Email for chains: chrisbrannen(at)gmail. com (Put the @ where the (at) is)

Teacher in Goose Creek CISD

I’ve been an educator for 15 years and coached Debate for 8 years.

On Policy:

* On Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts. I'm generally deciding the debate by weighing the impacts of arguments at the end of the round.

* On Kritiks: I don't like kritiks much, but I recognize they are a thing and that even the actual government uses the reasoning present as a justification for some policy decisions. Personally, I find K logic to be circular and uncompelling. If you and your opponents really want to K debate, I'll hear it and try to judge it but I probably won't enjoy it much. :(

* On DAs: Make sure that you do solid impact comparison. At the end of the round, I need something to weigh. The link controls the direction of uniqueness/the DA, not the other way around. Arguments like this can be helpful to you

*On Framework: If you give me a framework, and win the framing debate, I will view the round through your framework. You still have to impact the debate and win down the flow. In other words, if your opponents meet your framework better than you and say so they win. If your framework is morally repugnant to me I will reject it. In the absence of framework debate, I default policymaker.

* On Topicality: The plan is what makes you topical. I will view the round through the lens of competing interpretations unless you tell me to do otherwise. I don’t think affs need to specify their agent.

* On Speed: I'm good on most speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

* On Theory: I default to reasonability. I'll hear a good theory argument, though, given that it is thoughtful and has a point. I don’t vote for whining. I really don’t care if your opponent hurt your feelings or offended your sensibilities. Beat them on the flow and we can discuss them being mean after the round. I'll even go tell on them to their coach if they were really bad. :)

* On Counter plans: I like them. I prefer single-actor counter plans to multilateral actor counter plans. I generally believe that if the US already belongs to that organization then the counterplan is plan plus or the net benefit doesn’t have a link. Absent debate, I think PICS are good and dispositionality or unconditionality makes for good debate.

* On Decorum: I award speaker points based on my preferences. I like polite debaters who appear to enjoy the activity and I reward that. I like debaters to stand during their speeches and during cross-examination. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

* On Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, it must be red-flagged in the 2NR or 2AR. I generally find quality round overviews in the last rebuttal to be helpful for me to understand why you think you have won the debate.

* If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On LD:

# I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

# On Speed: I'm good on speed. I’m kind of deaf so yell.

# On Framework: If you don't provide a scale in the round to judge by, I will (likely) fall back on who argued their Value/Criteria framework the best.

# On Plans in LD: I prefer a traditional debate, but some of the resolutions these days really do lend themselves to plans. I don't love them, but I'll try to keep an open mind if you want to run a plan or a CP.

# On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

# On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

# On Rebuttals: In your rebuttal, crystalize for me. Give me voting issues. Use debate jargon, I’m good with it. I’m looking for who wins the key issues of the debate. Tell me what you think those are and why you think you won them. (Or why you think your opponent lost it.)

# On Decorum: There are lines of decency one should not cross. LD is about values. I have no problem imposing a base level of my own values to the round. I award a wide range of points in debate based on my preferences. I find objectionable language unacceptable as it rarely provides a good warrant.

# If you have questions about anything, feel free to come talk to me at any tournament. I’ll do my best to answer your questions.

On PF:

% I expect you to share evidence. Don't even wait for your opponent to ask. Plan on sharing it.

% On Speed: I'm good on speed, but PF is about communication. Don't be too obnoxiously fast. If you're going faster than Ben Shapiro, you're going too fast. Also, I’m kind of deaf so yell.

% I like frameworks. If you don't give me a framework in the constructive, I will default to reasonability.

% On Clarity: Use conditional statements and make your logic clear for me. Don't make me guess. I want to hear your reasoning. Don’t make assertions without backing those assertions. (Warrants? Impacts?)

% On Signposting: Signpost clearly. Make sure you remind me where we are and what the order of the arguments are. Repetition is a skill in speeches. It isn’t bad unless you overdo it.

% You have to do the order of the speeches and crossfire the traditional way. Don't negotiate to change the times or skip the grand crossfire.

% Use the final focus to tell me why you won. Crystallize the round for me.

On Congress:

! On Structure: Speeches that have solid structure make me glad. Intro/Thesis/Transition/Body/Transition/Conclusion.

! On Clash: DEBATE!!! It is Congressional DEBATE! DEBATE! Clash with your opposition!

! On Decorum: But be nice about it.

! On Argumentation: I don't like or expect the same speech 4 or 5 times in a round. The flow ought to grow. Call out the names of other reps and agree and/or clash with them! I start giving lower scores for speeches where I just hear the same thing. Bring something new! (CLASH, baby, CLASH!!!)

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

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

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

Aff winning percentage: .551

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

OVERVIEW

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

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

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

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

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

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

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

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

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

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

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

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

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

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

That said:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL so respect is key. (Yes, I also find it strange that I have to clarify respect is a need, but hey I've seen some bad rounds) So any ad hominem, whether directly stated, insinuated, or indirectly introduced to the round (for example through a card/argument) will NOT be tolerated.

General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.

Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. With that being said, every speaker will start in the middle of the range and either move up or down dependent on communication ability argumentation, and decorum; YES decorum does matter A LOT.

LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. If there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.

Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.

When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.

However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.

I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!

Policy Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. If you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).

YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it, that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.

In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.

Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out, but full disclosure the easiest way for the Neg to get my ballot is to prove the Aff has no Inherency:

Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me (same holds for prompting)

Policy--------------X-------------------------------K

(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)

Tech-----------------------X------------Truth
(This is a tough one for me as I have seen both sides unfairly cost someone the round. I will listen to arguments, but as I stated earlier you need to persuade me on it, just because there is a card that says x that does not necessarily make it true. For example there are "cards" that argue the Holocaust never happened. So basically I do my best to keep my knowledge or understanding out of the round, but there are just some things that I cannot let slide (next sentence is an exmaple). Essentially, just make sure your arguments hold validity and warrants to them, don't tell me that Haiti will cause nuclear war when it's the poorest country in the Western Hemisphere...no one should accept that argument)

Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards

(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)

Quality ------------X------------------------Quantity

(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to them!)

Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad

(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)

States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad

(Eh…it is what it is, just tired of hearing it)

Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most

Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity

Limits------------X----------------------------------Aff ground

Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)

I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read

(I will only flow what you said/what can be understood, but be aware 9 times out of 8 [yes you read that correctly] during prep,I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. Don't think this is fair, then you should have cut the card correctly and fairly. If you did powertag and your opp calls you out, good luck getting my ballot)

Fiat anything you desire--------------X----------Let's be realistic about this

CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency

DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case

Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)

Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer

(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)

Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments

(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)

At State in LD and Policy my default is 27, unless you are truly impressive or the opposite.

Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.

PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF

WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet

Interp

Do NOT try to read me. Don't try to read me to determine how you are doing, you can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or I may react to the literature, but that does not mean the performance is on par with the strength of the piece. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.

There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful, right? I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.

I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember, this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everything is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experiencing the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".

In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.

Name: Connor Ferguson

Email: connor.l.fergusonwork@gmail.com

Yes, I would like to be included on the email chain.

Affiliation: Langham Creek High School

*Current for the 2020-21 Season*

Policy Debate Paradigm

I debated at Langham Creek from (2017-2020) this year I am currently helping out my alma mater by helping judging and coaching since corona has sent almost everything virtual.

Some things to know about me: I love when debaters find new angles or ways to access arguments in the debate. I also think that an old argument or backfile check strat is viable if run properly and can be quite fun. I'm a pretty easy-going judge who doesn't dislike any argument, if it makes sense and is relevant it's good in my book and I'm willing to evaluate it.

Specific Arguments

Critical Affirmatives – I think your aff should be related to the topic; we have one for a reason and I think there is value in doing research and debating on the terms that were set by the topic committee. I think having a text that you will defend helps you out plenty. Framework is definitely a viable strategy in front of me. I will say that the burden for a K aff is set slightly higher than a regular Aff in my opinion.

Disadvantages – Go for it. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad.

Counterplans – I think that PICs can be an interesting avenue for debate, especially if they have a nuanced or critical net benefit. PICs bad etc. are not reasons to reject the team but just to reject the argument. I also generally err neg on these questions, but it isn’t impossible to win that argument in front of me. Condo debates are fair game.

Kritiks - I enjoy a good K debate. Although I feel as if Debaters make K's unnecessarily complicated and tend to trip themselves up in an attempt to trip up the opponent. If you run a K you should easily be able to tell me what the world of the K looks like and be able to explain it during cx.

"Method Debate" - Many debates are unnecessarily complicated because of this phrase. If you are reading an argument that necessitates a change in how a permutation works (or doesn't), then naturally you should set up and explain a new model of competition. Likewise, the affirmative ought to defend their model of competition.

Vagueness - Strangely enough, we begin the debate with two very different positions, but as the debate goes on the explanation of these positions change, and it all becomes oddly amorphous - whether it be the aff or neg. I feel like "Vagueness" arguments can be tactfully deployed and make a lot of sense in those debates (in the absence of it).

We all need to be able to understand what the alternative is, what it does in relation to the affirmative and how does it resolve the link+impact you have read. I will not vote for something that I can't explain back to you.

Case Debate – I think that even when reading a 1-off K strategy, case debate can and should be perused. I think this is probably the most undervalued aspect of debate. I can be persuaded to vote on 0% risk of the aff or specific advantages. Likewise, I can be convinced there is 0 risk of a DA being triggered.

Topicality - I'm down to listen to a good T debate. Having a topical version of the aff with an explanation behind it goes a long way in painting the broader picture of debate that you want to create with your interpretation. Likewise being able to produce a reasonable case list is also a great addition to your strategy that I value.

"Strange" Arguments / Backfile Checks - I love it when debate becomes fun. Sometimes we need a break from the monotony of nuclear armageddon. The so-called classics like wipeout, the pic, etc. I think are a viable strategy.

Theory: I truly love a well-executed Theory shell, honestly theory can go a long way for me. I feel as if people tend to see theory as a time suck, but theory can be an advantageous path for both teams.

Other Information

Evidence - If you are starting an email chain - prep ends as soon as you open your email to send the document. I would like to be on your email chain as well - Connor.l.fergusonwork@gmail.com

High Speaks? - The best way to get high speaks in front of me is in-depth comparative analysis. Whether this be on a theory debate or a disad/case debate, in depth comparative analysis between author qualification, warrants and impact comparison will always be rewarded with higher speaker points. The more you contextualize your arguments, the better. If you are negative, don't take prep for the 1NR unless you're cleaning up a 2NC disaster. The best way to loose speaker points is being blatantly rude and offensive. My least favorite phrase is: "Judge I'm sorry my opponents made you suffer through this round" - you dont know how I feel about a round so don't assume, assuming only makes an ass out of you and me. If you have read this far then good on you. Lighthearted and funny moments are always good to relieve stress. German accents and Zizek impressions are always acceptable.

Any other questions, please ask in person or email – connor.l.fergusonwork@gmail.com

Being involved in debate for the last 40+ years as a competitor to retired coach, I am one to believe in the reason for the activity. Thus, when it comes to judging, I follow the traditional routes. For CX it is all about stock issues with a hint of DAs, CPs, etc. I am not a fan of Kritiks or game playing so try to avoid it if possible. Solvency carries a lot of weight with me. Give voters at the end.

For LD, I love a great clash between values and criterions. Don't dismiss this aspect because to me this is where the original "framework" resides. CPs in LD will be judged based on the CX perspective and thus must be mutually exclusive and competitive. DAs must be presented to evaluate a CP. Give voters at the end.

Public Forum is more of a discussion for me and not necessarily based on card after card after card! Leave this for CX debate. Instead work on explaining and carrying the big picture in the round. No need to do line by line as time doesn't permit it anyway (unless you spread!). Plans and CPs have no role in Public Forum, so do not do it as I have no preference for this as an evaluator! Give voters at the end!

World School is relatively new to me as I have judge only about 20 rounds of it. However, I have judge many parliamentary debate rounds (high school and college) and they tend to relate as the same. I see it as a contest of teamwork to develop reasonable substantive arguments and this is where I will give all my attention to. Don't argue too much on the definitions and burdens as I will be made to select on my own experiences vs. yours (from the world issues). Since NSDA governs WS, I will look to their judges' training mechanism to evaluate every round so make sure you follow the guidelines set by them. Speaker duties are important to make the round what it should look like. Do not make this a CX round and with that, counter mechanisms should be NON-TOPICAL! Speak well and give plenty of eye contact to me as I will be the one to make a final decision as to what is "best" to either uphold/deny the proposition. Good luck!

email chain jimene39218@verizon.net

Coach for the University of Houston, Langham Creek High School, and Memorial High School

A couple of thoughts before I address specific arguments

for Wake/UT - I haven't judged very much this year and don't know what the norms/args are yet

If it’s important say it more than once, I don’t necessarily mean that you should just repeat yourself, but make the argument in more than one place with more than one application.

Highlighting should be able to be read - I think that your evidence should be highlighted in a way that makes at least some grammatical sense - this is kind of subjective but if its a true abomination of words slapped together I won't read around your highlighting to understand what you're trying to say.

please time yourselves

I would like to be on the email chain, clarkjohnson821@gmail.com

CX

T debates (and theory debates) are already very blippy, if you want me to evaluate it, slow down. I like it when teams use T strategically in other areas of the debate.

DA's: good spin > sepcific ev > generic ev. I like intuitive turns case arguments and I love when you can implicate the aff’s internal links and solvency using other parts of the disad. I think that

CP's: These are fine, if you want to know my thoughts on judge kick see Rob Glass's paradigm.

K’s: As long as you approach the debate assuming I won’t understand your version of baudrillard we’ll probably be fine. 2nr (and 2nc to some extent) explanation of what the alt world would look like, how the alt solves the links to the aff, and how the alt solves the impacts are important to me, I find myself to be much more persuaded by neg teams that can do this well.

K affs v fw: I think your aff should in some way be related to the topic, that's not to say that you have to be, just that it will make it easier for you to win those debates.

K affs v k's: this is by far the debate that I have the least experience with, something that's really important to me in these debates is clarity of how the alt/aff functions and how it interacts with the links to your opponent's argument, I tend to find myself being persuaded by detailed alt analysis.

if you’ve noticed a common theme here, it’s that I think the alt debate is important

Theory: Default neg and reject the argument, you should give me reasons to do otherwise, don't expect me to vote on it if you don't slow down and explain your argument, most debaters spread blippy blocks that make it difficult to flow and evaluate, if the 2nr or 2ar want to go for theory in some form or fashion you're going to have to do a modicum of work, saying severance perms bad for 10 seconds at the top of your 2nr is not enough to get me to vote on it as long as the 2ar makes any sort of response.

Counterplans bad is probably not a reason to vote aff

LD

I don’t judge this event as often so I may lack a more nuanced understanding of how things function in LD compared to policy, but with that being said I’m open to however you want to do it, be it traditional or progressive. Your phil and theory debates are a little alien to me coming from how we approach similar arguments in policy, so if that’s what you think you’ll be going for in your 2ar or nr be super clear. Most of my thoughts about args in cx will color my analysis of the arguments you make in LD.

PF

I dont consider the time it takes for your opponents to provide you their evidence as prep time, and I don't think you need to take cx time for it either. If you can’t tell, I am primarily a policy judge and as such I probably have a higher standard for evidence quality and access than your average judge.

other than that I don't have strong opinions when it comes to what arguments you want to read as long as you justify them (read: impacts matter!)

im not familiar with pf norms when it comes to whether you should or shouldn’t answer opponents args in summary or 2nd constructive. And sometimes I feel like I’m inconsistent in trying to figure out and apply what they are in my rounds judging it. As such I will treat it as I would a cx round unless you tell me otherwise - new args can be made in first two speeches, summary should not be new args (but can if they are answering a new argument, ie 1st speaking team makes an argument that directly answers a new arg made by 2nd speakers in the last constructive speech) in terms of extensions through to ff I don't think that saying something in grand is enough for me to weigh it at the end of the debate if you dont extend it through your last speech.

I will probably call for evidence. If you paraphrase, expect me to not treat your evidence with the same level of veracity as someone citing specific parts of their cards.

Former Debater from Barbers Hill High School, TX

I have over six years of debate experience as an LD and CX debater. I spent the majority of my time in CX.

CX:

Impacts: I prefer real-world impacts, but I am open to more kritkal impacts if they are well fleshed-out.

Kritiks: Not my favorite type of argument, but I will vote for them if there is strong link contextualization and the impact suits the situation. Please do not assume I have read the literature. Explain it well and I will be more willing to vote for you.

DAs: My favorite type of argument. A DA with a great link story and a solid impact chain are my favorite ones to listen to. I am not the biggest fan of generic DAs, but you can make them work in your favor with strong link work. The link controls the uniqueness.

Framework: Framework is important to me. Do not be afraid to dive deep in a framework debate. I will view the round through the lens of the framework if you win the framework debate. Keep in mind, if your opponents fit within the realm of the framework better than you do, then they will win the round.

Topicality: I will listen to topicality, but I do not enjoy it as a time-suck argument. Utilize topicality to its fullest extent if you genuinely believe the AFF is not topical.

Speed: I like a moderate speed. I will let you know if I cannot understand you. Please signpost clearly and slow down for tags.

Theory: Like topicality, do not run it if you do not have to. I am open to voting on theory if I see clear abuse.

Counterplans: They are okay. A good DA and CP combo is a solid way to win the debate. Make sure the CP is non-topical, not mutually exclusive, and does not trigger the DA. If your own CP triggers your DA, then I will have a hard time voting for you.

“Performance” Affirmatives: Not my favorite, but if you feel compelled to do so, please convince me why in round.

Decorum: I do not like overly aggressive debates were everyone is rude. Please do not be a rude debater – I will dock your speaker points. Other than that, feel free to have fun. It makes the round more enjoyable to watch!

*Evidence: If you want me to call for evidence, please make it clear in the 1NR or 2AR. I will be more than willing to look at the evidence before I make my final decisions.

If you have questions about anything, feel free to ask. I do not mind clarifying anything that I have stated above or answering more specific questions.

Hendrickson HS'20 --- Debated all 4 years in High School

Email - Beklanelia@gmail.com

-- Not updated for recent topic specifics-----

She/Her

--- Top Level ---

Tech > Truth; but I do tend to lean Truth < Tech on K debates (usually depends on how the debate is)

Clarity over speed; Please slow down for analytics and overviews

Explain your arguments and impact that out - it'll be a lot easier for me to weigh the argument

I also like top-level 2AR/2NR overviews that states why you're winning the debate and what arguments are in your favor

-- Topicality and Framework --

Not a huge T fan but impacted/explain it out well for me and I have no reason not to vote for it

Do calc bt standards - tell me why your standards matter and why that model of debate is important and better

For framework - SSD usually persuades me; tell me why your model of debate is better overall and why that allows for more conversations to happen; debate is a game

-- Kritiks --

I read Afro-pess in high school and I also know the generic kritiks

Contextualize the link to make it specific to the aff

Most teams don't have a good rebost explanation for their alt; explain the alt to me like I'm a kid who doesn't know anything, if I'm lost and don't know what you're talking about I'm most likely going to vote aff

For aff, pragmatism/state good arg are persuasive to me - give me examples if you can

-- DAs --

Impact calc is really important and needed here

Please have a clear explanation of the link

When a team goes for a DA I usually end up voting on DA o/w due to their impact calc and turns case arg

-- CPs --

Explain why the CP solves for the internal links of the aff

Re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC is a quick way for me to give you weigh a lot of weigh on the counterplan

-- Theory --

Slow down

Please impact it out. if I don't know why it was abusive in specific to the debate round, I have no reason to vote on it

Midway '18 / Texas '22

He/him

put me on the email chain: kuanghanson@gmail.com

An argument is a claim, warrant, and impact. If they drop something you said, it doesn't mean it was an argument.

Framework/T-USFG

I haven't judged these debates much. Neg teams should make inroads to the aff's offense with arguments like TVA, cede the political, and case turns. Affs should not only win why the aff is good but why your model of debate is good.

K

I think my role as a judge is to be the adjudicator of a debate round and an employee of the tournament. It's hard to convince me otherwise.

Framework is really important. Have an interpretation about the purpose and power of this space. With enough work, you can convince me to not weigh the consequences of implementing the aff.

Alts should defend something. I am generally uncomfortable voting for an alt if I don't know what that world looks like.

The perm double bind is often an easy way for me to vote aff if mishandled.

T vs plans

Go for it. I'm more likely than most to pull the trigger on technical aff mistakes.

I default competing interpretations. I don't know what reasonability means so define it for me.

I'm not easily persuaded by "in round abuse" standards. Just win that your model of debate is better.

DA/CP/case

yay

Theory

Slow down.

Absent an explicit voting issue, theory is a reason to reject the argument unless it's condo.

If you want a judge kick option, the 2NR must explicitly tell me and pre-empt 2AR theory.

Misc.

I reward speaker points for humor, kindness, confidence, paperless efficiency, clear judge direction, smart cross-ex, strategic vision, organization, clarity, and passion.

I dock speaker points for rudeness, stealing prep, low effort, bad spreading, and not flowing.

In LD,

I prefer on-topic argumentation. I frown upon attempts to get off topic and make the debate about something else regardless of what it is. I prefer debaters to flow and to actually respond to what the other side has said. I do not care for arguments on extreme, fringe ideology.

In CX,

I do not vote on irrelevant or non-sensical argumentation. I am stock issues-policymaker. Aff. must prove solvency. I will vote on solvency or topicality independent of any other issues. Kritiks are fine, the problem is the ridiculous philosophies argued, not the concept of the Kritik. It must show a workable alternative, be competitive and non-topical. I'm especially appalled but the new system of debaters exchanging all information before the speech so that no one is actually listening. The result of that is no clash. One good argument can beat ten weak arguments.

To both,

I do not mind accelerated speed but there is always a limit. I usually do not flow rebuttals but instead are just listening to determine a winner. It does not mean I have made up my mind. Any personal attacks OF ANY KIND, will result in the absolute minimum of speaker points and severely worsens your chance of winning. Also hurting speaker points, but not the winner, would be inappropriate attire. Students (and coaches) should dress in a professional manner.

kedarpandya459@gmail.com

I debated for Elkins High School in Policy and LD. I primarily worked with the K and IR Policy, and that is what I most like to judge.

CX/LD:

TLDR: Tech>Truth. High threshold on T arguments against K affs. Fave debates are K aff v K, or Big Stick v Big Stick.

K and K aff: (top of the pref) -

Know your K. I'm not going to hold small semantic mistakes against you, but if they start adding up it'll make it much harder for me to vote. I'd like to think I know most kritiks and the arguments of their authors, but I'm always open to new ideas.

I need specific arguments about the assumptions/structures you critique, and how they relate to the affirmative. That goes for everything, but generalities tend to pop up in link, K solves case, and A2 Perm arguments.

I also like multi-layer interaction. I default to the idea that debate is kids learning things by arguing about them in a room, not a vacuum. That means real issues that you critique outside of debate exist in debate. K debaters rarely take the jump from critiquing a problem that exists in the world to finding its implications for the round. "What's the point of argumentation skills if they just end up being marketized to serve the constant expansion of global capital," is something I really like to hear an argument about.

More creative/out there the K, more speaks you get. Especially if I feel the need to google the author.

DA, CP, Policy Aff: (top of the pref for IR) (#2 or #3 for anything else)

I give some leniency towards the conclusiveness of a card vs. the purported conclusiveness of a tag. Well-researched is always better than randomly cobbled.

T/Theory: (near the bottom of the pref is this is usually your 2nr)

High threshold against K affs, Default to Reasonability and have to be convinced otherwise, I need actual explanations of terminal impacts beyond the 1nc shell.

Phil: (in the middle of the pref)

I didn't read much of this, but I don't have any predispositions about it.

Speaks: Dune and well-done Star Wars references will get you a 30. Being egregiously mean, or engaging in any phobic/rac/sex-ist behavior will get you a 25. Creative IR and K arguments, especially if I've never heard the scenario or author, will get you a 30.

PF - Be as fast and progressive as you want.

Coach at THE Atascocita High School

PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN: John.Rogers@humbleisd.net

I debated for New Caney High School for three years and have completed my seventh year as a high school coach. My program competes primarily throughout the Houston TFA circuit and has a heavy focus on Congressional Debate, Original Oratory, and Dramatic Interpretation. I judge as needed at local invitational TFA tournaments and have experience judging all debate events, with the exception of World Schools.

CONGRESS:

Presiding Officer Philosophy- If the PO runs a flawless chamber, it is almost certain that they will advance to the next round, especially if they were the only one volunteering to do so.

I like to see all of the normal things we look for within a speech (arguments, evidence, responses to arguments from previous speakers, etc.). Offense is key.

Pet Peeves- (1) Do not tell the PO you have a speech when gathering splits and then not have a speech for the chamber. This makes for bad debate. (2) Faux outrage in order to gain a ballot is annoying. Refrain from shouting and pretending to be angry about something that you don't have a personal stake/connection in/to. (3) Questioning should not be a competition of who can scream over who. It's not a shouting match. (4) Gotcha questions and questions that you already know the answer to are annoying.

CX Shortcuts (1-YES; 5-STRIKE):

T/Theory: 3
DA: 1
CP:1
Conditionality: 4
K: 4

General CX:

· From the 1AR of one of my favorite former Kingwood HS debaters, “You’re a policymaker. You vote on one of three things: (1) a policy option, (2) a competing policy option, or (3) the Status Quo.” I think that this debater did a great job of describing pathways to win my ballot.

· I don’t like intervening in debate rounds. However, I have to write a ballot. My suggestion for all debaters is to use your rebuttal speeches to write my RFD for me. I’m very fond of “even if” strategies when it comes to ordering arguments of importance (Ex: “You vote NEG because of _____. Even if you don’t buy that, you vote NEG because of ___.”)

· Tech > Truth (Please note that I’m reevaluating this idea each time I hear a terrible argument. I don’t recommend counting on me dismissing an argument on a truth standard. I DO recommend going line-by-line.)

· PREP TIME ends when your flash drive leaves your computer. If we’re on an email chain, which I prefer, you will see me get frustrated if I feel you’re stealing prep.

· Line-by-line is important. This is where clash should happen. When you read a long overview, and even though most of y’all tell me to flow it on a separate sheet of paper, those arguments don’t ever cross over to my flow. This is where arguments are missed and, possibly, rediscovered post RFD.

· I will presume NEG in policy rounds due to unlimited prep for the AC. I will, from time to time, depending on the quality of the argument, go for the “any risk of [impact solvency] you vote AFF” in the absence of any negative offense. I will NOT presume NEG for a counter advocacy other than the status quo.

· NEG STRAT: Not a fan of negative teams that go more than 4-5 off.

Speaks:

· In really good rounds, I don’t have a problem giving more than one speaker a 29.5. I don’t tend to give tenths of points other than halves. My speaks in these rounds usually averages somewhere around 28.5.

· I will tank your speaks if you use arguments to attack debaters personally. You should be responding to the argument itself, not assuming that the argument represents the debater that is making it. Same goes to being rude and/or disrespectful to other debaters.

o With that said, I love aggressive debate. If your level of aggressive toes the line of aggressive and disrespectful, I’ll err on aggressive when it comes to my ballot and just make a comment to you at the end of the round.

o Anything overboard that deserves more than just a warning, I’ll stop the round and give you a loss (this hasn’t happened yet throughout my career).

Speed:

· I’m about a 6/10. I can give you a little room to go faster if I have your doc in front of me on my computer.

· Please slow down on your tag lines so as to help me flow. I don’t tend to flow authors unless they’re addressed in the round, so please let me know what the author said (the tag), let me find it on the appropriate flow, and THEN give me your analysis.

-If you try to read at a 10/10 pace and mumble over half of your evidence, that is grounds for 25 speaks. This is almost the same thing as clipping to me.

Disadvantages:

· Go for it.

· Full, 4-card DAs are best for a 1NC.

· Case-specific links are best. As debates get better, I like to see more unique DAs that are more specific to the AFF. Then again, I’m probably more familiar with the generic DAs, so you do you.

Counterplans:

· Go for it.

· Not a fan of multiple CPs as a neg strat.

Impact Calc:

· Please be sure to evaluate risk of impacts instead of making the round about how a nuclear war is definitely going to happen. Appropriately evaluating impacts improves quality of debates tremendously.

K Debate:

· This is probably not the best way to my ballot, but I’d love for a good K team to help me change this mindset.

· While I understand real-life impacts are present in our society (structural violence, racism, sexism), I’d prefer to have some kind of policy solution to these problems rather than just talk about them. I will roll my eyes if the word "reimagine" is in the text of your ALT.

· I have not read any of your literature. I am not familiar with any of your literature. Please make appropriate adjustments if you choose this strategy.

· Not at all a fan of non-topical affirmatives. 1AC should always have a plan text.

Ethical Challenges/Cheating:

· If there is an accusation of cheating, the round will stop, and the burden of proof is on the accuser to prove that the accused cheated. If cheating is proven, the round will be awarded to the accuser, if cheating is not proven the round will be awarded to the accused. 30 speaks for winning team; 20 speaks for losing team. The purpose of this is to discourage false accusations, but at the same time encourage teams to challenge if they have solid evidence that cheating has occurred.

· Debaters are accountable for the evidence that they read. I will be a little more lenient if the card is from a camp file, but that does not excuse blatant misrepresentation/academic dishonesty.

My paradigms are more argumentation based and wholistic (formed from my 6 years of debate experience). I’ll start off with saying my debate background was two years doing CX (policy) debate in high school until I pursued homeschooling. I then joined a collegiate IPDA Debate team to compete for 4 years for both Lee College and the University of Arkansas at Monticello. I am now in a Ph.D. Program at the University of Houston, where I still plan to help guide and mentor new IPDA debaters at Lee College on the side of studying for school.

In the round, I expect you to make your points clear and concise in the first speeches. The next speeches should be spent extending and condensing argumentation. I should be able to tell what your winning arguments are by the end easily. Spreading to go for everything is not my preference for the round and will cheapen the level of argumentation. As long as you weigh the main case points in juxtaposition to the weighing criteria, I will be relatively happy. Keep a clean flow and sign post so that I can follow where you are going in speeches. I am pretty big on being able to logically see the progression of your argumentation on the flow and the impacts/ significance that come with them. Technical argumentation is fine, as are kritiks. Last but not least, I expect all competitors to be cordial and civil while maintaining a high level of decorum and respect for your opponent.

Danielle Starr

Stephen F. Austin State University 22' (family studies & pre-law)

Please add me to your email evidence chain: daniellestarr32@gmail.com

Policy Debate Paradigm:

I am a Tab Judge, so I will vote on anything that is supported and debated well.

I highly encourage structured arguments, offense and defense, and impact debate.

Notes: If spreading then please pop tag lines, and respectful decorum is a must.

Good luck!

For CX Debate, I am a stock issues judges; I love stock issues and think they will guarantee a fruitful debate. However, I really am willing to listen to any argument as long it makes SENSE.

Please, do not force me to listen to some overdone kritik that does not link any way to the affirmative teams case. I also think that debate should be a communication activity; I think every word is important and I would like to hear all of them. If you can make yourself understood while spreading, go for it. If not, that is ok; I believe in quality of arguments over quantity.

Most importantly, have fun and be respectful to all in the room.

Updated January 2024

About me:

I am currently the speech and debate coach at Theodore Roosevelt HS.

I debated policy and LD for four years at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.

I have been judging debate (mostly policy and LD) for over 5 years.

My email is benwolf8@gmail.com if you have any questions before or after rounds.

TL;DR version:

I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy. I think link and perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and warrant arguments. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.

Evidence Standards:

Share your evidence before you deliver the speech. If you ask to see multiple cards from your opponent after they have given their speech, I will start running your prep time.

Speech Drop is great, please use it. https://speechdrop.net/

You should always follow the NSDA evidence rules: https://www.speechanddebate.org/wp-content/uploads/Debate-Evidence-Guide.pdf

You should do your best to be honest with your evidence and not misconstrue evidence to say something that it clearly does not say.

Theory interpretations and violations, plan texts, and alternative advocacy statements should all be included in the speech document.

If you are reading a card and need to cut it short, you should clearly state that you are cutting the card and put a mark on your document so that you can easily find where you stopped reading that card. If you are skipping cards in the speech document, make sure to mention that and/or sign post where you are going. This should avoid the need to send a marked copy of your document after your speech if you do these things, unless you read cards that were not included in your original speech document.

Prep Time Standards:

Prep time begins after the preceding speech/cross-examination ends.

If you have not transferred your speech document to your opponent, then you are still taking prep time. Prep time ends when the flash drive leaves your computer. Prep time ends when the document is uploaded onto speech drop. Prep time ends when the email has been sent. Once the team taking prep time says they are done with prep, then both teams need to stop typing, writing, talking, etc. The speech document should then be automatically delivered to the opponents and judge as fast as technologically possible.

Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.

-Things that will earn you speaker points: politeness, being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.

-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.

-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.

-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.

-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.

The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.

Argument-by-argument breakdown:

Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.

Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.


CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.

DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.

Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything else above is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.