on it)

-Semantics and Jurisdiction don't matter a lot in a vacuum but precision can be cool in close debates

-I find myself caring more about strength of internal link than impacts, so please spend a few seconds warranting these outs - for example, in a limits debate, you would do this with a offensive case list.

-A large risk of a limits, probably turns and outweighs everything else.

Kritiks:

In high school, I read a decent bit of literature mostly pertaining to pomo, afropess and set col, but did not personally read these args in debate.

-K affs get perms so you better make those links good.

-People need to go for Heg and cap good more against non t affs

-the smaller the ov and the more the line by line, the happier both me and your speaks get

"I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality" - Vikram Balasubramanian

- the larger and more complex your theories become, the more you have to warrant them - saying ontology and calling it a day isnt enough.

K-affs:

If you read a performance and forget about it in the 1ar, I'm forgetting to vote for you.

1-off T-fw is viable (and often what I did) but like why? Just read a pik or something else as well

FW is always a question about models of debate, so the 2nr/2ar better explain it to me like I'm a fifth grader

Don't really buy "limits are a prison" type arguments

Movements >= fairness

Philosophy:

I really don't have experience evaluating this kind of stuff, but promise rlly high speaks if you can teach me something about this kind of debate.

-"I defend the resolution but not implementation" and "Ill defend the res as a general principle" aren't real arguments and don't make sense. Either you're defending the whole res, or you read a advocacy text

-Skep is defense unless you win TT.

Default modesty and comp worlds.

-If you give me a headache with tricks I'm nuking your speaks

if your underview is longer than a paragraph I'm going to be grumpy.

Misc:

If you have good disclosure practice lmk and ill bump speaks if i agree.

If the 1nc is all turns and case you start at a 29.5

If I think you're clipping, I'll start following along on the doc. If I catch you clipping, I'll tank your speaks but won't stop the round. I will stop the round if someone accuses (requires recording).

Paradigms of people I (mostly) agree with if you want more info: Kabir, Ansuman, Shikhar, Tristan

Policy Stuff:

I have even less patience for bad theory here than in LD. The only things that rises to DTD are disclosure and condo. That said, Infinite condo seems persuasive to me.

All the stuff above still applies.

Parli Stuff:

I'm comfortable with anything you want to read with the caveat that you warrant your arguments properly and generously - my background is in Ld and policy

You can go as fast as you want - I can keep up as long as you're clear

Due to the nature of Parli topics, I'm a bit more amenable to stupid and friv theory args - you should be able to beat them if you want to win - THAT BEING SAID if thats your main strat - just strike me and save us both

Creative DAs and Cps get xtra speaks - everything else about args applies from above

Gray Graves

Please add me to the email chain: graygraves3@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns.

Debate Experience:

High School

- Millard West (2015-2017) Lincoln Douglas

- Millard North (2017-2019) Policy

College

- UNL (2019-Present) NFA-LD (1 v. 1 policy)

I coach Policy/LD at Marian High School.

Misc.

I am fine with speed, but require clarity and slowing down on analytics and tags. I will say “clear” as many times as necessary, which is a signal to be clear and doesn’t necessarily require you to reduce speed.

I think that Disclosure is good in almost all instances. I will vote on Disclosure theory in most instances, when debated well, because of this.

"Extend (Author, Year)" is not sufficient for an extension. Please explain what you are extending; This does not always require a huge time investment, but the former example is always insufficient. Conceded arguments should be brought up if you want it to factor into the round/decision, but I have a low extension threshold in those instances.

Do not clip cards. It will never be worth it. If a tournament describes a process in the instance of clipping, I will adhere to that process. If not, clipping must be pointed out immediately after the speech. The team alleging that clipping has occurred must stake the round on this concern and provide audio evidence. If I witness clipping myself, I will stop the round. Skipping over a sentence, phrases or single words repeatedly is grounds for clipping. Clipping will result in a L and <26 speaks.

Tag-team CX is fine, but please do not control the entirety of your partner's CX.

No prep will be taken for flashing/emailing. Conversely, please do not steal prep time.

Offense holds more weight than defense. Terminal defense is possible, but there is a high threshold for this.

I generally am "tech over truth." Having said that although, some arguments can overwhelm tech through its validity, and some untrue arguments will never win you the round in front of me, no matter how techy you debate it. So, take my leaning toward "tech over truth" with some skepticism and just debate well.

K

Critical arguments are the majority of what I read during my junior and senior year. It is also my favorite type of argument to research. In High School, I read Queer Theory, Puar, Bataille, Semiocapitalism, Neoliberalism, Settler Colonialism, and various identity politics arguments. Please do not read a K you are unfamiliar with in front of me because of my argument history. I will hold the K to a high standard of explanation and contextualization. The best way to read the K in front of me is to spend adequate time contextualizing and fleshing out the links, explaining the solvency mechanism and examples of the alternative (especially if it’s a vague theoretical alternative), and answering the AFF’s framing.

Be cautious on contradictions between the K and any other off case positions you have. If you notice a contradiction between your opponent’s K and another argument they are making, it is better to point this out and flesh out the theoretical implications/impact, than to read a theory argument, like Condo Bad.

Framework

I enjoy this debate. I have significant experience debating both sides. I have an agnostic stance toward it as a judge; I will vote either way.

For the NEG team, please answer the K team’s turns (DAs). This is often the easiest route to my ballot for the K team, and often bad FW teams do very little work to address this offense. I prefer TVAs with a solvency advocate, but do not necessarily require it. TVAs that just say the USFG does the AFF (at least in the context of the more obscure and theoretical methods) are usually not persuasive.

For the K team, I would like a strategic and offensive counter-interpretation. You are likely to lose the debate if you can’t debate traditional FW offense under your C/I, or do not do sufficient work on proving why the turns/DAs mean I vote for you.

Topicality/Theory

I really love a well-done Topicality debate. I default to competing interpretations.

I am extremely unlikely to vote for RVIs in policy. I don't think that it is as unwarranted in LD.

I am not extremely familiar with CP theory outside of PIC theory, Conditionality theory, and Perm theory.

I am not a fan of LD’s frivolous theory trend and am unlikely to vote on these arguments. “Drop the argument, not the team” and reasonability can be fairly persuasive, especially against these types of theory shells. Good and well-tailored theory is encouraged. Outside of this, I rather judge the substance of the round.

DA/CP

I love a good debate with either one or both off-case position. Please read specific links on the DA.

Case

Please spend some time on case, especially K teams. Although it's said a lot in paradigms, it's very true that HS teams often do not utilize/leverage case arguments enough. I particularly engage the use of case arguments as leverage for other portions of the debate.

ROTB

I default to 'vote for the team that debated the best.' I will not be happy if your plan to win the ballot relies on limiting out offense through an arbitrary ROTB that got conceded. I much rather watch a Framing debate than ROTB debate.

Speaks

Generally, I will determine speaks through this loose model:

29-29.5: You debated incredibly well. Strategic choices were made, and I have very little feedback for improvements.

28-28.5: Most frequently awarded speaks from me, baseline for my evaluation.

27.5: Arguments were poorly explained and require much more development throughout the round.

If you owe someone an apology at the end of the round, I may drop your speaks down to <26.

I was a circuit debater through all of high school. In 2015 I qualified for TOC in LD and then graduated high school. Since then, I have had no engagement with Varsity LD debate at all. As a debater, I pretty much exclusively ran Ks and other critical theory, often tenuously associated with the resolution. I'm especially a sucker for queer theory and methods debate. I was never a particularly technical debater, so I'm sure I can't flow very quickly now. I also avoided theory and T like the plague, so you probably don't want me to adjudicate the line by line of your theory debate. I'd like to think I'm a smart guy, with a degree from a smol liberal arts college, but I'm definitely out of the loop on current trends and expectations on the circuit.

LD:

If you seem like you are having fun and not making the round a terrible place to be, I will listen to pretty much any argument that isn't intentionally obnoxious or repugnant (death good, racial equity bad, etc.). I prefer lines of argument that don't rely on nuclear war or extinction, but if your case is strong, go for it. Creativity and experimental arguments are awesome. Please run them.

Clash and analysis are key. Use your case to analyze and refute your opponent's arguments. Don't just toss out cards; explain WHY and HOW. If your logic/reasoning is sound, you don't need to extend every card to win. I prefer strategic condensing over shallow line by line rebuttal.

Fairness - Theory arguments about fairness in LD are, by and large, arguments debaters fall back on when they don't know their opponent's literature well enough to engage with it. Running fairness while spreading or engaging in other behaviors that exclude people from debate is unlikely to get my ballot.

K's - I thoroughly enjoy critical debate. It fits very well with the intent of LD and forces debaters to examine assumptions. Logic must be sound and you should make a concerted effort to use the conceptual framework of your K as the basis for your argumentation (i.e. don't read "We can't draw conceptual lines between people," and then respond to case with arguments that draw lines between peoples). I have a pretty high threshold for what is topical so be prepared to engage with your opponent's lit. I don't enjoy rounds that devolve to T.

Phil - Critical arguments are based on differing philosophical views of the world. The phil authors we roll our eyes at today were often the radicals of their times. I find the debate community's distinction between Phil & K debate silly to the point of absurd and based on an incredibly reductive idea of who counts as a philosopher.

Performance - Go ahead, just make sure you have clear link stories.

Make sure you weigh your impacts for me. I may have a different perspective so if you don't make the weighing explicit, you are leaving it up to my interpretation. This includes ROBs, etc.

I expect timers and flashing to work without much delay. Having issues more than once in a round will lose speaks.

My speaks start at 28 for circuit tournaments. I'll dock a varsity debater more often for nonsense or rudeness than a JV debater. Making me laugh is a good way to bump up your points a few tenths. Enunciation is also a bonus.

I studied linguistics. If you are going to talk about plurals and indefinite articles, please have read more of the article than just the card you are citing.

CX is important and clarifies for me how well you understand your own arguments. I will dock points for badgering novices. Kindness is never the wrong move.

**Virtual debate notes: WiFi strength is not universal. Audio lags make it CRUCIAL that you speak clearly and don't talk over each other.

Speed/Spread:

I don't mind speed, as long as you are clear. I will only call "clear" twice in a varsity round. Taglines, authors, and card interp should be noticeably slower. It is up to the speaker to communicate their arguments and be aware of the audience's attention level. Language has a natural rhythm. Using that to assist you will make you easier to understand than cutting all the linking words out of your cards.

**Virtual debate notes: if I can't follow your speed on a video chat, getting those extra two cards in doesn't matter. Strategy has to adapt to the medium.

Congress:

I evaluate the full participation of the chamber, from docket maneuvers to quality and variety of questions. Successful legislators are those who drive the debate, present new/unique arguments, extend/refute/deepen previous arguments, choose sources carefully, and use parliamentary procedure appropriately. Debate on the merits/flaws of the specific legislation is given more weight than general issue arguments. Delivery style can enhance the persuasiveness of your analysis, but will not make up for canned speeches, poor supporting materials, or rehashed arguments.

POs are an essential part of the chamber. They set the mood, pace, and attitude of the chamber. It is a risk, and that is taken to account when I score. POs with a good pace and no major errors are very likely to be ranked.

Note on authorships/first pros: The price for establishing recency is that your speech must provide some background for the debate and at least one reason why this legislation in particular is/is not the answer.

Evidence

The purpose of evidence in all forms of debate is to support your arguments with expert testimony, not to BE your arguments. I will only ask for cards if something sounds exceptionally wonky. Have some understanding of the bias of your sources (Are they all from conservative think tanks?, etc.). It is generally up to your opponent(s) to point out blatantly wrong evidence, but I will dock for egregious offenses.

-Debated 4 years LD, graduating in 2013; qualified to TOC twice and reached Quarterfinals my senior year.

-Have coached for 10 years; am currently the Head Debate Coach at Lynbrook High School.

PF paradigm for Last Chance Qualifier:

1. Keep in mind that I don't know the topic at all -- you'll have to walk me through the links/the story of your argument.
2. Weigh your arguments and also respond to your opponents' weighing. A lot of the PF that I judge gets decided on the basis of drops -- you should be interacting in the last few speeches with any arguments that respond to what you're going for.
3. Please don't take too long sending evidence/don't excessively ask for evidence unless you really need to see it. I judge many rounds in which one side asks to see a ton of evidence and then barely references it later in the speech, yet the effect is still a considerable delaying of the round. If this becomes a problem I will be reducing speaker points.

LD paradigm from TOC (will probably update soon):

There was a misunderstanding about my paradigm, so am rewriting to be especially explicit:

The one argument I won't ever vote for is disclosure theory. I don't think anyone has to say anything to their opponent before the competition begins -- the concept of having to tell your opponent what your strategy is in advance is prima facie absurd in my opinion. I recognize that disclosure is a norm now, but it wasn't when I competed, and I think it's a bad addition.

I am truly horrible at adjudicating policy style debate. You should really only pref me for Phil and sometimes for theory.

pls read the whole thing!:)

do what you are best at, and try to maintain good spirits while doing so!

the innate purpose of education is healthy, reflexive, and fruitful for any parties involved

at the end of the day, you are educating yourself to an extent that the average human will not reach, and you also have the ability to test that knowledge competitively with your peers- that's really an amazing thing, and something that should be remembered even in the heat of competition.

i'm not including any information about my debate history, as i am not currently coaching: far less (personally) concerned about the inner-workings of debate procedurals and standards being set within the community. on the flip-side, i am much more concerned about evaluating debates purely for the sake of deciding a winner, as well as being able to provide students with ample constructive criticism that allows them to elevate competitively, as well as foster more creative educational possibilities in future rounds, whether winner or loser.

and most of all, have fun- the more you can laugh and reflect on a round with a grin, on even your worst mistakes (or biggest successes), the more you will be able to be kind to yourself and become better, not at the expense of your mental health. and remember, never have fun at the negative expense of your opponent- a brilliant troll becomes ignorant the moment they become a bully.

peace & good education,

cheers!

she/they

put me on the chain - skylrharris917@gmail.com

grossly overqualified parent judge

Current affiliations: Director of PF at NSD-Texas, Taylor HS

Prior: LC Anderson (2018-23), John B. Connally HS (2015-18), TDC,UTNIF LD

Email chain migharvey@gmail.com; please share all speech docs with everyone who wants them

Quick guide to prefs

Share ALL new evidence with me and your opponents before the speech during which it is read. Strike me if this is a problem. A paraphrased narrative with no cards in the doc does not count. This is an accommodation I need and a norm that makes debate better. I have needed copies of case since I was a high school debater. Even with me complaining about this, it often doesn't seem to make a difference. The maximum amount of speaks you can get if you don't share your constructive with me is 28.4 and that's if you are perfect. This guideline does not generally apply to UIL tournaments or novice debate rounds unless you are adopting national circuit norms/speaking style

PF:

Tech > truth unless it's bigoted or something

Unconventional arguments: fine, must be coherent and developed (K, spec advocacies, etc)

Framing/weighing mechanism: love impact framing that makes sense; at the very least do meta-weighing. "Cost-benefit analysis" is not a real framework. Must be read in constructive or top of rebuttal

Evidence sharing/disclosure: absolutely necessary but i won't ever vote for a disclosure shell that would out queer debaters. I will err toward reasonability on disclosure if there is contact info on the wiki and/or the case is freely shared a reasonable time before round.

Theory: I am gooder than most at evaluating theory but don't read it if you don't know how. Evidence ethics is very very very very very important

Speed: Fine. Share speech docs

Problematic PF bro/clout culture: ew no

Weighing: wins the majority of PF debates, especially link weighing

Default: offense/defense if there's no framing comparison or reason to prefer one method of weighing

Flow: yes, i flow

Sticky defense: no

LD/Policy:

LARP/topicality/MEXICAN STUFF: 1+

1-off ap, setcol, cap/1nc non-friv theory: 1-2

kant without tricks: 1-2

deleuze/softleft/psycho/non-pess black studies: 2

most other k/nt aff: 3

rawls/non-kant phil/heavy fw: 3-4

Baudrillard/performance: 4-5

queer pess/tricks: probably strike although I'm coming around on spikes a little bit

disability pess/nonblack afropess: strike if you don't want to lose

UIL: Pretty much anything is fine if it gets us through the round with minimal physical or emotional damage. Try to stay on the line by line. Read real evidence. Weigh, please. For CX, maybe don't read nontopical affirmatives against small schools or novices. For LD, make sure your offense links to your framing and that you have warranted justifications for your framework. Read on for further details

TLDR: Share speech docs. Don't be argumentatively or personally abusive. Debate is a game, but winning is not the only objective. Line by line debate is important. No new case extensions in 2AR or final focus. I will intervene against bigotry and disregard for others' physical and mental wellness. I don't disclose speaks, sorry :). I promise I'm trying my best to be nice. LD and policy-specific stuff at the bottom of this doc. I love Star Wars. I will listen to SPARK, warming good, and most impact turns but I generally believe that physical death is not good. Pronouns he/him/his.

Speaks range: usually between 27 and 29.8. 28.5 is average/adequate. I usually only give 30s to good novices or people who go out of their way to make the space better. If you are a man and are sexist in the space I will hack your speaks.

Note on ableism: It is upsetting for me personally to hear positions advocating unipolar pessimism, hopelessness, or the radical rejection of potential futures or social engagement/productivity by the disabled or especially the neurodivergent subject.DO NOT read disability pessimism/abjection or pandering arguments about autism to get me to vote for you. You will lose automatically, sorry

Post-rounding: I can't handle it. This includes post-rounding in email after rounds. I am autistic and it is psychologically and behaviorally triggering for me. I'll take the blame that I can't handle it, just please don't.

Afropessimism: I will vote you down regardless of any arguments made in the round if you or your partner aren't Black and you read afropess. Watch me I'll do it

I have the lowest threshold you can possibly imagine for a well-structured theory argument based on the refusal to share evidence not just with me but with your opponents.

Long version:

Personal abuse, harassment, or competitive dishonesty of any kind is strictly unacceptable. Blatantly oppressive/bigoted speech or behavior will make me consider voting against a debater whether or not the issue is raised by their opponent. If a debater asks you to respect and use preferred pronouns/names, I will expect you to do so. If your argument contains graphic depictions of racial, sexual, or otherwise marginalizing violence, please notify your opponent. Also see mental health stuff below, which is personally tough to hear sometimes. You do not need to throw trigger warnings onto every argument under the sun, it can be trivializing to the lived experience of the people you're talking about. Blatant evidence ethics violations such as clipping are an auto-voter. Try not to yell, please; my misophonia (an inconvenient characteristic shared by a lot of autistic people) makes unexpected volume changes difficult.

Our community and the individual people in it are deeply important to me. Please do your part to make debate safe and welcoming for competitors, judges, coaches, family members, and friends. I am moody and can be a total jerk sometimes, and I'm not so completely naive to think everything is fluffy bunnies and we'll all be best friends forever after every round, but I really do believe this activity can be a place where we lift each other up, learn from our experiences, and become better people. If you're reading this, I care about you. I hope your participation in debate reflects both self-care and care for others.

(cw: self-harm)

Mental and emotional well-being are at a crisis point in society, and particularly within our activity. We have all lost friends and colleagues to burnout, breakdown, and at worst, self-harm. If you are debating in front of me, and contribute to societal stigmas surrounding mental health or belittle/bully your opponent in any way that is related to their emotional state or personal struggles with mental wellness, you will lose with minimum speaks. I can't make that any more clear. If you are presenting arguments related to suicide, depression, panic, or self-harm, you must give a content warning for me. I am not flexible on this and will absolutely use my ballot to enforce this expectation.

PF: Speed is fine. Framing is great (actually, to the extent that any weighing mechanism counts as framework, I desire and enthusiastically encourage it). Framing should be read in constructive or at the TOP of rebuttal. Nontraditional PF arguments (K, theory, spec advocacies) are fine if they're warranted. Warrants in evidence matter so much to me.

PF Theory: I agree with the thesis behind disclosure theory, though I am less likely to vote on it at a local or buy an abuse story if the offending case is straightforward/common. Disclosure needs to be read in constructive. Don't read theory against novices. I will have a low threshold for paraphrasing theory if the violation is about the constructive and/or if the evidence isn't shared before the speech. Don't be afraid to make something a paragraph shell or independent voter (rather than a structured shell) so long as the voter is implicated.

I will always prefer evidence that is properly cut and warranted in the evidence rather than in a tag or paraphrase of it, especially offense and uniqueness evidence. I have an extremely LOW tolerance for miscut or mischaracterized evidence and am just *waiting* for some hero to make it an independent voter.. So nice, I’ll say it twice: Evidence ethics arguments have a very low threshold.

DO NOT PERPETUATE THE TOXIC, PRIVILEGED MALE PF ARCHETYPE. You know *exactly* what I’m talking about, or should. Call that stuff out, and your speaks will automatically go up. If you make the PF space unwelcoming to women or gender minorities, expect L25 and don’t expect me to feel bad about it.

I absolutely expect frontlining in second rebuttal, and will consider conceded turns true. I will not vote on new arguments or arguments not gone for in summary in final focus. No sticky defense.

"It's not allowed in PF" is not by itself a warranted argument.

Crossfire: If you want me to use something from crossfire in my RFD, it needs to be in subsequent speeches. I am not flowing crossfire; I am listening but probably also playing 2048 or looking at animal pictures. I don't really care if you skip Grand, but I won't let you use that practice as an excuse to frontload your prep use then award yourselves extra prep time.

LD/Policy Specifics:

Speed: Most rates of delivery are usually fine, though I love clarity and I am getting older. If you are not clear, I will say "clear." Slow down on tags and analytics for my sake and for your opponent's sake, especially if you don’t include your analytics in the doc. For online debates, the more arguments that are in the doc the better. I will listen to well-developed theoretical or critical indictments of spreading, but it will take some convincing.

Kritik: I have a basic understanding of much of the literature. Explain very clearly why I should vote and why your opponent should lose. For me, "strength of link" is not an argument applicable to most kritik rounds - I ask whether there is a risk of link (on both sides). Your arguments need to be coherent and well-reasoned. "Don't weigh the case" is not a warranted argument by itself - I tend to believe in methodological pluralism and need to be convinced that the K method should be prioritized. A link is *not* enough for a ballot. Just because I like watching policy-oriented rounds doesn't mean I don't understand the kritik or will hack against them. If you link to your own criticism, you are very unlikely to win. I believe the K is more convincing with both an alternative and a ballot implication (like most, I find the distinction between ROB and ROJ somewhat confusing).Please be mindful and kind about reading complicated stuff against novices. It is violent and pushes kids out of debate.

Theory/T: Fine, including 1AR theory. Just like with any other winning argument, I tend to look for some sort of offense in order to vote on either side. I don't default to drop the debater or argument. My abuse threshold on friv shells is much higher. I will not ever vote for a shell that polices debaters' appearance, including their clothes, footwear, hair, presentation, or anything else you can think of (unless their appearance is itself violent). I'll have a fairly high threshold on a strict "you don't meet" T argument against an extremely common aff and am more likely than not to hold the line on allowing US/big-ticket affs in most Nebel debates. One more thing - all voters and standards should be warranted. I get annoyed by "T is a voter because fairness and education" without a reason why those two things make T a voter. I don't care if it's obvious. Don't abuse theory against inexperienced debaters. A particularly egregious example would be to read shells in the 1AC, kick them, and read multiple new shells in the 1AR. Underviews and common spikes are fine. Please, I strongly prefer no tricks or excessive a prioris.A little addendum to that is that I do like truth testing as an argument, but not to justify skep or whatever dopey paradox makes everything false

Frameworks: Fine with traditional (stock or V/C), policy, phil, K, performance, but see my pref guide above for what I am most comfortable evaluating. While I don't think you have to have your own framework per se, I find it pretty curious when a debater reads one and then just abandons it in favor of traditional util weighing absent a distinct strategic reason to do so. I think TJF debates are interesting, but I seldom meet frameworks that *can't* be theoretically justified. Not sure if there's a bright line other than "you need to read the justifications in your constructive," and I'm not sure how good that argument is. I will vote on permissibility/presumption, on which I often lean aff in LD/policy.

LARP: My personal favorite and most comfortable debate to evaluate. Plans, counterplans, PICs, disads, solvency dumps, case turns, etc. Argue it well and it's fine. I don't think making something a floating PIK necessarily gets rid of competition problems; it has to be reasoned well. I'm very skeptical of severance perms and will have to be convinced - my threshold for voting on severance bad is very low. Impact turns are underutilized, but don't think that means I want you to be bigoted or fascist. Cap/heg good are fine. I'm very skeptical of warming good but will vote for it. To the extent that anyone prefs me, and no one should ever pref me under any circumstances, LARPers ought to consider preffing me highly.

Condo: Be really, really careful before you kick a K, especially if it is identity-related - I think reps matter. I am more likely to entertain condo bad if there are multiple conditional advocacies. More likely to vote on condo bad in LD than policy because of time/strat skew. One conditional counterplan advocacy in LD or 2 in policy is generally ok to me and I need a clear abuse story - I almost never vote for condo bad if it's 1 conditional counterplan.

Flashing/Email/Disclosure: I will vote for disclosure theory, but have a higher threshold for punishing or making an example of novices or non-circuit debaters who don't know or use the wiki. Reading disclosure at locals is silly. Lying during disclosure will get you dropped with 25 speaks; I don't care if it's part of the method of your advocacy. If you're super experienced, please consider not being terrible about disclosure to novice or small-school debaters who simply don't know any better. Educate them so that they'll be in a position to teach good practices in future rounds. My personal perspective on disclosure is informed by my background as a lawyer - I liken disclosure to the discovery process, and think debate is a lot better when we are informed. I won't vote on disclosure theory against a queer debater for whom disclosure would potentially out them. One caveat to prior disclosure is that I do conform to "breaking new" norms, though I listen to theory about it. In my opinion, the best form of disclosure is open-source speech docs combined with the wiki drop-down list. Please include me on email chains. Even if you don't typically share docs, please share me on speech docs - I can get lost trying to listen to even everyday conversation if I'm not able to follow along with written words. Seriously, I have cognitive stuff, please send me a speech doc.

Sitting/Standing: Whatever.

I do not care how you are dressed so long as your appearance itself is not violent to other people.

Flex prep/open CX: Fine in any event including PF. More clarity is good.

Performative issues: If you're a white person debating critical race stuff, or a man advocating feminism against a woman/non-man, or a cis/het person talking queer issues, etc., be sensitive, empathetic, and mindful. Also, I tend to notice performative contradiction and will vote on it if asked to. For example, running a language K and using the language you're critiquing (outside of argument setup/tags) is a really bad idea.

I do NOT default to util in the case of competing frameworks. If the framing debate is absolutely impossible to evaluate (sadly, it happens), I will try to figure out who won by weighing offense and defense under both mechanisms.

I tend to think plan flaw arguments are silly, especially if they're punctuation or capitalization-related. I have a very high threshold to vote on plan flaw. It has to be *actually* confusing or abusive, not fake confusing. I do like interp flaw arguments as defensive theory responses in the 1ar

I won't ever hack against trad debaters, but I am what you’d call a “technical” judge and if a debater concedes something terminal to the ballot, it’s probably game over. If you’re a traditional debater and the field is largely circuit debaters, your best bet to win in front of me is probably to go hard on the framework debate and either straight-turn or creatively group your opponent’s arguments.

Warrant all arguments in both constructives and rebuttals. An extended argument means nothing to me if it isn't explained. “They conceded it” is not a warranted argument.

Policy:

New for 2022: I'm older than most judges and I don't judge policy regularly anymore; I need you to slow down just a tick (300 wpm is fine if clear). I generally don't get lost in circuit LD rounds; think of that as your likely standard.

I was a policy debater and consultant at the beginning of my career. Most of this doc is LD and PF-specific, because those are the pools to which I'll generally be assigned. Most of what is above applies to my policy paradigm. I am most comfortable evaluating topical affirmatives and their implications, but I am a very flexible judge and critical/plan-less affs are fine. That said, just like in LD I like a good T debate and I will happily vote for TFW if it's well-argued and won. One minor thing is different from my LD paradigm: I conform a little bit more to policy norms in terms of granting RVIs less often in policy rounds, but that's about it. Obviously, framework debate (meaning overarching framing mechanisms, not T-Framework) is not usually as important in policy, but I'm totally down with it if that's how you debate. I guess a lot of policy debaters still default to util, so be careful if the other side isn't doing that but I guess it's fine if everyone does it. Excessive prompting/feeding during speeches may affect speaks, and I get that it's a thing sometimes, but I don't believe it's particularly educational and I expect whomever is giving the speech to articulate the argument. I am not flowing the words of the feeder, just the speaker. While I'm fairly friendly to condo advocacies in LD, I'm even more friendly to them in policy because of norms and speech times. I'll vote for condo bad, but it needs to be won convincingly - I'll likely err neg if it's 1 or 2 counterplans. Much more likely to vote for condo bad if one of the advocacies is a K that links to the counterplan(s).

Everyone: please ask questions if I can clarify anything. If you get aggressive after the round, expect the same from me and expect me to disengage with little to no warning. My wellness isn't worth your ego trip. I encourage pre-round questions. I might suggest you look over my paradigm, but it doesn't mean you shouldn't ask questions.

Finally, I find Cheetos really annoying in classrooms, especially when people are using keyboards. It's the dust. Don't test my Cheeto tolerance. I'm not joking, anything that has the dust sets me off. Cheetos, Takis, all that stuff. I get that it's delicious, but keep it the hell out of the academy.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020

Fordham 2024

Email - hatfieldwyatt@gmail.com

Debate is a game, first and foremost.

I qualified for the TOC Junior and Senior years and came into contact with virtually every type of argument

Summary of my debate style - I just enjoyed the activity while reading all types of arguments with my own spin on them. I think debate is often boring with debaters just reading blocks and not being innovative.

Please note that I have strong opinions on what debate should be, but I will not believe them automatically every round they have to be won just like any other argument. Tech>truth no exceptions.

Triggers - French Revolution and Freemasonry

I am not a fan of identity-based arguments. Please don't run arguments that are only valid based on your or your opponent's identity.

Speaks -

How to get good speaks 29-29.5

• be entertaining either with good music, good jokes etc
• making arguments that I like or agree with; this includes Catholicism and Monarchism.
• Style
• Reference something from Scooby-Doo

How to get 30

• Define the 4 Marian Dogmas
• Explain Unam Sanctam
• Explain who you think the greatest monarch is and why
• Explain who you think the greatest Saint is and why
• Recite the our father or hail mary in latin

How to get low speaks

- Having bad strategy choice

-being really rude or mean

- Swearing or cursing, try to keep it professional and respectful, please

Styles of Debate -

I will vote on all of them if I see your winning them

Tricks - 1

Larp - 2

Phil - 1

K - 3

Theory - 1

K performance - 5

EXPERIENCE: I'm the head coach at Harrison High School in New York; I was an assistant coach at Lexington from 1998-2004 (I debated there from 1994-1998), at Sacred Heart from 2004-2008, and at Scarsdale from 2007-2008. I'm not presently affiliated with these programs or their students. I am also the Curriculum Director for NSD's Philadelphia LD institute.

Please just call me Hertzig.

Please include me on the email chain: harrison.debate.team@gmail.com

QUICK NOTE: I would really like it if we could collectively try to be more accommodating in this activity. If your opponent has specific formatting requests, please try to meet those (but also, please don't use this as an opportunity to read frivolous theory if someone forgets to do a tiny part of what you asked). I know that I hear a lot of complaints about "Harrison formatting." Please know that I request that my own debaters format in a particular way because I have difficulty reading typical circuit formatting when I'm trying to edit cards. You don't need to change the formatting of your own docs if I'm judging you - I'm just including this to make people aware that my formatting preferences are an accessibility issue. Let's try to respect one another's needs and make this a more inclusive space. :)

BIG PICTURE:

CLARITY in both delivery and substance is the most important thing for me. If you're clearer than your opponent, I'll probably vote for you.

SHORTCUT:

Ks (not high theory ones) & performance - 1 (just explain why you're non-T if you are)

Trad debate - 1

T, LARP, or phil - 2-3 (don't love wild extinction scenarios or incomprehensible phil)

High theory Ks - 4

Theory - 4 (see below)

Tricks - strike

*I will never vote on "evaluate the round after ____ [X speech]" (unless it's to vote against the person who read it; you aren't telling me to vote for you, just to evaluate the round at that point!).

GENERAL:

If, after the round, I don't feel that I can articulate what you wanted me to vote for, I'm probably not going to vote for it.

I will say "slow" and/or "clear," but if I have to call out those words more than twice in a speech, your speaks are going to suffer. I'm fine with debaters slowing or clearing their opponents if necessary.

I don't view theory the way I view other arguments on the flow. I will usually not vote for theory that's clearly unnecessary/frivolous, even if you're winning the line-by-line on it. I will vote for theory that is actually justified (as in, you can show that you couldn't have engaged without it).

I need to hear the claim, warrant, and impact in an extension. Don't just extend names and claims.

For in-person debate: I would prefer that you stand when speaking if you're physically able to (but if you aren't/have a reason you don't want to, I won't hold it against you).

I'd prefer that you not use profanity in round.

Link to a standard, burden, or clear role of the ballot. Signpost. Give me voting issues or a decision calculus of some kind. WEIGH. And be nice.



To research more stuff about life career coaching then visit Life coach.

Hi! I'm Sally and I debated for Scarsdale High School in LD for 4 years, graduating in 2019. Email me docs at hosallyho@gmail.com, and feel free to message me if you have any questions before round!

Scarsdale Update: I haven’t judged in over a year and have no idea what’s going on in debate in terms of trends and new args since then. Also haven’t listened to spreading since then so take from that what you will.

TLDR (Longer Paradigm to come ig never):

I read pretty much everything from performance to burdens and tricks, so I don't really have a preference for a certain style of debate. That being said, I have a higher threshold for explanations and weighing in dense K or LARP debates, as these were the ones I engaged with the least. In general, I won't vote on an argument I don't understand from your speeches.

In the absence of any argument made on either side, I will default truth testing, competing interpretations, no RVIs, drop the arg on theory, and drop the debater on T.

To me, debate is a game, something that can be educational but that can also be pretty toxic. This has two completely separate implications. One, don't assume the judge is an educator and call on me to do whatever - I need a warrant for that. Two, be nice! I'm not saying I don't want to see a good CX or a crushingly good strategy, but people are stressed enough as it is and you should know where the line is.

I haven't engaged with debate for a couple months, so honestly take all of my 'techy stances' with a grain of salt. That also means I'm not going to understand you if you stand up and start spreading at your max speed. Start slow and then speed up, and make sure you're clear on standards, advocacy texts, etc. I don't know exactly how fast would be good with me, but if I'm not following and spaced out you'll be able to tell.

I honestly have no idea what I'm going to average in speaks.

Hello,

I am a parent judge, but I've gotten pretty decent at understanding debate over the last few years.

4 things you should know:

1. I strongly prefer substantive arguments - they're the easiest for me to understand.

2. I dislike theory and topicality, but I get that they are a necessity. However, I would ask that you run them only if there is clear abuse, such as if a person didn't disclose.

3. Please strike me if you run Kritiks - I'm not too familiar with most K literature. If you absolutely must run a K, please explain it very thoroughly.

4. If you spread, please send me a speech doc.

Email: kmadhavi11@yahoo.com

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

Plano Senior '20

Indiana University '23

3X NDT Qualifier (21,22,23)

Add me on the email chain ajasanideb8@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "Kentucky - Round 1 - Indiana JP (AFF) vs Indiana GJ (NEG)"

CONFLICTS: Plano Senior(TX), Clark High School(TX), Stanford Online(CA), Southlake Carroll(TX), Indiana University(IN),

TLDR: Flexible, but don't read anything that is offensive.

Largely agree with

-Brian Delong

-Jacob Bosley

-Adam Tomasi

-Jamie Davenport

-Matthew Bricker

-Alex Yoakum

Some Generic Stuff

1)I believe that debaters should have fun while debating. I realize that certain debates get heated, however do your best not to be mean to your partner, and to the other team. There are few things I hate more than judging a debate where the teams are jerks to each other

2)No judge will ever like all the arguments you make, but I will always attempt to evaluate every argument fairly. I will always listen to positions from every angle. Be clear both in delivery and argument function/interaction and WEIGH and DEVELOP a ballot story.

3) Don't cheat - miscutting, clipping, straw-manning etc. It's an auto-loss with 0 speaks if I catch you. Ev ethics claims aren't theory arguments - if you make an ev ethics challenge, you stake the round on it and the loser of the challenge gets an L-0. (this only applies if you directly accuse your opponent of cheating though - if you read brackets with an ev ethics standard that's different).

4)The quickest way to LOSE my ballot is to say something offensive (racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc.)

5) I will assume zero prior knowledge when going into a round on any subject, which means it's on you to make me understand your warrant purely from the speech itself.

6) Use all of your speech and cross-ex time. I will dock speaker points if you use cross-ex for prep, or if you end a speech early. I think that there's always more you can ask or say about an argument, even if you're decisively ahead.

7) I care a lot about evidence quality. Use your cards well and utilize them the best you can. Unpack your warrants and be comparative; use lines of your own and your opponents' evidence to flag important arguments that matter to my decision.

8) I can handle speed as long as you are CLEAR, BUT please accommodate for your opponents who have disabilities

9) Tech>Truth

10) NOTE FOR ONLINE: Record your speeches. If anyone's internet goes out you should immediately send the recording to everyone in the round. If you don't have a recording, you only get what I flowed. I would strongly prefer that we all keep our cameras on during the debate, but I obviously recognize the very real and valid reasons for not having your camera on. I will never penalize you for turning your camera off, but if you can turn it on, let's try. I will always keep my camera on while judging.

Policy Paradigm

K Affs: I don’t care whether you read a plan or not, but affs should have a specific tie to the resolution and be a departure from the status quo that is external from the reading of the 1AC. Impact turning framework is more strategic than counter-defining words or reading clever counter-interps, but you should have a clear model of debate and what the role of the negative is.

Framework: Affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic, even if not traditional endorsement or hypothetical implementation of a policy. At the bare minimum, affirmatives should "affirm" something. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that are purely negative arguments or diagnoses. Teams should have a robust defense of what their model of debate/argument looks like and what specific benefits it would produce. Teams tend to do better in front of me if they control the framing of what I should do with my ballot or what my ballot is capable of solving. Whether it signals an endorsement of a particular advocacy, acts as a disincentive in a games-playing paradigm, or whatever else, my conclusion on what the ballot does often filters how I view every other argument. Teams tend to do better with me the more honest they are about what a given debate or ballot can accomplish."TVAs" can be helpful, but need to be specific. I expect the block to provide an example plan text. Solvency evidence is ideal, but a warranted explanation for how the plan text connects to the aff's broader advocacy/impact framing can be sufficient. If the 2NR is going to sit on a TVA, be explicit about what offense you think the TVA accesses or resolves.

Policy v K: Don't lose the specificity of the aff in favor of generic K answers. Reading long framing contentions that fail to make it past the 1AC and 2ACs that include every generic K answer won't get you as far as taking the time to engage the K and being intentional about your evidence. You should clearly articulate an external impact and the framing for the round. I'm more likely to buy framework arguments about how advocating for a policy action is good politically and pedagogically than fairness arguments.

K v Policy: Ask yourself if you can explain your position without the use of buzzwords, if the answer is no, you risk being in the latter category. Take time to clearly explain and implicate the links/impacts/framing arguments and contextualize them to the aff. Make sure to tell me why the impacts of the K come first and weigh the impacts of the K against that of the alt. Absent serious investment in the framework portion of the debate/massive concessions, the aff will most likely get to weigh the aff's impacts against the K so impact comparison and framing are vital. Framework arguments should not only establish why the aff's framework is bad but also establish what your framework is so that my ballot is more aligned more closely with your framework by the end of the debate. K's don't have to have an alt and you can kick out of the alt and go for the links as case turns.

K v K: Affs should have an advocacy statement and defend a departure from the status quo. Affs don't have to have a clear method coming out of the 1AC, although I am more likely to vote neg on presumption absent a method. I have a higher threshold for perms in debates where the aff doesn't defend a plan but just saying "K affs don't get perms" isn't sufficient for me to deny the perm.

Policy v Policy: Nothing much to say here, but please weigh!!

T: I enjoy a good T debate and think T is very underutilized against policy affs. Make sure you are substantively engaging with the interpretation and standards and aren’t just blitzing through your blocks. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise.

CP: Explanation is crucial. I need to be able to understand how the CP operates. 2NCs/2NRs should start with a quick overview of what the CP does. Blazing through this at top speed will not contribute to my understanding. Fine with you reading PICS

DA: Framing is everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness, or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Theory: I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and it's not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. It's hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

LD paradigm

Theory: I believe that RVI is very illogical and non-sensical, thus I will not vote on RVIs. Everything else look at the policy paradigm.

Philosophy/FW: I really like a good framework debate. Please make all framework arguments comparative. I will default to truth testing unless told otherwise.

Tricks:After doing policy for a while, I just think tricks are silly and are usually very underdeveloped. If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or misallocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I won't vote on a trick that I don't understand or doesn't have a warrant. Please don't blitz through spikes. I am quite willing to give an RFD of "I didn't flow that," "I didn't understand that," or "I don't think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.

Policy and Kritik: Look at the policy paradigm.

PF Paradigm

I prefer line-by-line debate to big picture in summary, rebuttal, and final focus. I am fine with Policy/LD arguments in PF.

1) The only thing that needs to be in summary and final focus besides offense is terminal defense. Mitigatory defense and non-uniques are sticky because they matter a lot less and 2 minutes is way too short for a summary. BUT, if you do not extend terminal defense, it doesn't just go away; it just becomes mitigatory rather than terminal ie I will still evaluate the risk of offense claims.

2)The First summary only needs to extend the defense with which 2nd rebuttal interacts. Turns and case offense need to be explicitly extended by author/source name. Extend both the link and the impact of the arguments you go for in every speech (and uniqueness if there is any).

3)2nd Rebuttal should frontline all turns. Any turn not frontlined in 2nd rebuttal is conceded and has 100% strength of link -- don't try to respond in a later speech.

4)Every argument must have a warrant -- I have a very low threshold to frontlining blip storm rebuttals.

5) If you want me to evaluate an arg, it must be in BOTH summary and Final Focus.

6)I'm fine with progressive PF- I don't have a problem w plans or CPs. PFers have a hard time understanding how to make a CP competitive- please make perms if they aren't. Theory, Kritiks, and DAs are fine too. If you wanna see how I evaluate these, see my Policy/LD paradigm above.

7)You get a 1:15 grace period to find your PDF, and for every thirty seconds you go over, you will lose .5 speaker points. If you go over two minutes and thirty seconds, the PDF will be dropped from the round.

8)Please have a cut version of your cards; I will be annoyed if they are paraphrased with no cut version available because this is how teams so often get away with the misrepresentation of evidence which skews the round.

9)If you clear your opponent when I don't think it's necessary, I'll deduct 0.2 speaks each time it happens. Especially if there's a speech doc, you don't need to slow down unless I'm the one clearing you.

10)Because evidence ethics have become super iffy in PF, I will give you a full extra speaker point if you have disclosed all tags, cites, and text 15 mins before the round on the NDCA PF Wiki under your proper team, name, and side and show it to me. I would love for an email chain to start during the round with all cards on it.

Speaker Points Scale

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.

Hi y'all! I debated for Valley High School for seven years and graduated in 2020, qualifying to both NSDA Nationals and TOC.

Bronx 2022 Update: I haven't judged (or thought about) debate in a while, so just keep that in mind. Go a little bit slower please, but everything below still applies. 

Email: animeshjoshi9@gmail.com

I don't flow off the doc, just a heads up.

General:

Tech > Truth.

Do what you want to do.

Here are just some miscellaneous guidelines.

1. Explanation usually matters more than argument content. As long as I can get a coherent warrant for an argument, and it's not blatantly offensive, I'm willing to vote on it.

2. I'm good with any type of debate and will evaluate every argument to the best of my ability. I read a lot of analytic philosophy as a debater, so I'm probably most comfortable with that style and would likely enjoy it when executed correctly. That being said, don't read something you're bad at just because I read it--it leads to bad debates that will make me sad. Watching debaters do what they're good at is super cool, and I think I'm comfortable adjudicating any style of debate. The one exception is probably LARP v LARP; I'm not very well versed in that. Disclosure theory is fine, but I don't like it at all, especially super tiny violations, i.e. round reports, open-source in cite box, etc.

EDIT: Also, not the biggest fan of osource being read against full text disclosure, but you do you. Also pt2, reading some sort of framing mechanism, i.e. ANY framework, is probably in your best interest.

3. Despite being from Valley, I'm not the biggest fan of tricks. Watching a bad tricks debate makes my head hurt, and they often seem like cheap shots (the way they're currently used in debate, they aren't always bad arguments). However, I do understand their strategic value and, when executed correctly, can be really enjoyable to watch. Cool and nuanced topical tricks > resolved. I'd prefer to not hear a 2AR on a garbage a priori when there's a clear substantive route to the ballot--that's all.

4. Even if things are conceded, please extend them. I have a low threshold for extensions, but there still needs to be ink on my flow with something resembling a warrant. That is, a 2AR going for defense to a 2NR on theory STILL needs to say "extend aff offense, it was conceded."

5. Independent voters need to be warranted. Tossing out a claim without any reasoning attached to it is not a coherent argument.

6. Weigh between arguments, please. Every type of debate gets messy whether it be theory, framework, or clash of civs. Weighing really helps me resolve these rounds.

7. I dislike people prescripting every speech. It seems to be happening more and more--it irks me. I will reward debaters who actually generate arguments and think of responses on their feet.

8. Have fun! Debate is super stressful and rough. Try to lighten up and enjoy some of the experience! But don't be exclusionary to somebody who isn't versed in circuit norms, is a novice, etc. Let's try to keep the space inclusive :)

If you have any other questions, let me know before round!

Hello, I'm Taman Kanchanapalli! Nice to meet you and I hope I can give you good comments from your round with me in the back!

Email chain: taman.sai.k@gmail.com

Qualifications: Debated for Berkeley Prep and HB Plant High School and earned TOC bids in multiple formats (Policy, LD, and PF). I debated a total of 4 years. I’ve gotten some RR invites, made deep elims of national tournaments, and qualified to NSDA nationals 4 times. I think I can be able to make a coherent decision most of the time, but am no means perfect, and will try my best to adjudicate your round in the most technical fashion possible. Here are some people who have greatly influenced my takes on debate: Kevin Kuswa, Ronak Ahuja, Andrew Overing, John Overing, Daryl Burch, Ignacio Evans, Roberto Fernandez, Isaac Segal, Peregrine Beckett, Kumail Zaidi, and Tajaih Robinson.

Note for e-debating: Try to use a good microphone if possible, and please slow down a bit on analytics or send them in the doc. It’s probably due to static or some internet issue, but I’ve noticed a lot of people cutting out during some speeches, and I think going a tad bit slower can slow that.

At the top:

I think debate’s an educational and competitive space. Due to its competitive nature, I tend to view it as a game that reaps educational benefits as a result of clash. As so, I try to judge through a tech > truth paradigm and try to catch every argument on flow. I don’t necessarily default to anything and can convinced otherwise for every argument. The only exception is racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, and other arguments of that type.

Quick prefs:

K: 1

LARP: 1

Tricks: 2

nonFriv theory: 2

Friv Theory: 3

Normative Phil: 2/3

Tough to understand Phil: 4

Performance: 2/3

Here are my thoughts on specific arguments:

Disads: I really like good and though out topic DAs. I think it’s an important part of topic education and is unique to every topic. My favorite 2NR my senior year was the generic Conventional Weapons/Deterrence DA with a couple extra added in scenarios for escalation. I view the impact and link portions of DAs the most, so please establish solid ones and do weighing on which comes first. The earlier the weighing, the better my frame for evaluating the round. As I did my first 3 years in policy, I am a big fan on the politics DA, but I think the weakest part of this is the link level. Establish this, and be clear on the line by line and warrants of this and you should be good.

Counterplans: My favorite type of these are creative advantages Cps (tend to be multiplank ones) and process CPs. I think a solid CP strat should have a robust solvency advocate and be well applied to the aff. I reward strategic Cps and prowess with very high speaks as it kinda just gets me really happy to see these unfold in a unique manner in the 2NR. I usually default to CP theory, except Consult and delay, as drop the argument, but I can be convinced otherwise very easily by things like dropped paradigm issues. However, I grant the aff leeway with abusive perms against abusive Cps as long as you justify it.

Impact Turns: BIG FAN OF THESE! China War good, Russia War good, Spark, Wipe-out, all are arguments that I think are evidence heavy and end up being my favorite debates to judge. I’ve gone for these a lot and I think the biggest part of the impact turn debate really comes down to the timeframe differential and why the aff is worse than the status quo.

Topicality: I tend to think this is a bit different than theory for me. Having a policy background, I think this is usually a neg exclusive argument, and the unique abusive on T seems to be a gateway issue unlike theory that happens in the round. Obviously this can be changed if you win things like an RVI or Theory > T on the flow, but this is just how I view T usually. I believe a good T 2NR has a lot of standard/impact comparison, weighing, and defense. Basically a combo of robust offense under your model of debate, and terminal defense to your opponent’s.

Theory: This was a nice addition that I got used to as I joined LD. I understand the pedagogical benefits of these, and I LOVE to see a technical theory debate. This is where everything is pure tech of me, I can be convinced of literally anything (semantics > Fairness, E > F, etc.) I can buy even the worst, most frivolous impacts, and will even evaluate things like Clothes theory. Not the biggest fan of these args for obvious reasons, but if you win it on the flow, I will be more than happy to vote for it and reward with good speaks.

Disclosure: I think this is generally a good practice and am a huge fan of open source disclosure. Show me after the round and you get a .3 speaker point boost. I’ve really reaped a huge benefit from the LD open source wiki, and the college wiki during my senior year as a small school debater and believe that it doesn’t make a huge prep out disadvantage. I like disclosure, but if there are structural factors that prevent you from doing so or the disclosure violation is super frivolous, then there’s a good chance I could be voting the other way.

Phil: This is probably the model of debate I’m least familiar with, but I do really like and engage with basic phil. Here are the phil NCs I’m familiar with: Monism, Kant/Lib, Hobbes, Polls, Pragmatism, and the more basic versions of skep (Moral Skep, External World skep, Derrida, etc.). I like these debates on the justification level and nice tricks like hijacks/collapses type arguments. However, I really like robust contentions of offense, for example if your opponent reads Kant and reads like 1 card on Kant negates, if the 1AR has 3 offensive args under Kant and the 2AR ends up being Kant affirms, I would be very very happy and if you win, I would reward you with insanely high speaks. If you are running complex phil, please dumb down the language a bit for me. Whenever I’ve hit debaters running super complex phil, I always had a tough time in cross understanding what they were saying. Remember, if it’s very hard for your opponent to understand, good chance your judge will feel the same.

Ks: I really like good K debates. I was primarily a K debater in high school, except 2nd semester where I decided to run LARP, Tricks, and the K randomly at tournaments based on a random number generator (this was cuz I just wanted to have fun). I would say I’ve pretty well-read in most critical literature. I definitely know the basics of the vast majority of Ks, and know a few particularly well. Here are the ones I know really well: Black studies (the likes of afropess, Warren, Racial capitalism, Hapticality, Black Baudrillard, etc.), Semiocap & Logistical studies (baudrillard, BiFo, M&H, etc.), Marxist cap, Queer Theory (Homonationalism, Queer press, Queer becoming), Bataille, Academy K, Psychoanalysis. Ks I know relatively well: the Util K, Fem, Set col. There are probably a lot of missing Ks, but I would say I generally understand the thesis and format of these and should be able to adjudicate your debates. If you run the K in front of me, make sure you have a good defense of your theory of power, and if you’re debating against the K, please try to engage with it and DO NOT concede the theory of power. I am generally understanding of good K tricks under impact calc as well (Turn case, floating piks, etc.) My favorite K 2NR this year was Barber and Hostage taking. My general 2AR v the K was extinction outweighs and theory of power defense. I heavily dislike bad K debates, please don’t shift to the K just because I’m in the back. Bad K debates really make me big sad.

Tricks: Yeah man, these are funny, and I love judging these debates IF they are good. Bad Tricks debate were there’s no weighing, clash, and there are a prioris and spikes flying all over the place really makes me stress, and I don’t like to be stressing. I actually think Tricks debate has a good amount of clash and weighing involved and the best debaters do this and make my RFD very simple (for example, if condo logic is conceded by the neg, but the aff concedes GSP, and the 2AR doesn’t do weighing on why condo logic outweighs, but the 2NR makes an arg about GSP outweighing because affirming negates, then I can negate). Contestation, LBL, and weighing are crucial to these debates, and I will adjudicate them as such. Good tricks debates also makes my life super easy and prolly just result in high speaks.

Clash debates: I’ve usually judged these types of debates. I think NonT affs bring in a new pedagogical facet into debate. I’ve read a lot of these, but keep in mind, I also went for FW a lot versus these affs. If you defend a nonT aff, please PRESENT and DEFENSE your model of debate. I am not a big fan on args that try to use the space as purely a survival strategies or is good to auto-vote for X people. Affirmatives that defend a model of debate, have strong offensive, and turns against FW are the ones that fair the best in front of me. The only exception to this is if you just straight up go for debate bad, but then you will need to defend your solvency on the aff and prove what the aff uniquely does to “break down debate.” On the neg, Clash is my favorite impact and I think a TVA with a good solvency advocate is really deadly against nonT affs. I personally think fairness is an internal link to clash and education, but I can easily be convinced otherwise. I think SSD is underutilized against specific type affs, and should be explained more in the 2NR rather than for like 20 seconds as I think it’s a great impact filter. I also think presumption is heavily underutilized because half of these affs really don’t do what they say they are doing. A 2NR that defends their impacts, does weighing, and has an impact filter, but also heavily contests the case debate against nonT affs typically fair the best in front of me.

K v K debates: I think these debates are really intellectually informative and I enjoy adjudicating these debates. I think the main part of the neg is beat back the perm and win solid links with impacts against the K aff when you go for this. I’ve gone for Psycho, Academy, Antiblackness, and Cap Ks vs. K affs.

Anything besides TFW/Ks v NonT affs: I really like it when you get innovative and go for like a DA or NC v K affs. I think the biggest part of this is the link level on the DA, since they tend to be not the best, and same with the offense under an NC. But, if you do try this, I think I would reward with high speaks just because it’s quite innovative.

CONFLICTS FOR TOC 2024: Los Altos AK, Lynbrook (BZ and OM), Monta Vista (EY and KR), Walt Whitman HZ, Horace Greeley SG, Flower Mound AV, Village SZ

(I go by Sai + they/them)

Quarry Lane 19, NYU 22

(skaravadi.2001@gmail.com) -- Pls use speechdrop, fileshare, or add me to the email chain! And feel free to ask me questions before round about my paradigm or judging, but pretty extensive notes here!

If there is anything I can do to make the round more accessible, pls don't hesitate to reach out!

I don't know how much this matters, but this is my 9th year in debate -- pls I'm so old. I debated for Quarry Lane in high school and then for NYU in college. I had 9 career TOC bids in high school LD, broke at the TOC, won a college policy tourney and reached late elims at others, and coached LD debaters who reached late elims at the TOC and other bid tourneys. I've also judged like 300 rounds of LD and policy at bid tournaments since 2019, including bid rounds and late elims. I care about my role as an adjudicator and educator, and also think extensively about my paradigm when making decisions, meaning I try to make sure nothing affects my decision that is not on here and I avoid intervention as much as possible to ensure the debate is in your hands, not mine. :))

UPDATE FOR TOC:

This is my last tournament in debate, so I am feeling more generous with speaks than usual, unless I get the ick! Check the bottom for more on how to avoid that.

Will be taking a bit longer to decide than usual since I know rounds are more high stakes for y'all (and will likely be closer), so please bear with me.

No tricks pls! :D

(Moral uncertainty --> util, regress and bindingness, aspec and plan flaw = yes, these are just framework or theory arguments -- those are fine and are just, but no im not evaluating the round before the end of the 2AR or voting for the resolved a priori -- you can ask me if I will evaluate/vote on X argument before the round, but the litmus test should be whether or not the argument is relevant in discussing the aff irl -- plan flaw is and paradoxes are not imo)

TLDR:

Pls go 70-80% speed. Sucker for a good K, techy phil debate, smart impacting on a spec shell standard, well-researched small advantage plan aff, etc. -- framing and impacts!!!!!

Tech > truth -- I aim to be as tab as I can and have experience reading, coaching, and judging every style of debate in LD -- I'll vote on anything, within reason. My approach to rounds has always been who do I need to do the least work for. That means you’re always better off with more judge instruction, clear weighing, impact comparison, and strong line by line as well as overview analysis. That’s obviously a lot (and LD rounds are short), so prioritize issues and collapse in later speeches. I think I probably have a relatively high threshold for warrants, which means quality > quantity.

I have specific sections below for everything, but larp is cute but please comparatively weigh, phil is dope but please collapse, K's are fun but you need to be clear and warrant things, T is I love and I default T > case, and theory is cool but idk what the brightline for spreading is and yes on disclosure but meh on docs, new aff's, open source, etc. -- not discouraging general disclosure theory tho. I am willing to vote on impact turns, perf cons, independent voting issues, etc. — just make them clear, warrant them, and don’t leave me with a ton of questions at the end of the round. I don't like lay debate -- you can spread, but just still answer stuff. Also, misgendering, slurs, etc. -- those are voters.

Also check my rant at the bottom on speed and off's!

My only hardcore paradigmatic policies are that I will not enforce an argument about what a debater should wear because I feel uncomfortable doing that (shoes theory, clothing theory, etc. will earn you an auto-loss) or anything that is overtly violent, but you are also welcome to ask me or have your coaches ask me about my comfort evaluating certain strategies or arguments.

Defaults only matter if not debated, but:

Substantive: comparative worlds, tech > truth, epistemic confidence, presume neg unless neg reads a counter-advocacy or reads 3+ off

Procedural: competing interps, no RVI's, drop the debater

SIDE-NOTE: If you don't want someone in the room, feel free to ask them to leave (or email/contact me privately if you are uncomfortable with having to say it yourself and I will ask them to leave).

For prefs -- I like to think I'm a good judge for you regardless of what you read (except tricks -- im over it), as long as you warrant and explain how I should evaluate arguments. I read everything during my career and have actually mostly judged non-K rounds (despite having mostly read K's as a debater) -- I feel confident I'm a good judge for really any style of debate because I'll grant anything with a warrant -- the bigger the claim, the more established the warrant should be ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ . So yes, I will grant your non-T aff and be interested, I will grant your framework warrants and be interested, I will grant your interps and be interested, and I will ALWAYS grant a well-researched and updated DA story, but I will also easily grant answers to any of these -- read what you want, just be creative!

SPECIFIC SECTIONS/TYPES OF ARGS:

Policy/LARP:

I don’t think there’s much of an issue here since this is my initial foundation, I defended plan aff's and DA's throughout my career, I was a west coast debater, I read policy strategies in college with my partner, coached a couple policy and LD kids who read topical plan aff's, and I love policy debate. Debate as you do and I doubt there’s gonna be a problem for me.

However, these debates do end up getting quite messy, especially in LD. I am a sucker for strong link overviews with impact calc that's also comparative. I think collapsing, impact overviews, and framing analysis can help here.

I'm a sucker for weighing and warrant comparison -- when I say comparative, I basically mean that you should also make sure you answer/deal with weighing arguments made by the other debater -- these debates can sometimes become frustrating to resolve as a judge because there's a lot of impacts thrown out in later speeches with weighing implications attached to them, but I'm often left having to resolve them or figure out who did that tiny bit of comparison that I can vote on -- you can easily win my ballot by telling me how to evaluate this/compare between weighing args -- you can call it what you want, framing or comparative weighing or second level impact calc -- I find it super persuasive and a smart technical move that often wins my ballot.

Don't be afraid to defend a policy aff against k's or phil -- I don't mind voting aff on Zanotti 14, but I'd rather you have a coherent justification for the aff being a good idea and a developed link turn strategy. Compare between the aff and the alt. Do framework comparisons if there's an NC and don't pretend Bostrom is enough. Also, adding in an impact that applies to marginalized populations could really help in debates where you want to go for a DA against a K aff, which shouldn't be hard to find since shtuff like climate change, war, and poverty affect those groups the most and also first.

DA's and CP's are fine and I have no problem here. I really like specific links and very specific politics scenarios, from like specific bills in Congress to international relations. I think 2 condo PIC's might be starting to push it, but that just means you should be ready to defend that you get them because I don't care as long as you answer any potential theory args.

Phil:

I’m mostly familiar with Butler's work and Kant, but also have experience with Epistemic Humility, Civic Republicanism, Virtue Ethics, Pragmatism, Particularism, Agonism, Butler, Deleuze, Levinas, Hobbes, Rawls, Locke, Descartes, and skep (also of course, util of all forms). I've read into the literature of and/or defended all of these, but never studied them too in-depth academically and wouldn't call myself an expert -- I haven't had trouble judging them and actually enjoying hearing them, so just do your best and you should be fine. Also I love Kant LOL.

I default epistemic confidence, but am open to hearing epistemic modesty and/or other framing mechanisms for evaluating competing ethical theories -- but that's up to you to justify and win.

I think phil arguments are strategic due to the amount of credence I must grant them -- i.e., I don't think someone can ignore independent framework warrants like shying away from answering bindingness or regress -- but I would need you to slow down a tiny bit and collapse harder in later speeches. Again, you do you! I am happy to judge anything and love framework debate a lot.

I find Phil vs. K interactions really interesting, but both sides could benefit from specific warranting when it comes to this rather than just winning your own framework or theory of power, but I am just as willing to vote on Kant as I am to vote on a K.

I also really really like phil vs. phil debates -- these are some of the most interesting debates and I am impressed by both the technical proficiency and critical/logical thinking skills that debaters employ. I am likely to grant both debaters very high speaks in these debates if they are done well, but also really feel like I learn a lot in these rounds. This also includes like Kant vs. util, but I think something like ordo amoris vs. Deleuze would be so so interesting.

I am not very persuaded by author indicts of philosophers, but can be convinced if it is argued well -- BUT I have a higher threshold for this than a turn to the framework itself. For example, I won't auto-vote on Kant (as in the guy) is racist, unless someone proves that his theory itself also is and does the work of proving that thus the aff is as well, OR is able to prove to me why I should not evaluate any of the work that someone who is a racist philosopher/writer has done -- which is a valid argument to make, but again, it requires a LOT more work than simply saying it. Of course, this does not mean I won't vote someone down if they drop the argument and its implications, but you need to give me those implications.

To that end, you can't just end it at Kant or Hobbes (or X author) is racist -- explain to me why that's a voting issue/reason to drop the debater/argument because I'm so far not convinced by the super old and recycled cards everyone keeps reading against aff's that don't actually even cite primary source philosophers. And if you're defending a framework against these objections, stand your ground and defend your aff without being repugnant -- impact turning racism is NEVER ok, but you can definitely win that your framework guides against structural violence even if the original author sucks.

HOWEVER, this is a different story if they actually read cards/cite the author you are calling out -- i.e., if someone read a Kant card (like citing Immanuel himself lol) and you read Kant is racist, I don't see a real no link argument or a way to prove why their reading of Kant is uniquely necessary (i.e., they could just cite Korsgaard instead right?) -- at which point, the author is racist voter issue becomes very very persuasive to me (this is true regardless of whether it's a philosopher) -- however, this is pretty rare and it's 2024, so update your authors.

Theory:

Go for it. I read everything from solvency advocate theory to ROTB spec to body politics, so I as long as it’s not actively violent (I basically won't vote on clothing-related theory) and you're not being too frivolous -- it's fine with me, but the more frivolous it gets, the lower my threshold for responses gets ¯\_(ツ)_/¯. Also have some notes on a couple specific shells near the bottom of this section.

My defaults: competing interps, drop the debater, no RVI’s — this is just how I will evaluate the theory debate if you don't give me paradigm issues, but please do and I'm more than willing to vote on reasonability or grant an RVI if it's won.

Reading paradigm issues in your second speech collapsing to a shell is a bit late and persuades me to grant the other side leeway on controlling them, but still debatable I guess (does not mean I will give leeway to brightlines on reasonability, just reasonability itself).

On IVI's -- impact turns are not RVI's, but rather independent voters/offense, and I still haven't heard a single persuasive or compelling reason I shouldn't vote on an impact turn -- feel free to read your no impact turns dump, but I recommend just cleaning up the flow by answering them instead -- a lot of impact turns to both T and theory are just cross-apps of case or huge conflations of arguments -- point that out, make it a link, put offense on that too or make args for why the shell is a prior issue in the case that you go for it -- however you deal with it, deal with it. I feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA/impact turn doesn't link, why the shell comes first, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turn/independent voter.

Random note on disclosure these days -- I'm not that persuaded by these shells that you should send full on docs before rounds or that you must open source in order for negs to prep, etc. -- not to be an old zealot, but the norm when I was in high school was mostly just to disclose cites, tags, and the first 3 + last 3 words of cards -- we were fine and had more in-depth clash than what I've seen people read these days, so I am not that convinced -- THAT BEING SAID, I will still vote on it, but don't expect me to be that excited bout it or give you the highest speaks + I will have a low threshold for answers. However, if someone is fully not disclosing past rounds or telling you what the aff is gonna be, that changes the matter ofc -- still fine for disclosure, just not convinced that people need to give you every single word that they're about to read

Also not sure how I feel about spreading theory -- feels arbitrary to delineate as a judge where I draw a line between what is too fast and what is not. I'll vote on it, but idk -- the argument that it is impossible to delineate what is too fast prolly makes reasonability super persuasive. That being said, if you're obviously going fast, then LOL it seems reasonable that I would consider that to be spreading and evaluate the debate based on the standards. Either way, going for this in the 2N isn't really the move for me and I hope it's not for you. I'll still vote on it, but ugh, you and I both don't want to bring the debate to this issue (pls). If you read spreading bad and spread, I will prolly tank your speaks. Should be self-explanatory why.

Side note -- if you impact spreading bad or other shells to ableism, maybe think about that -- debate is of course extremely ableist, but I find it paternalistic to generally claim that disabled debaters are unable to debate able-bodied debaters who spread or speak fast. That's not to say I won't vote on it or that I don't think there is some truth to the claim, but I do think you should watch how you phrase the argument at least -- i.e., "disabled debaters cannot debate unless you disclose early cause they have to think on their feet" -- this sounds problematic and like you're saying that disabled people can't critically think in the moment, but "it is better to not spread to encourage access for people with certain disabilities" -- this sounds more agreeable. Be very careful when you talk about ableism because I have heard very problematic collapses that I am not happy with.

Topicality:

I read topicality against most K aff’s that I hit my senior year and every time I hit one in college -- including both defend the topic and read a policy action -- and I read spec bad against like every larp aff my senior year too. I love T, despite reading a ton of method/performative K aff's, but I have no biases here and can be persuaded to vote either way.

I have no issues with you going for 1-off T-FW against K aff’s and I’m more than willing to vote on it, but I do think there are ways to win my ballot easier. Having a clear TVA is always persuasive, but what I mean by this is not just like a literal plan text that mentions the identity group the aff talks about — take it further and explicitly explain to me why that TVA is a much better model for debate than the version of the aff that was the 1AC.

I think either having offense on the case page or doing clear interactions between the aff offense and the T flow is persuasive, and also useful when I write my ballot. I’d prefer you tell me a story in the 2NR and really sell your model of debate to me rather than pretending T has nothing to do with the aff. In other words, it is not sufficient to win that debate is solely a competitive game for me, I want you to really explain the implications of that to me because that’s a pretty bold claim considering all that this activity has been for a ton of people. I'll vote on it either way if you win it on a technical level, but this also leaves room for the aff to grandstand on your model being exclusive.

When debating T — have a clear counter-interp and defend your model of debate. I am more than willing to vote on an impact turn and am down for all the drama of various T strategies. Regardless, have a strong and robust defense of whatever model you choose to defend. I have been on and love debating from both sides of the issue (to some extent -- some language y'all be using in both your topicality extensions and your topicality answers are very iffy), and I find these to be some of the best rounds. I am here for it.

Most of the arguments for why I shouldn't vote on independent voting issues are terrible and not persuasive, BUT I still need y'all to answer them. Collapsing to a single DA on T in the 2AR is a great strat for me and I've done this myself in the past, but you have to answer these args. That being said, I've also been on the other side (kicking T) and feel that the easiest strategy is just to explain why the DA doesn't link, why T is a prior question, and/or why something else you're going for (state good, cap K, etc.) disproves the internal link to the impact turns/independent voters ---- (also check my note on impact turns in the theory section since some of this is copied from there/similar).

Quick side note on Nebel -- I have not read much into Nebel, but it's not very persuasive to me cause it sounds like a colonial norm and I'm not American/English was not my first language -- this does not mean I will auto-vote on grammar/textuality is racist, but I can be very strongly persuaded to and I think negatives need to have a robust defense prepared against this -- as in, take it serious and engage the argument by explaining to me why the argument is not racist/answering the aff arguments, but don't assume I will vote on fairness outweighs or semantics first in a scenario where you are losing on English grammar is racist.

That being said, a simple spec bad shell with a limits standard gets the job done and is a very great strat in front of me.

Kritik’s:

Yes. This is what I’m most comfortable evaluating and what I've spent the most time debating, coaching, and also studying academically. However, I will hold you to really knowing your lit -- buzzwords need to make sense. That being said, I'm pretty familiar with almost every area of critical literature that I've heard of or know of in debate. I like seeing how people use K lit to formulate interesting advocacies or methods, I like seeing new K shells and scholarship (like 2023/24 lol), and I also simultaneously like when someone defends a classic K but does it really really well.

I’m most familiar and comfortable with identity based lit -- especially Critical Race Theory and Antiblackness, Queer Theory and Queer of Color Studies, South Asian/South Asian American Studies, Postcolonialism, and Performance Studies. I'm most familiar with antiblackness, postcolonialism, queer theory, biopolitics, and necropolitics -- some of my fav authors: José Esteban Muñoz, Sarah Ahmed, Tiffany Lethabo King, Alexander Weheliye, Jasbir Puar, Achilles Mbembe, Marquis Bey, and Gayatri Chakravorty Spivak. I'm also comfy with Foucault, Baudrillard, Derrida, Freud, Lacan, Deleuze, etc. -- all the pomo shtuff is fair game. I don't really think there's a K you'd read that I'd be completely unfamiliar with or uncomfortable with, but I also don't care what K it is and am happy to listen -- get creative. :))

Leverage the K against other flows and put offense on different layers — if you’re winning a case turn, implicate it both through the thesis of the K and independently.

Engage the thesis claims and answer the links in the 1AR.

Perms should probably have a text, but I'm open to the 2AR having leeway to explain them. But if you just yell "perm -- do the aff and graffiti the alt" -- I'm not gonna be very inclined to vote aff if I have no explanation of why that does anything. Have a relatively clear warrant and explanation of the perm that you can develop in the 2AR if you collapse to it.

Kicking the alt is fine — win the links and warrant presumption. I’m also fine with all your K tricks, but I’m not gonna stake the round on the 2AR dropping that fiat is illusory ABSENT some clear warranting and judge instruction with it, as well as some comparison between your claim and a 1AR/2AR arg about the value of simulating policymaking or whatnot.

Also, please be aware of your own privilege -- have a strong and robust defense of why you should be able to read the K, what your relationship is to the literature, and how I should evaluate the round given all that. This doesn't mean you need to run from reading the K -- just be able to answer these questions and defend your position. This applies to black studies, indigenous studies, queer theory, etc. -- I can be persuaded to vote either way on these issues.

Update -- you know -- I am slowly getting the ick regarding how people are instrumentalizing literature of specific groups for ballots -- if you are not part of a community and decide to read the literature anyways, but you clearly have a surface level understanding of it, I will be unhappy -- I am tired of cishets using queer pessimism, able-bodied people reading disability pessimism, and white people reading afro-pessimism without any real engagement with the literature -- and I don't think non-indigenous people reading settler colonialism is somehow distinct, nor do I think that non-black people reading other structural criticisms about antiblackness is distinct enough for it to mean that you are somehow using images of suffering more ethically. I am vexed with the inauthentic way that y'all are reading this literature, so I am watching with a very close eye regarding CX answers, the way you structure the K, the authors you read, and the 2N explanations. I won't auto-drop you or anything, but I do reserve the right to drop you on the ick if it's obvious you are not taking the literature seriously. I have had conversations with other judges and coaches who feel similarly, so read things at your own risk from now on. I still think you can read them, but I need you to do it at a level where it is clear you care and know what you're talking about.

Along those lines, since this has become a serious area of discussion on the LD debate circuit -- non-black people reading antiblackness is ok BUT you should be prepared to discuss what your role as a non-black person is, both in reading the K and in relation to antiblackness, and pls do it well. I will vote on arguments for why non-black people shouldn't read antiblackness, but I am also open to voting the other way. I think y'all need to stop running from the challenge of answering the argument because the scholarship is great, BUT be prepared in case the argument is made.

I am also not happy that everyone has just decided to turn to reading (and commodifying) literature about Native American/indigenous peoples instead, especially when debaters actively say they don't pay attention to the authors or only read "X" argument so it's fine -- I am persuaded by arguments that this should not be allowed and find it more persuasive due to this occurrence that literature or images of suffering about a group being used to justify a ballot are instances of detached commodification. You don't need a card, but do need warrants. Bringing up the history of debate and also specific practices in LD is great. Pessimistic claims are somewhat problematic, but more so is using violence against a group as an image to claim you're radically decolonial and using an arbitrary method or alternative to claim you do care about them. I will watch these debates very closely due to the way that debaters are behaving.

On the issue of queer theory -- I am skeptical of whether someone should be able to speak from the closet to read ontological/epistemological, etc., claims about queer people, especially being a queer trans* person of color myself -- if you are reading queer theory, I think you should be prepared to defend whether a cishet person should be allowed to read it, since if you are unwilling to disclose your queerness then that would enable the practice of non-queer people reading queer pess. I don't think outing DA's are that persuasive to me (in these specific circumstances only) if someone asks you whether you are queer while reading this because it should matter whether or not you are and you can choose to say that you are unwilling to disclose that, BUT that still begs the question of whether or not one should be able to do that. That being said, I will vote on an outing DA if it's won, but this is an answer that debaters can make that I believe is a relevant discussion and legitimate answer. I am vexed by openly cisheterosexual people turning to queer theory because they think that they can win every round on an outing DA, so I have decided to add this here to pressure more authentic engagements with the literature base.

Kritikal/performative/planless aff’s:

Yes. These are my favorite aff’s and I find them super interesting. I read them for like 7 years, I've coached them for like 5 years, and I've debated/judged them for longer. I don’t care if you defend the topic or not, but be prepared to defend your aff and all the choices you made in it. I also did read topicality/framework against most non-T aff's I debated lol, so I am happy to vote either way, but I am definitely a good judge for these aff's.

From the moment that I realize the aff is performative and/or critical, I am watching very closely to see how you perform it, defend it, and frame it. I also physically am usually watching you and making eye contact because I know that part of your discussion is also about me and the fact that I am not a passive decision-maker. I know that can make some people uncomfy, so I apologize in advance and promise I'm not like staring at you with bug-eyes or anything, but just noticing the choices you make and the way the aff is presented. I appreciate the fact that you made a lot of intentional choices when writing and formulating the aff, so I am respecting your use of them, especially in CX as well.

Be creative. Have fun. Express yourself. The best kritikal and performative aff’s that I have seen are a result of how they are presented, written, and defended — I think these can be some of the best or some of the worst rounds, but the only thing I’ll hold you to is defending something clear, whether a method, advocacy statement, praxis, or whatnot. Just be clear and tell me how to evaluate the round, considering most of these aff’s ask for a shift in how to evaluate and view debate itself.

Do not read these in front of me just because it’s what I did. Also, feel free to ask me any questions — I’d be more than happy to help you figure out some aspects of how you wanna explore reading this and I know I definitely benefitted from judges who did that for me, so I got you. With that being said, here's some cool things I'd love to see.

Something I loved doing was impact turning presumption args — 1AR’s and 2AR’s that can effectively do this and collapse to it are dope and I’m here for it.

I think CX is a place to perform too -- I love performances that somehow extend beyond just the 1AC because they bring so much more of the drama of debate into question. However, I have also seen many people do this in ways that aren't very tasteful and end up either confusing me or triggering me. On the other hand, I've also found that these can be some of the most brutal and successful CX strategies when done well.

Regardless, don't feel shy about testing the waters in front of me, within reason. However, fire hazards are real and pls warn me about flashing lights (personal medical reason). In other words -- sure, go off, but don't get me (or yourself) in trouble or do anything hazardous/risky. Also, I don't think it's ok for you to infringe on someone else's literal ability to debate, in terms of doing anything to their flows or picking up their computer for whatever reason -- please don't. I won't be happy and coaches/schools won't be happy. Other than that, have fun! I like hearing creative arguments and fun stuff that makes me pay attention and wake up. :))

ANSWERING THESE -- Presumption is fine, but I’m probably not gonna be persuaded by the classic arg that the aff does not affect how I view the world, feel, etc. This is not to say that I will not vote on a ballot presumption argument if it is argued well and won, but don't expect me to bank the round on a 5 second shadow extension that lacks clear warrants or weighing. I prefer presumption arguments to be reasons for why the performance of the aff is inconsistent with the method or other parts of the 1AC somehow, lack of solvency, vagueness, etc., and make sure the turns are impacted out effectively and weighed against affirmative's.

State good is an underused and undervalued strategy, clashes with these aff's so enables you to avoid impact turns on T or other issues that rely on the aff winning internal links for why certain state-oriented procedures are bad, and is a great option (be wary of your language, but hasn't been an issue so far).

I do not like Rickert or other arguments that are like "oh subjectivity is not real in debate, but is elsewhere so please leave" type args -- I think these are actively racist. BUT I think there are certain specific issues you can push on.

What is the advocacy/method past the 1AC? What is the value or impact of the performance? Why is there a binding reason to vote aff? How does the aff resolve skep/induction issues? How does the aff relate to the other debater and/or the judge? Why is debate bad, but also shifted to being good through the aff/voting aff? etc. etc. -- all of these are relevant considerations and valid points of contestation -- i.e., whether or not the ways the aff responds to these questions are good or sufficient.

Also really like K links as case turns against these aff's, skep is fair but be wary of your language and type of skep ofc, counter-K's are fun, T is great, and phil is so interesting and I wish more people did Kant vs. K-aff's (or other frameworks) because these are some of the most interesting rounds I've had or heard.

For Policy/CX Debate:

I'm cool with whatever you read and would prefer you do what you're best at! I'm chill and will follow anything -- I was a college policy debater at NYU and I went to RKS 2018 -- I've also judged and coached high school policy, read every style of debate, and I still currently actively cut both K lit and policy args -- I also read a ton of performative args from cardless aff's about throwing a party to queer bombs, tons of K's (queer theory, gender studies, critical race theory, indigenous studies, disability studies, and pomo), but also read a ton of straight up strats from a Bahrain aff to the classic politics DA + framework/T against almost every non-T aff -- I have been on both sides of most issues, but I don't really care about my opinions and I'm down with whatever you wanna read -- so you do you. Specific sections below might be useful (minus the tricks stuff for LD, etc. -- not gonna vote on tricks, frivolous theory, etc. in policy).

I don't care if you read an aff about great power competition and extinction or a K about settler homonationalism -- I feel comfortable and confident in my ability to render the right decision no matter what you read, but my favorite rounds are when a team reading a plan aff really knows their scenario and evidence super well or when a team reading a K provides really in-depth explanations and examples -- don't adapt your style itself to me, just focus on what you do best and win it. :))

My approach to rounds is typically to vote for the team that I need to do less work for to determine a ballot -- I need warrants for claims that you make and I think these warrants need to be defended in cross-ex, explained in later speeches, and developed with contextualization and examples -- meaning you need to make sure you warrant everything because I will feel uncomfortable voting for something I cannot adequately explain back to y'all without intervention. This kinda just means I wanna hear internal links and their warrants, and/or a strong overview defense of your impacts -- judge instruction, collapsing in later speeches, and framing are your best bets.

I especially think framing specifically is important -- this doesn't mean winning util or a role of the ballot necessarily, but rather please just do weighing, impact comparison, and draw me a ballot story by telling me what matters most in the round in later speeches.

Everything else is pretty straight forward -- tech > truth, judge instruction, and you do you (unless it's overtly discriminatory).

I do really like K's though and this is where most of my background in debate lies -- through debate and my undergrad coursework, I read a ton of Muñoz, Puar, Spivak, Said, Halberstam, Stanley, Ahmed, Lamble, Mbembe, Tinsley, Hartman, Warren, Wilderson, Weheliye, Wynter, Spillers, Gumbs, King, Edelman, Preciado, Bersani, Nash, Bey, Gilmore, Davis, Gillespie, Mignolo, Rodriguez, Morgensen, Eng, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Derrida, Deleuze, Freud, Lacan, and I'm sure I could keep going -- this is mainly to say that I will likely contextually understand what you read, regardless of my familiarity with the literature. I think I am a great judge for any critical arguments and feel super comfortable evaluating these, but also thoroughly enjoy the scholarship and the creativity that debaters employ when reading these arguments. Personally, I also read cardless aff's using original poetry as well as critical aff's that were very close to the topic/resolution -- I don't care how specific or generic your arguments are, I care about how well you go for and explain them!

For policy/plan aff's and teams -- I usually get bored in these debates ngl, but I think I'm a sucker for a really good link story on a DA, straight turns, and strategic advantage counterplans. I think condo is good in policy debate and feel like the condo bad debate is lost on me. Despite everything above, I enjoy the state good or heg good defense and think that I can easily be persuaded to vote on arguments about why we have to focus on policymaking/reform. Do good weighing, impact framing, internal link warranting, evidence comparison, and meta-weighing. I also love T-framework, T-defend the topic, and other topicality arguments -- I also like T or spec bad against non-topical/extra-topical plan aff's -- but I need these arguments to be well impacted out. I think fairness is just an internal link to education really, but I'll vote on either one and I just need the ballot story to be clear. You do need to answer impact turns, TVA's and switch side seem like game over you won T type issues, most T arguments are just about limits or prep and clash, and I am great for T.

Feel free to hit me up and ask me any questions if you have em on either FB or my email.

For PF:

Pls read the TLDR right below this, but I am relatively experienced with debate, so I don't think you need to adapt much. I also went to Quarry Lane for high school till 2019 (QLS was very involved in PF so I'm no stranger to the event) and traveled with the PF debaters everywhere, but also did a bit of PF at smaller tourneys and judged it before. I am down to vote for anything, just don't be racist/homophobic/misogynistic, etc. I also read a lot of performance args and K's as a debater, so that's something I'm comfortable with -- BUT don't read it just to read it, I'm also very chill with policy-esque args and general topic area args + would rather hear what you're good at than a random K that you pulled up.

ALSO -- I have trouble following card names sometimes cause y'all do be paraphrasing and moving past things real quick, so please reference arguments rather than X author name so I can follow you -- I don't expect this to be a big issue, but if you're ramping up the speed and gonna give me one-liners as you move between cards, either send me the doc so I can follow OR reference impacts over last names.

Speaks:

So you want a 30? -- I loved getting speaker awards, so just do you and I got you, but here's some incentives + random things LOL

1. Pls do NOT use my name unless we know each other LOL
2. + speaks for everyone if you have the email chain set up before I walk into the room
3. Clarity and enunciation > speed please
4. If you are able to give a solid speech at a good speed where I can write/type out every word and feel very part of the process, I will be VERY happy
5. Passion and ethos are dope — I don’t care what form this is in, but really sell whatever you read to me
6. I like tasteful references to things -- drag race, anime, Marvel or Disney, sitcoms, etc. -- don't really know much about sports so that might go over my head, but I like creative args that draw on other art forms, whether media/film or otherwise
7. I average a 29.5+ and give higher speaks when you slow down, are very clear, or when you collapse really well
8. If you go on your phone during someone else's speech, you are likely to get the lowest possible speaks I can give without having to talk to tab :))

I have become quite generous with speaks, but humor, creative args, or strong execution is the key! I'm more than willing to give out a 30 and have increasingly done so. Do you and make sure you signpost, warrant, and slow down on important things -- I appreciate passion, strong research and/or analysis, and well-crafted strategies! I also think a smart CX helps with ethos and also definitely will help bump your speaks -- many debates are also lost and won in CX ultimately.

If you slow down to an easily flowable speed and give a good speech, I will be far more likely to be persuaded to vote for you and give you a 30 (or 29.5+). I find that I am also most persuaded by debaters who close doors, slow down and impact things out, and avoid silly args. Go to the bottom for more qualms of mine!

Please give me trigger/content warnings -- go for it, just warn me -- important to me as both a judge and participant in the round — if you’re going to be talking about graphically sensitive topics, please give me (and everyone in the room) a heads up -- this does not mean you don't get to read it tho -- you don't need my permission, just let us all prepare emotionally/mentally

Speed and Off's Rant: I am going to say clear a lot more to ask you to slow down andI think I will need you to go AT LEAST 70% of your top speed. I want to be able to hear every word, but I also think this is important to check for clipping. I think that we should preserve the value of debates through contestation, which I find is less possible when someone spreads through a ton of arguments waiting for something to be dropped, and I also just find myself exhausted listening to those debates because it feels like a waste of everyone's time. I also am just unable to flow some of this most of the time, which is not unique to just me and is a common shared experience of many judges. I believe that the ways that people are spreading through a ton of off case positions at incredibly high speeds is problematic because I find it rather difficult to follow and I should not need to rely on docs to flow you but I cannot hear these words, I find it hard to check if someone is clipping, I don't think I should encourage this practice, I don't think there is or has ever been a need to speak that fast, and MOST IMPORTANTLY, I have found and experienced situations where debaters use speed to get away with performing/reading racist and violent arguments, which I think I have an ethical obligation to correct for by at least making a relevant note here.

SO with that in mind -- please do not spread through analytics -- there is absolutely no way I am going to get all of these down and if you spread through these, it makes me very sad because I do want to get every argument but I just will not be able to.

I also will not be flowing after the 4th off and will dock speaks. If there are more than 4 off's, I also feel comfortable with the 1AR getting up and telling me not to evaluate it since this is on my paradigm. I also think that more than 4 off's will lower my threshold for responses and 2AR spin.

Finally, I have also decided that more than 3 off means I should definitely presume aff under a role of the ballot where I am supposed to vote for the better debater. I think that more than 3 off makes the debate quite structurally difficult for the aff, so I believe the aff did the better debating.

That being said, if you read more than 4 off after seeing me on the pairing, I think we have bad blood from the beginning of the round. Choose your positions with care, defend them, and focus on relevant substantive discussions. If you think you need more than 4 off to beat an aff, you are reading 4 bad off's.

Some qualms of mine (these will affect speaks):

1. I will not give you a 30 if you ask for it.
2. Non-black folx who read anti-blackness specifically against black folx will prolly lose in front of me (I have not yet seen it happen), but I am likely to give you pretty low speaks either way -- however, non-black folx reading anti-blackness generally is fine.
3. I am happy to vote on non-black folx should not read afropess and/or antiblackness, but also to vote for the idea that it's ok -- this is a debatable issue for me -- and I also think that it's debatable whether a non-indigenous person should be reading certain strains of set col (i.e., people who are not Native American reading set col about Native Americans) -- I can be persuaded to vote either way and think this applies to every group-specific strain of literature
4. I will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable sorry and yes, that means I will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — I don't feel comfortable deciding what children should wear
5. If you are reading a card with more than one color highlighted in it, please remove the highlights of what you're not reading -- it really messes with me and I have issues processing that -- it's not a huge deal, but it will help me adjudicate better
6. Evidence ethics is quite important to me -- just cite stuff and use EasyBib if you are unsure how -- lack of citations is a big issue (the minimum is the author name, name of the book/article, where it was published, and when) and so are clipping, etc.
7. If you do an evidence challenge -- I will stop the round, use NSDA rules standards, and vote -- W 30 and L 0
8. Pronouns are important — misgendering is not cool w me, so try your best — I recommend defaulting to “they” anyways -- I will vote on misgendering
9. If you answer something someone didn't read and skipped, I will not be happy -- you can ask for marked docs tho! -- be prepared for CX and please flow
10. Please send a doc as soon as you stop prep -- putting together the doc is prep time imo (emailing is not, but I will be upset if you spend more than 30 secs before saying "sent")

Hi! My name is Charles Karcher. He/him pronouns. My email is ckarcher at chapin dot edu.

I am affiliated with The Chapin School, where I am a history teacher and coach Public Forum.

This is my 10th year involved in debate overall and my 6th year coaching.

Previous affiliations: Fulbright Taiwan, Lake Highland, West Des Moines Valley, Interlake, Durham Academy, Charlotte Latin, Altamont, and Oak Hall.

Conflicts: Chapin, Lake Highland

-----------TOC 24 UPDATES-----------

Not well-read on the topic.

In PF, you should either paraphrase all your cards OR present a policy-esque case with taglines that precede cut cards. I do not want cards that are tagged with "and, [author name]" or, worse, not tagged at all. This formatting is not conducive to good debating and I will not tolerate it. Your speaks will suffer.

All speech materials should be sent as a downloadable file (Word or PDF), not as a Google Doc, Sharepoint, or email text. I will not look at they are in the latter formats.

----------------------------------------

Mid-season updates to be integrated into my paradigm proper soon: 1. (PF) I'm not a fan of teams actively sharing if they are kicking an argument before they kick it. For example, if your opponent asks you about contention n in questioning and you respond "we're kicking that argument." Not a fan of it. 2. (LD) I have found that I am increasingly sympathetic to judge kicking counterplans (even though I was previously dogmatically anti-judge kick), but it should still be argued and justified in the round by the negative team; I do not judge kick by default. 3. Do not steal prep or be rude to your opponents - I have a high bar for these two things and hope that the community collectively raises its bars this season. Your speaks will suffer if you do these things.

-----------

Debate is what you make it, whether that is a game or an educational activity. Ultimately, it is a space for students to grow intellectually and politically. Critical debate is what I spend the most time thinking about. I’m familiar with most authors, but assume that I know nothing. I want to hear about the alt. I have a particular interest in the Frankfurt School and 20th century French authors + the modern theoretical work that has derived from both of these traditions. I have prepped and coached pretty much the full spectrum of K debate authors/literature bases. Policy-style debate is fun. I like good analytics more than bad cards, especially when those cards are from authors that are clearly personally/institutionally biased. Inserted graphs/charts need to be explained and are their own claim, warrant, and impact. Taglines should be detailed and accurately descriptive of the arguments in the card. 2 or 3 conditional positions are acceptable. I am not thrilled with the idea of judge kicking. Theory and tricks debate is the farthest from my interests. Being from Florida, I've been exposed to a good amount of it, but it never stuck with or interested me. Debaters who tend to read these types of arguments should not pref me.

Other important things:

1] If you find yourself debating with me as the judge on a panel with a parent/lay/traditional judge (or judges), please just engage in a traditional round and don't try to get my tech ballot. It is incredibly rude to disregard a parent's ballot and spread in front of them if they are apprehensive about it.

2] Speaks are capped at 27 if you include something in the doc that you assume will be inputted into the round without you reading/describing it. You cannot "insert" something into the debate scot-free. Examples include charts, graphs, images, screenshots, spec details, and solvency mechanisms/details. This is a terrible norm which literally asks me to evaluate a piece of evidence that you didn't read. It's also a question of accessibility.

3] When it comes to speech docs, I conceptualize the debate space as an academic conference at which you are sharing ideas with colleagues (me) and panelists (your opponents). Just as you would not present an unfinished PowerPoint at a conference, please do not present to me a poorly formatted speech doc. I don't care what your preferences of font, spacing, etc. are, but they should be consistent, navigable, and readable. I do ask that you use the Verbatim UniHighlight feature to standardize your doc to yellow highlighting before sending it to me.

-----------

Misc. notes:

• My defaults: ROJ > ROB; ROJ ≠ ROB; ROTB > theory; presume neg; comparative worlds; reps/pre-fiat impacts > everything else; yes RVI; DTD; yes condo; I will categorically never evaluate the round earlier than the end of the 2AR (with the exception of round-stopping issues like evidence evidence allegations or inclusivity concerns).
• I do not, and will not, disclose speaker points.
• Put your analytics in the speech doc!
• Trigger warnings are important
• CX ends when the timer beeps! Time yourself.
• Tell me about inclusivity/accessibility concerns, I will do whatever is in my power to accommodate!

Kris Kaya

kkaya23@stanford.edu

Peninsula ’16

Stanford ’20

Conflicts: Peninsula, Lynbrook, Los Altos PD, Palos Verdes KK

*** Updated for Minneapple 2020

I debated for 4 years at Peninsula HS (CA) from 2012-2016 and debated at the TOC my senior year. I coached Lynbrook from August 2016- February 2018 and have since not been involved in the activity. Given this, I probably don’t know anything about the topic and won’t be knowledgeable about common positions/arguments unless you explain them. I was never a fantastic flower and it's been a while since I've judged so I'd recommend going at around 70% speed to ensure I hear everything. I’ll vote on any argument that is warranted and impacted.

Important Things

1) I'm fine evaluating pretty much everything. I read almost exclusively policy args in high school so that's what I'l be best at evaluating. If I had to give an order it'd be Policy Args >>>> Kritiks > Theory >>> Phil/Tricks

2) I give somewhat low speaks - they're proportional to the extent to which I enjoy judging the round and the extent to which you crush your opponent.

3) I'd prefer if you recorded your speeches as you gave them in case the stream dies in the middle of the round.

4) I think I've become increasingly interventionist in that I believe there's a minimum threshold of coherence for me to accept an argument. Consequently, the less coherent an argument is, the lower the threshold for responding to it is.

5) Especially since everything is online, it will be hard to convince me that you shouldn't lose for not disclosing.

Lake Highland ’18

Stanford ’22

Email: muhammadykhattak@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Momo, I debated for Lake Highland for five years primarily in LD and dabbled (4 tournaments, 2 each) in PF and Policy. I've taught at NSD, TDC, and TDI. I was an assistant coach at FlexDebate and am now head coach at Bronx Science.

I believe the only essential feature of debate that I should uphold as a judge is that an argument is characterized by having a claim, warrant, and impact. You should read whatever style argument you’re most comfortable with and I’ll adjudicate the best I can. In that sense, I consider myself pretty tab, and I care about making the right decision. That's all to say, I think debate is a game so just play it how you see fit.

Whether it's phil framework, Ks, tricks, policy, theory, PF, traditional debate, or anything in between, I'm here for it. My aim is to always make the least interventionist decision as possible; so as long as you aim to justify why your model of debate is comparatively better than your opponent's and win offense linking back to that model, you will win.

Don't do anything blatantly offensive or actively aimed to make your opponent feel uncomfortable, could lose you the ballot or speaks.

Notes on online debate

1 - you should time each other ; if someone who is speaking gets kicked, most likely they are unaware of this and continue to speak. The person who is flowing, alternatively, should pause their timer at that moment and continue to flow under the assumption that their opponent is still reading their doc at the same rate.

Once the person who was kicked gets back, if they had already stopped because they realized they were kicked, time restarts at the time the other speaker paused their timer with, although generally you should try not to stop since you should have a local copy of your speech anyways (see 2). The reason why you should try not to stop is because either (a) you're reading cards off a doc in which case your opponent is already flowing anyways or (b) there were extempted arguments which should be confirmed in flex prep and the local copy will help your opponent and myself hear what exact arguments were made. If the person who is kicked rejoins and is still giving their speech, then the point at which the timer was stopped should serve as a timestamp for when to read listen to the recording.

2 - Record a local copy of your speech, either on your phone or QuickTime, so that if the speech cuts out you can send a copy of whatever we missed. I'm not too keen on letting you redo speeches since the wifi may just cut out again, having a local copy makes it easier to navigate these inconsistencies in connection.

3 - You should probably slow down a tad bit*, the bits and bops of Zoom always makes it tough for me to hear what you're saying, and I'm not one to religiously flow off the doc.
*slow down and build up in speed please please i'm a terrible flower

you can implement this method if you'd like - in constructive speeches, read taglines slower and glide through ev or long nondense ev; emphasize what needs emphasis for you to win and transition between flows with large overviews that compare layers. You can follow this up in speeches where you're pressed to collapse (2n/2a) the debate by giving an overview on how the layers of the debate interact, what layer you are collapsing to and then speed up once you get into the substance of winning each particular layer.

all of this is to say, try to go a bit slower in areas where you can. Also using efficient strategy and breaking down rounds in a discrete way that isolates all relevant voting issues or layers can help in later rebuttal speeches and be opportunities to slow down

I'm a senior at USC, debated for SPASH for 3 years in high school.

Add me to the chain: sarahc.kim03@gmail.com

TLDR: You can read anything you want in front of me. I've had policy experience and k experience.

General Things

- Quality > Quantity

- Tech over truth, but I want to see some level of truth or substance in your argument.

- Spreading is fine, but be clear

- Don't clip cards, if there is evidence of clipping I will end the round and give a win to the other team

- Flashing/emailing isn't prep but please don't take forever

- If you're reading theory slow down a bit, and tell me if you want it on a new sheet

- Dropped arguments are true arguments, but they still have to be impacted out

- I'll weigh a performance the same as evidence, I will flow it too

- Debate is whatever you tell me it is (If the negative reads framework and claims debate is a game..and the aff has no response..then it's a game)

-Don't be racist. Don't be sexist.

I believe that the most important part of a debate round is making sure to convince the judge. Normally I like to tell students that it is important to break down their arguments for a lei judge and leave things in simplest terms as they will not be able to weigh anything they don't understand. However if you have me as a judge you can run your K or theory with no worries. The most important thing about a round for me is making sure to be fair and as friendly as possible.

During flow I like to be sure to get down as many things as I think are important. This often includes taglines, supporting data, direct rebuttals, counter examples, and voters. I will write your refutes next to your opponents claim and vice versa to see who is hitting the flow and who is generically responding. I often find the more concise the response the more often it is effective at neutralizing an opponents claim. This next bit is important so it will be in bold and this is really, really, important. JUST BECAUSE YOUR POINT FLOWS FROM AC1 DOES NOT MEAN IT CAN BE DROPPED THE REST OF THE ROUND AND THEN GET BROUGHT UP IN VOTERS. Sorry for yelling but often I feel as though it takes 15 seconds away from a speech and makes one side look as though it is grasping at straws. Making sure to hit your flow is one thing but saying that a point has been dropped and adding importance to it while it has not been a focal point of your round gives off the energy that you are looking for anything to just get a point. It makes it appear as though you are more desperate than you might be and can hurt speaks especially if you are spreading and hope to just get all your points out there and then not address them again until the end the you are no different than your opponent in dropping your own case.

Moving on from that when using progressive debate make sure to provide an explanation of what you are doing so that I can address it in my ballot. I feel often times in more advanced novice rounds I see K's being run incorrectly and overall with your round it will always be more beneficial to explain how your point or argument helps your side. I think overall when it comes to the technical side of debate you are safe to use anything ( as long as its not abusive to the round or prevents discourse on the subject ) as long as you can justify using it during the round.

Yes you can do an off-time roadmap, yes you can keep your own time, and no I will not take off speaks for the position in which you debate. Do not talk during someone else's speech. During cross I like to get as many questions as possible though I understand plugging your own case as much as possible just try and help progress the debate and be respectful of your opponent. I don't flow cross so make sure to bring up something you addressed in cross or something you would like to refute. Lastly I have the official timer, once you hear it go off finish your sentence or phrase because I do want to know what you have to say but this is a quick finish not a 15 second grace period.

Overall be respectful to your opponent, make sure you are getting your points through to me, and don't try and mislead or misrepresent because I will call for cards and clarify what your opponent was saying if you misconstrue their argument. 30 speaks is not common but is achievable. Make sure to use all your time and try your best! Best of luck :)

he/him

I debated in high school LD for four years and college policy for two years. I accomplished very little of note. I now coach LD and speech for Edina High School and policy for the University of Minnesota.

Debate is a communication activity. I flow speeches, not documents (and I usually flow on paper). This means that you should be clear. If I cannot understand every word you are saying, I will clear you twice. If I cannot understand you after that, I will vote against you for clipping. Speed is never a problem for me, clarity often is.

NDT/CEDA: I feel very strongly that the decline in recorded debates since the COVID pandemic started is a huge loss for the community, particularly for high school debaters from smaller or less-resourced programs. From now on, I will be carrying recording equipment at every tournament I judge at. If both teams let me know before the round that they'd like the round recorded and posted on YouTube, I will happily do so.

Another pet peeve: debaters should stop shotgunning permutations or short analytic arguments on counterplans or Ks. This is the most unflowable practice that I usually see -- either give me pen time or break them up with cards.

After a year of judging college policy I have noticed I am more of a big picture judge. That’s not to say that I don’t care about technical concessions — they’re incredibly important — but that I start my decisions with global framing questions. Ticky tacky line by line is less important if you’re not connecting it to the central question(s) of the debate— I don't like to draw lines for you. However, I will follow conceded judge instruction and adopt the decision procedure that the debaters instruct me to.

I hold the line.

Speeches should be well organized. I have ADHD and I struggle the most in rounds where debaters do not line up arguments. This means you should put a premium on numbering arguments, having clear transitions between arguments and answering arguments in the order presented.

I prefer debates where students present well-researched positions that they've clearly put a lot of thought into. I don't like cheap shots. However, technical execution overrides my personal feelings.

I'd rather see debates where students treat each other kindly. I'm not going to enforce standards of politeness or respectability with my ballot, but being needlessly cruel to your opponents is unnecessary and makes the debate worse for everyone.

I will not cast my ballot based on the character of the opposing team or out of round actions. If you think your opponent has done something bad in round, I will of course factor that in to my decision, but I will never use my ballot to hash out interpersonal disputes that I have no first-hand knowledge of.

I am uninterested in hearing “content warning theory” unless it is for content that is objectively disturbing. There is no reason to present a graphic depiction of violence or SA in a debate, even with a content warning. Reading content warning theory on “feminism” or “mentions of the war on drugs” is unnecessary and trivializing.

Specific arguments

Ks: This is where I spend most of my time in researching, coaching and judging. Judge instruction, especially relating to framework, is essential. For both sides--put away the long overviews and blocks, unless they have a purpose in the round.

T-USFG: Winnable on both sides. Intuitively, I think a counter-interp makes more sense, but impact turns are often easier to execute for the aff. Fairness makes more sense to me than clash. A 2NR that doesn't engage somehow with the case in these debates is likely to lose.

KvK: Articulate your vision of competition. Examples, examples, examples.

CPs: Competition arguments > theory, but you do you.

T: I don't have a distaste for T against policy affs. I don't really care about community norms, and I don't see why that would make an aff topical or not.

Extinction does not automatically come first. Non-extinction impacts matter, but most debaters are bad at debating that.

Shortcut: Identity/Materialism Ks > T > Larp > Ethical frameworks or High theory Ks> Theory > Dense tricks

Please time/record yourselves and each other

Email: Sklein.debate@gmail.com

Hunter '20

I did four years of LD and qualified to the TOC twice. I taught at NSD Flagship '20, NSD Philly '20, and TDC '20. I have not judged since Yale 2021. This is my wiki from senior year.

I will evaluate any argument in the round and try to refrain from inserting my opinions as long as arguments a) have a warrant that I can explain in my decision and b) are not clearly offensive. I will not understand your position (especially philosophical/high theory ones) as well as you do. If you are reading a non-T aff or high theory K, explain what the aff/alt/method does. If an argument is important, let me know: have explicit weighing, spend time on the argument, or even tell me to highlight it on excel.

Additional preferences: https://linktr.ee/sklein.debate

PF: I am looking for the most persuasive debater given the arguments on the flow. I taught PF for four weeks at the NYCUDL and am familiar with the format, but have no background on the current topic. I am fine with speed (I neither expect nor prefer it) but would like to have the speech doc if you spread.

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Pronouns: she/her. Email for the email chain: clairekueffner@gmail.com

**UPDATE December 2020: I am old now. I don't participate in LD much anymore. I do not know your norms now, nor does anyone in my real life regularly speak to me at 400 words per minute. Please slow down (especially since we will be on videoconferencing, but also just in general) and if you're going to do something weird and strange, maybe don't, or at least be very, very clear about whatever you're doing.

Former LD coach at Isidore Newman School in New Orleans, LA.

I debated for three years at Hopkins High School in Minnesota and graduated in 2014. I competed on both the national and my local circuit. I qualified to the TOC and NSDA Nationals my senior year (2014). I went on to do 4 years of NPDA debate in college. I am currently a third-year law student, and I have not been involved in debate for a while. Everything below is my paradigm for judging LD. Apparently I also sometimes involuntarily judge policy, PF and speech now though, so if that's what you're here looking for, just know I've seen rounds for all of these, but really only have a surface level understanding of these activities. If you want to make sure I'll understand something specific about one of these activities, ask me before the round.

General Preferences: I like interesting framework debates, theory/T debates, clear policy debates, and good phil. I will vote for pretty much any argument as long as you win it. Any case structure is fine as long as it makes sense. Please do some weighing too (PLEASE), otherwise I’ll have to anger one of you by making the decision by myself. I like to see a clear ballot story, so make sure you provide me with that. Please basically write my RFD for me.

Theory: I ran a lot of theory and really enjoy a good and interesting theory debate. That being said, I hate bad theory debates. I default to competing interps and no RVI, but if you make arguments for reasonability or RVIs that’s fine and easy to get me to vote on as well. Offensively worded counterinteps don’t need RVIs as long as you win offense to the counterinterp. PLEASE ALWAYS WEIGH BETWEEN THEORY STANDARDS AND SHELLS - if you don't do this, it will lead to me intervening and making arbitrary decisions based on my own personal preferences and I'll be angry and you'll be angry and everyone will be angry so please just weigh. Also weigh between voters. Weigh between theory and t. Just weigh.

Kritiks: I disliked Ks as a debater, they have grown on slightly me since I have graduated and have started to read more critical literature. However, I am still probably not as well read in the lit as you probably want me to be. Capitalism or biopower? Go for it. If it's anything really nuanced, I would either advise a) you don't run it, because like I said, it will be more unclear to me than other args or b) slow down and really explain it. Give me big picture arguments when you're reading critical args to be sure I understand. If I don't understand it after your first speech, I won't vote on it. This means that no matter how clear you are in CX or your rebuttals, I still will not vote for you unless you make it really clear in your first speech. Full disclaimer: I have absolutely voted people down because I didn't understand their K and they explained it poorly and so I had no basis to vote for them. I'll do this to you too if you don't explain your arguments. Don't be mad if it happens; I warned you, and you can run something else.

Speed: I’m fine with speed as long as it’s clear (but see my disclaimer/update above -- I am old now). I have no shame and I’ll yell clear as many times as I need to and won’t detract speaks unless you clearly don’t make any attempt to slow down. Keep in mind though, if I yell clear, I probably missed the last 3-5 seconds of what you just said. If it's important, go back and reread it or it will not be flowed.

Presumption: I’ll vote on presumption if it’s triggered or you make other arguments like ‘skep means presumption’ but I won’t really ever just vote on presumption because I don’t think there’s any offense. There’s probably always offense, or at least some way to justify a ballot for one debater. I default aff gets presumption.

Things I really don't like and will probably drop speaks/debaters for:
- Disclosure Theory/any theory with an out of round violation: I HAVE NO WAY TO VERIFY WHAT YOU POST/SAID TO EACH OTHER WITHOUT DOING SOMETHING OUTSIDE OF THE ROUND. I don't think judges have the jurisdiction to vote on this if both debaters make competing claims about whether or not something was disclosed. Be super wary running this in front of me, or better yet, don't read it at all. I will not go look at the wiki for you.
-Being belittling or rude to an opponent who is clearly not as experienced as you. If it's pretty clear you're going to get the ballot, make the round accessible and educational.
- Racist/Sexist/Blatantly offensive arguments (these I will just drop you on face for)

If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask before round.

2023 Update - It's been a while since I've judged, but I've noticed that the quality of evidence has dropped significantly. Going forward, I will be reducing speaks substantially for poor evidence. I also think there's not enough specificity in argumentation. Debaters will say "x piece of evidence is fantastic and says EU unity is low", but won't point out the warrants in the evidence for why EU unity is low. This also means I rarely hear debaters doing any good evidence comparison, which makes for messy debates and difficult decisions. Finally, please don't put anything in the 1NC that you can't give a 2NR on. I've judged too many debates already where an off is completely dropped but the 2NR goes for something else.

Email - kavindebate@gmail.com

Background

I debated in LD for Dougherty Valley High School for 4 years.

General

-good with speed

-SLOW DOWN ON THEORY AND T—they are especially hard to flow at top speed and in an online format

-slow down in the 2NR, especially at the beginning

-offense/defense (extremely unconvinced by truth testing)

-will not vote on arguments I don't understand

-2AR and 2NR impact calc are not new

-CX is binding

-compiling doc is prep, but flashing is not

-disclose (open source is good)

-ev comparison is important and will give you better speaks

-all arguments (even dropped ones) need a warrant

-clipping and ev ethics violations will result in a loss

-scrolling ahead in the doc is cheating

DA/CP/Case

-enjoy this type of debate and was what I went for almost every round

-process cps/PICs are good so please read them in front of me

-consult cps (most of the time) are not good

-sufficiency framing is convincing

-politics DAs are good when they make sense and usually need to be coupled with a CP to beat a competent Aff

-for Affs, I like plans and enjoy small Affs—please have good evidence

-soft left and extinction impacts are both fine—I don't really have a preference

-heavily dislike Affs with large theory underviews/spikes

Kritiks

-ideally my threshold for a good kritik is one that is as tailored to the aff as the aff is

-I like the security K because I dislike shoddy Affs with poor evidence quality

-this goes for all Ks and especially security, but you need to answer the case or you'll almost certainly lose

-I'm extremely skeptical of pessimism arguments and I think pomo is often (underexplained) nonsense. K debate is usually just a bunch of buzzwords.

-good K debate=having impacts for your links, having links to the plan (not necessary but recommended), knowing how the alt works, not being evasive in CX, not relying on framework to win you the round, doing impact calc and explaining why the K outweighs the case and not just saying util bad, and answering the case

-links of omission are not links and the perm resolves them

-I am very persuaded by particularity arguments (the Aff should make the debate about the Aff, not the K)

-affs get to weigh the case—the K's impacts are consequential too and consequences prove the goodness of reps

-most Ks don't have a link and the alt fails—the Aff is probably a good idea

-if you win an extinction impact, the case should outweigh

K Affs/Framework

-please defend the topic, but if you win your Aff (and I understand what the offense is), I will vote for it

-no, limits is not a prison—metaphors like these are meaningless and don't constitute real arguments

-many K affs appeal to various ephemera as ways to escape the question of T—these include buzzwords like “role of the ballot” that don’t actually explain what they’re winning, or concessions from the aff that are clearly irrelevant

-KvK debate is extremely difficult to evaluate usually and the Aff will probably win on the perm

-the impacts most convincing to me on framework are movements/skills

Theory

-default is reasonability, no RVIs

-condo, PICs, process CPs are probably good

-consult is not good

-not a fan of friv theory

-debaters should do weighing on standards, not voters

-debaters should make arguments about what an interpretation justifies to answer things like friv theory

Topicality

-I really like well-fleshed out interpretations and really enjoy judging T debates

-have good evidence with an intent to define and exclude, offensive/defensive caselists, etc.

-do weighing

Philosophy

-very persuaded by util

-please explain your syllogisms clearly if not util

-I doubt any serious ethical theory would think extinction isn't a bad thing

-couple your NC with a CP or answer the case

Tricks

-please don't read them

-most tricks don't have a warrant or make enough sense for me to vote on them

Misc

-please be nice to your opponent

-debate should be fun

Hello! My name is Michael Kurian and I did Natcircuit LD for 2 years at Dulles High School in Houston, TX.
I had 5 career bids and qualled to the TOC as a junior and senior. I also did a bit of policy as a senior and qualled to NSDA in CX.

Yes, email chain me friends:

Mkdebate@gmail.com

Kritiks: 1
Phil: 1
Theory: 2-3
LARP: 2
Tricks: 3-4

Do whatever you want, some things tho

1. I will say clear and slow if you're incoherent. I have ADHD and will lose focus if the debate has 5+ shells and every single sentence refers to a specific line by line argument. Extremely dense theory debates are not good for me and I will vote on overviews and voting issues, ignoring line by line concerns sometimes. I would not recommend you debate like this infront of me.

2. I dislike theory when frivolous (you know what "frivolous" means) but will vote on it. This means yes, I will vote on it, but I give the opposing side a ton of leeway. If the aff makes a bad I meet or has marginal offense on a really dumb shell like "Link chains bad" I will err that way. I like theory when strategic, but LOVE it when there is legit especially if you use creative interps or good combo shells. My favorite theory shell is O-Spec :)

3. Lets say you read a dump of some kind and you don't flash the arguments to the room. If your opponent asks you to flash them during CX or prep, you will do so. Otherwise, I will eviscerate your speaks.

4. You're allowed to be a jerk proportionally to the amount of foolery going on in the debate
ex. If the aff has 3 NIBS, you can be a little mad. If the 1NC is racism good, you can be furious etc.

5. I dislike partial disclosure shells ie. "Must disclose Plan Text of new aff, must open source, etc."; Disclosure is simple - if you've read it, disclose it. All of it. If you haven't broken it yet, you don't owe your opponent jack. You can give them the ROB text or the plan text if you're feeling benevolent.

Exceptions:

*****I will NOT vote on ****

1) Brackets theory
2) Font theory
3) Arguments that are explicitly homophobic, racist, or otherwise bigoted.
4) Evaluate the debate at X speech (no - I will eval the whole debate regardless)
5) New affs bad (but "Must disclose plantext/framework" is fine)
6) Arguments that exclusively link to your opponents/your identity without structural warrants- ex. "White ppl should lose", "vote for me cuz im X minority group"
7) Must Disclose Round Reports



Kritik:

This is the form of debate that I did the most in high school. I will probably understand your insane postmodern nonsense as long as you understand it enough to explain the application back to me. Race and Id pol Ks are fine

1) Link work - really important.

2) Alternative explanation - I have a somewhat low threshold; I'll assume it solves case and the K's links unless that is contested by the Affirmative

3) WEIGH with the ROLE of the BALLOT - tell me why your pedagogy is important, why it belongs in debate, and how we can use it to derive the best form of praxis. If you aren't doing these things, you will probably lose to a more intuitive RoB.

Things I don't like but will still vote on:

1) Kritikal presumption arguments

2) Links of Ommission

3) Lazy, overused link arguments

4) edgy jargon that stays edgy jargon (explain ur stuff at SOME point at least)




Framework:

Love it, think its cool and underused.
.

Do lots of weighing and explain why your framework resolves meta-ethical problems -- Infinite regress, Constitutivism, Actor spec. etc. If not, tell me why it should be preferred over another framework. I don't like particularism (or rather I like it as an ethical theory, but think it is weird when used in debate); my favorite frameworks to hear are Pragmatism and Virtue Ethics.


LARP:

I prob went for a DA 2 times in my entire career lol. Just do weighing and warrant comparison. It's a relatively intuitive debate style and if it doesn't seem so, I'm not one to say, but you might be doing it wrong. I'm a sucker for good IR analysis. If you understand how States function in relation to eachother and can use concrete examples in explanations I'll be persuaded and also boost your speaks.


Theory:

Weigh. Make good arguments or make really creative bad arguments. Failure to do either will make me sad.

On the Theory vs K debate:

1. If the AC references the topic heavily, is strongly in the direction of the topic, defends implementation, and/or in some other way grants you your topic ground, don't whine and call me a K-hack when I err aff against whatever shell you read. If they're doing everything within reason to grant you your prep, and I still hear 9+ mins of crying in the 1NC and 2N about how you have LITERALLY ZERO GROUND™ I'm going to be much more likely to vote the other way. That being said, if you genuinely feel like the aff is out of the range of the topic or is straight up non-T, go for T, or T - Framework, and go as hard as you want.

2. Reading disclosure against K affs is a good strat.



Tricks:

I just evaluate it the same way I would a bs-heavy theory or framework debate, which lets be honest, is what this is.
Paradoxes, Aprioris, and presumption/skep triggers are all fine.



Things I'll boost your speaks for:


Naruto Reference in speech: +.1
Dressing like you don't give a crap: +.1
Cool Affirmatives: +.3
Solid Collapsing: +.5
Ethos: +.2
Creative arguments: +.2

Speak Breakdown:

30: straight fire
29.5-29.9: ur fire
28.6 - 29.4: You good
28.1-28.5: meh
27.1-28: oof
26.1-27: big oof
25.1-26: go to church dude lol
25: f you

Yes I do want the speech doc. ben.r.lampman@gmail.com

I debated LD 4 years at Millard North and saw a fair amount of both nat circuit and traditional rounds. I'm a first year out.

Im probably somewhere in the middle of those two extremes, as much as I love progressive debate, sometimes i'm baby, so just explain everything clearly and try to spread clearly pretty please.

Pre-Round Etiquette -

• If your case has any material that could be psychologically damaging or harmful, trigger warnings are a necessity. Graphic material includes, but is not limited to descriptions of: violence based on gender identity, sexuality, or race; police brutality; suicide; sexual assault; domestic abuse. Because debate should be safe and accessible to all debaters, TW's should be articulated in order to include everyone. Refusing to provide TW's for graphic cases creates an exclusive and threatening atmosphere and will effect speaker points, but not the decision.
• Disclosure is encouraged, but not required. If it's nat circ disclose, if it's trad I don't care.
• Pronouns! Tell me them! (Mine are he/him/his !)

Speed:

If I have a speech doc, i'm way more lenient, but I can flow a decent amount of spreading, just don't like, break the sound barrier or anything. Also please don't use speed as a weapon. I will tank your speaks.

How to get my ballot:

I normally will vote on anything, but I probably will gut check theory if I'm asked. If it isn't discussed in round, it wont come into the RFD. The arguments I prefer are: Larp>K's>Phil>Theory>Tricks

Just run what you like and have fun! I will vote on memey and fun arguments if you give me a reason to vote (And probably give pretty high speaks if the antics are appreciated)

On the flipside, it irks me to no end when debaters read memey arguments just to troll. If you don't actually prove why you have better access to the ballot than your opponent, you lose. Simple as.

(Also as a caveat: If the aff reads something that's like extremely serious or emotional, please do not meme it really ruins the brand and i will look like this >:-o)

Literally just clearly explain your args within the context of the round and why it should win the ballot. Make me do as little work as possible and we'll be gucci

Comment on Theory: This was the arg I had the least amount of experience with. I'm like still okay with evaluating the args but I need 1) a significant decrease in speed 2) articulation, enunciation, clarity and 3) explicit weighing to feel comfortable voting on it -> run at your own risk bc i'm telling you, you will probably Not be happy w my decision!!! Also, on disclosure theory, I'm incredibly uncomfortable evaluating violations when they're in the form of hearsay and screenshots and especially when I'm not in the room.

Also I will NOT vote on:

-Racism

-Homophobia

-Transphobia

-Sexism

-Literally anything on the same grain. Be a good person please please please please please it isn't that hard

Speaks

Im normally pretty generous on speaks, but a few pro gamer tricks:

Things that bolster speaks:

-Explaining arguments well enough that its clear that you know them inside and out

-Not being an a**hole

-Being nice to novices should you hit them

-Having a unique case

-Being able to name 30 distinct pokemon

-Not horsing around

Ways to LOSE speaks

-Being an a**hole

-Being problematic

-Not caring about novices

-Reading a position that you very obviously do not know

-Just be nice and u wont lose any

-Admitting that you unironically enjoy skim milk

Misc:

Ask me for any other questions because I definitely didn't cover it all

And finally, as a great person once said:

Be rootin

Be tootin

By god be shootin.

But most importantly

Be kind.

Some quick and important stuff for the 2020 virtual season (full paradigm and bio is below and unbolded):

1. I'm happy to listen to and vote on Ks, theory, phil, LARP, tricks, etc. (pretty much all the standard LD stuff). I also tend to have a pretty good ear for speed so that shouldn't be an issue.

2. I've noticed that I tend to evaluate debates pretty technically. The debaters that tend to perform best in front of me (no matter which types of arguments they are reading) are very good on the line-by-line but are also able to do bigger picture weighing and argument interaction. This basically means I'm very skeptical of embedded clash so I'm willing to vote on shorter arguments if they're dropped or mishandled but those arguments needed to be weighed and interacted with the other important arguments in the round.

I debated for Scarsdale High School for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year. I currently attend the University of Pennsylvania. I also coached Scarsdale for 2 years and taught at NSD for two summers.

I will vote on any argument that has a warrant that at least somewhat follows from the claim and is impacted back to an evaluative mechanism deemed important in the round. I have no preference for any one type of argumentation: this means that you can feel comfortable reading framework, LARP, Ks, theory, tricks, etc. in front of me. You should do what you do best and feel is most strategic in the given round.

Framework: These debates are enjoyable, but they can get very messy if both sides are just extending preclusive arguments and not doing much interaction. Weighing between framework warrants will be extremely helpful if you want to win a framework debate in front of me. Also, you should make clear what impacts matter under your framework (i.e. whether it is ends-based or means-based).

LARP: Good evidence comparison and impact weighing are the keys here and will be rewarded.

Ks: I view role of the ballot debate in a similar fashion to framework debate. That means that you should be doing interaction between your role of the ballot and your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework. If you lose the role of the ballot debate, the impacts of the K only matter if you explicitly link them to your opponent’s role of the ballot or framework.

Theory: Please slow down while reading interp texts so that I actually understand what shell you are reading. Absent any arguments to the contrary by the debaters in-round, I default to competing interps and no RVIs. All voters (even fairness and education) need to be justified. I will not vote on new 2AR theory or a 2AR RVI to a new 2NR shell (I will vote on new 2NR shells however if they are won).

Tricks: They need to be impacted to something, even if it is not a standard. Likely tricks will link to a role of the ballot (i.e. truth testing) which means that if your opponent wins an opposing role of the ballot they may have no impact.

Zoey Lin (she/her/hers)

Lexington '20 | Dartmouth '24

Please put me on and properly name the email chain! [lin.debate@gmail.com] [Tournament - Round X: Aff Team v Neg Team]

I'm colorblind, so please highlight in green (or give me time to change your color)

Also if y'all wanna bring me food, like... I won't say no. To be clear I'm not asking for food, I'm just saying it will make me happy <3

tl;dr

Be genuine, be nice, just do what you’re good at. I promise I'm very low maintenance, as long as you're nice, give me an outlet and a chair, and are a reasonable human being I will and flow what you say! Don't be rude pls

This picture encapsulates both my personality and my judging philosophy

Please be super clear. I can flow you, but I might not be able to flow you + mumble + echo + distance + zoom. If you're unclear and lose even though "but I said it in my speech", imma give you this look: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Policy (Updated 9.23.23)

Do what you're good at, don't adapt for me (yes I have biases, but if I'll be persuaded more by what you say than what I think).

Frame the round and tell a good story, unless told otherwise I am tech > truth, theory is a reason to reject the arg (but condo is a reason to reject the team), judges don't kick, and anything goes. Other than that, I am a sucker for specific strategies. Even if you don't go for them I will reward case specific research (aff recuts, counterplans that solve the internal link, specific pics against k affs, etc). Do your best with neg ground—even though you need a DA, that's not an excuse for awful ptx scenarios.

Other thoughts: I don't think enough 2a's are willing to go for theory and I'm happy to vote on 2+ condo bad!

What You're Here For (K Stuff)

Debate is definitely a game and clash is an intrinsic good for debate. I find myself particularly persuaded by switch-side debate arguments and well crafted TVAs. Despite that, I think debate could be much more than a game even though we're here "playing" it and the history of the args I read supports that idea. I'm most familiar with and went for identity critiques (anti-blackness and queer theory) and security (fem ir, racial ir, and traditional ir). I'm pretty decent for psychoanalysis and various anti-capitalist lit bases (marxism, left accelerationism, semio-capitalism). I'm average for other white pomo, and pretty bad for death good. That being said, I don't want to listen to nebulous appeals to buzzword impacts... K teams win when they are able to contextualize their k to their opponent's args, especially with links. You don't need a "good k" you need a well applied k.

LD (Updated 11.18.23)

I'm a policy debater who doesn't care what you read. The only thing you should consider is that although I will flow your argument and its warrants, I might not fully understand it to your liking (i.e. just because you said permissibility doesn't mean I'll fill in the warrant for you).

If you want to know specifics though, I'm definitely better for k/larp compared to phil, and definitely questionable for theory and tricks*. I don't care if you defend the topic, but have some sort of grounded criticism, please.

Long LD Specific Paradigm: I aspire to be Henry Curtis

*Caveat: Lexington Debater Brett Fortier told me "if you're willing to listen to tricks, you're a tricks judge." While that is me... I really do not want to listen to RVI's, trick's, nebel t, a prioris and just LISTS of paradoxes. Much thanks!

Misc Stuff

I flow on a computer and sometimes often away or stare blankly. Don't worry I can type without looking, this just means I'm thinking

I've realized that zoom debate has made it so that y'all prep so loudly. I don't super care but it's also just jarring that I can hear all of your conversations about the debate and especially your conversations about me...

Bottom Line

Debate is a great place to challenge yourself and have fun while doing it... the first thing that I want to see is that everyone is enjoying themselves and having a good time. Some debaters think that they're too good or cool to afford their opponents respect and decency in-round: if this is you, I will not be a good judge to have in the back of your round. We are all here to have fun and get better, so if you are jeopardizing that in any way, don't expect me to be as willing to vote for you.

I really care about the participation of queer debaters, especially gender minorities and poc. It's really difficult to find queer spaces in general, never mind in debate and worst of all in an online debate environment. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space. If you are looking for additional resources, please check out https://www.windebate.org/ for the most passionate mentors and https://www.girlsdebate.org/ for funny memes, cool people, and amazing overall help.

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to shoot me an email or ask before the round starts. I'd be happy to clarify anything on this paradigm or offer you any other insight that I might have forgotten to include here.

Good luck!

email: connquisty@gmail.com

Phil: (Yes!)

K's: (Yes again!)

LARP: (reluctant acceptance)

Reading more than 3 theory shells: (please no)

Tricks: (NOOOOO)

I competed in LD in high school for Loyola. If you're wondering whether I value truth or tech more, my answer would be firstly that you should try for both; if a round becomes absolutely irresolvable, I usually try to vote for the argument that makes more intuitive sense. I care a lot about logical coherence, and the single best way to win my ballot (especially in the 2nr or 2ar) is by explicitly telling me what framing is most important and how you're winning under that framing at the top of your speech; if the round is extremely messy, this is doubly true, especially if you have a clever way for me to evaluate the round. I want important, far-reaching arguments to be well-developed, so I don't think that tricks are persuasive (and on balance I'd say that the development required for any given "trick" would devoid its strategic value). That said, I love philosophy, and well-developed philosophical positions (specifically moral/epistemic/linguistic/... skepticisms) will be fairly and gleefully evaluated. I love K's (identity-oriented, postmodern, or otherwise), and K tricks are also super cool and underutilized. LARP is fine, although not my favorite, but you can definitely win it; I'd suggest diversifying your offs if you want to larp against another larper (ie read a 3 card K or some theory). Theory done well is fun, but theory done poorly is hard to evaluate, so if you're not exactly a theory God just yet, try not to read too much of it. The same applies for T. Also, I don't have strong emotions regarding T-framework (positive or negative). I try to be nice with speaks, and if you want higher speaks, ask well-articulated cx questions and make smart strategy decisions throughout the round. Finally, I have no taste for aggressiveness or arrogance of any kind: You can be commanding without being condescending or rude, and if I feel you've crossed that threshold, then your speaks will reflect that. With that said, happy debating! You can ask me further questions about my prefs via my email.

I debated LD for Strake Jesuit for 4 years and broke at the TOC my senior year.

1 - LARP/Phil/Theory

2 - Tricks

3 - Everything else

I mainly read LARP, Phil, and theory when I debated.

I debated a lot of Ks but I didn't read many Ks and am not familiar with the lit, so if u want to read one make sure u explain things well.

I'll try to be as tab as possible and will evaluate any arguments. Tech > truth. If ur spreading, please be clear.

If you know you won the round already, please end the speech.

If u want to add me to the email chain: yishiaoliu@gmail.com

CKM '18

Berkeley '22

Assistant coach at Immaculate Heart. She/her. annabellelong@berkeley.edu

I’ve heard/debated it all and will listen to/vote on anything, provided you do it well. Specific argument preferences are below, but none of these preferences should significantly change what you read or how you debate in front of me. If you win the debate, I will vote for you.

Ks: I’ll vote for them. I'm familiar with most commonly read Ks. I think good K teams do more than just read the same shell and 2NC overview every round, and I’ll appreciate it and find it easier to vote for you if you have contextual links to the plan/impacts. It will be difficult to convince me that debate is bad.

K vs K: the area where I’m least familiar. I'm not super comfortable evaluating these rounds. You will have a hard time convincing me that the perm doesn't solve.

Counterplans: On condo: it’s good. On kicking planks: you can do it. On 2NC counterplans: they are good. None of these preferences mean I can't be convinced otherwise, but if debating on the question is equal, that is how I will typically lean.

Disads: I really care about evidence quality – if any card you’re planning to read has frankensteined a sentence out of words from three different paragraphs, it’s probably a bad disad, and I won’t be a fan. Zero risk is definitely a thing.

Framework: yes. Plans = good, debate = good, topic education = good. I’ll vote on fairness. I think portable skills are real and that movements-style framework can be strategic. I am not the best judge for you if you read a k aff, but I certainly won't auto vote neg on framework. Always tech over truth.

LD: I strongly dislike and do not feel comfortable judging theory/tricks debating, I love policy-style arguments, and am not fond of judging traditional LD philosophy debates (convincing me util is wrong/not the best way to make governmental decisions will be difficult). It will be nearly impossible to win an RVI in front of me. You should not pref me if you frequently go for theory or tricks. I will functionally judge the debate as if it is a 1v1 policy round (with the exception of maybe being more sympathetic to condo).

Misc.:

It is often in your best interest to go slower than your top speed. I do not flow off the doc and will not vote for arguments that I do not have on my flow.

Record your speeches locally in the event of a technical issue.

I am not timing your speech or your prep time.

tjclarksonmaher@gmail.com

CHS 2020/UVA 2024

Experience:

I lone-wolfed for a school called Chantilly in Northern VA. I qualled to TOC my senior year (2020), but did not attend because of COVID. I went to six tournaments total in my career and broke at the four I went to my senior year. I am currently a physics major at the University of Virginia (Wahoowa!)

General Debate Philosophy: 

I care about technical execution more than argument content. But part of good technical execution includes providing strong warrants for your arguments. I will do my best to be tabula rasa and ideologically neutral, but that doesn't mean I'll vote for an incoherent, unwarranted, blippy argument just because it was conceded and quickly extended.

That being said, I have no problem voting for things I personally do not think are true so long as they are well-supported in round. Fields like analytic philosophy, formal logic, and pure mathematics have a long history of rigorous justification for strange and counter-intuitive, seemingly paradoxical ideas. I’d say, if you can find an academic literature base for a wacky philosophical idea, go for it. I'm probably a better judge than most for the out-there stuff in debate. 

Decision Philosophy:

Debate is a game. It's a game with a lot of potential educational value (depending on how you approach it), but it's a game nonetheless. At the end of the day, I have to submit a ballot and pick a winner. I don't want to do this arbitrarily, so I will vote on the flow and only on the flow unless there is an ethics issue (offensive language, evidence ethics, etc.) 

Miscellaneous Stuff: 

I obviously don't care if you spread but I do actually need to hear/understand your arguments. I have zero qualms about voting on arguments I don't understand and if I have to keep calling clear I'll eventually just give up. I'll give you a little more leeway for arguments that you're reading and have sent to me (can go a bit faster for 1AC/1NC offs, pre-written analytics, etc.). I also have a minor hearing disability so I'd really appreciate it if you could be louder than your baseline volume. 

RFDs are cleanest when one side is winning offense on the highest layer linking to some framing mechanism. Do explicit analysis sequencing, preclusion, weighing, impact calculus, and clear interactions for maximum resolvability. The less of that you do, the more my RFD sounds like me rambling about my own intuitions. I don't like giving those RFDs because they make me feel like a bad judge. Debaters don't like those RFDs because they feel very arbitrary. Please make life easier for everyone by making the debate resolvable. 

I'm not super picky but I prefer arguments to be extended by content (as opposed to label, i.e. "sub-point A"). I have a pretty low threshold for extensions if an argument is cold conceded. It can help rhetorically to re-explain a warrant in a dropped argument; if you're using it to take something out in a way that's not blindingly obvious you absolutely need to explain the interaction/implication. If you do not extend an argument I'm ignoring it in future speeches. 

I try to default to paradigms implicitly accepted by both debaters because sometimes lack of extensions make debates nonsensical, unless I assume some kind of framing mechanism. For example, if both sides go for theory and no reads or extends their voters, I'm just going to assume its fairness/education or both (depending on the context 

Please no new 2NR/2AR arguments. If you read RVIs bad in the 1NC and the 1AR concedes that, then the 2NR does not get to suddenly change strategy and go for RVIs good.

I did debate, and continue to participate in the debate community, because it is fun. It is not fun when people are mean and rude to each other. I really do not want to be dragged into blood feuds, so please try not to read arguments about debaters out-of-round conduct. (Disclosure shells and things like round reports are fine since theory is distinct from casting aspersions on someone's character). 

I don't like blippy independent voters that are not linked to some framing mechanism. I actually think Reps Ks/Word PICs can be interesting, the impact just needs to be linked to a coherent framework, preferably of a normative nature. I really don't like voting on arguments that claim that a loss is a punitive measure against someone's behavior: I think 

Speaks: 

Speaks are arbitrary. Trying really hard to standardize them but I'm a human and fundamentally not programmed to think numerically. Basically I'm shooting for:

30 = no note, perfect; 29.5+ = near flawless; 29-29.4 = very good, going to break for sure; 28.5-28.9 = decent, some errors, may break; 28-28.4 = mediocre, still developing; 27.5-28 = major technical/strategic errors; 27.5 = weird/bizarre things happened that baffled me 

(once watched a debate where the 1N ROB was "vote for the debater who does a TikTok dance,” and the aff conceded after the neg did a TikTok dance; that gets something around a 26.5) 

Alison Manaker

Strath Haven

I am a parent judge who pays close attention to the quality of arguments and responses. No spreading, no tricks, no Ks, no theory, nothing circuit. Please speak at a conversational pace (be clear -- I'll call clear once before dropping your speaks). I want to hear logically constructed arguments with good quality evidence. No contrived extinction scenarios. I take detailed notes of arguments and responses, but I do not flow. No jargon. Truth>tech

Please have evidence! Please have good evidence. Please do explicit evidence comparison --- I, and you, will be much happier if you point out powertagged evidence, unqualified authors, and clearly explain why your studies and warrants are better than your opponents'.

Hi! I'm Alex Martin, a former La Reina High School LD debater based in Denver, CO. I'm currently in my junior year of University.

I competed for 5 years and attended local and national tournaments. I also did some college debate in my freshman year of college.

I'm experienced in flowing both slow and fast rounds. Progressive debate is okay as long as both competitors are comfortable with fast speeches and are willing to share cases.

I prefer evidence/case sharing to occur in the NSDA campus file share but email is okay too as long as you ask. My email is Alex.Martin@du.edu

Please be respectful. Bigoted behavior will not be tolerated. I'm pretty fair with speaker points as long as you put in your best effort.

Feel free to ask about more specifics during the round.

Tournaments: I usually reserve my weekends for debate related gigs/activities. If you are looking for hires, definitely consider me.

Update for online tournaments:

Please slow down and make an extra effort to be clear for these rounds online. I will not call clear online since then we miss some of what you are saying.

I did LD for three years at Cy-Fair HS outside of Houston, Texas, qualifying to the TOC and NSDA nationals, and reaching semifinals at TFA state. I worked for McNeil HS in Austin while attending the University of Texas, and I teach at NSD and TDC.

Conflicts: McNeil HS, Cy-Fair HS, Lovejoy KC, Pembroke Pines MC

TL/DR:

I'd rather evaluate your style of debate than have you do things you're not comfortable with because you think it's what I want. My paradigm is here so you get an idea of how you want to pref me and how to debate in front of me, not to dissuade you from any particular type of debate.

Feel free to ask me questions at cameronmcconway@gmail.com.

If I am judging you at 8 am or late after a long day of rounds, please make an extra effort to be clear and organized. I'm tired and I want to make sure I can evaluate the debate as best as possible, so this is in your best interest!

The trend of taking forever to send speech docs (and then wait for everyone to download them) is extremely annoying. I haven't figured out the best way to check this, so for now I'm asking that you come to round with the aff ready to send, and have docs ready to send as soon as prep ends before the NC. If you think you might have wifi trouble or problems with your email, a flash drive would speed this process up.

General:

I will vote on most arguments as long as they aren't morally objectionable or blatantly false. I will do my best to be tab, but I think there is a level of plausibility necessary for me to vote on an argument (for instance, I won't vote on an obviously false I-meet). It will be difficult to convince me to vote on a super blippy apriori or an argument that turned into a voting issue after being one line in the original speech.

I'd like to be on the email chain in case I need to look at a card, but I will flow you not the speech doc.

Speed:

I'm fine with speed, just slow down on tags/author names and interps/advocacy texts.

T/Theory:

I am comfortable evaluating theory under whichever paradigm you prefer, so long as you justify it. I have found that I enjoy a good theory debate where there is a lot of weighing and internal links.

I am not a fan of disclosure debates, especially when the violation is unverifiable or the wiki was down. That said, there is a difference between a debate about disclosure vs a debate over open source or round reports, and I would much prefer the former.

Ks:

I read both high theory and identity politics. I feel comfortable evaluating most K debates but I strongly prefer debaters err on the side of overexplaining/not relying on jargon rather than assuming that I am familiar with the literature they are reading. These debates tend to either be excellent or my least favorite.

I enjoy K affs, but I do think if you are nontopical you need to a) win that being nontopical is legitimate b) have an evaluative mechanism and c) have offense under that mechanism. I am happy to listen to unique/innovative K affs regardless of their topicality, though I am also happy to listen to T debates against them. I think these can be interesting debates.

Recent observation: I find positions that rely on premises like "performative contradictions good" or "debate itself bad" to be unpersuasive. Not positions that criticize the current iteration of competitive debate (I am fine with that), but rather I think there is inherent value to the act of debating. This doesn't mean I won't vote on high theory authors like Baudrillard, because I will and I have, but I do think your interpretation of these authors should be compatible with your performance.

LARP:

I think that high level LARP debates tend to be more difficult to evaluate because a lot of debaters do not do sufficient weighing or impact calc. I enjoy well done LARP debates, just please do good weighing.

Framework:

I enjoy framework debate more the longer I judge. Slow down a bit on long analytic dumps and err towards overexplaining the dense philosophical warrants, because these things are difficult to flow at your top speed.

Speaks:

I start around a 28.5 and go up or down depending on in-round strategy and skill relative to the tournament. Speaks tend to be over-inflated and relatively arbitrary, so I try to give speaks with influencing who clears in mind. I like speaks as a way to reward well-executed or particularly clever strategies.

*2020-2021 UPDATE*- I am seriously out of practice and I have no idea what the topics are this year, so its probably a good idea that you explain topic jargon.

Hey guys, my email is rushilmehta@utexas.edu so please add me to the email chain. The last thing that I want to do is miss one of your arguments. Please don't be shy to ask me any questions before rounds.

Houston Memorial '20

UT '24 (not doing debate in college)

Quick prefs:

1 - policy/larp

2-3- k's that I'm familiar with (cap, neolib, anthro, fem)

4- k's that I'm somewhat/less familiar with (afro-pess, set col, Baudrillard, D&G, Zizek, psycho, Bataille, Nietzsche)

4- trix/spikes/friv theory

I was never very good on the national circuit and I will probably have trouble flowing/understanding deep k lit and friv theory in late elim rounds on the national circuit.Tech heavily outweighs truth except in a couple of instances. Those instances are when you are racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, transphobic, anti-queer, ableist, etc. Write my rfd for me. Your rebuttals should be why I should vote for you.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Add me to the email chain: rahil820@gmail.com

Background: I did LD for Edina High School for 5 years (1.5 on the national circuit). I also competed in extemp for 2 years. I'm a second-year-out and I've mostly judged local circuit debate, so my preferences on national circuit debate will likely continue to change as time goes on.

General stuff

With the exception of tricks, I'm fine with any position you run. I did mostly policy style debating throughout my career, so I'm familiar with mostly policy stuff. I dabbled in a little bit of philosophy (kant, virtue ethics) and a little bit of critical literature, but I haven't been exposed to it a lot so I'm relatively unfamiliar with a lot of the arguments. If you want to run these dense critical/philosophical positions in front of me, you need to explain and impact these very well (so that a 10-year old could understand them) if you want me to vote for you.

Also, I will immediately vote you down if you are racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. in the round and I'll reach out to your coach. Procedural safety is my number one priority since I believe debate should be accessible to everyone, regardless of their background.

For local circuit debaters - put emphasis on your "voting-issue" arguments so that it's clear to me how you want me to vote. Do this, and your speaks will increase. Also, make sure to actually respond to your opponent's arguments effectively and weigh your impacts against theirs. This is the biggest thing I see lacking in local circuit debate and your speaks will improve if you do this (you'll likely win too).

Online Debate

Please slow down on tags and important warrants/impacts. Unpredictable things can happen which can cause lost rounds, and none of us want that to happen, so please be very clear on the arguments you think I should vote for.

Record all of your speeches and send them to everyone in the round after you're done in case your audio or connection goes out. If you don't there's pretty much nothing I can do since you can't restart your speech.

Nov-Dec 2020

Not too familiar with this topic, so please explain nuanced arguments clearly.

Carroll High School '19

UT Austin '23

Email: samir.smohsin@gmail.com (add me to the email chain pls)

----- if you are flight 2 pls have the email chain already set up!-----

If the round starts early or on time I'll bump both debater's speaks.

Don't call me judge etc. its awkward, just call me Samir.

-If you want a marked/cut version of a doc that comes out of your prep/CX - just flow

Background: Hey, I'm Samir. I debated for 4 years at Carroll High School and qualified to TFA State and the TOC my senior year. I debated on the national and local circuit so I have no preference between progressive and traditional debate.

General:

- most comfortable with policy args, some theory (as long as its not absurd/concerns what your opponent is wearing or how they dress), and basic phil

-I don't have the greatest understanding of Ks - explain them to me as if I were a 5 year old - same thing goes with more complex/less common phil

-I find myself getting lost or confused often in k aff vs framework debates - don't blitz thru every arg on the lbl and breaking the debate down in later rebuttals will help me be not as confused

-wont vote on args that are blatantly offensive

-s l o w d o w n with online debates, I can't follow super high speed over zoom calls so start off at 60% and work your way up to 80%

-I think reasonability almost always needs a brightline and am not really sure how to evaluate it without one

Other stuff to note:

-I think disclosing at a minimum level is important (first 3, last 3) but for other types of disclosure (full text, open source etc.) I'll just evaluate the arg like a normal theory shell.

-I'll flow along with the doc but don't use it as a crutch to be unclear. If I have to yell clear a couple of times I won't drop speaks but if there's no effort to improve clarity I will.

-please be kind to your opponent, some sass is fine just don't be rude

-compiling the doc is prep but emailing it isn't

-friv theory/tricks are fine and I'll evaluate them like any other argument but I'll have a lower threshold for responses to them

-Super long overviews always mess up my flow bc I'm not sure where to put them; either tell me where to flow them or just make them shorter

-If you've already sent cards in a doc for ur constructive then just send later cards in that same doc

-China authoritarianism good args are kinda iffy for me as a Muslim, feels like they justify the ongoing Uighur oppression and that's not something that sits well with me personally.

How to get better speaks:

-good weighing

-ethos

-having a good understanding of the args ur reading

-good strategy/collapse

-nuanced argument interaction

-being funny

-tasteful adlibs

Updates for 2020:

-I'm a bit new to the format of online debating but here are a few things to keep in mind: 1. Record your speeches locally (on your phone, laptop etc.) in the event the call drops/wifi issues - I think allowing debaters to redo speeches/guess how much time they had left is kinda sketchy. 2. If your mic is unclear, its not your fault. I'll do my best to let you know by saying "clear" and won't penalize you for it.

-Go a bit slower bc online

Here's my background:

Occupation: CS and engineering

School Affiliation: Dougherty Valley

Judging Experience: I have judged public forum for 4 years.

Speaker points: 27.5 is an average debater. I award 29s and up for very good speakers.

I evaluate rounds based on the clarity of the argument and your extension throughout the debate. I won't vote on arguments that don't make logical sense or are simply untrue. You need to explain your arguments in simple words in the summary and final focus so I can follow the clash of the debate and accurately understand the debate.

I do flow debates to an extent although it might not be like a coach or debater. However I will be taking notes throughout the debate to see what has been extended by the end.

Other things - ranked from 1-5 on how important they are for me:

Clothing/Appearance: 1

Use of Evidence: 5

Real World Impacts: 5

Cross examination: 3

Debate skill over truthful arguments: 4

LD Paradigm

This is the LD paradigm. Do a Ctrl+F search for “Policy Paradigm” or “PF Paradigm” if you’re looking for those. They’re toward the bottom.

I debated LD in high school and policy in college. I coach LD, so I'll be familiar with the resolution.

If there's an email chain, you can assume I want to be on it. No need to ask. My email is: jacobdnails@gmail.com. For online debates, NSDA file share is equally fine.

Summary for Prefs
I've judged 1,000+ LD rounds from novice locals to TOC finals. I don't much care whether your approach to the topic is deeply philosophical, policy-oriented, or traditional. I do care that you debate the topic. Frivolous theory or kritiks that shift the debate to some other proposition are inadvisable.

Yale '21 Update
I've noticed an alarming uptick in cards that are borderline indecipherable based on the highlighted text alone. If the things you're saying aren't forming complete and coherent sentences, I am not going to go read the rest of the un-underlined text and piece it together for you.

Theory/T
Topicality is good. There's not too many other theory arguments I find plausible.

Most counterplan theory is bad and would be better resolved by a "Perm do the counterplan" challenge to competition. Agent "counterplans" are never competitive opportunity costs.

I don’t have strong opinions on most of the nuances of disclosure theory, but I do appreciate good disclosure practices. If you think your wiki exemplifies exceptional disclosure norms (open source, round reports, and cites), point it out before the round starts, and you might get +.1-.2 speaker points.

Tricks
If the strategic value of your argument hinges almost entirely on your opponent missing it, misunderstanding it, or mis-allocating time to it, I would rather not hear it. I am quite willing to give an RFD of “I didn’t flow that,” “I didn’t understand that,” or “I don’t think these words in this order constitute a warranted argument.” I tend not to have the speech document open during the speech, so blitz through spikes at your own risk.

The above notwithstanding, I have no particular objection to voting for arguments with patently false conclusions. I’ve signed ballots for warming good, wipeout, moral skepticism, Pascal’s wager, and even agenda politics. What is important is that you have a well-developed and well-warranted defense of your claims. Rounds where a debater is willing to defend some idiosyncratic position against close scrutiny can be quite enjoyable. Be aware that presumption still lies with the debater on the side of common sense. I do not think tabula rasa judging requires I enter the round agnostic about whether the earth is round, the sky is blue, etc.

Warrant quality matters. Here is a non-exhaustive list of common claims I would not say I have heard a coherent warrant for: permissibility affirms an "ought" statement, the conditional logic spike, aff does not get perms, pretty much anything debaters say using the word “indexicals.”

Kritiks
The negative burden is to negate the topic, not whatever word, claim, assumption, or framework argument you feel like.

Calling something a “voting issue” does not make it a voting issue.

The texts of most alternatives are too vague to vote for. It is not your opponent's burden to spend their cross-ex clarifying your advocacy for you.

Philosophy
I am pretty well-read in analytic philosophy, but the burden is still on you to explain your argument in a way that someone without prior knowledge could follow.

I am not well-read in continental philosophy, but read what you want as long as you can explain it and its relevance to the topic.

You cannot “theoretically justify” specific factual claims that you would like to pretend are true. If you want to argue that it would be educational to make believe util is true rather than actually making arguments for util being true, then you are welcome to make believe that I voted for you. Most “Roles of the Ballot” are just theoretically justified frameworks in disguise.

Cross-ex
CX matters. If you can't or won't explain your arguments, you can't win on those arguments.

Regarding flex prep, using prep time for additional questions is fine; using CX time to prep is not.

LD paradigm ends here.

Policy Paradigm

General
I qualified to the NDT a few times at GSU. I now actively coach LD but judge only a handful of policy rounds per year and likely have minimal topic knowledge.

My email is jacobdnails@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be on the email chain. No, I don't need a compiled doc at end of round.

Framework

Yes.

Competition/Theory
I have a high threshold for non-resolutional theory. Most cheaty-looking counterplans are questionably competitive, and you're better off challenging them at that level.

Extremely aff leaning versus agent counterplans. I have a hard time imagining what the neg could say to prove that actions by a different agent are ever a relevant opportunity cost.

I don't think there's any specific numerical threshold for how many opportunity costs the neg can introduce, but I'm not a fan of underdeveloped 1NC arguments, and counterplans are among the main culprits.

Not persuaded by 'intrinsicness bad' in any form. If your net benefit can't overcome that objection, it's not a germane opportunity cost. Perms should be fleshed out in the 2AC; please don't list off five perms with zero explanation.

Advantages/DAs
I do find existential risk literature interesting, but I dislike the lazy strategy of reading a card that passingly references nuke war/terrorism/warming and tagging it as "extinction." Terminal impacts short of extinction are fine, but if your strategy relies on establishing an x-risk, you need to do the work to justify that.

Case debate is underrated.

Straight turns are great turns.

Topics DAs >> Politics.

I view inserting re-highlightings as basically a more guided version of "Judge, read that card more closely; it doesn't say what they want it to," rather than new cards in their own right. If the author just happens to also make other arguments that you think are more conducive to your side (e.g. an impact card that later on suggests a counterplan that could solve their impact), you should read that card, not merely insert it.

Kritiks
See section on framework. I'm not a very good judge for anything that could be properly called a kritik; the idea that the neg can win by doing something other than defending a preferable federal government policy is a very hard sell, at least until such time as the topics stop stipulating the United States as the actor.I would much rather hear a generic criticism of settler colonialism that forwards native land restoration as a competitive USFG advocacy than a security kritik with aff-specific links and an alternative that rethinks in-round discourse.

While I'm a fervent believer in plan-focus, I'm not wedded to util/extinction-first/scenario planning/etc as the only approach to policymaking. I'm happy to hear strategies that involve questioning those ethical and epistemological assumptions; they're just not win conditions in their own right.

CX
CX is important and greatly influences my evaluation of arguments. Tag-team CX is fine in moderation.

PF Paradigm

9 November 2018 Update (Peach State Classic @ Carrollton):

While my background is primarily in LD/Policy, I do not have a general expectation that you conform to LD/Policy norms. If I happen to be judging PF, I'd rather see a PF debate.

I have zero tolerance for evidence fabrication. If I ask to see a source you have cited, and you cannot produce it or have not accurately represented it, you will lose the round with low speaker points.

Parent Judge

No spreading

No progressive arguments

i debated in LD and policy in high school, graduating in '13. this is my 6th year coaching @ greenhill, and my second year as a full time debate teacher.

[current/past affiliations:

• i coached independent debaters from: woodlands ('14-'15), dulles ('15-'16), edgemont ('16-'18);
• team coach for: westwood ('14-'18), greenhill ('18-'22);
• program director for dallas urban debate alliance ('21-'22);
• full time teacher - greenhill, ('22-now);
• director of LD @ VBI ('23-now) - as a result of this, I am conflicted from any current competitor who will teach at VBI this summer. you can find the list of those individuals on the vbi website]

i would like there to be an email chain and I would like to be on it: greenhilldocs.ld@gmail.com -would love for the chain name to be specific and descriptive - perhaps something like "Tournament Name, Round # - __ vs __"

I have coached debaters whose interests ranged from util + policy args & dense critical literature (anthropocentrism, afropessimism, settler colonialism, psychoanalysis, irigaray, borderlands, the cap + security ks), to trickier args (i-law, polls, monism) & theory heavy strategies.

That said, I am most comfortable evaluating critical and policy debates, and in particular enjoy 6 minutes of topicality 2nrs if delivered at a speed i can flow. I will make it clear if you are going too fast - i am very expressive so if i am lost you should be able to tell.

I am a bad judge for highly evasive tricks debates, and am not a great judge for denser "phil" debates - i do not think about analytic philosophy / tricks outside of debate tournaments, so I need these debates to happen at a much slower pace for me to process and understand all the moving parts. This is true for all styles of debates - the rounds i remember most fondly are one where a cap k or t-fwk were delivered conversationally and i got almost every word down and was able to really think through the arguments.

i think the word "unsafe" means something and I am uncomfortable when it is deployed cavalierly - it is a meaningful accusation to suggest that an opponent has made a space unsafe (vs uncomfortable), and i think students/coaches/judges should be mindful of that distinction. this applies to things like “evidence ethics,” “independent voters,” "psychological violence," etc., though in different ways for each. If you believe that the debate has become unsafe, we should likely pause the round and reach out to tournament officials, as the ballot is an insufficient mechanism with which to resolve issues of safety. similarly, it will take a lot for me to feel comfortable concluding that a round has been psychologically violent and thus decide the round on that conclusion, or to sign a ballot that accuses a student of cheating without robust, clear evidence to support that. i have judged a lot of debates, and it is very difficult for me to think of many that have been *unsafe* in any meaningful way.

A note on the topic - after judging at hwl, i have realized that many of the policy debates I am seeing are too big, have too many moving parts, and are not being clearly synthesized by either the affirmative or the negative debaters. this leaves me liable to confusion in terms of what exactly the world of the aff / neg does, and increases how much i appreciate a comparative speech that explains the stakes of winning each argument clearly, and in relation to the other moving parts of the debate.

8 things to know:

• Evidence Ethics: In previous years, I have seen a lot of miscut evidence. I think that evidence ethics matters regardless of whether an argument/ethics challenge is raised in the debate. If I notice that a piece of evidence is miscut, I will vote against the debater who reads the miscut evidence. My longer thoughts on that are available on the archived version of this paradigm, including what kinds of violations will trigger this, etc. If you are uncertain if your evidence is miscut, perhaps spend some time perusing those standards, or better yet, resolve the miscutting. Similarly, I will vote against debaters clipping if i notice it. If you would like me to vote on evidence ethics, i would prefer that you lay out the challenge, and then stake the round on it. i do not think accusations of evidence ethics should be risk-less for any team, and if you point out a mis-cutting but are not willing to stake the round on it, I am hesitant to entertain that argument in my decision-making process. if an ev ethics challenge occurs, it is drop the debater. do not make them lightly.

• i mark cards at the timer and stop flowing at the timer.

• Complete arguments require a claim warrant and impact when they are made. I will be very comfortable rejecting 1nc/1ar arguments without warrants when they were originally made. I find this is particularly true when the 1ar/1nc version are analytic versions of popular cards that you presume I should be familiar with and fill in for you.
• I do not believe you can "insert" re-highlightings that you do not read verbally.

• please do not split your 2nrs! if any of your 1nc positions are too short to sustain a 6 minute 2nr on it, the 1nc arg is underdeveloped.

• Evidence quality is directly correlated to the amount of credibility I will grant an argument - if a card is underhighlighted, the claim is likely underwarranted. I think you should highlight your evidence to make claims the author has made, and that those claims should make sense if read at conversational speed outside of the context of a high school debate round.

• i do not enjoy being in the back of disclosure debates where the violation is difficult to verify or where a team has taken actions to help a team engage, even if that action does not take the form of open sourcing docs, nor do i enjoy watching disclosure theory be weaponized against less experienced debaters - i will likely not vote on it. if a team refuses to tell you what the aff will be, or is familiar with circuit norms but has nothing on their wiki, I will be more receptive to disclosure, but again, verifiability is key.

• topicality arguments will make interpretive claims about the meaning or proper interpretation of words or phrases in the resolution. interpretations that are not grounded in the text of the resolution are theoretical objections - the same is true for counter-interpretations.i will use this threshold for all topicality/theory arguments.

Finally, I am not particularly good for the following buckets of debates:

• Warming good & other impact turn heavy strategies that play out as a dump on the case page

• IR heavy debates - i encourage you to slow down and be very clear in the claims you want me to evaluate in these debates.

• Bad theory arguments / theory debates w/ very marginal offense (it is unlikely i will vote for theory debates where i can not identify meaningful offense / where the abuse story is very difficult for me to comprehend)

• Identity ks that appropriate the form and language of antiblackness literature

• affs/nc's that have entirely analytic frameworks (even if it is util!) - i think this is often right on the line of plagiarism, and my brain simply cannot process / flow it at high speeds. my discomfort with these positions is growing by the round.

parkjoanne17@gmail.com

Archbishop Mitty '20, Columbia '24

Coached @ Peninsula, Mitty, VBI '21, VBI '20, and NSD '20

I did LD for 4 years, qualifying to NSDA/TOC and winning a quarters bid. I read a little bit of everything, but haven't touched debate in a year, so you should err on the side of over-explaining.

Unless debated out, I presume neg unless the 2NR defends or relies on the defense of an advocacy (e.g., a counterplan I'm not asked to judge kick). For individual arguments, if debated evenly, I will err against the side who has the burden of proof (e.g., I err no link, not yes link).

Being racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, etc. is an instant L20. If you are feel uncomfortable or unsafe in round, please do not hesitate to email me (I'll be checking consistently throughout the round).

If you stake the debate on evidence ethics, I will stop the round and use that for my RFD. Otherwise, I let these debates play out as normal. If I catch clipping, it's an auto loss, but to make an accusation you need a recording. If you ask me to stop the round, the decision I am making is a. if an established rule on evidence is being broken and b. if the breaking of the rule, in all or most circumstances where it occurs, changes the meaning of the evidence.

Dougherty '20, LD and Policy

Cal '24

Please put me on the email chain: aayushpatel27@gmail.com

Update: I say go slower than normal later, but like y'all really got to try bc I have debaters spreading unsent phil indicts at top speed. I would suggest attempting to go like 80% percent speed so even if you undershoot you'll be ok.

I will yell slow twice. Slow down or I'll miss arguments.

Haven't much topic research, please explain acronyms. Please make an effort to go slower because we're online. It has also been a little bit since I've listened to spreading, go slightly slower than you would go otherwise.

Feel free to message me on Facebook if you have any questions

Shortcuts:

Policy 1-2

K 2-3

Phil 2-4 (The more trix you plan to read, the lower I should be preffed)

Theory 3-4

General:

I think Arjun Tambe is pretty smart and so is his paradigm.

-Compiling is prep/flashing is not.

-Spreading is fine but heed the bolded warnings above, especially in an online format

-I will read cards (especially if its a factual question) but I appreciate creative spin more than some on theoretical (in the philosophical sense) questions. I will still gut check args if they're blatantly misconstrued. Good author quals are great here.

-I won't vote on arguments that force me to consider activity outside of the rd. Disclosure is the only real exception

-I will also not vote on the appearance or attire of a student

- I'll vote for nebel but I really won't like it.

-Signpost for your life, my flows get messy sometimes

-People need to utilize cx more. It is my favorite part of the debate. Good cx will be rewarded with higher speaks. Good cx entails: Purposeful questions; Minimal clarifying qs, with those asked having some strategic purpose-this will be clear to me immediately during cx or you will make it clear by referencing cx in a later speech; Poise and a lil bit of (respectful) sass.

-Judge instruction wins rounds; I think Parth Dhanotra was very good at this. This includes really good evidence comparison

-Most of the below is malleable and you can convince me to diverge from my opinions in any round

Policy/"LARP"

I've mostly gone for policy-type arguments during my career and am probably best at evaluating them. So feel free to read them in front of me. Italicized text in this section is unabashedly ripped from former teammates and coaches who I will cite because I agree with them on a lot of things. I will edit this as my views develop.

CP

Clever (sheisty even) CPs are welcomed (see the annoying Asteroids CP DV read a few years ago)

I default to judge kick but I usually forget--remind me if this is what you want me to do

1-2 condo is fine. I really hate voting on dropped condo against a single CP, pls don't make me

Process CPs are fun.

PICs are usually good, but I can be convinced otherwise.

A lot of CP theory is annoying, but I am more likely to vote for it if the CP in question is particularly underwarranted.

DA/Case

Impact calc/judge instruction is the name of the game

Specific disads are a judge's dream but I did go for politics DAs fairly often even though I wasn't always convinced of its terminal impact. So make turns case args that don't only stem from the terminal impact of the DA to make it easier for me to vote for you. Those that come from farther up the link chain are great. Also read a good process cp if you resort to generic DAs

Please emulate the homie Anurag "Straight Turn" Rao and don't be afraid to go for case turns in the 2NR

General K Stuff

I didn't read ks as much as I would have liked to, but I got deeper into them just before senior year was cut short and ended up reading a decent amount of K lit. Most things should be fine as long as it is well warranted and explained. Solid fwk explanations>>>jargon filled overviews.

I also really enjoy interesting Ks that are paired well with specific offense on case. In general, don't be evasive, do good link work. I will also not hand you your ontology claims, warrant them and defend them. Winning it is often an uphill battle when contested competently.

K Affs

The exemplar in my mind was Coppell DR's aff from a few years ago. Be like them and you're a lot closer to winning

Must answer the question "Why vote aff"

I will vote for affs that reject the topic but I prefer that they have even a tangential link to the topic. To clarify, I prefer criticisms of the topic, not merely of debate. There are exceptions to this for me, (some of DR's) rounds, but I think it is easier for the aff to debate this way.

More convinced by framework that can be leveraged as a link turn (think movements) rather than arguments about fairness, which I find are largely trivial and difficult to resolve. The best debates are where aff uses well-warranted evidence from its theoretical canon (as opposed to generics like Robinson) is used to implicate FWK.

I also enjoy K v K rounds where the theory of both ks are implicated and in which a lot of cards are read but dislike them when they're just a blitz of k tricks.

Ks

I love love love love good link work. It makes it easier for me to evaluate the round as well as for you to answer args on other parts of the K flow. Go for them as mini-das instead of chunking them together in an overview.

Most of the FWK stuff above applies here, although I prefer link turns to fwk even more when the neg reads the K.

I also kinda like Ks like legalism, abolition and security especially when they have a very specific link to the aff. Good security Ks have links to the specific nations or regions in question, for example, and have a lot of nuance. These often don't fit your cookie cutter understanding of the K. For example, I read a security K with deterrence on case against an indo-pak aff. These were reconciled with a very specific explanation of South Asian subalterity.

Say yes to the Floating PIK question with your chest and defend it. They are often very strategic and it is often not very hard to beat prewritten PIK theory

Other stuff I agree with:

Framework—affirmatives should get their case and negatives should get their kritik (unless convinced otherwise). "Fiat is illusory" is impact framing rather than an absolute disqualification of the 1AC.

Phil:

General: Phil is cool, I enjoy the odd NC but they work best when coupled with solid case defense (or a tricky cp). Phil overviews could do with more judge instruction. Tell me what I'm looking for. I generally don't like trix but I understand that they can be strategic, although you will have to make sure I understand. Just explain them well and warrant them early. I'll hold your opponent to a very low standard when answering lightly-warranted one-liners.

These can be my favorite rounds, but I find that they rarely are given how they are debated in the meta.

My favorite phil is the kind that still can win rds under comparative worlds e.g. arguments about side constraints on things like gov't policy that are not necessarily reduced to a totalizing "standard."

For this reason, I love love love love it when CPs are read with an NC to solve back some of the head scratch-inducing implications certain philosophical theories have in the minds of west coast judges like myself.

That being said I am easier to convince than most that util is untenable, but your understanding of my threshold for this should be informed by my preferences on other parts of the flow.

I like phil less and less the trickier it gets. The comp worlds vs truth testing debate is very similar to that of topicality, and I think that generally truth testing is justifiable. I just really really dislike the tricks that come with these debates and am bad at resolving them. So please just read a DA instead or something.

Theory/T

I didn't read much theory during my career, don't like it that much. RVIs will most likely only get voted for if dropped. Just make sure you make an effort to help me keep my flow clean. Default to competing interps but only barely. I can be easily convinced to vote for reasonability.

Do this debate like a CP/DA debate with with the cp corresponding to the Interp and the internal links/impacts of the DA being your standards. Voters are your terminal impacts.

Well researched T that has a very clear and universal vision for debate will always do better. This means its implications for CPs must also be considered.

Broadly I think T should be a pragmatic question. It is also fairly easy to convince me that bad res writing has resulted in bad debate and the res should be interpreted more loosely.

That being said, I made an effort to try and read linguistics papers in order to answer Nebel T my senior year so really a well-warranted and clear semantics smackdown is also welcome.

In the end, feel free to read whatever you want. As long as there is a warrant, I'll do my best to evaluate it.

Also, my flows get real messy so write my ballot for me in the 2nr and the 2ar.

This paradigm is always being improved; I'm still working to calibrate/remember my opinions, so please please please message or email me if you have any specific questions and chances are I will be able to provide you with a more robust answer than can be found here.

Hi! I'm Kirtan, a Senior at the University of Michigan. I went to a small high school in Erie, PA and did circuit and traditional debate for 3 years.

Put me on the chain: kirtanp101@gmail.com

Do your thing: I'm down with all types of argumentation and I'll try my best to evaluate the debate. Go slower than your top speed because I'm not the greatest at flowing.

Quick prefs:

Larp/T/theory/stock ks/traditional/lay debate (I just oddly enjoy judging the latter two lol) -1

High theory ks/identity ks- 2/3

Phil/tricks-4 or worse

Just for some background for ks: I've run/semi well understand baudrillard, agamben, and deleuze. Doesnt mean u dont have to explain em to me. Plz explain things.

**Also a note- I prefer good traditional/lay debates over poor progressive debates!!! Don't switch up what your good at for me :)

Some predispositions: (can be convinced otherwise)

-Competing interps

-No rvis

-Drop the debater

-Judge kick good

-Presumptions goes to whatever side creates less change

Be nice to each other. No need to be condescending or mean in round. Your speaks will be lowered if you do this.

time yourself

Regular Speaks System:

29.5-30: Top debaters at the tourney

29-29.5: Pretty Good debaters at tourney

28.5-29: Good Debater

28-28.5- Average Debater Range

27.5-28- Need some work

27 and Below: You were mean and/or rude in round. If you are discriminatory at the tourney you will also receive this score

good luck and have fun

I have judged speech and debate events for the past 13 years. My son was in Congress.

General thoughts

Regardless of the event, I expect professionalism and preparation from all competitors. Showing up unprepared or engaging in unprofessional behavior wastes your time, my time, as well as that of the other competitors and your coaches.

Public Forum Debate & LD

Although I’ve judged PFD more than LD, I feel comfortable with both events. I appreciate assertiveness but actively dislike aggression. Clarity is extremely important. Don’t be cocky: instead, try to convey how deeply you’ve researched the topic. I always leave my personal opinions on the topic aside in order to be fair to all debaters.

Interp/speech

I started off my judging career judging interp, even though lately I’ve been judging debate more. Regardless of the piece, you have to give your best when performing. Delivery must always be clear and interesting. Tech should be smooth and reflect the norms of the event itself (tech in DI is very different than tech in HI).

I would describe myself as a flay judge with lots of experience judging public forum, LD, and novice level policy debate. Typically my favorite debates involve a strong discussion of the case page, but I understand this is a dying art outside of formats such as Lincoln Douglas Debate and Policy Debate.

Disadvantages are awesome arguments even when people manage to sneak them onto the case page. I do not mine as long as debaters remember to sine post arguments.

I am fine with critiques, but you will have to explain them to me with assumption that I do not actively read your literature. It is probably best to explain the critique to me as if it is a disadvantage and a counterplan.

As a person who did lay style public forum and mock trial, it is a bit difficult for me to understand spreading. To be safe, I would say the best bet is to speak as clearly as possible at conversational speed.

Last Notes

A conceded argument still needs to be explained for it to have weight in a debate. For example, saying "They didn't answer our argument that we win because the sky is blue" may be an unanswered argument, but that alone is not enough explanation to justify why that argument wins you the debate.

I value logic and engaging arguments the most.

Be creative and innovative, but keep arguments in reason.

I am an LD debater from Strake Jesuit.

As a senior I got 3 bids to the TOC. I also cleared and made it to octos.

Add me on email chains: porterjoshua2002@gmail.com

I want to objectively evaluate arguments to determine who wins the round. For this reason, I give you a list of round scenarios and give you my comfortability in evaluating them.

1 = best (as in fairest evaluation on BOTH sides)

K vs K = 1

LARP vs K = 1

Phil = 1

LARP = 2

K affs = 1

Friv theory = 2

I don't have a preference for how you debate or which arguments you choose to read. Be clear, both in delivery and argument function/interaction, weigh and develop a ballot story.

Theory: I default to competing interps, no rvi's and drop the debater on shells read against advocacies/entire positions and drop the argument against all other types. I'm ok with using theory as a strategic tool but the sillier the shell the lower the threshold I have for responsiveness. Please weigh and slow down for interps and short analytic arguments.

Non-T affs: These are fine just have a clear ballot story.

Delivery: You can go as fast as you want but be clear and slow down for advocacy texts, interps, taglines and author names. Don't blitz through 1 sentence analytics and expect me to get everything down. I will say "clear" and "slow".

Speaks: Speaks are a reflection of your strategy, argument quality, efficiency, how well you use cx, and clarity (clarity being the least important).

Prep: 1. I prefer that you don't use cx as prep time. 2. It is ok to ask questions during cx. 3. Compiling a document counts as prep time. 4. Please write down how much time you have left.

Things not to do: 1. Don't make arguments that are racist/offensive (this is a good general life rule too). 2. I won't vote on arguments I don't understand or arguments that are blatantly false. 3. Don't be mean to less experienced debaters. 4. Don't steal prep. 5. Don't manipulate evidence or clip.

~Updated for Feb 2022~

FYI I have not judged in approximately a year and I have not interacted with debate in just as long. I would recommend taking this into account while prepping strats and speaking MUCH SLOWER than you usually would.

Conflicts: Walt Whitman, Lexington, Hunter, Hamilton RM

Send docs: 19.prasadm@gmail.com

I did LD and PF at Lexington HS (MA) 2015-2019.

Disclaimers:

Hello! This is ZOOM debate which means it is GLITCHY and GROSS pls SLOW down!

Used to be Yale 2020, now thoughts on e-debate in general: I'm tired, I am burned out, and I get very bored listening to badly explained Baudrillard Ks multiple rounds in a row. If you do pref me, know that double flighted tournaments make my eyes *burn* and I will be flowing on paper for most rounds if it's a double flighted tournament. I used to care a lot about the things listed below. To some extent I still do, but I haven't taught/intensely thought about debate since summer 2019 so at the moment I'm not very invested in specific types of arguments or up to speed with whatever is trendy this season. Judging over Zoom is exhausting and it's honestly pretty hard for me to flow that well with little voices screaming out of my laptop. Please, please, please, for the love of all things good, SLOW DOWN. At least for tags. I'm begging.

PLEASE TRIGGER WARN APPROPRIATELY!!! If you don't know how please ask!

Postrounding is a no <3. Questions about strats are fine, but you won't change my ballot.

LD:

Short version.

Ks we love. LARP/policy is solid. Traditional is also good. Phil is kinda meh, you'd need to explain it very well. Please leave your tricks, skep, and frivolous theory at home, I don't trust myself to evaluate them. Probably okay at evaluating T/theory if there is a persuasive abuse story. If you read T/theory the shell needs to have an impact. Disclosure and email chains are good. When you extend or make new arguments don't forget to implicate them! Tell me what comes first and why.

Long version.

I used to vibe p hard with Mina's paradigm and I share a lot of her views on debate. I was also heavily influenced by Paloma O'Connor, CQ, and David Asafu-Adjaye. As a result, I'm not a fan of the whole "debate is a game" mindset and doing whatever it takes to win a round. Debate is about education, not about your record. Also -- I'm sorry, fairness is not a voter.

Kritiks/Non-T K affs/Performance

I mostly ran these as a debater so these are my favorite arguments. I really like hearing performance affs but you also need to be able to point to something the aff actually does.

That being said, don't read random Ks in front of me just because of my paradigm. I need to see a clear link and know what the alt does. Links of omission are ~questionable~ and I'm sympathetic to args against them. I'm also extremely picky when it comes to people reading and other kritiks relating to indigenous scholarship. I think a lot of authors are bastardized and commodified in debate and I see this the most with indigenous scholarship. Not uber familiar with all K lit, especially newer pessimism arguments.

New microaggression independent voter args that seem to be trendy and function on some sort of level between theory and K, but probably above policy?

Impact these out if you're reading them. I'm not going to vote off of a blippy one line claiming something is an "independent voter" or a "voting issue" and no implication of the argument. Also, don't just drop all the other flows because you think something is an independent voter -- I don't think this is very strategic; explain how it interacts with the other flows and which layer of the round it should be evaluated on. I don't really enjoy voting off these arguments...tbh they make me kinda uncomfy, but if they're warranted and impacted I will.

Plans/CPs/DAs/LARPy policy stuff

These are cool, low key would like to judge more of them. Just be wary of super long link chains. I default to comparative worlds in most debates (esp when framing becomes murky) so this is probably the type of debate best equipped for that.

T/Theory

I did not like these arguments as a debater and I generally do not enjoy judging them. I'm also not very good at judging them so PLEASE make the abuse story very clear and SLOW DOWN A LOT.

Post Big Lex 2020 edit: I'm honestly starting to hate these arguments less. I'm not completely opposed to T and would probably be down to judge more non-T K affs vs T rather than bad/awkward K v Ks.

Yale 2020: Idk if this is a new thing but y'all aren't impacting your shells. Like great you just spent a minute reading T, but didn't tell me what to do about it. DTD or DTA, but if not idk what I'm supposed to do with the shell lol.

Blake 2020: If you read disclosure against a trad/small school debater who is not familiar with the wiki I will probably not vote on the shell,,, like bruh why?

T v K

I went for K over T a lot as a debater but I'm gonna try to be tab about this and say both sides are gonna need hella warrants and hella weighing when making these arguments.

Tricks/a prioris/friv theory

just no <3.

Speaker Points

I start at a 28.5 and then move up or down depending on what y'all do. Go slow at first and let me get used to you before you go full speed. I'll say clear 2-3 times but if nothing changes don't expect my flow to be that great and I'm not gonna check the speech doc to play catch up. Be strategic and don't be rude and you'll probably be happy with your speaks. Read: adapt to your opponent if they have considerably less experience than you. I am not afraid of giving a mean debater with a good strat a 26.

PF:

I didn't do a ton of PF because I don't think it's very nuanced/not well-structured. Biases aside, just make good extensions, do a good amount of weighing and READ ACTUAL CARDS.

Hey, I'm Chris, and I debated for Newark Science for four years in LD and Policy. To start, I'd like to say that although I was known as a particular kind of debater, I encourage you to do what you can do the best, whether that be Kant, theory, performance, etc.

As a common rule, please don't go your top speed at the beginning of your speeches. Go slower and build up speed so I can get accustomed to your voice. I've had times where debaters started at their top speed, which wasn't really that fast, but I wasn't accustomed to their voice at all, so I missed a few of their arguments. To prevent this, please don't start blazing fast. Build up to your top speed.

I've come to realize I am probably one of the worst flowers in the activity. This doesn't mean I won't hold you to answering arguments but it does mean that I am far less likely to get a 5 point response than the next person. Take that as you will.

I'm far from a tabula rasa judge; if you say or do anything that reinforces racist, heterosexist, ableist norms then I will vote against you. This is not to say that you'll always lose Kant against Wilderson; rather, it's about the way in which you frame/phrase your arguments. If you say "Kantianism does x, y, and z, which solves the K" then I'm more willing to vote for you than if you say "Kant says empirical realities don't matter therefore racism doesn't exist or doesn't matter"

On that note, I'm an advocate of argument engagement rather than evasion. I understand the importance of "preclusion" arguments, but at the point where there are assertions that try to disregard entire positions I must draw a line. I will be HIGHLY skeptical of your argument that "Util only means post-fiat impacts matters therefore disregard the K because it's pre-fiat." I'm also less likely to listen to your "K>Theory" dump or vice versa. Just explain how your position interacts with theirs. I'm cool with layering, in fact I encourage layering, but that doesn't mean you need to make blanket assertions like "fairness is an inextricable aspect of debate therefore it comes before everything else" I'd rather you argue "fairness comes before their arguments about x because y."

I think that theory debates should be approached holistically, the reason being that often times there are one sentence "x is key to y" arguments and sometimes there are long link chains "x is key to y which is key to z which is key to a which is key to fairness because" and I guarantee I will miss one of those links. So, please please please, either slow down, or have a nice overview so that I don't have to call for a theory shell after the round and have to feel like I have to intervene.

These are just some of my thoughts. If I'm judging you at camp, do whatever, don't worry about the ballot. As I judge more I'll probably add to this paradigm. If you have any specific questions email me at cfquiroz@gmail.com

UPDATE: I will not call for cards unless
a) I feel like I misflowed because of something outside of the debater's control
b) There is a dispute over what the evidence says
c) The rhetoric/non underlined parts of the card become relevant

Otherwise, I expect debaters to clearly articulate what a piece of evidence says/why I should vote for you on it. This goes in line with my larger issue of extensions. "Extend x which says y" is not an extension. I want the warrants/analysis/nuance that proves the argument true, not just an assertion that x person said y is true.

Hey I’m Jack! I went to and now coach at Northland in Houston, TX. Feel free to ask questions before or after the round. Add me to email chains at jbq2233@gmail.com

TLDR: I will vote on anything that has a claim, warrant, and impact. I most enjoy judging policy arguments.

Defaults

- Tech > Truth

- Fairness > Education

- 1NC Theory/T > 1AR Theory

- T/Theory > K

- Comparative Worlds

- No RVIs, Competing Interps, DTD

- Presumption flips neg unless they go for an alternative advocacy

- No judge kick

Preferences

- I'm cool with anything as long as it has a claim, warrant, and impact. None of my personal opinions or interests in arguments will factor into my decision.

- I want you to debate the way you debate best. I want debaters to read what they know and are invested in.

- No buffet 2nrs please

- Be nice to one another and don't take yourself too seriously

Hot Ls

- If you are sexist/racist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist or something similar

- Clipping/losing an ethics challenge OR a false accusation

- Stealing prep

Things I'm not voting on

- Any argument concerning out of round practices (except disclosure)

- Any argument concerning the appearance/clothes/etc. of another debater

- Any auto affirm/negate X identity argument

- "Evaluate the entire debate after X speech". However, I will evaluate "evaluate ___ layer after X speech".

- IVIs not flagged as IVIs in the 1NC/1AR (possibly a 2NR exception)

Policy Arguments

- My favorite type of debate to think about and judge

- Evidence comparison and impact calc are the most important things

- Great for heavy case pushes. Impact turn heavy strategies are good and solid execution will be rewarded with solid speaks

Kritiks

- I don’t have a strong preference for or against certain literature bases

- I won’t fill any substantive gaps in your explanation (this goes with anything, but it seems most relevant to what I’ve seen in K debates)

- It really helps when the 2NR includes lots of examples, especially with more uncommon literature bases.

K Aff/T Framework

- The affirmative needs to provide a model of debate with a role for the negative

- Neg teams should have an answer to case

- It is vital that aff teams provide an explanation of solvency that I can easily explain back (maybe slow down a bit here)

Phil

- Not good for dense phil v dense phil (good for util vs other phil)

- I’ve noticed that lots of phil aff contentions are pretty weak, I’d like to see more neg teams go for turns on the contention

- Neg teams should read more CPs with phil offense

Tricks

- Fine if there is an actual warrant and implication.

- Not voting on something that I don’t understand/can’t explain back

- I would recommend going MUCH SLOWER in rebuttal speeches. The current standard for an extension of a paradox or some kind of logic based trick is functionally re-spreading through the exact same block of text or contrived piece of evidence. In these debates I have found that I err heavily on the side of the other team simply because I do not understand the argument in the rebuttal.

Theory

- Great for theory

- The frivolous nature of some shells does not factor into my evaluation. Although, reasonability tends to become easier to justify and the answer becomes easier

- I’ve never voted for a team that violates in a debate where they don’t disclose (this means they didn’t disclose anything in any way) the exception is obviously new affs

T

- Caselists are necessary

- The negative needs definitions. Debate over T definitions are great. Slow down when doing comparison

- Recent explanations for bare plural arguments by negative teams have been nothing short of atrocious – please understand the semantics before you read Nebel

Misc.

- Prep ends when the email is sent

- CX is binding

- Email should be sent at the start time - I'll dock .1 speaks for every minute it's not sent (unless I'm not in the room)

Speaks

- Less prep and sitting down early will be rewarded with higher speaks.

- Clarity is VERY IMPORTANT. If you are unclear and I miss a “game changing” argument – that’s a you problem.

- Speaks will be awarded for good debating (strategy, technical ability, good CX, etc).

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

Add me to the email chain- katieraphaelson@gmail.com

Hello! I'm Katie! I use they/them pronouns. I debated LD at Brentwood School from 2015-2019. I was a quarterfinalist at state and 10th at NSDA nats my senior year. I also come from a circuit background so I flow very diligently.

I just graduated from Smith College with a B.A. in Government and French Studies. My gov major concentrated on international relations.

I've been coaching and judging for about 5 years and have experience judging every event, but I do come from an LD background. This paradigm used to be super long but at this point I really only have like a few important things:

1) provide content warnings if you are going to talk about SA and violence against queer ppl. Please don't read cases that are primarily about SA/r*pe. thank u!

2) Please don't read super circuity arguments at States/Nat quals/Nats. I'm good with jargon and such, and I am very comfortable judging circuit rounds, but like be reasonable.

3) time yourselves please! and keep track of your prep time.

4) Feel free to share your cases but I can keep up without a document.

5) Be nice to each other!!!!!!!

6) Debate the way you do best! Have fun!

fun fact for this PF topic-

Im a former student athlete! I played d3 softball at smith college (small historically womens college)!

Hi, I'm Tarun and I debated at Southlake Carroll for four years and qualified to the TOC my senior year. 

Email: tarun.ratnasabapathy1@gmail.com

Top Level:

Im tech over truth but I won't vote on your one sentence arg without a warrant.

Please do impact calculus, make it good, and make it comparative. This is how you will win a debate no matter what type of argument you read.

I've gone for and voted for multiple types of arguments and I'd be much happier to see debaters read what they want than try and "adapt" to a made up idea of what arguments I like.

Policy

I default to judge kick, but I'm open to args against judge kick.

Permutations that are not either some variation of perm do both or perm do the cp should have a written out perm text in the 1ar. Don't make me flow your functionally intrinsic but textually non-intrinsic perm shoved between condo bad and a solvency deficit.

The best DAs clash with the plan. Made up politics arguments usually aren't very persuasive against a well developed affirmative advantage.

Impact turns and "cheaty" counterplans are underutilized. It seems no one is ready to debate them.

You can’t just read generic cards about probability and concede a DA; I have no problem voting for a small impact against some extinction scenario, but I won't vote on probability first if you don't actually diminish the probability of the specific scenarios they read.

Stop reading terrible advantages. You need to win that the plan is uniquely key to resolve the internal links to your impact, otherwise you will lose to an advantage cp or alt causes.

Competition is better than theory against process things.

Zero risk is a thing.

Phil

I prefer and enjoy legit philosophy debates where you just win deontology or something is true rather than go for induction fails or a spike.

I'm comfortable with any of the common philosophy positions that are read in debate.

Theory

I don't enjoy when debates end with a 3 minute 2ar on a 15 second shell from the 1ar.

Drop the argument and reasonability are extremely underutilized. Theory is over-utilized in LD you will always have your links of omissions to generate violations.

T

I am not a fan of plans bad. Other T shells that qualitatively not quantitatively limit the topic are good and enjoyable. 

K

Won't vote on death good.

I like the K a lot if it has a link to the aff, and it indicts the epistemology behind the aff. However Ks that rely on fiat illusory, or "pre-fiat" offense makes me like these arguments significantly less.

Tricks

I enjoy actual debates, and get very upset when debaters read arguments that waste their opponents and my time. I also get even more annoyed when debaters are unable to flow said arguments.

I default comparative worlds. I also wont vote on a trick I don't understand or without a warrant. 

Non T affs

Framework debates almost always require you to debate the case well. Don't just rely on truth testing to exclude aff arguments.

K Affs should impact turn the negative model of debate or be topical people who do a best of both worlds don't usually win against framework. However, I'm fine with affs counter defining words in the resolution to make a we meet on framework, but this shouldn't be your only strategy. 

Fairness is an impact, but the 2nr feels like it's missing something without some defense on their model of how debate should be and why that is valuable.

email: cr30505@gmail.com - yes, add me to the email chain. please feel free to reach out by email/fb (I'm more likely to respond on fb) if you have questions.

I debated circuit LD at WDM Valley for four years and qualified to the TOC, receiving four bids, during my senior year. I have taught at NSD Flasgship (2018,2019), NSD Philadelphia (2018,2019), and TDC (2019) and I've been coaching LD since graduating in 2018.

tl;dr - it's your round, debate it how you want to.

I will evaluate the round on the flow, everything here explains my defaults but if you make arguments as to why the round should be adjudicated in a particular way I will evaluate debate through your lens. please make the round as clear as possible - weighing is your friend, give clear overviews, justify everything, and explain. tell me the implications of your arguments.

I have the most experience with framework debate, identity K debate, and theory debate.

defaults: (this only matters if no one makes arguments to the contrary)

• epistemic confidence
• competing interps, no rvis
• theory > k > substance
• pragmatics > semantics
• truth testing > comparing worlds

misc:

• I’ll say ‘slow’ or ‘clear’ if necessary.
• I am fine with flex prep.
• I love a good framework/identity k debate, it makes my heart happy (you will probably get good speaks).
• I very much think you need an impact mechanism (a standard text, a ROB, etc.) -- otherwise, i will be left to evaluate impacts as I see fit which probably won't make you happy.
• extensions need warrants and impacts, even if you are extending a conceded argument. If you are extending a case that is conceded, it isn't sufficient to say "extend my whole case."
• if you are debating a novice or someone who lacks a lot of circuit experience, please make the round educational and inclusive. this does not necessarily mean go full-on traditional (although that's definitely fine), but it does mean don't go full speed and a bunch of offs (your speaks will go way down).
• please be ready to debate when you walk into the room – this means pre-flowing during your opponent's prep if you need to and having the AC speech doc ready to send.

theory:

• theory violations need to be verifiable. just provide screenshots please! if someone makes an i meet to an unverifiable shell with no verification (i.e. a disclosure shell without screenshots or a coin flip shell that's just word of mouth), i will default to the 'i meet' being true.
• feel free to read theory for strategic reasons (i.e. friv theory) or because there’s actual abuse.
• if you go for reasonability, please provide a brightline. if you don't provide a brightline, or provide a brightline of gut check, i will probably gut check to competing interps.

They/Them/Theirs

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

(Also, I feel like I need to add this at the top....I flow with my eyes closed a lot of the time. It helps me focus on what you are saying)

TLDR:

I'm a queer, nonbinary, disabled lawyer. Don't change your debate style too much for me - debate what you know and I'll vote what's on the flow. If you read a K alternative that doesn't involve me (specifically antiblackness Ks), that will not harm your chances of winning. I've seen young debaters stumble and try to make me feel included because they worry I won't like their K because I'm white and not included. You have all the right in the world to look at me and say "judge, this isn't for you it's ours."

At the end of the debate it will come down to impact calculus (framing) and warrants. Please have fun - debate is only worthwhile if we are having fun and learning. Don't take it too seriously, we are all still learning and growing.

Top of the 2AR/2NR should be: "this is why you vote aff/neg" and then give me a list

Long Version:

Heyo!

I was a queer disabled debater at Liberty University. I've run and won on everything from extinction from Trump civil war to rhetoric being a pre-fiat voter. I'll vote on any argument regardless of my personal beliefs BUT YOU MUST GIVE ME WARRANTS. Do not pref me if you are going to be rude or say offensive things. I will dock your speaks. I will call you out on it during the RFD. Do pref me if you read Ks and want to use performative/rhetoric links. Also pref me if you want a ballot on the flow.

Don't just tell me something was conceded - tell me why that is important to the debate.

IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC IMPACT CALC

Aff Stuff:

Read your NTAs, your soft-left affs, and your hard-right affs. Tell me why your framing is important. Be creative.

Case - stick to your case, don't let the negative make you forget your aff

CP/K - perms and solvency deficits are good

Neg Stuff:

I do love Ks but I also like a good DA. As long as you can explain to me how it functions and interacts with case, I will consider it.

DA - you need a clear articulation of the link to the plan (and for econ, please explain using not just the fancy words and acronyms)

CP - please be competitive, you need to solve at least parts of the aff and you need a clear net benefit

K - you need to link to the plan (or else you become a non-unique DA) and be able to explain the alt in your own words.

Generic Theory Stuff:

T - I have a high threshold for T. you MUST prove abuse IN ROUND to win this argument. you must have all the parts of the T violation.

Other Theory args - just because an arg is dropped doesn't mean I will vote on it, you still must do the work and explain to me why it is a voter. I will not vote on "they dropped 50 state fiat so vote aff" you MUST have warrants.

I WILL VOTE ON REVERSE THEORY VOTERS If you feel their T argument is exclusionary, tell me and prove it. If you feel them reading 5 theory args is a time skew, tell me and prove it.

CX: remember you are convincing me, not your opponent, look at me. These make great ethos moments. Use this strategically, get links for your DA or K, show the abuse for T violations, prove they are perf-con, you get the idea

Speaker Points: give me warrants and ethos and it will be reflected here.

27: You did something really wrong - whether racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic - and we will be talking about it during the RFD

28: You are basically making my expectations, you are doing well but could be doing better.

29: You are killing it. Good ethos is granted to get you here and so will fleshed out warrants

30: Wow. Just wow. There was a moment during a speech or CX where you blew me away.

I debated in Lincoln-Douglas for Lake Highland for 5 years and competed at TOC my junior and senior years.

Add me to the email chain: inventshah (at) gmail (dot) com. Get confirmation from everyone that they are ready before starting.

Jan Feb 2021 Updates:

[1] I won't vote on frivolous disclosure theory (including new affs bad and open source). I won't even flow the argument.

[2] Strong preference for affirmatives that try to be topical. Reading T against a non T aff is likely game over. I will still vote aff if they win the T debate.

[3] Reading incoherent tricks will result in low speaks. This includes dumb aprioris. This does not include well justified "tricks".

[4] Reading positions you clearly had no hand in preparing (such as straight off someone else's wiki) will result in low speaks.

[5] I don't like entirely prewritten rebuttals as it probably means you did not pay attention to your opponent.

[6] If you are aff and reading side bias, make sure it's the correct one. If it is not, I'll be sad. If you are neg, and your opponent read the wrong side bias card, you should probably point this out. If you do not, I'll be more sad.

The rest:

Short version: I will evaluate any type of debate. My evaluative strengths are probably in framework and theory debates. Warrants should be extended in all speeches, even if it’s dropped. Don’t be rude, mean, or offensive.

Warrants: Fancy rhetoric and big words are not substitutes for warrants. Repeating the claim or tag twice also is not a warrant. I want to hear the warrant from you as the debater. Arguments without warrants are claims, as a result, I will not vote on it. Author names are not warrants.

Framework: I have read a lot of philosophy from Kant to Social Practices so read anything. That being said, I will not use my prior knowledge of your framework in my evaluation. Hijacks are underutilized in my opinion. A combo of theoretical and philosophy warrants are cool, but you should weigh which comes first.

Theory: I enjoy these debates when there is lots of weighing and clash. I will vote on any type of shell, but the more frivolous the more I will be persuaded by responses. Theory “tricks” such as evaluate theory after the 2NR or must have a counterinterp can be useful. I don’t care the format you read the shell in, however I need to know the interp, violation, offense, and voters in all speeches to vote on it. In the absence of paradigm issues like drop the debater and fairness, I will not vote on the shell i.e. I don’t default to any paradigm, unless there is a shared assumption by both debaters. I don't like frivolous disclosure shells such as open source and new affs bad.

Topicality: Similar to theory. I like both pragmatics and semantics. Having a TVA and topical cards is good. In my opinion linking T offense under the aff’s framing is underutilized. I like shells that have specific offense against the aff. T doesn’t automatically come before the ROB, you should weigh.

K’s: I am familiar with a wide variety of K literature from identity politics to high theory, so feel free to run your favorite. I like the K v phil interactions a lot. At the end of the debate I should be able to explain (a) why the aff is bad and (b) what the alternative does to resolve the link. Perms are good; they need a text and must be extended clearly. Similar to theory, a ROB doesn’t automatically come before theory or the framework, so you should explain why it comes first.

LARP: I like a well weighed and unique impact situations. You should know the warrants and link chain without relying on your authors as I generally will not read evidence to find a warrant. If there is only 0.00001% risk of the impact, its 0, unless you tell me why I should care about that small portion. Typically empirics come first, but I’ll listen to logical analytics.

Non-topical affirmatives: I will listen to the aff, but I need to know why I should vote aff. I may be swayed by a good topicality shell, however am willing to vote on impact turns to theory. I prefer affirmatives that at least try to be topical.

“Tricks”: They are cool. Dumb tricks like the “Resolved apriori” have a very low threshold for responses. If truth testing is not read, I use framework as the offense filter meaning some tricks won’t matter. You should be honest about tricks when asked in CX. The more sketchy you are the less I will like you.

Speaker points: I don’t disclose speaks. I will try to average around a 28.5 and typically base it on the creativity of your positions and strategy.

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

UPDATED 6/1/2022 NSDA Nationals Congress Update

I have been competing and judging in speech and debate for the past 16 years now. I did Parli and Public Forum in High School, and Parli, LD and Speech in College. I have judged all forms of High School Debate. Feel free to ask me more in depth questions in round if you don't understand a part of my philosophy.

Congress

Given that my background is in debate I tend to bring my debate biases into Congress. While I understand that this event is a mix of argumentation and stylistic speaking I don't think pretty speeches are enough to get you a high rank in the round. Overall I tend to judge Congress rounds based off of argument construction, style of delivery, clash with opponents, quality of evidence, and overall participation in the round. I tend to prefer arguments backed by cited sources and that are well reasoned. I do not prefer arguments that are mainly based in emotional appeals, purely rhetoric speeches usually get ranked low and typically earn you a 9. Be mindful of the speech you are giving. I think that sponsorship speeches should help lay the foundation for the round, I should hear your speech and have a full grasp of the bill, what it does, why it's important, and how it will fix the problems that exist in the squo. For clash speeches they should actually clash, show me that you paid attention to the round, and have good responses to your opponents. Crystallizations should be well organized and should be where you draw my conclusions for the round, I shouldn't be left with any doubts or questions.

POs will be ranked in the round based off of their efficiency in running and controlling the round. I expect to POs to be firm and well organized. Don't be afraid of cutting off speakers or being firm on time limits for questioning.

Public Forum

• I know how to flow and will flow.
  • This means I require a road map.
  • I need you to sign post and tell me which contention you are on. Use author/source names.
• I will vote on Ks. But this means that your K needs to have framework and an alt and solvency. If you run a K my threshold for voting on it is going to be high. I don't feel like there is enough time in PF to read a good K but I am more than willing to be open to it and be proven wrong. For anyone who hits a K in front of me 'Ks are cheating' is basically an auto loss in front of me.
• I will vote on theory. But this doesn't mean that I will vote for all theory. Theory in debate is supposed to move this activity forwards. Which means that theory about evidence will need to prove that there is actual abuse occurring in order for me to evaluate it. I think there should be theory in Public Forum because this event is still trying to figure itself out but I do not believe that all theory is good theory. And theory that is playing 'gotcha' is not good theory. Having good faith is arbitrary but I think that the arguments made in round will determine it. Feel free to ask questions.
• Be strategic and make good life choices.
• Impact calc is the best way to my ballot.
• I will vote on case turns.
• I will call for cards if it comes down to it.

Policy Debate

I tend to vote more for truth over tech. That being said, nothing makes me happier than being able to vote on T. I love hearing a good K. Spread fast if you want but at a certain point I will miss something if you are going top speed because I flow on paper, I do know how to flow I'm just not as fast as those on a laptop. Feel free to ask me any questions before round.


LD Debate

Fair warning it has been a few years since I have judged high level LD. Ask me questions if I'm judging you.

Framework
You do not win rounds if you win framework. You win that I judge the round via your framework. When it comes to framework I'm a bit odd and a bit old school. I function under the idea that Aff has the right to define the round. And if Neg wants to me to evaluate the round via their framework then they need to prove some sort of abuse.

I'm a parent judge with not that much experience with Lincoln-Douglas Debate.

Speed wise, please do not spread.

When evaluating rounds, I look for who can convince me the best.

Emphasize your voter issues.

I'm the current assistant coach at Coppell High School where I also have the lovely opportunity to teach Speech & Debate to great students. I did LD, Policy, and Worlds in High School (Newark Science '15) and a bit of Policy while I was in college (Stanford '19). I'm by no means "old" but I've been around long enough to appreciate different types of debate arguments at this point. As long as you're having fun, I can feel it and will probably have fun listening to you, too!

WSD

This is now my main event nowadays. Given my LD/Policy background, I do rely very heavily on my flow. That doesn't mean you have to be very techy--you should and can group arguments and do weighing--but I try my best to not just ignore concessions. Framing matters a lot to me because it helps me filter what impacts I should care about most by the end of the debate.

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

Also follow @worldofwordsinstitute on Instagram or check out www.worldofworldsinstitute.com for quality WSD content :)

LD/Policy

I'd love to be on the email chain. My email is sunhee.simon@gmail.com

Pref shortcut for those of you who like those:

LARP: 1-2

K: 1-2

Phil: 1-2

Tricks: 5/strike

Theory (if it's your PRIMARY strat - otherwise I can be preffed higher): 3

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Credentials that people seem to care about: senior (BA + MA candidate) at Stanford, Director of LD at the Victory Briefs Institute, did LD, policy, and worlds schools debate in high school, won/got to late elims in all of those events, double qualled to TOC in LD and Policy. Did well my freshman year in college in CX but didn't pursue it much after that. Now I coach and judge a bunch.

LD + Policy

Literally read whatever you want. If I don't like what you've read, I'll dock your speaks but I won't really intervene in the debate. Don't be sexist, ableist, racist, transphobic, homophobic, or a classist jerk in the round. Don't make arguments that can translate to marginalized folks not mattering (this will cloud my judgement and make me upset). I've also been mostly coaching and judging World Schools debate the past two years so you're going to need to slow down for me for sure. As the tournament goes on my ear adjusts but it's likely I'll say "slow" to get you to slow down. After 3 times, I won't do it anymore and will just stop listening.

Otherwise have fun and enjoy the activity for the 45 or 90 mins we're spending together! More info on specific things below:

Stock/Traditional Arguments

Makes sense.

Ks

I get this. The role of the ballots/framing is really helpful for me and usually where I look first.

T

I understand this. If reading against a K team I'd encourage you to make argument about how fairness/education relates to the theory of power/epistemology of the K. Would make all of our lives better and more interesting.

Theory

I also understand this. But don't abuse the privilege. I am not a friv theory fan so don't read it if you can (or else I might miss things as you blip through things).

Plans/CP/DAs

I understand this too. Slow down when the cards are shorter so I catch the tags.

I don't default to anything necessarily however I do know my experiences and understandings of debate were shaped by me coming from a low income school that specialized in traditional and critical debate. I've been around as a student and a coach (I think) long enough to know my defaults are subject to change and its the debaters' job to make it clear why theory comes first or case can be weighed against the K or RVIs are good or the K can be leveraged against theory. I learn so much from you all every time I judge. Teach me. Lead me to the ballot. This is a collaborative space so even if I have the power of the ballot, I still need you to tell me things. Otherwise, you might get a decision that was outside of your control and that's never fun.

On that note, let it be known that if you're white and/or a non-black POC reading afropessimism or black nihilism, you won't get higher than a 28.5 from me. The more it sounds like you did this specifically for me and don't know the literature, the lower your speaks will go. If you win the argument, I will give you the round though so either a) go for it if this is something you actually care about and know you know it well or b) let it go and surprise me in other ways. If you have a problem with this, I'd love to hear your reasons why but it probably won't change my mind. I can also refer other authors you can read to the best of my ability if I'm up to it that day.

Last thing, please make sure I can understand you! I understand spreading but some of y'all think judges are robots. I don't look at speech docs during the round (and try not to after the round unless I really need to) so keep that in mind when you spread. Pay attention to see if I'm flowing. I'll make sure to say clear if I can't understand you. I'll appreciate it a lot if you keep this in mind and boost your speaks!

Background: I was an LD debater for four years (2005-2009) and competed at Nationals my junior year. I coached LD for four years at summer camp (Nebraska Debate Institute) and coached policy for the Urban Debate League in St. Louis for two years during college (2009-2011). I coached for West Lafayette Jr/Sr High in Public Forum for two years (Fall 2018-Spring 2020). In between, I earned a PhD from Purdue University (October 2020) in Rhetoric & Composition, specifically in Theory and History.

General: I have judged everything from TOC/circuit rounds to a tournament in the homeschool league, so I am familiar with most styles of debate. However, I skew traditional. I prefer good speaking that doesn't go too fast, good impact weighing, and topicality. World comparisons/analysis in final speeches impress me. For me, the ability to see the larger picture and contextualize all the arguments in the round demonstrates advanced debate skills. This is why I tend to weigh final rebuttal speeches heavily - if you've won that speech, you've won the round.

Do good signposting. Weigh impacts. Tell me what it means that you've won an argument. Cards don't make arguments, debaters do.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Lincoln Douglas: Please make framework and standards debate important. They are weighing mechanisms that help judges adjudicate and prioritize impacts in the round, and can be strategically used to block out your opponent's arguments. And, simply winning your standard doesn't count as a voting issue; if you win your standard, you must then link your impacts to your standard. If you win your standard, but your opponent links to it better, then your opponent wins the round. FW/standards is also an opportunity to really explore and apply philosophical concepts.

Don't debate framework if you both basically agree on what it is, or have the same FW/standard; that is a waste of time, move to your case arguments.

I hate the overuse of statistical evidence in LD, which has gone from reasonable to overdone, and debaters now feel that their facts speak for themselves, leading to lazy debate where cards simply get asserted over one another. Leave statistical debate to PF and Policy, and not just because they do a better job of it. Your facts do not erase or negate or outweigh substantive and well supported philosophical/theoretical reasoning. Even in PF, competing facts are resolved by impact weighing, strategic linking, and warranting - reason based argumentation, in other words. LD was intended as a debate form to explore the ethical underpinnings of urgent social, economic, or political problems. I want to hear reasoning rooted in concepts of justice, morality, human rights, etc. This is why if your opponent makes even one smart rational argument that dismisses all your statistical evidence (and especially in that last speech, and even if they don't have competing cards), then my vote automatically goes to them.

I have my PhD in Rhetorical Theory & History, and I am particularly versed in continental philosophy, as well as feminist, anti-racist, queer, and postcolonial studies. This means that if you use philosophy incorrectly, or claim that these thinkers say things they don't actually say, or you use their words completely out of context, I'll know. It'll be very hard for me to find you persuasive. Please respect the basic assumptions, arguments, uses, and limits of any philosophy you use. If you have to twist the words of any thinker to fit your arguments, that's bad debating and case writing; I guarantee you there's a thinker out there who fits your case better, so use it as a sign to find someone else if you start twisting cards.

If a round boils down to two circuit debaters, I'll adjust, and judge based on the standards set within that debate subculture (off k, ground/burden argumentation, and theory shells are in play, so I evaluate them best I can). However, if I hear circuit style debate in what is supposed to be a traditional round in a traditional circuit, there better be an really, really excellent reason why. If there isn't, and you're using circuit elements simply to intimidate opponents or appear impressive, that will reflect really poorly on you. I will buy traditional arguments in that setting if they win on reasonable claims against circuit style arguments.

I am ok with kritiks as long as there is sound rational ground to use them. It has to be topical. Kritiks written on, say, a single word in the resolution like the world "the" are terrible, and I will have a hard time voting on it.

I hate a priori arguments. Please don't.

Special Note on Theory Shells Regarding Uploading Cases Online: Please don't run this. I will stop flowing and disregard it, for both sides. It's simply wasting your speech time. There are a dozen immediate reasons why declaring abuse because your opponent didn't make their case open source is a terrible argument. Buck up and debate.

_________________________________________________________________________________________

Public Forum: Impact weighing and warranting are the strongest reasons for dismissing some cards and accepting others. Asserting a competing card against another doesn't automatically resolve the clash between them. Also, make sure your card use has integrity. PF'rs should work within boundaries set by hard facts (or find good ways to dismiss them as flawed). If there are disputes/indicts on cards that are unresolved by the end of the round, I will ask to see those cards.

Cross Fire is NOT extended rebuttal time. Please ask questions. I don't flow Cross Fire, so if something comes up during that time, it's your job to bring it up in the next speech. I don't appreciate rudeness, laughing/smirking at your opponents in general, or assuming they are stupid and proceeding with the debate that way. I don't appreciate constant interruptions. Let your opponents respond to your questions. In general, I value etiquette.

PF was intended as a debate form that prized eloquent speaking and good delivery. Debaters that win their arguments but also are good speakers are much more likely to get my vote. I am very willing to give low-point wins on good speaking.

I don't have a preference either way if you do a rebuttal in the second speech; go with your strengths, and I don't penalize for different debate styles on that point. Just make sure the arguments you want to win make it into the Final Focus.

__________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy: I accept and understand most forms of argumentation in policy. I judge mainly on impact weighing at the end of the round. I don't flow cross-x. If anything comes up that's important, bring it up in your next speech.

I have enjoyed all performance rounds in policy that I've ever seen, and feel reasonably confident in my ability to judge that style. I find performance rounds that criticize systemic injustices, especially in the world of debate, particularly interesting and I'm willing to buy them; counterarguments that simply try to dismiss those types of criticisms/styles as unimportant or non-Topical are not compelling for me. Engage with the claims being put forth, even if they are performative.

If you use "role of the ballot" arguments, please do so because you're sincere about the position you've taken, and not just because you are strategically using this idea to outmaneuver and outweigh your opponent. I'll buy that type of argumentation if it's well done.

Hi! I’m Elizabeth. I did LD at Evanston Township for 3 years and have coached there for five years.

- FOR STAGG ON 1/27 -

I have experience judging PF and I've found that it's fairly similar to a traditional LD round, which I've been judging for five years. I will flow everything in your speeches, I pay attention during CX, and I will judge based on the flow. Ultimately you need to do your best to weigh your arguments against theirs or I will be forced to weigh for you.

I assume I won't see much "progressive" debate but I'm certainly open to it as long as you provide justifications for your method.

To summarize:

· Performance and Ks>CPs/DAs/policy stuff AND traditional LD>>theory that isn’t tricks*>>>"phil" I guess? The kind of phil that is actually tricks.

· If you run tricks, you're better off striking me.

· I think part of being a good debater is making me care about what you're saying in addition to making me understand it.

· I did traditional LD as well as nat circuit (or "progressive") so I’d happily judge a traditional LD round if that’s what you’re here for!

Additional things you may find helpful:

I spent my junior year running various race/queer/colonialism K’s. I spent over half of my senior year running a performance aff so I’m 100% open (and excited!) to hearing anything performative. I think debates about the debate space are really cool and educational. I also think debates about the hypothetical implementation of a plan are really cool and educational. So whichever one of these wins me over is entirely dependent on the round in front of me.

I very much agree with my high school debate coach, Jeff Hannan, on this:

“I will make decisions that are good if:

you explain things to me; you establish a clear standard, role of the ballot, value, or other mechanism and explain to me how I can use that to make my decision; you compare or weigh offense linked to a standard.

I will make decisions that are bad if:

you expect me to do work for you on the flow or among your arguments; you assume I know more than I do.”

This probably means that if you want to run a bunch of blippy offs to spread your opponent out, I am not the judge for you. We will probably end up in a situation where you feel like I've missed something, and then everyone is sad. I would much prefer a deep analysis on one or two offs. But either way, the more you try to write my ballot for me the better things will go for you. Like please just give me a weighing mechanism and explain how you win under it at least pls pls pls or I will not know what to do with your impacts.

Framework things that are important to me:

To expand on my last point...please weigh your impacts back to your framework or at least back to something!!! I've noticed debaters doing this thing where they say a bunch of impacts but don't compare them (weigh them) and then I have to do all the work myself which can leave debaters disgruntled with my decision. Truly all I would like you to do is weigh the impacts in the round to your framework and it will take you a long way.

If your frameworks are basically the same I'll ultimately collapse them to make my decision. If you have impacts that only link under your framework then by all means argue the heck out of the framework debate! BUT PLEASE NOTE: "they don't link to their FW because I actually link better as shown in my contentions..." is NOT a reason to prefer your framework, it's just a solvency argument.

Stuff on Ks specifically:

I love a good K debate! Familiar with settler colonialism, afropess, and queer stuff.

If you can explain/impact the rhizome or hyperreal stuff to me and actually make it interesting then you can go ahead and try but you will have to explain VERY well and slowly.

I really enjoy any K stuff that relates specifically to education and discourse.

If you kick a K about an identity group you're not a part of (especially for frivolous theory omg) I'm going to definitelyyyy knock your speaks at least.

Stuff on theory specifically:

Generally convinced by reasonability because it often feels like theory is in fact frivolous or a waste of my time.

I don't have a negative predisposition toward RVIs but if the debate is coming down to that it’s probably already making me sad.

If there’s legit abuse then by all means call it out. On disclosure specifically: if they read something predictable or obviously within your resources to respond to just fine, I will be nonplussed. However, if they're reading something super specific or non-T that a reasonable person couldn't predict, I'm totally fine with disclosure theory.

*The more genuine and not-blippy your theory shell is the more I will like it. My favorite kind of debate that I ever did was debate about the debate space so I actually think theory is very cool ~in theory~ but in practice people use it to waste their opponent’s time and that seems antithetical to education to me.

Additional additional stuff:

Not to be a stickler but I'm not a huge fan of LDers saying "we" unless it's meaningfully symbolic for some reason. I won't knock down your speaks but I will internally sigh and wonder why you want to be in policy.

Please put me on the email chain (elizabethasperti@gmail.com). Even in my debating days, I didn’t have a great ear for speed. But I can understand spreading, please just be clear. I’ll say “clear” if I’m not understanding you. So don’t stress too much about being too fast just...try to be clear? Also if you're ever wondering if you should send your analytics, send the analytics.

If your opponent can’t understand you, I see that as a failure on your part, not theirs. If you can’t understand your opponent, please feel free to say “clear.” I have no idea why that’s not seen as “acceptable” in the debate space. That kind of just seems like a basic right a debater should have in the round.

For everyone:

Please be respectful to each other, and please try to have an illuminating debate.

"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins

Hello! I'm Skye. I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!

My email is spindler@augsburg.edu for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)

Debate Background

I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.

I have experience reading, coaching, & judging policy arguments and Ks in both LD & policy.

I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.

Top Notes!

1. For policy & varsity circuit LD - I flow on paper and hate flowing straight down. I do not have time to make all your stuff line up after the debate. That does not mean I don't want you to spread.That means that when you are debating in front of me, it is beneficial for you to do the following things:

- when spreading card heavy constructives, I recommend a verbal cue like, "and," in between cards and slowing down slightly/using a different tone for the tags than the body of the card

- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down - it is too dense of argumentation for me to write it in an organized way on my flow if you are spewing them at me.

- instead, I recommend not spreading analytics at max speed, SIGN POSTING between items on the flow & give me literally 1 second to move onto the next flow

If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because we didn't find a common understanding, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it.

2. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.

General - Policy & Circuit LD

"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.

Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”

T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.

Plans/policy: Yes, I will enjoy judging a policy v policy debate too, please don't think I won't or can't judge those debates just bc I read and like critical arguments. I have read policy arguments in debate as well as Ks and I currently coach and judge policy arguments.

Because I judge in a few different circuits, my topic knowledge can be sporadic, so I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.

Clash debates, general: Clash debates are my favorite to judge. Although I read Ks for most of college, I coach a lot of policy arguments and find myself moving closer to the middle on things the further out I am from debating.

I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.

Ks, general: I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate so a) I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round or b) the theory of power has not been proven or explained at all/in the context of the round. And those debates can be frustrating to evaluate.

Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.

Clash debates, K on the neg: If you actually win and do judge instruction, framework will guide my decision. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?

K v. K:I find framework helpful in these debates as well.

LD -

judge type:consider me a "tech" "flow" "progressive" or "circuit" judge, whatever the term you use is.

spreading: spreading good, please see #1 for guidelines

not spreading:also good

"traditional"LD debaters:lately, I have been voting a lot of traditional LD debaters down due to a lack of specificity, terminal impacts, and general clash, especially on the negative. I mention in case this tendency is a holdover from policy and it would benefit you to know this for judge adaptation.

frivolous theory/tricks ?: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.

framework: When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.


Fun Survey:

Policy--------------------------X-----------------K

Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards

Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad

States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad

Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad

Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education

Fairness is a thing--------------------x----------Delgado 92

Try or die----------------------x-----------------What's the opposite of try or die

Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits---------x-------------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault

CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency

AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:

background:

--->brophy '18 (policy), cal '22, double 2'ed so no aff/neg sympathy, toc qual/coaches poll/tournament wins and all that stuff. i coach LD now so this is customized for that.

general:

---[1] ssrivastava@berkeley.edu - put me on the email chain

---[2] good debating outweighs any of my following argumentative preferences, my leanings are only relevant in borderline decisions where poor debating has left too many arguments unresolved and there's no other way to arbitrate other than defaulting to what i'm more convinced by.

---[3] always tech>truth as long as there are arguments

---[4] an argument has a claim and a warrant, a good one has an impact (some ev doesn't even meet this standard) - calling out 'non-arguments' is a sufficient answer until it becomes an argument (pls do this more? it's strategic and helpful for norm-setting - a lot of ev i'm reading is abysmal)

---[5] don't just tell me to read ev - do the actual debating and use good ev comparison in conjunction with that

---[6] slow down on theory. spreading your blocks ≠ debating. and if your opponent is incoherent spreading theory, don't ask them to say it slowly during cross ex - i only evaluate/flow what i can actually hear so you're only doing yourself a disadvantage

---[7] 'which cards did u skip' / 'can you send with analytics' / etc auto-caps speaks at 28.6 nonnegotiable

by argument:

k affs:

---> neg: k affs are cheating. fairness is an impact, but not always the most strategic one. debate is a game, answering args ≠ racist, the [insert fake word here] disad is probably stupid, TVA + SSD are super compelling to me, etc. I'm increasingly willing to vote on presumption vs affs that do/solve nothing and you will be heavily rewarded with speaks if you go for it. k v k can be fun or painful, just have actual answers to the perm.

---> aff: clever/creative t interps with strong defense, strong answers to SSD/TVA, and coherent offense is the best route in front of me. or, just impact turn everything with your thesis and win on the flow. please have real topic-specific AND lit-specific answers to SSD + TVA - i weigh those much higher than most judges, but am also down to discount them on stupid but poorly answered args like "micropolitics is a pre-requisite". vs the k, go for the perm it probably solves.

kritik:

--->aff vs k: most convincing args = particularity, falsifiability, impact turns, alt solvency attacks, and fw. pet peeve is people just saying 'weigh the case' when other interps have more strategic value. also i'm very down for fw no alts with good reasoning. a lot of k teams (not just psycho) make nonfalsifiable broad-sweeping claims so call that out (please do this more i am so ridiculously persuaded by it).

--->neg going for k: can be the worst debates, can be the best - up to you to decide. i'll have a hard time thinking a generic baudrillard debate is good, but neolib/security i'm very open to. surprisingly literate in a wide range of literature, but i'm not granting you the thesis of an entire book without you explaining it sufficiently (which, in ld, is almost impossible because of time constraints). utilize framework cleverly PLEASE

cp/da: my personal favorite strat. vs soft left affs sufficiency framing makes sense (especially if you bait 'step in the right direction'). smart adv cp's make me happy and will reward you with speaks. think about competition theory more - pdcp is very sloppily debated out. i'm very anti pics that are textually uncompetitive.

t: good for nit picky violations with good impact stories, undecided on reasonability (but more down to vote on it than the avg judge if well explained - esp if the only response is a 2 second 'causes intervention' arg - but tbf it's never well explained)

tricks/phil/friv: hate this but also if you can't answer this nonsense you probably deserve to lose

theory: in theory inf condo good, but i could be persuaded that the structure of LD makes this untrue. no 1ar theory makes a weird amount of sense to me. slow down and actually debate theory pls. pics are fun but theoretically more justifiable with solvency advocates.

decision time:

decision making: i first resolve quick arguments (technical drops or one side being clearly ahead) then I compare how much work I have to do for each side to grant the key argument pathways for their victory and vote for the team that requires the least work. there's almost always some work required - if there's not, then a) you're getting good speaks b) comes down to persuasive argument framing / judge instruction (i.e. which way to err on key args, how losing one key arg might implicate some other arg's probability, etc - basically closing doors).

tech>truth: the implication to this being true is limited by the debating done/argument presented, and everything is a sliding scale. dropping a solvency deficit doesn't mean the aff doesn't solve, it probably just means the aff only solves some percent of its advantages depending on the ev (unless it's articulated to implicate 100% of solvency or the argument lends itself towards a large solvency take out via evidence or warrants).

ev evaluation: good research sets you up to win debates. that being said, a clever 2ac analytic is the same in my mind to a card from a random blog with no author quals. just because you have evidence, does not make it a better argument. good ev + explanation > bad ev + good explanation > good ev + no explanation > bad ev + no explanation. resist debate's recent tendency towards awful evidence, but don't be scared to rely heavily on smart analytics.

misc: default to judge kick and sufficiency framing, long overviews are never helpful. the brightline on 2ar leeway is whether enough of the argument was in the 1ar to reasonably expect the 2nr to have predicted it. if i'm not flowing, you're not making arguments.

speaks: being a clear, loud, and snarky/clever presenter with judge instruction in final speeches is the most important for me. closing doors makes my decision easier (god please do this more i dont think ld'ers know how to close doors) and will be generously rewarded. research quality/innovative strategies would be the next most important. speaks inflation is probably inevitable and hurting certain debaters doesn't solve, so i'll default to the rough average at that tournament to form my scale.

Strake Jesuit Class of 2020 | Texas A&M Class of 2024

If there’s an email chain add mestephan20@gmail.com but if you can, use the file share (it's a lot quicker) and share a PDF instead of a .docx file.

At Strake I debated PF for 2 years and LD for roughly 2 years, predominantly on a local level.

TL;DR, I strongly prefer traditional/LARP debates, and I will judge rounds based on the flow. Don't speak fast if the tournament is held online.

Important:

-I won’t extend evidence if you don’t mention its ***author name and date***. Give a warrant’s implications and extend them throughout the round.

- It’s good to give off-the-clock roadmaps and signpost (i.e. where you are or what you are attacking) during the speech.

-Weigh arguments with metrics like magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc.

How to get good speaker points:

- Being polite (also being aggressive isn’t mutually exclusive).

- Being articulate and I can understand what you're saying.

- Don’t go over your allotted speech and prep time by much. Note that I keep track of speech times (but not prep time).

- Don't use filler words like "uh" or "um" and avoid speaking in a monotone.

I debated LD for three years for Strake Jesuit (after a brief period in PF). I qualified for TFA State and TOC in LD, and I have instructed at TDC and NSD. I am conflicted with Strake Jesuit. Contact me/add me to docs at jpstuckert@gmail.com

You can call me "JP." "James," "Mr. Stuckert" or "judge" are fine but weird to me.

For online rounds:

1. Keeping local recordings of speeches is good. You should do it.
2. If I or another judge call “clear” video chat systems often cut your audio for a second. This means (a) you should prioritize clarity to avoid this and (b) even repeat yourself when “clear” is called if it’s a particularly important argument.
3. I don’t like to read off docs, but if there's an audio problem in an online round, I will glance to make sure I at least know where you are. I would really prefer not to be asked to backflow from a doc if there's a tech issue, hence local recordings above.
4. You should probably be at like 70% of your normal speed while online.

· I aim to be a neutral party minimizing intervention while evaluating arguments made within the speech times/structure set by the tournament or activity to pick one winner and loser for myself. Some implications:

o The speech structure of LD includes CX. Don't take it as prep and don't go back on something you commit to in CX (unless it's a quick correction when you misspeak, or is something ambiguous). I generally flow cx and factor it into speaker points, but arguments must still be made in other speeches.

o The speech structure also precludes overt newness. Arguments which are new in later speeches should be implications, refutations, weighing or extensions of already existing arguments. Whether 2N or 2AR weighing is allowable is up for debate and probably contextual. Reversing a stance you have already taken is newness -- e.g. you can't kick out of weighing you made if your opponent didn't answer it. (Obviously you can kick condo advocacies unless you lose theory.)

o I won't listen to double-win or double-loss arguments or anything of the sort. You also can't argue that you should be allowed to go over your speech time.

o Being a neutral party means my decision shouldn't involve anything about you or your opponent that would render me a conflict. If I were involved in your prefs, I would consider myself to essentially be a coach, so I won't listen to pref/strike Ks. If other types of out-of-round conduct impact the round, I will evaluate it (e.g. disclosure).

o Judge instruction and standards of justification on the flow are very important, and if they are not explicit, I look to see if they are implicit before bringing to bear my out-of-round inclinations. If two debaters implicitly agree on some framing issue, I treat it as a given.

o Evidence ethics: I will allow a debater to ask to stake the round on an evidence ethics issue if it involves: (1) brackets/cutting that changes the meaning of a card; (2) outright miss-attribution including lying about an author's name, qualifications, or their actual position; (3) alterations to the text being quoted including ellipses, mid-paragraph cutting, and changing words without brackets. Besides these issues, you can challenge evidence with theory or to make a point on the line-by-line. For me, you should resolve the following on the flow: (1) brackets that don't change meaning; (2) taking an author's argument as a premise for a larger position they might not totally endorse; (3) cases where block quotes or odd formatting makes it unclear if something is a mid-paragraph cut; (4) not being able to produce a digital copy of a source in-round. If another judge on a panel has a broader view on what the round can be staked on, I'll just default to agreeing it is a round-staking issue.

· Despite my intention to avoid intervention, I am probably biased in the following ways:

o On things like T framework and disclosure I think there is an under-discussed gap between "voting on theory can set norms" to "your vote will promote no more and no less than the text of my interp in this activity."

o I will be strongly biased against overtly offensive things (arguments which directly contravene the basic humanity of a marginalized group). I don’t think it’s prima facie offensive to read moral philosophy that denies some acts are intrinsically evil (like skep or strict ends-based ethical theories) or which denies that consequences are morally relevant (like skep or strict means-based theories). I also don't think generic impact turns against big stick impacts are innately offensive. But I will certainly listen to Ks or independent voters indicting any of those things.

· Other:

o Speaks: each speech counts, including CX. Strategy and well-warranted arguments are the two biggest factors. My range typically doesn't go outside 28 to 29.5. I adjust based on how competitive the tournament is. I don't disclose them.

o Be polite to novices, even if you can win a round in 20 seconds it’s not always kind to do so. Just be aware of how your actions might make them feel.

o I am usually unpersuaded by rhetorical appeals that take it for granted that some debate styles (K, LARP, phil, theory, tricks) are worse than others, but you can and should make warranted arguments comparing models of debate.

Hey, my name is Favian and I debated for Dulles High School for 4 Years. I got a bid round, but that's pretty much it. I'm willing to vote on functionally anything ranging from tricks to non-t Affs to policy arguments. I don't have any argumentative preferences and if you weigh/make smart arguments you will probably get the result you want. If an argument is conceded my threshold for extending it is pretty low. If I have 2 conceded contesting claims, I'll probably default to what was read first.

sun.skybird@gmail.com for email chain.

Quick Prefs

1 - LARP/Phil

2 - T/Theory

2 - Tricks

3/4 - Ks

Speed is fine. A little slower on analytics and anything not in a doc would be appreciated.

Policy Debates (Plans, CP's, DA's)

1] These can be fun to judge at a high level. I'd appreciate explicit impact weighing and evidence comparison

2] I'll boost your speaks if its a hyper specific plan that I haven't seen before late into the topic

3] I have a low threshold for extending the advantage in the 1AR especially with conceded warrants

K debate(General)

1] I'm most familiar with straight cap, but if you can explain coherently explain your theory of power, I'll vote on it. I should be able to understand what the alt does and why it solves after the 1n or cx at latest.

2] Alt solves case is massively underused and should be used more

3] I most likely do not know your lit, so err on the side of overexplaining

Phil debate

I can judge this. Basically, my A-Strat was Kant. I've also read/am pretty familiar with agonism, pragmatism, hobbes, virtue ethics, and more. That being said you can probably read whatever you are most comfortable for. Just err on the side of over-explanation in these debates if its extremely dense.

I love permissibility/presumption triggers :). I'm more used to seeing an actual coherent framework and triggers of permissibility or presumption if your opponents framework answers trigger them. I've been more receptive recently to straight up skep. Please read skep for fun debates.

Trix

These are fine too. Please read and extend warrants. I'm not going to vote on something I don't understand. Also, I'm prob gonna end up flowing the 1AR, 2NR, and 2AR straight down in these types of debates because things get messy very quickly and flipping through flows becomes difficult, so there's a higher chance you get a decision you don't agree with if you make the debate messy (prob applies to every type of arg).

Theory

I enjoy these debates a lot, but they can get really messy really fast.

1] I don't really understand the distinction between what constitutes a shell being frivolous and what doesn't. I think that if an interp is truly frivolous or stupid then you should be able to respond to it easily. I will vote on any shell if it's won.

2] Weighing is what makes these debates resolvable. Please weigh

3] I am down to listen to aff/neg flex arguments. If you clearly implicate the affirming/negating is harder debate then that would make it easier for me to resolve the debate. A lot of the time tho, debaters will just go for affirming/negating is harder without implicating it which leaves me with an argument that I have to do implicit work which I don't want to do.

4] If paradigm issues are conceded, you don’t have to extend them. Please don't concede paradigm issues, they are a huge part of what makes a good theory debater good.

5] I'm inclined to accept 2ar weighing in 1ar/2nr shells.

Evidence Ethics

If you stake the round and you lose L25. If you stake the round and you win W30.

I think the violation should have to be pretty egregious for me to intervene. Egregious violations can include miscutting or taking parts of the middle of the card out, misciting stuff, clipping,etc. This shouldn't discourage you from staking rounds on Evidence Ethics by any means just be sure the violation is legit yk.

Speaks

Speaks are generally quite arbitrary. Feel free to ask for higher speaks in a speech and I'll probably give you good speaks.

If you win the debate while ending a speech with 1+ minutes left, I'll give you 30 speaks. I'm not taking time, so remind me.

Oregon debaters: I will only evaluate arguments on the flow and not consider (eye contact, cx, speed, etc). I am capable of evaluating all arguments (plan, counterplan, theory, kritiks, etc) on a fair and technical level and am okay with spreading. Although I was a circuit-debater, please only read arguments and debate in a manner you are familiar with and do not over-adapt (e.g. saying "this is your nuke war impact" when reading a structural violence aff; spreading when you can't). I am not receptive to these arguments and will likely give you bad speaks.

(Should not have to say this but ...) Arguments that are not extended (either implicitly or explicitly) in the 2NR/2AR will not be evaluated - I need a coherent explanation about what the aff/neg does and the impact of it.

Prefs info (how I evaluate debates):

In 2019 I qualified to TOC with 3 bids - I'm familiar will all types of arguments (K's, Theory, Plan's etc). I judged for 1 year and have not touched debate in a few years.

I will evaluate all arguments fairly - shoes theory can beat Wilderson if debated better on a technical level, although if you win "reasonability" I will almost certainly view silly theory or framework tricks to be bad.

I am familiar with K-affs vs Topicality debate and will evaluate this argument fairly for either side.

Pre-round info (things to consider when debating in front of me):

I don't know any of the current topics.

Tags of cards MUST be read clearly. Even the worst flower on the circuit should be able to flow your tags without needing to look at a doc. This also applies to blippy, pre-written analytics as well. I will call "clear" 3 times before I stop flowing anything I can't understand.

*If you are debating a novice/someone with unfamiliar with circuit debate, win quickly (extend a theory shell and sit down after 30 seconds) OR make the round engageable for them (read a lay position). If you take full prep and speech times to read a K against a novice who drops all the links and makes 0 perms, you will receive terrible speaks.

For PF: Speaks capped at 27.5 if you don't read cut cards (with tags) and send speech docs via email chain prior to your speech of cards to be read (in constructives, rebuttal, summary, or any speech where you have a new card to read). I'm done with paraphrasing and pf rounds taking almost as long as my policy rounds to complete. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that do read cut cards and do send speech docs via email chain prior to speech. In elims, since I can't give points, it will be a overall tiebreaker.

For Policy: Speaks capped at 28 if I don't understand each and every word you say while spreading (including cards read). I will not follow along on the speech doc, I will not read cards after the debate (unless contested or required to render a decision), and, thus, I will not reconstruct the debate for you but will just go off my flow. I can handle speed, but I need clarity not a speechdoc to understand warrants. Speaks will start at 28.5 for teams that are completely flowable. I'd say about 85% of debaters have been able to meet this paradigm.

I'd also mostly focus on the style section and bold parts of other sections.

---

2018 update: College policy debaters should look to who I judged at my last college judging spree (69th National Debate Tournament in Iowa) to get a feeling of who will and will not pref me. I also like Buntin's new judge philosophy (agree roughly 90%).

It's Fall 2015. I judge all types of debate, from policy-v-policy to non-policy-v-non-policy. I think what separates me as a judge is style, not substance.

I debated for Texas for 5 years (2003-2008), 4 years in Texas during high school (1999-2003). I was twice a top 20 speaker at the NDT. I've coached on and off for highschool and college teams during that time and since. I've ran or coached an extremely wide diversity of arguments. Some favorite memories include "china is evil and that outweighs the security k", to "human extinction is good", to "predictions must specify strong data", to "let's consult the chinese, china is awesome", to "housing discrimination based on race causes school segregation based on race", to "factory farms are biopolitical murder", to “free trade good performance”, to "let's reg. neg. the plan to make businesses confident", to “CO2 fertilization, SO2 Screw, or Ice Age DAs”, to "let the Makah whale", etc. Basically, I've been around.

After it was pointed out that I don't do a great job delineating debatable versus non-debatable preferences, I've decided to style-code bold all parts of my philosophy that are not up for debate. Everything else is merely a preference, and can be debated.

Style/Big Picture:

• I strongly prefer to let the debaters do the debating, and I'll reward depth (the "author+claim + warrant + data+impact" model) over breadth (the "author+claim + impact" model) any day.

• When evaluating probabilistic predictions, I start from the assumption everyone begins at 0%, and you persuade me to increase that number (w/ claims + warrants + data). Rarely do teams get me past 5%. A conceeded claim (or even claim + another claim disguised as the warrant) will not start at 100%, but remains at 0%.

• Combining those first two essential stylistic criteria means, in practice, many times I discount entirely even conceded, well impacted claims because the debaters failed to provide a warrant and/or data to support their claim. It's analogous to failing a basic "laugh" test. I may not be perfect at this rubric yet, but I still think it's better than the alternative (e.g. rebuttals filled with 20+ uses of the word “conceded” and a stack of 60 cards).

• I'll try to minimize the amount of evidence I read to only evidence that is either (A) up for dispute/interpretation between the teams or (B) required to render a decision (due to lack of clash amongst the debaters). In short: don't let the evidence do the debating for you.

• Humor is also well rewarded, and it is hard (but not impossible) to offend me.

• I'd also strongly prefer if teams would slow down 15-20% so that I can hear and understand every word you say (including cards read). While I won't explicitly punish you if you don't, it does go a mile to have me already understand the evidence while you're debating so I don't have to sort through it at the end (especially since I likely won't call for that card anyway).

• Defense can win a debate (there is such as thing as a 100% no link), but offense helps more times than not.

• I'm a big believer in open disclosure practices, and would vote on reasoned arguments about poor disclosure practices. In the perfect world, everything would be open-source (including highlighting and analytics, including 2NR/2AR blocks), and all teams would ultimately share one evidence set. You could cut new evidence, but once read, everyone would have it. We're nowhere near that world. Some performance teams think a few half-citations work when it makes up at best 45 seconds of a 9 minute speech. Some policy teams think offering cards without highlighting for only the first constructive works. I don't think either model works, and would be happy to vote to encourage more open disclosure practices. It's hard to be angry that the other side doesn't engage you when, pre-round, you didn't offer them anything to engage.

• You (or your partner) must physically mark cards if you do not finish them. Orally saying "mark here" (and expecting your opponents or the judge to do it for you) doesn't count. After your speech (and before cross-ex), you should resend a marked copy to the other team. If pointed out by the other team, failure to do means you must mark prior to cross-ex. I will count it as prep time times two to deter sloppy debate.

• By default, I will not “follow along” and read evidence during a debate. I find that it incentivizes unclear and shallow debates. However, I realize that some people are better visual than auditory learners and I would classify myself as strongly visual. If both teams would prefer and communicate to me that preference before the round, I will “follow along” and read evidence during the debate speeches, cross-exs, and maybe even prep.

Topicality:

• I like competing interpretations, the more evidence the better, and clearly delineated and impacted/weighed standards on topicality.

• Abuse makes it all the better, but is not required (doesn't unpredictability inherently abuse?).

• Treat it like a disad, and go from there. In my opinion, topicality is a dying art, so I'll be sure to reward debaters that show talent.

• For the aff – think offense/defense and weigh the standards you're winning against what you're losing rather than say "at least we're reasonable". You'll sound way better.

Framework:

• The exception to the above is the "framework debate". I find it to be an uphill battle for the neg in these debates (usually because that's the only thing the aff has blocked out for 5 minutes, and they debate it 3 out of 4 aff rounds).

• If you want to win framework in front of me, spent time delineating your interpretation of debate in a way that doesn't make it seem arbitrary. For example "they're not policy debate" begs the question what exactly policy debate is. I'm not Justice Steward, and this isn't pornography. I don't know when I've seen it. I'm old school in that I conceptualize framework along “predictability”; "topic education", “policymaking education”, and “aff education” (topical version, switch sides, etc) lines.

• “We're in the direction of the topic” or “we discuss the topic rather than a topical discussion” is a pretty laughable counter-interpretation.

• For the aff, "we agree with the neg's interp of framework but still get to weigh our case" borders on incomprehensible if the framework is the least bit not arbitrary.

Case Debate

• Depth in explanation over breadth in coverage. One well explained warrant will do more damage to the 1AR than 5 cards that say the same claim.

• Well-developed impact calculus must begin no later than the 1AR for the Aff and Negative Block for the Neg.

• I enjoy large indepth case debates. I was 2A who wrote my own community unique affs usually with only 1 advantage and no external add-ons. These type of debates, if properly researched and executed, can be quite fun for all parties.

Disads

• Intrinsic perms are silly. Normal means arguments are less so.

• From an offense/defense paradigm, conceded uniqueness can control the direction of the link. Conceded links can control the direction of uniqueness. The in round application of "why" is important.

• A story / spin is usually more important (and harder for the 1AR to deal with) than 5 cards that say the same thing.

Counterplan Competition:

• I generally prefer functionally competitive counterplans with solvency advocates delineating the counterplan versus the plan (or close) (as opposed to the counterplan versus the topic), but a good case for textual competition can be made with a language K netbenefit.

• Conditionality (1 CP, SQ, and 1 K) is a fact of life, and anything less is the negative feeling sorry for you (or themselves). However, I do not like 2NR conditionality (i.e., “judge kick”) ever. Make a decision.

• Perms and theory always remain a test of competition (and not a voter) until proven otherwise by the negative by argument (see above), a near impossible standard for arguments that don't interfere substantially with other parts of the debate (e.g. conditionality).

• Perm "do the aff" is not a perm. Debatable perms are "do both" and "do cp/alt"(and "do aff and part of the CP" for multi-plank CPs). Others are usually intrinsic.

Critiques:

• I think of the critique as a (usually linear) disad and the alt as a cp.

• Be sure to clearly impact your critique in the context of what it means/does to the aff case (does the alt solve it, does the critique turn it, make harms inevitable, does it disprove their solvency). Latch on to an external impact (be it "ethics", or biopower causes super-viruses), and weigh it against case.

• Use your alternative to either "fiat uniqueness" or create a rubric by which I don't evaluate uniqueness, and to solve case in other ways.

• I will say upfront the two types of critique routes I find least persuasive are simplistic versions of "economics", "science", and "militarism" bad (mostly because I have an econ degree and am part of an extensive military family). While good critiques exist out there of both, most of what debaters use are not that, so plan accordingly.

• For the aff, figure out how to solve your case absent fiat (education about aff good?), and weigh it against the alternative, which you should reduce to as close as the status quo as possible. Make uniqueness indicts to control the direction of link, and question the timeframe/inevitability/plausability of their impacts.

• Perms generally check clearly uncompetitive alternative jive, but don't work too well against "vote neg". A good link turn generally does way more than “perm solves the link”.

• Aff Framework doesn't ever make the critique disappear, it just changes how I evaluate/weigh the alternative.

• Role of the Ballot - I vote for the team that did the better debating. What is "better" is based on my stylistic criteria. End of story. Don't let "Role of the Ballot" be used as an excuse to avoid impact calculus.

Performance (the other critique):

• Empirically, I do judge these debate and end up about 50-50 on them. I neither bandwagon around nor discount the validity of arguments critical of the pedagogy of debate. I'll let you make the case or defense (preferably with data). The team that usually wins my ballot is the team that made an effort to intelligently clash with the other team (whether it's aff or neg) and meet my stylistic criteria. To me, it's just another form of debate.

• However, I do have some trouble in some of these debates in that I feel most of what is said is usually non-falsifiable, a little too personal for comfort, and devolves 2 out of 3 times into a chest-beating contest with competition limited to some archaic version of "plan-plan". I do recognize that this isn't always the case, but if you find yourselves banking on "the counterplan/critique doesn't solve" because "you did it first", or "it's not genuine", or "their skin is white"; you're already on the path to a loss.

• If you are debating performance teams, the two main takeaways are that you'll probably lose framework unless you win topical version, and I hate judging "X" identity outweighs "Y" identity debates. I suggest, empirically, a critique of their identity politics coupled with some specific case cards is more likely to get my ballot than a strategy based around "Framework" and the "Rev". Not saying it's the only way, just offering some empirical observations of how I vote.

Aaron Timmons

Director of Debate – Greenhill School

Former Coach USA Debate Team

Curriculum Director Harvard Debate Council Summer Workshops

Updated – April 2024

Please put me on the email chain – timmonsa@greenhill.org

Contact me with questions.

General Musings

Debate rounds, and subsequently debate tournaments, are extensions of the classroom. While we all learn from each other, my role is a critic of argument (if I had to pigeonhole myself with a paradigmatic label as a judge). I will evaluate your performance in as objective a method as possible. Unlike many adjudicators claim to be, I am not a blank slate. I will intervene if I see behaviors or practices that create a bad, unfair, or hostile environment for the extension of the classroom that is the debate round. I WILL do my best to objectively evaluate your arguments, but the idea that my social location is not a relevant consideration of how I view/decode (even hear) arguments is not true (nor true for anyone.)

I have coached multiple National and/or State Champions in Policy Debate, Lincoln Douglas Debate, and World Schools Debate (in addition to interpretation/speech events). I still actively coach and I am involved in the strategy and argument creation of my students who compete for my school. Given the demands on my time, I do not cut as many cards as I once did for Policy and Lincoln Douglas. That said, I am more than aware of the arguments and positions being run in both of these formats week in and week out.

General thoughts on how I decide debates:

1 – Debate is a communication activity – I will flow what you say in speeches as opposed to flowing off of the speech documents (for the events that share documents). If I need to read cards to resolve an issue, I will do so but until ethos and pathos (re)gain status as equal partners with logos in the persuasion triangle, we will continue to have debates decided only on what is “in the speech doc.” Speech > speech doc.

2 – Be mindful of your “maximum rate of efficiency” – aka, you may be trying to go faster than you are capable of speaking in a comprehensible way. The rate of speed Is not a problem in many contemporary debates, the lack of clarity is an increasing concern. Unstructured paragraphs that are slurred together do not allow the pen time necessary to write things down in the detail you think they might. Style and substance are fundamentally inseparable. This does NOT mean you have to be slow; it does mean you need to be clear.

3 – Evidence is important - In my opinion debates/comparisons about the qualifications of authors on competing issues and warrants (particularly empirical ones), are important. Do you this and not only will your points improve, but I am also likely to prefer your argument if the comparisons are done well.

4 – Online Debating – We have had two years to figure this out. My camera will be on. I expect that your camera is on as well unless there is a technical issue that cannot/has not been resolved in our time online. If there is an equity/home issue that necessitates that your camera is off, I understand that and will defer to your desire to it be off if that is the case. A simple, “I would prefer for my camera to be off” will suffice to inform me of your request.

5 – Disclosure is good (on balance) – I feel that debaters/teams should disclose on the wiki. I have been an advocate of disclosure for decades. I am NOT interested in “got you” games regarding disclosure. If a team/school is against disclosure, defend that pedagogical practice in the debate. Either follow basic tenets of community norms related to disclosure (affirmative arguments, negative positions read, etc.) after they have been read in a debate. While I do think things like full source and/or round reports are good educational practices, I am not interested in hearing debates about those issues. ADA issues: If a student needs to have materials formatted in a matter to address issues of accessibility based on documented learning differences, that request should be made promptly to allow reformatting of that material. Preferably, adults from one school should contact the adult representatives of the other schools to deal with school-sanctioned accountability.

6 – Zero risk is a possibility – There is a possibility of zero risks of an advantage or a disadvantage.

7 – My role as a judge - I will do my best to judge the debate that occurred versus the debate that I wish had happened. I see too many judges making decisions based on evaluating and comparing evidence after the debate that was not done by the students.

8 – Debate the case – It is a forgotten art. Your points will increase, and it expands the options for you to win the debate in the final negative rebuttal.

9 – Good “judge instructions” will make my job easier – While I am happy to make my judgments and comparisons between competing claims, I feel that students making those comparisons, laying out the order of operations, articulating “even/if” considerations, telling me how to weigh and then CHOOSING in the final rebuttals, will serve debaters well (and reduce frustrations on both our parts0.

10 – Cross-examination matters – Plan and ask solid questions. Good cross-examinations will be rewarded.

11 - Flowing is a prerequisite to good debating (and judging) - You should flow. I will be flowing your speech not from the doc, but your actual speech..

Policy Debate

I enjoy policy debate and given my time in the activity I have judged, coached, and seen some amazing students over the years.

A few thoughts on how I view judging policy debate:

Topicality vs Conventional Affs:

Traditional concepts of competing interpretations can be mundane and sometimes result in silly debates. Limiting out one affirmative will not save/protect limits or negative ground. Likewise, reasonability in a vacuum without there being a metric on what that means and how it informs my interpretation vis a vis the resolution lacks nuance as well. Topicality debaters who can frame what the topic should look like based on the topic, and preferably evidence to support why interpretation makes sense will be rewarded. The next step is saying why a more limiting (juxtaposed to the most limiting) topic makes sense helps to frame the way I would think about that version of the topic. A case list of what would be topical under your interpretation would help as would a list of core negative arguments that are excluded if we accept the affirmative interpretation or model of debate.

Topicality/FW vs critical affirmatives:

First – The affirmative needs to do something (and be willing to defend what that is). The negative needs to win that performance is net bad/worse than an alternative (be it the status quo, a counterplan, or a K alternative).

Second – The negative should have access to ground, but they do not get to predetermine what that is. Just because your generic da or counterplan does not apply to the affirmative does not mean the affirmative cannot be tested.

Conditionality

Conditionality is good but only in a limited sense. I do not think the negative gets unlimited options (even against a new affirmative). While the negative can have multiple counter plans, the affirmative will get leeway to creatively (re)explain permutations if the negative kicks (or attempts to add) planks to the counterplan(s), the 1ar will get some flexibility to respond to this negative move.

Counterplans and Disads:

Counterplans are your friend. Counterplans need a net benefit (reasons the affirmative is a bad/less than desirable idea. Knowing the difference between an advantage to the counterplan and a real net benefit seems to be a low bar. Process counterplans are harder to defend as competitive and I am sympathetic to affirmative permutations. I have a higher standard for many on permutations as I believe that in the 2AC “perm do the counterplan” and/or “perm do the alternative” do nothing to explain what that world looks like. If the affirmative takes another few moments to explain these arguments, that increases the pressure on the 2nr to be more precise in responding to these arguments.

Disadvantages that are specific to the advocacy of the affirmative will get you high points.

Lincoln Douglas

I have had students succeed at the highest levels of Lincoln Douglas Debate including multiple champions of NSDA, NDCA, the Tournament of Champions, as well as the Texas Forensic Association State Championships.

Theory is debated far too much in Lincoln – Douglas and is debated poorly. I am strongly opposed to that practice. My preference is NOT to hear a bad theory debate. I believe the negative does get some “flex;” it cannot be unlimited. The negative does not need to run more than four off-case arguments

Words matter. Arguments that are racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, etc. will not be tolerated.

I am not a fan of random; multiple sentence fragments that claim to “spike” out of all of the other team’s arguments. At its foundation, the debate should be about argument ENGAGEMENT, not evasion.

I do not like skepticism as an argument. It would be in your best interest to not run it in front of me. While interesting in a philosophy class in college, training young advocates to feel that “morality doesn’t exist” etc. is educationally irresponsible.

I do not disclose speaker points. That seems silly to me.

Dropped arguments and the “auto-win” seem silly to me. Just because a debater drops a card does not mean you win the debate. Weighing and embedded clashes are a necessary component of the debate. Good debaters extend their arguments. GREAT debaters do that in addition to explaining the nexus point of the clash between their arguments and that of the opposition and WHY I should prefer their argument. Any argument that says the other side cannot answer your position is fast-tracking to an L (with burnt cheese and marinara on top).

It takes more than a sentence (or in many of the rounds I judge a sentence fragment), to make an argument. If the argument was not clear originally, I will allow the opponent to make new arguments.

Choose. No matter the speech or the argument.

Cross apply much of the policy section as well as the general musings on debate.

World Schools

Have you chaired a WS round before? (required)

Yes. Countless times.

What does chairing a round involve? (required)

How would you describe World Schools Debate to someone else?

World Schools is modeled after parliament having argumentation presented in a way that is conversational, yet argumentatively rigorous. Debates are balanced between motions that are prepared, while some are impromptu. Points of Information (POIs) are a unique component of the format as speakers can be interrupted by their opponent by them asking a question or making a statement.

What process, if any, do you utilize to take notes in the debate? (required)

I keep a rigorous flow throughout the debate.

When evaluating the round, assuming both principle and practical arguments are advanced through the 3rd and Reply speeches, do you prefer one over the other? Explain.

These should be prioritized and compared by the students in the round. I do not have an ideological preference between principled or practical arguments.

The World Schools Debate format requires the judge to consider both Content and Style as 40% of each of the speaker’s overall score, while Strategy is 20%. How do you evaluate a speaker’s strategy? (required)

Strategy (simply put) is how they utilize the content that has been introduced in the debate.

World Schools Debate is supposed to be delivered at a conversational pace. What category would you deduct points in if the speaker were going too fast?

Style.

World Schools Debate does not require evidence/cards to be read in the round. How do you evaluate competing claims if there is no evidence to read?

Students are required to use analysis, examples, and interrogate the claims of the other side then make comparative claims about the superiority of their position.

How do you resolve model quibbles?

Model quibbles are not fully developed arguments if they are only questions that are not fully developed or have an articulated impact.

How do you evaluate models vs. countermodels?

I utilize the approach of comparative worlds to evaluate competing methods for resolving mutual problems/harms. The proposition must defend its model as being comparatively advantageous over a given alternative posed by the opposition. While many feel in World Schools a countermodel must be mutually exclusive. While that certainly is one method of assessing if a countermodel truly ‘forces a choice,” a feel a better stand is that of net benefits. The question should be if it is desirable to do both the propositions model and the opposition countermodel at the same time. If it is possible to do both without any undesirable outcomes, the negative has failed to prove the desirability of their countermodel. The opposition should explain why doing both would be a bad idea. The proposition should advance an argument as to why doing both is better than adopting the countermodel alone.

I did not do debate in high school. I've judged select local LD debate tournaments in recent years. Talk slower in judging sessions with me as I'm not as able to keep up with the speed of progressive debates.

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts

2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow

Judging philosophy:

1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.

2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read

3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.

4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow

Preferences:

1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level

2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate

3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework

Evidence ethics:

I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.

Misc:

Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along

PF stuff:

PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.

I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.

I am a parent judge whose experience has been mostly on the local circuits. I simply ask that you speak clearly and NOT HASTILY so I can better follow your arguments. I have only judged traditional debates so keep that in mind.

Also, as a lay judge, I like time to think about my reason for decision so I prefer you not ask for RFD immediately after the round. Thank you and good luck!

Hey I'm Calvin ( cbtyler@usc.edu ),

USC '24

BCP '20

I debated 3 years, 2 on the national circuit, at Brophy College Preparatory. Qualifications: I debated both traditional and circuit, qualifying to the TOC my senior year and breaking at a decent amount of nat circs.

Debate Views:

I will try to be as tech > truth as possible, but everyone has their biases and areas of expertise. I was mainly a larp debater but branched out into theory and some critical literature my senior year. I am increasingly finding myself persuaded by all forms of arguments as long as they are well warranted and won on the flow.

I AM NOT A GOOD FLOWER - so be clear and slower when extpemping analytics if you want me to flow them.

I will vote on tricks(and anything with a warrant), but if the argument is silly, I will also have a low threshold for responding to it.

Most of all: be nice, debate is supposed to be a safe and supportive environment.

Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.

THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:

Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email write2zaid@gmail.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.

Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.

I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.

JUDGING PREFERENCES:

I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.

In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.

That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).

I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.

You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.

More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:

"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.

Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.

There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.

Basically: debate like it's trad LD."

SPEAKER POINT SCALE

Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:

29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament

29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims

28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds

28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break

27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little

27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot

27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do

below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong

christianvzq182@gmail.com

I tend to lean truth over tech, tell me why your arguments matter. I don't tend to give a ton of weight to arguments that are made just to be made, you need offense if you want to win on it.

I am looking for clash in a debate, don't just read cards past each other. Debaters that are better at line-by-line tend be the ones that get my ballot.

KNOW WHAT YOUR EVIDENCE SAYS AND WHAT IT MEANS. Nothing is more detrimental to a speaker's ethos than reading evidence and being exposed for not understanding it.

Be respectful of your competitors, everyone should feel safe and respected in the debate space. I have no problem voting you down, if I feel you are not doing so.

3 years of college policy debate at CSULB, qualified for the 2020 NDT.

hullo, i'm kathy! any pronouns are fine.

email chain: kathywang098 [a] gmail.com

UPDATE FOR D8: i've been really out of the college policy scene for the past few years & this is the first time i'm judging at a tournament on the topic, so please keep that in mind! i think at this point it'd be helpful for y'all to slow down a little and err on overexplaining if you can - i'm very unfamiliar with the topic lit and haven't personally been doing any research for it at all. hoping some things will just be muscle memory, but i appreciate the patience regardless.

--

as you can see from the rest of this paradigm, a lot of my judging experience is with LD -- i've bolded anything of note/applicable in the ld paradigm below, but i'll try and consolidate everything here. feel free to also ask me any other questions, either through email or before round or however! here's a super quick paradigm:

- bg: i debated for nyu and graduated in 2020 and was quite a partner-hopper LOL. i was mostly-but-not-always a 2a and read lots of non-t affs, but have also been a 2n for like, disads and framework. in my time judging ld i have voted on everything from disads to performance affs to test case fiat, i don't think policy's gonna change that.

- straight policy: i've probably had the least experience in straight policy v policy rds, but if you make your link scenario clear i'll be able to follow! like i said, i haven't been doing topic prep or anything on antitrust so try to make any obscure acronyms clear for me too. policy debate for me comes down to a question of who can best control the scenario even when accounting for the possibility of the other side's links -- the more engagement and the more explicit comparison b/w your offense and your opponent's, the better. the worst thing in the world is two teams independently describing their own scenarios - big picture framing will take you far b/c i really don't want to be stuck with like, 4 different extinction scenarios and no way to delineate between them. win the probability of your scenario, win weighing on your impact, we are all happy.

funky cps are a go for me! theory is a go for me! (good theory is underrated in policy, but it's gotta be good).

- ks: go for it. always happy to hear a good methods throwdown, always happy to learn more ab the lit. innovative advocacies/alternatives are amazing and i love to hear them, but good k debate shouldn't have to rely on my preexisting knowledge of any body of literature. besides that, though, debate's your sandbox. vague advocacies have a very uphill battle in front of me, you should have a ready-to-go, instant, rehearsed, and clearly defined answer to "what does the world of the aff/alt look like and what exactly do we have to do to get there". not to say the alt can't be something like unintelligibility, but like... you should know what you're defending.

reading a k also doesn't mean you can't be techy. don't rely on me to make connections to the line by line and apply offense for you. yes this is about your 6 minute long 2nc k overview.

- fw v ks: i'm leaning more towards the procedural fairness is an internal link not a voter camp, but you can always convince me otherwise. fw and cap is no reason to not even bother attempting to answer the aff - you're 100% capable of generating analytics on the fly. i will be INCREDIBLY UNIMPRESSED with teams who read fw without even attempting to engage the aff in good faith. the more fw claims contextualize in round abuse the better they are. tvas are great tools and the more creative you can be with them the better. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

- ks v fw: no need to be resolutional at all but i think it's better if there's an attempt to be topical [i.e. somehow related to the topic area]. if you draw a link from the general area of the topic, that's ideal. if the aff is just, totally unrelated to alliances at all i'll have a lower threshold for voting on fw. general impact turns to their form either a) need to have the scope of their implication clarified or b) need interactions with specific offense from the shell clarified. i find that clash debates are very hard to win without some clearly defined counter interp ready. the less generic, the better. win a model of debate.

i can handle speed but slow down for online debate. feel free to ask me questions after the round, but the rfd is not your 3nr/3ar. if i cannot adequately explain an argument myself in the rfd, i will not vote on it and i have no problems w making that clear even if it's not satisfying for you or gives you closure. i'll do my best to put rfds on tabroom as well!

----------------------------

LD PARADIGM:

main paradigm/right b4 rd: i've judged nearly every style of debate within ld, so odds are i'll be okay with whatever you read. i'm less confident with dense phil debate and blippy theory debates (but really, what kind of judge isn't less confident with blippy theory...) and more read-up on k literature. i don't care if you don't defend the resolution, but i have reliably gone both ways on t-framework. i'm not coaching, so i'm unfamiliar with the topic - if you're going for more LARPy positions, please overallocate explanation on link-level arguments! also in general slow down bc a) i'm out of practice listening to spreading b) who knows how much latency verizon wants to put upon my humble network b/c they thrive in my suffering and know i'll be back on the 29th of each month to pay my internet bill regardless

lately i've found that i have a pretty high threshold of explanation for arguments, especially on theory, so please keep that in mind. my usual threshold when making decisions is "can i thoroughly reexplain your argument in the rfd and draw lines throughout the flow" -- if the answer is no, i won't count it in my decision. the larger the implication of an argument is, the higher the threshold for explanation is. you can still win off things like independent voters, but there must be some coherent warrant and impact (and honestly, warrant for why something is an independent voter/outweighs everything else in the first place, because that's also never there)

if something happens in a round that makes you feel unsafe and you don't feel comfortable expressing it out loud, please send me a separate email during the round and i will intervene without naming you.

my background:

i debated for stuyvesant hs from 2012-2016, and then debated college policy at nyu ("graduated" in 2020). i'm no longer coaching anyone, so i guess that means i'm pretty out of the activity now? i already even deleted my paradigm and made a joke one, so now i have to rewrite all this. :( if it matters at all, in hs i read more policy-esque or soft-left positions, and in college i read a lot of far-left ks, theory args, and occasionally high theory. besides that, i've judged a lot, so i've honestly seen it all especially because nobody thinks reading paradigms is cool anymore. F

misc:

- being tab is impossible but i do strive for less intervention. usually what i do when i make decisions is construct two ballots in my head - one for the aff, one for the neg - and vote on whichever one is more logical/coherent and requires less work

- a general rule of thumb: if you think you are the only person in the pool (or even debate as a whole) to read your position, tech implications should probably be overexplained at the very least

- i'm willing to disclose speaks, but also sometimes willing to not do that (avg is usually a 28.5) -- this does not apply to policy

- starting to think that rounds that come down to 1ar theory are literally irresolvable. like, it's just impossible. i'll evaluate them as well as you can expect someone to evaluate latebreaking theory that an entire round somehow hinges on even though affs are time-pressed/blippy and negs only have one speech and less than 15 minutes are spent on the only thing that matters in the round yknow? i mean, don't get me wrong, i still think it's one of the most strategic options for the aff, so don't take this as a "don't read 1ar theory." all i'm saying is, life's a gamble!

- can everyone lay off me for constantly rotating my head 90 degrees during a debate round. my ear faces you so i hear better but now it's just a habit and/or eye contact makes me feel awkward :((((

- things i won't vote on: blatantly offensive stuff like racism good or the sorts, double win/loss (i physically cannot), "give me [x] speaks" arguments.

- are indexicals making a comeback? please do not read indexicals in front of me. like, please don't. i keep thinking 2020 can't get any worse and then lders bring back INDEXICALS. what the heck!!

- i can't really process layers of audio - it gives me a really, really bad headache and scrambles my brain. not saying you can't play music or other audio, just not simultaneously while you speak b/c i won't be able to write anything down

- please give me a heads up for explicit discussions of self-harm or su*cide -- you can still read it, i'd just like to know it's coming

anyways, thanks for readin! above all i hope you have fun while debating and remember why you joined this activity and why you stay. feel free to reach out to me if you have any other questions ab this paradigm, or anything else!

update for hs parli:

I debated nat circuit LD in HS so I'm familiar with progressive arguments, but I never debated HS parli. I've judged a few parli rounds and have an understanding of the general structure, but I probably don't know the intricacies of the event.

updated for Columbia:

I debated for Millburn HS (graduated in 2020) and was pretty involved in high school circuit LD, attending TOC my junior year. However, I haven't judged or coached since January 2021, and I'm particularly not used to online debate, so I don't have a great idea of the norms of the community (and certainly not the topic).

pref wise:

- mostly read policy-style arguments and theory, but I'm open to all arguments that are 1] warranted and 2] not abhorrent, and I'm most impressed by debaters who engage in their opponents' arguments and know their lit base

- that being said, in order of how comfortable I am evaluating debates (not preference judging):

theory > larp = t > phil = tricks > k

I am best described as a parent judge. I listen to your arguments and take notes. I will vote on the team that makes the most convincing arguments in the rounds.

Be nice to each other and be respectful.

Educational Background:

Georgia State University (2004-2007) - English Major in Literary Studies; Speech Minor

Augusta University (2010-2011) - Masters in Arts in Teaching

Georgia State University (2015-2016) - Postbaccalaureate work in Philosophy

Revelant Career Experience:

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2011-2015) Grovetown High School

LD Debate Coach (2015-2018) Marist School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2018-2022) Northview High School

English Teacher/Debate Coach (2022-present) Lassiter High School

Public Forum

Argue well. Don’t be rude. I’ll flow your debate, so make the arguments you need to make.

Policy

I haven't judged a lot of policy debates. I'm more comfortable with a little slower speed since I don't hear a lot of debates on the topic. I'm ok with most any time of argumentation, but I'm less likely to vote on theory arguments than K or Case arguments. Add me to your email chains.

Lincoln Douglas

I appreciate well warranted and strong arguments. Keep those fallacies out of my rounds.

If the negative fails to give me a warranted reason to weigh her value/value criterion above the one offered by the affirmative in the first negative speech, I will adopt the affirmative's FW. Likewise, if the negative offers a warranted reason that goes unaddressed in the AR1, I will adopt the negative FW.

I appreciate when debaters provide voters during the final speeches.

Debaters would probably describe me as leaning "traditional", but I am working to be more comfortable with progressive arguments. However, I'll vote, and have voted, on many types of arguments (Plans, Counterplans, Ks, Aff Ks, and theory if there is legitimate abuse). However, the more progressive the argument and the further away from the topic, the more in depth and slower your explanation needs to be. Don't make any assumptions about what I'm supposed to know.

Debates that don't do any weighing are hard to judge. Be clear about what you think should be on my ballot if you're winning the round.

Speed

If you feel it absolutely necessary to spread, I will do my best to keep up with the caveat that you are responsible for what I miss. I appreciate folks that value delivery. Take that as you will. If you're going to go fast, you can email me your case.

Disclosure

I try to disclose and answer questions if at all possible.

Cross Examination/Crossfire

I'm not a fan of "gotcha" debate. The goal in crossfire shouldn't get your opponent to agree to some tricky idea and then make that the reason that you are winning debates. Crossfire isn't binding. Debaters have the right to clean-up a misstatement made in crossfire/cross ex in their speeches.

Virtual Debate

The expectation is that your cameras remain on for the entirety of the time you are speaking in the debate round. My camera will be on as well. Please add me to the chain.

Axioms

“That which is asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence.” — Christopher Hitchens

”There are three ways to ultimate success: The first way is to be kind. The second way is to be kind. The third way to be kind.” — Mr. Rogers

Contact: jonwaters7@gmail.com

Email: asw263@cornell.edu

Hey! I'm Arthur Wayne and I did LD for Millburn High School for 4 years and was team captain my junior & senior years. I have extensive experience in both circuit and traditional debate, so I am receptive to literally any type of argument and would consider myself to be tab (won't carry any assumptions coming into the round).

Judging:

- K, Phil, tricks, theory/T, policy, traditional are all a-ok! Just have fun, flesh out your args, and be respectful of others

Speaks:

- in tech rounds, I will grant speaks based on strategy, efficiency, and I'll give extra speaks for any unique strategy/positions/arguments

- in traditional rounds, I will grant speaks based purely on your ability to persuade

- sign posting and overviews are v nice :)

James Bowie 19

Tulane 23

email: theduke144@gmail.com

I debated on the Texas circuit for 4 years and qualified for the TOC my senior year.

I'm teaching (or have taught at) NSD Flagship/Texas, TDC, and Flex Debate.

TLDR- I like most arguments. I read mostly critical positions but would prefer you to just read whatever you are best at- persuasion is important to me because i don't want to be bored.

Speaks-

They start at 28.5. I will evaluate speaks based on strategy but also ethos and knowledge of your position. I'll also index to the quality of the pool and if you keep me interested the entire debate I will reward +++. I'm not going to disclose them-- chill you infomaniacs.

K affs and T FW-

I like them but I'd prefer them to be grounded in the topic. I don't care if you are sketchy initially but please make the 1ar overview or something clear. Judging vs T FW-- I have no biases here, but would prefer substantive engagement with a c/i or something in addition to impact turns. Also, impact turns need to be fleshed out and specific. If you're reading T fw im more persuaded by fairness arguments and a TVA.

Policy args--

These are fine, I never really read these. But I can prob judge them fine, just don't assume I understand the intricacies of the topic. Also please weigh. I believe in 0% risk. I don't like dumb perms. Please collapse.

K's--

Read what you like. I am familiar with a lot of the lit but will just go along with whatever your spin/interpretation is. the 1NC needs to answer in some capacity prempts in the 1AC. Good debates here are what will get the highest speaks.

KvK--

I have found myself judging a lot of these debates so I added this section. I like big-picture overviews that are clear. These dont need to be very long but i want to clearly be able to identify the tension point of the debate. I also want synthesis in the 2nr- this means i want you to not just extend particular parts of your critique but explain them in context with 1ar args-- implicit clash will only go so far.

Theory--

default - DD, CI, no rvi. Weigh in the 2NR/ar. I was never in love with theory debate and am probably not the best judge for multiple shell debates. I will evaluate k first args but default to theory first.

Phil and tricks--

will judge these styles of debate but will not promise to judge them well. NOTE-- for me to vote on dumb arguments i require you to have a high amount of ethos ie if i am not feeling like your argument is persuasive in this context i will not be inclined to vote for it. I also wont feel bad randomly deciding im not voting for your argument if it is akin to must [insert random thing] theory.

Extra-

-If you are debating a novice or person you are way better than just read what you would normally read but a little slower and be nice to them-- these debates were always awkward for me.

- fine with speed, sit where you want, flex prep is fine.

- I will give you a 28.9+ if you sit down early and win-- tell me if your sitting down early bc i wont be timing- i dont want to hear you ramble.

- 2NR/2AR overviews are v persuasive to me - don't expect me to piece together a ballot story - collapse and tell me in 10secs at the beginning of your speech what my RFD should be

Influential Judges: Kris Wright, Sam Azbel, Momo Khattak, and Saeshin Joe

Debate Paradigm

Paul Wexler Coach since 1993, Judge since 1987 Debated CEDA,College Parli, HS LD and Policy, College and HS Speech Current Affiliation: Needham High School Coach (speech and debate) I coach a little with Arlington HS (Massachusetts)
Previous Affiliations: Manchester-Essex Regional, Boston Latin School, San Antonio-LEE, College of Wooster (Ohio) (competitor) , University of Wisconsin (Madison)(coach): Debate and Speech for Irvine-University HS (CA) (competitor)

Coach: All debate events (LD, PF, WSD, Congress) plus spectrum of speech events.

Novice Paradigm is here first, followed by PF, and then LD (though much of LD applies to PF and nowadays even policy where appropriate)- Congress and Worlds is at VERY end.

I put the novice version first, to make it easy on them. Varsity follows. LD if below PF (even though I judge a good deal more LD than PF).

PLEASE NOTE SECTION BELOW REGARDING DISCLOSURE BY NEEDHAM AND ARLINGTON HS (MA) TEAM MEBMERS!

Novice Version (all debate forms)

I am very much excited to be hearing you today! It takes bravery to put oneself out there, and I am very happy to see new members join our community.

1)The voting standard ( a way to compare the arguments made by both sides in debate) is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

2)I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals/final focus/, will receive 'one-sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

3) As noted above, be sure to weigh your arguments compared to the arguments made by the other side. That means " We are winning Argument A - It is more important than the other sides Argument B (even if they are winning argument B) for reason X"

4) Have fun! Learn! If you have questions, please ask. This is an amazing activity and to repeat what I said above, am 'glad and gladder and gladddest' you are part of our community.

To earn higher speaker points...(Novice Version)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

Exhibit the ability to use CX /crossfire effectively ( This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.)

To earn lower speaker points (novice version)

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making arguments which offend, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or classist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)Use cases obviously not your own or obviously written by a super-experienced teammate or coach. Debate is a place to share your ideas and improve your own skills. Channelling or being a 'ventriloquist's dummy' for someone else just cheats yourself. Plus, for speaker point purposes, you are not demonstrating you have mastered the skill of communicating your OWN ideas, so I can't evaluate them.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4) For outrounds and flip rounds, please especially note section marked 'outrounds' at end

PUBLIC FORUM

I've judged it and coached it since the creation.

I default to voting on the whole resolution. I vote for whichever side shows it is preponderantly more desirable That may include scope, impact, probability, timeframe etc.

Most of what I say under Lincoln-Douglas below applies here, regarding substance as well as theory/and Ks. The differences OR key points are as follows.

1) I judge PF as an educated layperson- i.e. one who reads the paper (credibile news sources) but doesn't know the technicalities of debate lingo.

As such your 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

1b) I shall ignore 'theory' arguments completely (in PF, I will also ignore 'education' theory arguments, as well as 'fairness'-- '. Frame those arguments in terms of substance if you opt to make them, if there is a connection you will be fine). Theory arguments as such shall be treated as radio silence on my flow. I will also default to thinking you are uninterested in doing the work necessary to understand the topic, and that you are publicly announcing you are proud of being ignorant.

If someone's opponent is prima facie unfair or uneducational, say so without running a 'shell'.

1c) I WILL evaluate K's when based on the topic literature. Many resolutions DO have a reasonable link when one does the research

Your rate of delivery should be appropriate to the types of arguments you are making.

2)Stand during the cross-fire times. This adds to your perceptual dominance.

3) Offer and justify some sort of voting standard I can use to weigh competing arguments.

4) On Evidence...

--a)Evidence should be fully explained with analysis. Evidence without analysis isn't persuasive to me. (the best evidence will have analysis as well, which is the gold standard- but you should add your own linking to the round itself and the resolution proper).

4b) In order to earn higher speaker points, I expect evidence use to adhere to the full context being used and accessible. This doesn't mean you can't paraphrase when appropriate, it does mean reciting a single sentence or two and/or taking excessive time when asked to produce the source means you are still developing your evidence usage ability. Of course, using evidence in context (be it a full card or proper paraphrasing-) is expected Note #6 below.

You will also want to make note of the 'earn higher speaker points' in the novice ection above, it also applies to varsity.

--Quantitative claims always require evidence, the more recent the better.

--Qualitative claims DO NOT always require evidence, that depends on the specific claim.

-5)-Be comparative when addressing competing claims. The best analytical evidence compares claims directly within itself.

-6)Produce requested evidence in an expeditious fashion- Failure to do so comes of YOUR prep time, and eventually next speech time. Since such failure demonstrates that organizational skills are still being developed. Being in the 'developing skills' range is, like with any other debate skill, reflected in speaker points earned.

'Expeditious' means within ten seconds or so, unless the tournament invitation mandates a different period of time

-7)-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in summary or final focus are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

8)No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

9) I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during a speech.

10) What I have to say elsewhere in this document about how to access higher speaker points, technical mattters, and how to earn super low points by being offensiv/rude also applies to PF.

Most Importantly- as with any event " Have fun! "If you are learning and having fun, the winning shall take care of itself."

LD Debate -Varsity division

Note on January February 2023 topic. Making arguments grounded in racist appeals (such as claims group X is more prone to criminality) will result in a loss and low speaker points.

Shorter Version (in progress) (if you want to run some of these, see the labeled sections for most of them, following)

-Defaults to voting criterion.

-Theory-will not vote on fairness or disclosure. It will be treated as radio silence. See below for note regarding both Needham HS and Arlington regarding disclosure of cases by team members.

-Education theory on the topic's substantial, topic-related issues OK but if frivolous RVIs are encouraged.(i.e., brackets theory, etc ) I will almost always vote on reasonability.

--Will not vote on generic skepticism. May vote on resolution-specific skepticism

-Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in rebuttals are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

-It is highly unlikely I shall vote on tricks or award higher speaker points for tricks-oriented debaters

-No 'kicking' out of arguments unless the opponent agrees with said kicking. "You broke the argument, you own it."

-Critical arguments are fine and held to the same analytical standard as normative arguments.

-Policy approaches (plans/CPs/DAs) are fine. They are held to same prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds- That also means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence better be recent. If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens as in actual CX rounds' you should opt for a different strategy.

-Narratives are fine and should provide a rhetorical model for me to use to evaluate approach.

-If running something dense, it is the responsibility of the debater to explain it. I regard trying to comprehend it on my own to be judge intervention.

As I believe debate is an ORAL communication activity (albeit one often with highly specialized vocabulary and speed) I (with courtesy) do not wish to be added to any 'speech document ' for debates taking place in the flesh or virtually. I will be pleased to read speech documents for any written debate contests I may happen to judge.

Role of ballot - See labeled section below- Too nuanced to have a short version

To Access higher speaker points...

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done either of these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

ALSO...

-Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, demonstrate they are actually reasons to vote for you, etc., or at least of lesser importance,

exhibit the ability to listen.(see below for how I evaluate this)

exhibit the ability to use CX effectively (CX during prep time does not do so) This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you to use in later speeches.

To Access lower speaker points

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means you lose speaker points and if offensive enough I'll look for a reason to vote against you.

2)have your coach fight your battles for you- When your coach browbeats your opponents to disclose or flip- or keeps you from arriving to your round in a timely fashion, it subliminally promotes your role as one in which you let your coach do your advocacy and thinking for you.

3)Avoid engaging with your opponent's ideas. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions, tricks, etc., or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points.

4)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest. Running theory as a default strategy is a most excellent and typical way of doing so, and in public at that.-- (But there are other ways).

Longer Version

1)The voting standard is the most important judging tool to me in the round. Whatever else you do or say, weighing how the different arguments impact COMPARATIVELY to the voting standard is paramount.

I strongly prefer debaters to focus on the resolution proper, as defined by the topic literature. I tend to be really, REALLY bored by debaters who spend the bulk of their time on framework issues and/or theory as opposed to topical debating.

By contrast, I am very much interested in how philosophical and ethical arguments are applied to contemporary challenges, as framed by the resolution.

You can certainly be creative, which shall be rewarded when on-topic. Indeed, having a good command of the topic literature is a good way to be both.

My speaker points to an extent reflect my level of interest.

2) I evaluate a debater's ENTIRE skill set when assigning speaker points, including the ability to listen. See below for how I assess that ability.

3)One can use alternative approaches to traditional ones in LD in front of me. I am receptive to narratives, plans, kritiks, the role of the ballot to fight structural oppression, etc. But these should be grounded in the specific topic literature- This includes describing why the specific resolution being debated undermines the fight against oppressive norms.

4) I am NOT receptive to generic 'debate is bad' arguments. Wrong forum.

5) Specifics of my view of policy, critical, performance, etc. cases are at the bottom if you wish to skip to that.

ON THEORY-

I will not vote on...

a)Fairness arguments, period. They will be treated as radio silence. - See famed debate judge Marvin the Paranoid Android's (which I find optimistic) paradigm on this in 'The Debate Judges Guide to the Galaxy.' by Douglas Adams.

"The first ten million (fairness arguments) were the worst. And the second ten million: they were the worst, too. The third ten million I didn’t enjoy at all. After that, their quality went into a bit of a decline.”

Fairness debating sounds like this to me.(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JFvujknrBuE)

And complaints about having to affirm makes the arguer look and sound like this from 'Puddles Pity Party'

Instead, tell me why the perceived violation is a poor way to evaluate the truth of the resolution, not that it puts you in a poor position to win.

b) I will not vote on disclosure theory, it shall be treated as radio silence. The following sentence applies to both Needham HIgh School and Arlington High School. I have assisted a little with Arlington High. Both Needham and Arlington High Schools, by team consensus, do not permit its' members to disclose except at tournaments where it is specified as required to participate by tournament invitation. I find the idea that disclosure is needed to avoid 'surprises' or have. a quality debate to be unlikely.

c) I will vote on education theory. In most cases it must be related to the topic literature. However, I am actively favorable to RVIs when run in response to 'cheap' , 'throw-away' , generic, or 'canned' education theory. Topic only focused, please.

d)Shells are not always necessary (or even usually). if an opponent's position is truly squirrelly ten seconds explaining why is a better approach in front of me than a two or three minute theory shell

e) I am highly unlikely to vote on arguments that center on an extreme or very narrow framing of the resolution no matter how much framework you do- and 100% unlikely based on a half or full sentence blurb.-

'Extreme' in this context means marginally related to the literature (or a really small subset of it)

ON BLIPS AND EXTENSIONS

I believe that debaters indicate through analysis and time management what their key arguments are. Therefore, a one-sentence idea in case, if used as a major voting issue in rebuttals, will receive 'one sentence worth' of weight in my RFD. even if the idea was dropped cold. That's not no weight at all. But it ain't uranium either.

Simply extending drops and cards is insufficient, be sure to connect to the voting standard and explain the argument sufficiently. I do cut the Aff a little more leeway in this regard than the neg due to time limitations, but be careful.

OLD SCHOOL IDIOSYNCRASY- THE IMPORTANCE OF LISTENING

1) On sharing cases and evidence,

Please note: The below does not apply to the reading of evidence cards, nor does it apply to people with applicable IEPs, 504s or are English language learners.

1) I believe that listening is an essential debate skill. In those cases where speed and jargon are used, they are still being used within a particular oral communication framework, even if it is one unique to debate. It makes no sense to me to speak our cases to one another (and the judge), while our opponent reads the text afterwards (even more so as the case is read) and then orally respond to what was written down (or for the judge to vote on what was written down). If that is the norm, we could just stay home and email each other our cases.

In the round, this functions as my awarding higher speaker points to good listeners. Asking for the text of entire cases demonstrates you are still developing the ability to listen and/or the ability to process what you heard. That's OK, this is an educational activity, but a still developing listener wouldn't earn higher speaker points for the same reason someone with developing refutation skills wouldn't earn higher speaking points. My advice is to work on the ability to process what you have heard rather than ask for cases or briefs.

As I believe that act of orally speaking should not be limited to being an anthropological vestige of some ancient debate ritual, I will courteously turn down offers to be added to any speech documents, except at contests designed for such a purpose.

Asking for individual cards by name to examine their rhetoric, context etc, is acceptable, as I don't expect most debaters to be able to write down cards verbatim. I expect those cards to be made available immediately. Any time spent 'jumping' the cards to an opponent beyond minimal is taken off the prep time of the debater that just read the case.

I will most likely only ask for cards at the round's end in the case of ethical challenges, etc, or if I failed to make note of a card's substance through some reason beyond a debater's control (My own sneezing fit for example, or the host school's band playing '76 Trombones on the Hit Parade' in the classroom next door during the 1AC)-

On Non Debater authored Cases

I believe two of the most valuable skills in debate, along with the ability to listen, are the ability to write and research (and do both efficiently).

I further believe the tendency of some in the debate community to encourage students to become a ventriloquist's dummy, reading cases authored by individuals post-HS, is antithetical to developing these skills. Most likely it is also against most schools' academic code of conduct. I reject the idea that students are 'too busy to write their own cases and do their own research'

Therefore

I will drop debaters -with minimal speaker points- who run cases written by any individual not enrolled in high school.

In novice or JV rounds I will drop debaters who run cases written by a varsity teammate.

Further, if I suspect, given that debater's level of competence, that they are running a position they did not write ( I suspect they have little to no comprehension of what they are reading) I reserve the right to question them after the round about that position. If said person confirms my suspicion about their level of comprehension, they will be dropped by me with minimal speaker points.

THAT SAID my speaker points will reward debaters who are trying out new ideas which they don't completely understand yet- I think people should take risks, just don't let yourself be shortchanged of all that debate can be by letting some non-high school student - or more experienced teammate- write your ideas for you. Don't be Charlie McCarthy (or Mortimer Snerd for that matter)

Finally, I am not opposed to student-written team cases/briefs per sae. However, given the increasing number of cases written by non-students, and the difficulty I have in distinguishing those from student-written positions, I may eventually apply this stance to any case I hear for the second time (or more) at a tournament. That day has not yet arrived however.

ON POLICY ARGUMENTS (LARPING)

I am open to persons who wish to argue policy positions as opposed to voting standard If that framework is won.

Do keep in mind that I believe the time structure of LD makes running such strategies a challenge. I find many policy link stories in LD debate, even in late outrounds at TOC-qual tournaments, to be JVish at best. Opponents, don't be afraid to say so.

Disadvantages should have clear linkage to the terminal impact, the shorter the better. When responding, it is highly advantageous to respond to the links. I tend to find the "if there is a .01% chance of extinction happening you have to vote for me" to be silly at best if there is any sort of probability weighing placed against it.

Policy-style debaters assume all burdens that actual policy debaters have, That means if solvency -(or at least some sort of comparative advantage, inherency, etc. is not prima facie shown for the resolution proper, that debater loses even if the opponent does not actually give a response while drooling on their own cardigan. (or your own, for that matter).

That means if you want me to be a policy-maker, your evidence should be super-recent. Otherwise, I may decide you don't meet your prima facie burdens, even for 'inherency' which virtually nobody votes on ever. Why? The same reason one shouldn't read a politics DA from October 2022

Side note: If your OPPONENT does so, please be sure to all call them out on it in order to demonstrate CX or refutation skills. (I once heard someone ignore the fact a politics DA was being run the Saturday AFTER the election, it having taken place the Tuesday prior.... I was sad.

I do have some sympathy for the hypothesis-testing paradigm where up-to-date evidence is not always as necessary- if you sell me on it. Running older evidence under such a framework may or may not be strategic, but it WOULD meet prima facie burdens.

If you don't know what I mean by 'prima facie burdens', or 'hypothesis-testing' you should opt for a different strategy. - Do learn what these terms mean if interested in LARPing, or answering LARPers.

I am also actively disinclined to allow the negative to 'kick out' out of counterplans, etc., in face of an Aff challenge, during the 1NR. Think 'Pottery Barn'- to paraphrase Colin Powell- "You broke the argument, you own it."

ON NARRATIVE ARGUMENTS

In addition to the 'story', be sure to include a rhetorical model I can use to evaluate the narrative in the course of the round. if you do so effectively, speaker points will be high. If not, low.

One can access the power of narrative arguments without being appropriative of other cultures. This is one such approach (granted from a documentary on Diane Nash)

ON CRITICAL ARGUMENTS

I hold them to the same analytical standard as more normative or traditional arguments. That means quoting some opaque piece of writing is unlikely to score much emphasis with me, absent a complete drop by the opponent. And even if there is a complete drop, during the weighing stage I could easily be persuaded that the critical argument is of little worth in adjudicating the round. When debating critical theory, Don't be afraid to point out that "the emperor has no clothes."

In the round, this functions as debaters coherently planning what both they and their sources are being critical of, and doing so throughout the round.

Identifying if the 'problem' is due to a deliberate attempt to oppress or ignorant/incompetent policies/structures resulting in oppression likely add nuance to your argument, both in terms of introducing and responding to critical arguments. This is especially true if making a generic critical argument rather than one that is resolution-specific.

Critical arguments all take place in a context, with the authors reacting to some structure- be it one created and run by 'dead white men' or whomever. The authors most certainly were familiar with whom or what they were attacking. To earn the highest speaker points, you should demonstrate some level of that knowledge too. HOW you do so may vary, your speaker points will reflect how well you perform under the strategy you choose and carry out in the round

In any case, be sure to SLOW DOWN when reading critical arguments.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT-

I believe that debate, and the type of people it attracts, provides uniquely superior opportunities to develop the skills required to fight oppression. I also believe that how I vote in some prelim at a tournament is unlikely to make much of a difference- or less so than if the debaters and judge spent their Saturday volunteering for a group fighting out-of-the-round oppression Or even singing, as they do in arguably the best scene from the best American movie ever.--

I tend to take the arguments more seriously when made in out rounds with audiences. The final round of PF in 2021 at TOC was important and remarkable. In fairness, people may see prelims as the place to learn how to make these arguments, which is to be commended. But it is not guaranteed that I take an experienced debater making such arguments in prelims as seriously, without a well-articulated reason to do so.

Also bear in mind that my perspective is that of a social studies teacher with a MA in Middle Eastern history and a liberal arts education who is at least tolerably familiar with the literature often referenced in these rounds. (If sometimes only in a 'book review' kind of way.) But I also default in my personal politics to feeling that a bird in hand is better than exposing the oppression of the bush.

if simply invited or encouraged to think about the implications of your position, or to take individual action to do so, that is a wild card that may lead to a vote in your favor- or may not. I feel obligated to use my personal knowledge in such rounds. YOU are encouraged to discuss the efficacy of rhetorical movements and strategies in such cases.

ONE LAST NOTE

Honestly, I am more than a little uncomfortable with debaters who present as being from privileged backgrounds running race-based nihilist or pessimist arguments of which they have no historical part as the oppressed. Granted, this is partly because I believe that it is in the economic self-interest of entrenched powers to propagate nihilist views. If you choose to do so, you can win my ballot, but you will have to prove it won't result in some tangible benefit to people of privilege.

ON MORALLY OFFENSIVE ARGUMENTS

Offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

I default to skepticism being in the same category when used as a response to 'X is morally bad' types of arguments.

By minimal speaker points, I mean 'one point' (.1 if the tournament allows tenths of a point) and my going to the physical (virtual) tabroom to insist they manually override any minimum in place in the settings.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or homophobic or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration policy is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally permissible to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.---

Outrounds/Flip Rounds Only

I believe debate offers a unique platform for debaters to work towards becoming self-sufficient learners, independent decision-makers, and autonomous advocates. I believe that side determination with a lead time for the purposes of receiving extensive side specific coaching particular to a given round is detrimental to debaters developing said skills. Further, it competitively disadvantages both debaters who do choose to emphasize such skills or do not have access to such coaching to start with.

Barring specific tournament rules/procedures to the contrary, in elimination rounds this functions as

a) flip upon arrival to the round.

b)avoid leaving the room after the coin flip (i.e., please go to the restroom, etc. before arriving at the room and before the flip)

c) arrive in sufficient time to the round to flip and do all desired preparation WITHOUT LEAVING THE ROOM so that the round can start on time.

d)All restrictions on electronic communication commence when the coin is in the air

Doing all of this establishes perceptual dominance in my mind. All judges, even those who claim to be blank slates, subliminally take perceptual dominance into account on some level. -Hence their 'preferences'. For me, all other matters being equal, I am more likely to 'believe' the round story given by a debater who exhibits these skills than the one I feel is channeling their coach's voice.

Most importantly

Have fun! Learn! "If you have fun and are learning, the winning will take care of itself"

POLICY Paradigm-

In absence of a reason not to do so, I default to policy-maker (though I do have some sympathy for hypothesis-testing).

The above largely holds for my policy judging, though I am not as draconically anti-theory in policy as I am in LD/PF because the time structure allows for bad theory to be exposed in a way not feasible in LD/PF.

Congress

To Access better ranks

1) Engage with your opponent's ideas. Clash with them directly, prove them wrong, further develop ideas offered previously by speakers on the same side of legislation as yourself, demonstrate opposing ideas are actually reasons to vote for you, etc

2)Speech organization should reflect when during a topic debate said speech is delivered. Earlier pro speeches (especially authorships or sponsorships) should explain what problem exists and how the legislation solves for it. Later speeches should develop arguments for or against the legislation. The last speeches on legislation should summarize and recap, reflecting the ideas offered during the debate

3)Exhibit the ability to listen. This is evaluated through argument development and clash

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may be used be 'real' legislators is the gold standard. (government reports or scholarly think tanks or other policy works. Academic-ish sources (JSTOR, NYRbooks, etc) are next. Professional news sources are in the middle. News sources that rely on 'free' freelancers are below that. Ideological websites without scholarly fare are at the bottom. For example, Brookings or Manhattan Institute, yes! Outside the box can be fine. If a topic on the military is on the docket, 'warontherocks.com ', yes!. (though cite the author and credentials. in such cases)

4b) Souce usage corresponds to the type of argument being backed. 'Expert' evidence is more important with 'detailed' legislation than with more birds-eye changes to the law.

5)exhibit the ability to use CX effectively - This DOES NOT mean 'stumping the chump' it DOES mean setting up arguments for you or a colleague to expand upon a speech later. Asking a question where the speaker's answer is irrelevant to you- - or your colleagues'- ability to do so later is the gold standard.

6)PO's should be transparent, expeditious, accurate and fair in their handling of the chamber.

6b)At local tournaments, 'new PO's will not be penalized (or rewarded) for still developing the ability to be expeditious. That skill shall be evaluated as radio silence (neither for, nor against you)- Give it a try!

To Access worse ranks

1) Act like a rude, arrogant, condescending, ignoramus. (or just one of these)

In other words, making offensive arguments, 'ist' arguments or behaving like a jerk - If you have to ask, chances are you shouldn't. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Being racist or sexist or homophobic or transphobic means one loses regardless, but behaving like a jerk in a non-'ist' way still means I'll look for a reason to rank you at the very bottom of the chamber, behind the person who spent the entire session practicing their origami while engaged in silent self-hypnosis.

2)If among any speaker other than the author and first opposition, rehashing arguments that have already been made with no further development (no matter how well internally argued or supported with evidence your speech happens to be backed with)

3)Avoiding engaging with the ideas of others in the chamber- either in terms of clashing with them directly or expanding upon ideas already made

4)Evidence usage. Using evidence that may NOT be used be 'real' legislators is the gilded standard. Examples include blatantly ideological sources, websites that don't pay their contributors, etc. This is especially true if a technical subject is the focus of the debate.

4b)In general, using out of date evidence. The more immediate a problem the more recent evidence should be. Quoting Millard Fillmore on immigration reform should not more be done than quoting evidence from the Bush or even the Obama Administration. (That said, if arguing on the level of ideas, by all means, synthesize important past thinkers into your arguments)

5) Avoiding activity such as cross-examination

5b)'Stalling' when being CXed by asking clarification for simple questions

6)Act like someone uninterested in knowledge or intellectual hard work and is proud of that lack of interest

7)POs who show favoritism or repeatedly make errors.

What (may) make a rank or two of positive difference

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of others, etc. while avoiding being condescending. Be inclusive during rules, etc. of those from new congress schools or are lone wolves.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged, and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (Plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to ranking high without knowing it...)

If I think you have done the above, it will improve your rank in chamber.

World

First, Congrats on being here. Well earned. One piece of advice- Before starting your speaking in your rounds , take a moment to fix the memory in your mind. It is a memory well-worth keeping.

I have judged at the NSDA Worlds Invitational since 2015 with the exception of two years, though I have coached the New England teams each year. I judged WSD at a few invitationals and competed in Parli in college.

While I am well-experienced in other forms of debate (and I bloviate about that quite a bit here) for this tournament I shall reward teams that do the following...

-Center case around a core thesis with supporting substantial arguments and examples. (The thesis may- and often will- evolve during the course of the round)

-Refutation -(especially in later speeches) integrates all arguments make by one's own side and by the opposition into a said thesis

--Weighs key voters. Definitions and other methods should be explicit

Effectively shared rhetorical 'vehicles' between speakers adds to your ethos and ideally logos.

---Blips in constructive speeches blown up large in later speeches are weighed as blips in my decision calculus

--Even succinct POIs can advance argumentation

-Avoid using counterintuitive arguments.(often popular in LD/PF/CX) If you think an argument could be perceived as counterintuitive when it is not, just walk me through that argumentation.

Debate lingo such as 'extend this" and "pull that" confuse me for the purposes of the round - I will ignore debate lingo unless you explain the argument itself.

--Use breadth as well as depth when it comes to case construction (that usually means international examples as well as US-centric, and may also mean examples from throughout the liberal arts- science, literature, history, etc.- When appropriate and unforced.

If a model is offered, I believe 'fiat' of the legislative (or whatever) action is a given so time spent debating otherwise shall be treated as radio silence. However, mindsets or utopia cannot be 'fiat-ed'.

To earn higher speaker points and make me WANT to vote for you-

-Engage with your opponent's ideas for higher speaker points. Avoiding engaging through reliance on definitions or other methods may win you my ballots, but will earn lower speaker points. (This DOES NOT mean going deep into a line by line, it does mean engaging with the claim and the warrant)

Be kind/professional towards those less experienced or skilled. i.e. , make their arguments sound better than they probably are, make your own arguments accessible to them, organize the disorganized ideas of opponents, etc. while avoiding being condescending.

If clearly outclassed, stay engaged and professional. Try to avoid being visibly frustrated. We have all been there! You will absolutely get this eventually. (plus, you never know- you may make the 'golden ticket argument ' to winning the round without knowing it...)

If I think you have done these, it will always result in bonus speaker points.

and needless to say, I'm sure, offensive debaters, such as those who actively call for genocide will be dropped with minimal speaker points. The same is true for those who are blatantly racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

If an argument not intended to be racist or sexist or pro-murder could be misused to justify the same, that would be debatable in the round- though be reasonable. "if it looks like a duck, and sounds like a duck, chances are it IS a duck." Arguing over if general U.S. immigration is irredeemably racist is debatable in the round, arguing that an entire group of people should be excluded based on religion is racist on face, and arguing that it is morally acceptable (or even amoral) to tear gas children is a moral travesty in and of itself.

Again, congratulations on being here!! You have earned this, learn, have fun, make positive memories...

When it comes to judging a debate, I look for several different things.

The first is following a general code of conduct. I expect competitors to be respectful to one another, as well as respectful to all who are viewing or judging the event. I feel like that should be a given, and any time I have seen competitors behave in a way that I would consider unprofessional or unkind, I have criticized them for doing so. Any disrespect to opponents will not be tolerated. I have stopped time in the middle of a round and demanded a competitor be more respectful to their opponent, and I am not afraid to do it again. Persistent interruption, purposeful or micro aggressions, blatant disrespect, leaving the room or round, mockery, or any other form of unkindness will not be tolerated in any way.

The next is understanding the topic and information at hand. In my opinion, if you cannot put any of the issues at hand into your own words, you do not understand the content well enough. Having the sources and quotations is great, but I need to see fluency in your case materials. Further, I expect competitors to be able to ask questions about their opponent's case that relate to the subject at hand. I find all of the time frames of debate to be very valuable and I do not tolerate wasting that time.

I also look for quality of the case. Specifically for Lincoln-Douglas, a case should be based on legitimate and provable substance. Too many times I have seen competitors build an entire case based on a Red Herring fallacy, and it is extremely apparent that these competitors do not understand the material, nor do they understand the structure of debate. For Public Forum, I look for legitimate and factual evidence that enforces the case, as well as questions that point out weaknesses in their opponent's case. There are times where competitors ask a question that has almost nothing to do with the matter at hand and is only asked to confuse their opponents. These are signs of a debater who is not deserving of a win.

Similarly to the above, I draw a hard line between debate styles. Public Forum cases should be based on facts and empirical evidence. I do not want to morality discussed in a PF round, unless it can be proven with fact in some way. Lincoln-Douglas cases should be based on moral values that are supported by fact. I do not want to see anyone ask for a plan to fix a problem in an LD round. I do not support blending of debate styles. Ultimately, if your goal is to debate on a particular style, you must be competing in that event.

Additionally, I look for competitors who are able to act quick on their feet and roll with the punches. As a former debater, I'm able to relate to these competitors. I've competed against people who have broken the rules, people who have no case to debate against, people who are difficult to understand for various reasons, people who have become enraged and/or violent, and people who were absolutely better debaters than me who were able to ask questions that got me tongue tied. I expect competitors to able to work with what they're given. If your opponent asks for a definition and you don't have one, provide one of your own. If there is still time in crossfire and you don't have any more questions, come up with more or ask your opponent to restate something. There is ALWAYS a way to defend your case.

My final decision on who wins the debate will always go to the case that holds up the best by the end of the round. Which side had the strongest contentions? Which side was able to defend their case from attacks the best? It is not common that any other factors will swing my decision. However, if I feel it is necessary to criticize the strongest team, I will do so.

Email: joshyou12@gmail.com

I did LD at Lakeville North from 2009-2013 and coached LD at Apple Valley from 2013-2017. I also did NPDA-style college parli from 2013-2017.

Overview:

• In general, I would like to hear a smart, substantive debate about the resolution that uses the topic lit. I tend to enjoy "policy" arguments and moral philosophy debates the most.
• I have only judged 1-2 tournaments a season since the 2017 school year so I might not be familiar with latest LD lingo. Minneapple 2021 is the first tournament I've judged in approximately one year.

Speed/clarity:

• I value clarity very highly, both in terms of enunciation and adequately explaining arguments. I deeply dislike judging rounds that I can't understand for one reason or another. I have more to say about this in the theory and K sections but please understand that I promise to reward clarity and punish lack of clarity, so it is in your interest to make sure I understand you.
• All that said, speed is fine per se.
• I won't look at speech docs before the end of the round.

Theory:

• I'll vote on theory if you win it. But I'd rather not hear theory most of the time, so if I think your shell is frivolous you'll get lower speaks and I'll have a low threshold for responses to it. This also applies to ACs that are loaded with spikes/paragraph theory.
• It is in your best interest to explain arguments well and not dump a lot of one-liners that I will struggle to get on my flow. I rarely catch more than half of the arguments in a theory underview, and the ones I do get down are usually unwarranted or underwarranted. "Concession" by your opponent will mean very little if anything in these scenarios.
• I'm not really a fan of the RVI despite not liking theory. If you can beat back a frivolous theory shell quickly I would prefer you go back to substance.

Kritiks/critical stuff:

• I’m fine with Ks in principle but in practice many suffer from inadequate explanations of content and function. I have very little patience for sophistry or obfuscation and I will not hesitate to discount or disregard arguments that are not sufficiently clear. If you absolutely need to read a dense or jargon-heavy card, then the tag should be in plain language, define the key words or phrases in the card, and explain the argument in enough detail to be understood.
• I won't necessarily intervene against performance and non-topical affs but I'm pretty inclined to think the aff has to be topical.
• It's totally fine to argue that a given round should be dedicated to thinking about how to combat a certain type of oppression but for hopefully obvious reasons I will not take that to mean that only impacts to a specific demographic group matter when evaluating the policy/method/whatever being debated.

Policy arguments:

• I love good util/policy-style debate. However, I find bad util debates annoying to judge since I often have to intervene to resolve them. If you want to avoid that, then develop and weigh your impacts. All util debates are math problems, treat them as such.
• Your evidence almost certainly doesn't say that you control 100% of your terminal impact and I will pay attention to that, even if your argument is conceded.
• On the same note, I tend to discount poorly-justified big-impact scenarios (note: poorly-justified and low-probability are not synonymous). I am not biased against extinction arguments (the opposite, really) but I also prefer smart arguments.
• I like plans that are reasonably balanced and representative of the topic lit. Unfortunately many recent LD topics have featured hyper-specific/unbalanced plans and I am pretty receptive to T in those cases.

Counterplans:

• I really like good plan/counterplan debates and I think the neg should nearly always run a counterplan. As for theory, I am annoyed by lot of PICs (specific interps/counterinterps are good here) and strongly dislike agent CPs (no need for specificity as they're all bad). I lean towards condo good.

Framework/philosophy:

• I'm fine with philosophy-heavy cases as long as they're well explained. I like good framework debates but I prefer frameworks that allow for interesting contention-level debates (I'm not saying you have to engage on the contention level, but it's a good heuristic for whether your framework is "tricky" or "squirrelly").
• I default to thinking that intuitively good/bad things really are good/bad. I appreciate good counterexamples/intuition pumps. Making your opponent's framework sound silly in cross-ex will help your speaks a lot.
• If the framework debate or the contention debate under the winning framework is ambiguous, I default to accounting for moral uncertainty.
• I dislike theoretical (that is, debate theory) framework justifications.

Speaker points:

• You'll get higher speaks for making good arguments, being strategic, reading original, well-researched positions, explaining argument content and function clearly, and sounding persuasive.
• You'll get lower speaks for being unclear or confusing, not engaging with the relevant topical/philosophical literature, reading frivolous theory, avoiding clash, and being a jerk.
• I'll do my best to calibrate my speaks with the overall judge pool but it's possible my speaker points won't quite keep up with point inflation now that I'm not judging very often.

Misc:

• To the extent that extensions are a mere formality (e.g. when there is no clash on an entire layer of the debate) I'm not picky about them at all and you can be extremely brief but they definitely matter if you want to do warrant comparison and weighing.

full paradigm

I debated for La Canada High School from 2013-2017.

Email: axyzhao@gmail.com

POLICY

Familiar with common kritiks like neolib, security, and biopower. Please thoroughly explain your links in the context of the aff.

I'm probably best at evaluating a counterplan/DA strategy, but obviously will listen to everything else to the best of my ability.

I err neg on condo, but don't default judge kick.

Know less about the topic than you do, so please over-explain acronyms and topic-specific jargon.

__

LD

I default to epistemic modesty when evaluating philosophy/framework debate. "Winning framework" does not mean that I will only evaluate impacts under that framework; I will treat framework as a weighing mechanism, making certain impacts more or less important than others.

I default to debate as a comparison of advocacies - you have to win offense to your advocacy.

Explicit extensions of every card in the 1AC are not necessary. Debaters only have to explain their offense briefly if it's dropped.

I am a parent judge :)