Hi I debated LD throughout high school at Westwood (2018), earned two career bids and qualified to the TOC. pls flash jugal1999@gmail.com

~ last edited 11/21 ~

2021 Longhorn classic stuff

1. I am probably going to be late to the room, PLEASE have an email doc ready to go before I get there

2. I have not done anything debate related in the past 7 months BUT I still follow politics and current events very closely and watch lectures on 4x speed so the only issues I will have are topic specific items (jargon, common link chains) and clarity

3. UT's campus can be very confusing, please feel free to ask me for directions or food recs. It has also not been particularly safe recently so I will strongly encourage you to not stray past Guadalupe street.

4. once the round is over i'll finish typing feedback on my ballot and then give an rfd. it really disrupts my thought process if you interrupt me until I'm done with my rfd, please hold off on questions until then (write them down if you have to). I promise I will provide some feedback on speeches but if u have specific questions (after I am done) fire away!

5. I think my paradigm is still mostly true but I am less patient/less willing to gloss over things that annoy me. Yes, my paradigm is too long but I think I've conveyed my thought process well enough that you will hopefully know what you're getting when you debate in front of me.

general

I coached Westwood from 2018-2021, I have not been very involved with debate in the 2021 fall season.

I was coached by Rodrigo Paramo and I think I share similar views with Bennett Eckert, Travis Fife, and Aaron Timmons.

If you're lazy some pref shortcuts:

LARP - 1

Theory/T - 1-3 (depending on the frivolity of the position)

Kritiks - 2

Phil - 2-4

Tricks - strike

My general disposition towards debate is that it's a competitive arena that has educational potential, because of that I really believe in providing feedback on the debate so please feel free to ask questions!

--- a byproduct of this is that if I believe you are doing something that excludes your opponent from learning anything i will be very annoyed. Things like reading kritiks/theory or spreading against traditional or novice opponents just to cheese a ballot irritate me deeply, please treat your opponent with respect. i would hate to judge a round where a debater did not learn a single thing.

I am NOT tabula rasa and I don't think anyone actually is.

I will ONLY say slow/clear TWICE and after that I'll stop flowing.

My favorite kind of debate was a simple plan/disad/cp debate because I think those brought about the most clash and in-depth evidence comparison at the high school level. That said, I don't want to hear you failing to go for a disad when you've never read one before.

I will not vote for anything I don't understand - I think I have a good grasp of the "generic K's" and Kant but beyond that some explanation might be necessary given I haven't read all of the literature. I think this is especially true for links and alternatives.

I am a very expressive person - I will constantly be making faces in round, think of them as you would like, but I would recommend just ignoring them.

I have become increasingly cynical with k debate in LD the longer I've been judging. It is not fun to judge debates with no clash since no one knows what their position says including the ones reading it. I urge you not to read it unless you're CONFIDENT in your ability to explain it.

I love a good case debate - challenge the aff's home turf.

I STRONGLY believe in disclosure - The only exception is if you are unaware of what the wiki is. Screenshots MUST be provided including TIME STAMPS.

I have a HIGH threshold for good evidence - I think it should be about your scenario and as specific as possible. If it's a politics disad or a time sensitive argument newer evidence from reliable sources prevails.

In the case of cheating (evidence ethics, clipping, etc) I'll vote against the debater in question but will continue the debate. Speaks will be awarded based on the round and I'll subtract 2 points for the cheating. See Rodrigo's paradigm for more specific details for things I agree with.

I largely agree with Rodrigo regarding trigger warnings.

I treat theory/T as a kind of disad/cp debate with the standards being disads to the aff's interp. Please WEIGH! I need impact calc on the net benefits or I will probably throw out the shell.

If you intend to read 5+ cards on case, tell me to get another page for them. I haven't quite learned how to copy paste while flowing on paper.

I will wait until AFTER postrounding to give speaks - if you and/or your coach is rude then your speaks will suffer.

_________________________________________

Speed

I don't recall anyone being too fast for me to understand (I watch school lectures on 4.5x speed) on evidence but for short analytics like theory standards you HAVE to go slower bc I can't write at light speed.

Clarity is a MUST, and debaters almost always think they're clearer than they actually are so maybe go slower.

Speaks

I will award speaks based on what I think your propensity to win the tournament is, based on the round I judged. If I'm confident you can win, you get a thirty, and it'll go down from there. My perception for this might be skewed and I will usually end up giving you lower than what your final record will end up being.

Efficiency and good strategy will bump u up.

Try not to 100% BS facts. If you say xyz is polling at 80% when they're actually polling at 40 you will lose speaks.

I WILL dock speaks for being rude and award speaks for being kind.

I appreciate numbering arguments (1. no link, 2. link turn, 3. perm) and labeling offs (next off - econ disad).

Reading interesting and good arguments will also bump up your speaks. I love unique and specific plans or disads but if the evidence is trash I'm not gonna like it.

Theory

I think potential abuse exists and can be an effective argument even if you have aff specific offense.

I think most theory shells that are based on CX are frivolous (ex. must list perms, must spec k over T, etc)

Counter interps and interps must be flashed before read.

I'm persuaded by disclosure, open source, and brackets - but they still need a warrant - I won't hack. Round reports is silly tho, i've never been convinced there's any real abuse

If the 2n is literally 6 mins of theory/T I think the aff implicitly gets an rvi, since the 2n has conceded substance. I see no benefit to forcing the aff extend the 1ac for ten seconds.

I really LOVE specific and in-depth interps but try and make sure it still makes sense as a universal rule and as a sentence.

Topicality

Dislike semantics first (nebel) and generally think it's a floor not a ceiling but will still vote on it. That said, I still don't know what grammar is and the argument must be coherently explained. If I don't get your violation or understand the warrant for the definition, I can't vote on it.

Developed standards and voters are important and weigh between them if you want to have a good debate

I don't think a dictionary definition is mandatory but in T debates it will go a long ways - the more specific the definition the better. However, I am compelled by arguments saying that a counter interp is incomplete without them.

Interps and counter interps need to be complete statements. I treat them like plan texts since they are an attempt at defining a norm, so things like "Counter interp: let this aff in" are not real counter interps. I think paragraph theory like "conditionality is a voter" is fine.

Plans

I strongly believe they should have solvency advocates

frameworks are a must

I'm not a fan of underviews filled with analytics but if you're going to read that 1ar theory paradigm PLEASE SLOW DOWN.

CPs

For whatever reason I'm more lenient on the existence of a solvency advocate here, that said having one could be relevant to theory debates

One condo is chill

Not a fan of judge kick and will only evaluate the arg if it's made in the 1NC

PICs

I think these are some of the most strategic arguments in debate but I am persuaded by well crafted theory shells saying they're cheating.

Phil

The way I've always thought about philosophical frameworks is the same as Kritiks. There should be a way of explaining the world, a link to the topic, and some sort of impact.

I love util but in my senior year I branched out to deontologists like Kant and Hobbes.

Miss me with your justice v morality args - I don't care

Kritiks

Not a fan of Floating PIKs - I think they're cheating but if your opponent doesn't ask it's fair game if your evidence justifies it

I was a big fan of the security, anthro, and cap K's but specific links make a world of difference.

Unwarranted evidence is far too common in kritik debates. I find it frustrating when the NC is basically just 5 minutes of glorified impact cards.

I have a high threshold for afropessimism based arguments. I think they're often read poorly in LD and commodified, therefore I'm persuaded by the argument that white people shouldn't be advocating for it.

NOT a fan of generic links like the state is anti-black - the more specific the better

Kritik's must have SOME form of framing and I believe that the ROTB might precede case but this must be clearly justified. No, a card listing all the reasons why capitalism is bad and therefore should be stopped is not a ROTB, it needs to talk about education or activism or something related to debate.

Big fan of framework against kritiks done similarly to how Policy does it.

Performance

go for it as long as it isn't something that could potentially endanger someone

I do think all of your actions must be justified

I'm strongly compelled by T-Framework, and think plans are good for debate

Skep/permissability/tricks

no. A burden will result in an almost instant loss. I'm more than happy to discuss this with you outside of round but I think practices that focus on winning from blippy analytics are bad for debate.

I define a "trick" as a preempt that prohibits an action, like the neg can't read counter plans. Things like aff gets rvis or allow 1ar theory are ok, but annoying.

About Me

Hiya! My name is Stevi Kay. I am a Kickapoo Speech & Debate alumni and an aspiring debate coach. During my time in debate, I competed in nearly every event SWMO debate offers. My personal favorite events were LD, POI, OO, and INFO.

Judging Debate

Please have a copy of your cases available to me.

Despite my debate history, I am not your 'traditional' flow judge. I avoid spending a lot of my time on the flow because a) a good debater should be able to convince even a non-flowing judge of the superiority of their arguments and b) because I want to let your public speaking skills shine.

Speed - Please do not sacrifice your skills to read faster. I do not care how many cards you read, I care how well you explain and argue the ones you do. If you read too fast, I will ask you to slow down.

Volume - Speak up! I am here to hear you and your arguments.

Value - I love to weigh values as much as the next guy, but do not make it the entire debate.

Topicality - Unless the case is obviously untopical, I'd rather not listen to a T debate.

K - Unless you know it like the back of your hand, do not run a Kritik.

Abuse - Please do not call something abusive unless it really is abuse.

Attitude - If you have a bad/smug attitude, I will dock you and I absolutely will make a note on your ballot.

Judging Speech

In speeches, I love comedy and cleverness.

In OO, INFO, IX, and DX I will judge on : speech structure, flow, and overall presentation.

In POI, DI, HI, and DUO I will judge on : blocking, flow, emotion, and impact. Particularly in DI and Dramatic POI, the impact is very important. I want to feel your character.

Can't Wait

I can't wait to judge you today! Speech and Debate really is my first love. I am not here to judge you, not really. Speech & Debate is about education, my role as your judge is to help you learn how to improve your public speaking skills by offering feedback. If you ever have questions for me, you are welcome to reach out to me.

Good Luck,

Stevi Kay

I am fairly new to the judging game, so reminders if I forget something would be much appreciated!

The only thing I have a hard line on is spreading. Please do not attempt to do that if I am your judge.

I am a Junior Policy Debater at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing debate, specifically policy debate, since the first semester of my freshman year. Obviously, policy debate is my favorite, but it's also fun to judge other debates and learn more about their current topics.

I will be flowing the round and will see if any argument gets untouched or dropped in the round, although it is good for you to bring that up as well.

Policy: I am most knowledgeable in policy and can follow it very easily. I do not like the round if there are not any big clashes in the round. If you don't answer a single thing on the opponent's side I will not be voting for you. Impact debates are probably my favorite if you can accurately explain them and give your links. Make sure you fully explain your plan and what are you solving for or else I will be just as confused as your opponents. Don't talk about bathtubs.

PF/LD: With these two types of debate I know basically nothing about them. I know the premise of them and how they work but that is about it. My vote in the round will go to who had the best arguments and who explained them better to a lay judge so I can actually understand it.

Note: I have not judged a debate round in 4 years. I haven't not judged a high school debate round in closer to 8. Please bear with me :)

Affiliation: Abilene Christian University (Coach 2014-16), Southern Illinois University (Competitor from 2010-2014), Parkview High School (Competitor from 2006-2010, Assistant Coach 2010-2011ish).

Experience: 4 years HS policy (Parkview HS), 4 years college parliamentary debate (SIU). Missouri State Champion (2009), 3x NFL qualifier, collegiate National Parliamentary Debate Association National Champion (2014).

Education: B.A. in International Relations (SIU), Ph.D. in International Relations and Political Methodology (The Ohio State University).

Approach: ~Tabula Rasa (with the exception of the biases I describe below).

Communication and Presentation: Unless unclear communication inhibits my ability to accurately evaluate the round, communication and presentation only matter for speaker points (at the margins).

Update: 2020/9/3

General Principles: My ideal debate is a debate over the topic. The affirmative reads a plan text implemented by a policymaking body via fiat with two advantages stemming from the implementation of that policy in a fiated world. The negative would read a counterplan, disadvantages, and case arguments. If it gets more kritik-oriented, that's fine, it's just not my ideal debate to evaluate.

While I will generally try not to enforce my ideology through the ballot, I find that the following significantly harm my ability to do so:
* Making people feel unwelcome in debate, either through violent rhetoric, actions, or general rude behavior. This includes, but is not limited to, “Vote against X-school because they're facist”, name calling, yelling, or asinine impact turns (genocide good, patriarchy good). This does not include De-Dev, Rights Malthus, or Wipeout.

* Clearly lying or misrepresenting facts (i.e. WW2 didn’t happen, Napoleon was a lizard, etc).

* Going for “blippy” arguments with the expectation of winning on a “cheap-shot”. For me an argument includes a claim and data.

* Making causal assumptions that are not clear.

* See impacts portion.

Don’t be afraid to ask! For the sake of transparency and open communication, I am willing to do the following before the round for you: (1) If you ask, I will give you my frank opinion of how you should rank/pref me. I may or may not know your “style”, but upon a ~2-3 minute conversation I can accurately answer this question for you. (2) Answer any impromptu questions before the round while at least one representative from the other team is also included.

***Back to the details***

Pedagogical Moment: None of us our policymakers – we are not actors of the USFG and like such I do not believe we role play as them as automatic. When I discuss fiat, or think it exists in debate, I don’t think we actually believe it is what we say it is. No one believes that it exists outside of a vacuum of our language. In fact, when we discuss fiat and role playing, we are discussing a broader way in which we try to employ language to change the world or our perceptions of it. In a traditional policy debate, a fiat-based approach to political change is just assumed, so it is not worthy of making argument to such a point. Remember, the plan text of a plan as I consider it is a suggestion that you propose to change the policy of the subject of the resolution (note *should*).

I say that as a way to have you consider how I view framework, affirmatives, and the criticism. I consider the language of the affirmative’s (fiat/role play based framework) v. some critical-theory based approach of the criticism – framework is a weighing of the best way to solve those implications in the real world.

If that doesn’t make sense, let me know.

Impacts: I have been known as a big-stick policy-based terminal impact sort of debater and judge. As a debater I welcomed this acknowledgement, and in my early judging career I tried to be as open as possible to a variety of impacts. I think one poverty of modern debate, and I know it’s one that I certainly participated in, is using heuristic shortcuts to efficiently produce impacts at the cost of clearly articulated impacts that would perhaps be more specific to the topic. I think there are a couple of examples of these shortcuts, and even if I have some biases, I can be convinced otherwise:
* “This group is dehumanized, which outweighs nuclear conflict”. I think dehumanization is a heuristic stand-in for something that may be better described in the context of the advantage and the topic. For example, saying “poverty is dehumanization” is not saying that people’s sense of humanity is stripped from them through conditions of economic inequality. Instead, what this argument is describing, is that poverty undermines life expectancy and health care, the ability to be well-nourished, and produce the luxuries that make life more enjoyable. With that being said, life expectancy and starvation are impacts that can be quantified and are exceedingly probable. While it may be harder to make these arguments, I generally find them more convincing than individuals who are often in positions of privilege waxing poetic about the suffering of individuals that they can never truly empathize with.

* “Economic decline causes nuclear conflict and extinction.” This argument is often made with the assumption that judges will fill in the gaps, and I think absent any clear articulation of a particular scenario that makes conflict likely (i.e. a powderkeg exists, and economic decline is the spark), it’s really easy to lose these impacts to terminal defense. Additionally, I think even if war occurs, the escalation to nuclear conflict is exceptionally unlikely given some unique feature to that conflict.

I say all of this to say something simple: “I generally prefer impacts that are falsifiable (and as a result measureable), quantifiable (death is usually me heuristic for evaluating impacts, given a good enough reason I could be convinced otherwise), and will maximize the utility associated with those impacts.” That last part may require clarification: The risk of 1,000 people dying with a probability of 0.01 (expected death of 10), versus the risk of 12 people dying with a probability of 1 (expected death of 12) means I’d act to save those 12 people. This is cold and calculative, but I’m not entirely comfortable wading into the waters of comparing quality of life as I have no objective measure with which to make my decision.

If you are to read a criticism, you can clearly make impacts that operate within this metric. It is to say that I prefer impacts like “Borders are the root of conflict” than “Borders and nationalism create a distancing from our own sense of self”.

It is also worth mentioning that if you are a team that would read critiques of impacts, I rarely think these are more convincing than well thought out impact defense. I am more likely to vote for your aff that saves 12 lives if you have put terminal defense on their big-stick impact than if you said “save 12 lives and ignore the threat of nuclear conflict”.

Topicality/Theory/Procedurals: Generally I find limits to be the essential standard for evaluating T. I find "predictability" and "grounded in the literature" to be important as well. I also don't feel like there has to be articulated abuse to win. Other than that, spec, and condo I don't know why winning a theory argument means you win the round. Conditionality is generally good, but the more advocacies there are, the lower my threshold becomes for voting on condo is bad. If you go for it in the 2AR, make sure the 2AC was large enough on it.

Critiques: They’re fine, but anyone who knows me knows that I do not prefer to evaluate this debate. The only problems I could possibly have with a criticism are a result of a lack of clarity. A clearly articulated framework and an explanation of the alternative following it would be awesome. I will evaluate the criticism is a world absent fiat -- see the preceding discussion of framework.

Competition and the Permutation: A theoretically legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously. If you go for the perm (which I think is generally a good strategy choice), I think it usually needs to be the cornerstone of the 2AR strategy and an articulation of why it makes the alternative or CP uncompetitive.

Remember – winning a permutation does not mean you win the debate, it just means that the alternative or the CP is uncompetitive. This means that it is the disad v. the aff – make arguments assuming that difference.

PICS: Love them, a well thought out and well researched PIC is damning. I think theory can be convincing if they pic out of a non-mandate of the plan. An example: If the plan was to go to space, and the counterplan was to go to space but to use the Windows 7 OS as opposed to the Mac OSX, I think that the aff will probably win that the perm is justifiable.

Language and Word pics: Eh. They're alright, but you have to be able to win that language or reps matter, this is an all-or-nothing thing to me unless you convince me otherwise. I also think these should be contextual, generic pics are unconvincing (that doesn't mean I won't vote on them). Also, I don't think you should be able to pic out of things not in the plan text. Severance only happens from the plan, not the rest of the speech.

Case debate: Fantastic, I love a good case debate. Really do. You'll get brownie (speaker) points if you're good on your case, or good on someone else's. I feel like most the time people undervalue this.

Defense: "This is just defense" isn't a response. Diversify your defense.

Politics: They’re fine, but know, if the debate comes down to whether or not some obscure piece of legislation is on the top of the docket or not, and I haven’t heard of it, the decision will not be favorable for you. I also think people go way too fast through politics – uniqueness in particular.

Counterplans: Do whatever you want here, just make sure it's competitive. The negative has fiat. I don't think that's unfair, sorry.

Perms: They're checks of competition. If you think you're tricky, and it comes out in the 2AR that you're advocating the perm, I will be sad. If it is, articulate that in the 2AC. If this is done, and the negative doesn't read theory against this in the block, I may slam my head on the table. A theoretically legitimate permutation in my book is all of the plan and all or parts of the alternative.

Framework & Performance: I generally think that you should defend a plan text enacted by the government via fiat. However that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance debate or any alternative frameworks. I'll vote for your movement, but with that being said, I find that many of these debates frankly go over my head and beyond my limited knowledge of the lingo and tricks that are associated with these forms of debate. If your primary strategy is performance, I may not be the judge for you. Framework is a way to evaluate impacts.

I am a past debeater turned first year coach. Be respectful to everybody in the room. Talk slow enough to be understood clearly. Do not talk over your opponent(s) during crossfire. Off the clock road maps are appreciated. I vote based on the flow and who upheld/took down arguments the best and was able to convince me of their side.

Westwood CC 

joonyoungchoo@gmail.com 

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".

Top Level Thoughts -- Stolen from Het Desai 

-- The first 20 seconds of the 2NR and 2AR should be the words that you hope I repeat back to you at the beginning of my decision. Holding my hand will be rewarded with higher speaker points, a quicker decision time, and a more favorable RFD.

-- I will rarely instantly decide the debate on a single dropped argument alone and will only consider that dropped argument in the broader scheme of what occurred. I will follow something resembling the following structure to make my decision:

A. List the­ arguments extended into the 2NR and the 2AR

B. Ask myself what, as per the 2NR and 2AR, winning these arguments will get for either the affirmative or the negative. The answer to this question will sometimes be “absolutely nothing” at which point I will cross these arguments off my flow.

C. Trace whether these points of disagreement were present previously in the debate. This will only include substantive argumentation, but will not include framing devices introduced in the 2NR and the 2AR.

D. Compare the negative and affirmative’s central issues by asking myself if losing a certain argument for a certain team will still allow for that team to win the debate.

-- Tech > truth in most instances. Unless I’m offered an alternative framework to judge debates, I will default to assuming that dropped arguments are true arguments. That being said, technical debating does not warrant an auto-win and the assumption that certain arguments are auto round winners when dropped leads to disastrous decisions. For instance, judges seem to automatically assume that “realism good” is an impact turn to every IR critical argument come 2020. While it would certainly be nice if the negative explained which portions of realism they agree/disagree with (e.g. rational actor model, the model of the nation state, etc.), it is not the burden of the 2NR to answer “realism good” in this hypothetical situation if the 1AC, 2AC, and 1AR choose not to explain why winning realism is good/true implicates the negative’s arguments.

-- Numbering, labeling, and compartmentalization are very important for me. Whenever possible, each argument in the 2AC should be numbered / labeled and those numbers / labels should be referenced for the rest of the debate. The 2NC and the 2NR’s responses to affirmative arguments should always be numbered.

-- Sound like you want to be here.

-- Debate is incredibly difficult and time-consuming. I love this activity and hope you can as well. I have tremendous respect for the hard work you’ve done to come here and will try to reciprocate that in my decision. I will be ready to defend my decision. Thus, “If you feel unsatisfied with my RFD, I encourage you to post-round me. I will not take any offense or judge your personality because of your reaction to my decision. I was/am always quick to disagree with judges as a debater and have always considered disagreement the highest form of respect.”– Vikas Burugu.

Sreyas Rajgopal: "actual arguments > ad homs" I will not evaluate any arguments about anything that occurred outside of the round outside of disclosure etc. or render a decision about the ethicality of any person I am judging. I don’t know you and this is incredibly uncomfortable.

Framework

1. I feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides. “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen. I went for mainly procedural-based impacts centered around clash and argumentative refinement when I was negative. This strategy requires greater defense to the aff’s impact turns, but makes it less difficult for you to indict the aff counter-interp.

2. Switch side debate is massively underutilized in HS debate. Most 2NRs assert TVA and SSD with no connection to the rest of the arguments. The 2NC and 2NR should spend time applying their impact filters to specific parts of aff offense. This can be made most effective by explaining your switch side argument on the impact turn you believe it resolves the best.

3. “TVA: who cares. If the 1AC says "reduce FMS to Saudi - we must discuss the Yemen War now!" on the water topic, it is not the negative's burden to describe how the aff team could have made their 1AC topical. TVA could be useful as defense (especially if conceded) but tends to factor little in my decisions” – Shree Awsare.

4. Most Framework approaches can be filtered into one of two categories:

A) Finding a middle ground

While this approach will be significantly harder to assemble / formulate, it gives affirmative teams the ability to impact turn both the content of debates that would occur under the negative’s interpretation AND the reading of framework with significantly less drawbacks than the impact turn approach. It will, however, require affirmative’s to wade through the traditional components of a topicality debate and will be subject to good negative teams closely scrutinizing affirmative counterinterpretations. An important question that not enough negative teams ask is how the aff’s counter-interpretation solves their impact turns. “Aff odds of winning are substantially higher if you persuade me that the negative can debate the aff over the course of a season with a relatively even win-percentage. Advance impact-turns boldly, but do not forget defense” – Rafael Pierry.

B) Impact turning topicality

This argument is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable. Aff offense here should focus on why the 1NC’s reading of framework is violent.

5. Neg teams should extend presumption and contest aff solvency throughout the debate. This will make it much more difficult for the aff to shift to more persuasive impact turns that are likely not resolved by their counter-interpretation/the ballot.

6. The 2AR should center 1-2 pieces of central offense through which to explain their strategy. “Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere” – Joshua Michael.

7. Fairness is an "impact" vs. "internal link". Who cares?! This is a distinction without a difference. We've mutually agreed how this works in all other contexts, so why is this any different? A "nuclear war" is an impact until the other team reads nuclear war good. No one would ever continue to argue "nuclear war" is their impact. They would refer to the negative effects of that nuclear war (mass death) as their impact. Fairness is no different, so it should be debated as such.

Kritiks v Plan

1. I’m comfortable in these debates as well. I have at least a decent grasp on most of the common Ks in debate and have likely went for them a number of times.

2. How you frame your arguments will likely have a significant impact on my evaluation of them. “All debate is storytelling, but K debate especially so” – Anirudh Prabhu. Not enough preparation is spent on how you will package your arguments, cross-examination, and/or general round vision.

3. Framework means a lot more to me than it does to some judges. A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR. It will likely be the first argument I evaluate, unless the affirmative has decided not to prioritize it.

“How I should "weigh the aff" versus the K is rarely self evident. I don’t mind a little bit of arbitrariness in a framework interp if you are instructing me clearly on how to evaluate your offense versus their offense” – Anirudh Prabhu. Negative defense to the aff’s standards are usually insufficient and should be prioritized more, while aff teams should borrow more from their negative framework arsenal against planless affirmatives and explain why a model of debate where the affirmative gets to weigh the plan is most reflective of the resolution and why debate over that predictable stasis point is the best model.

4. High link specificity will be rewarded. Although I will still evaluate the debate as presented, demonstrating you’ve thought about how your K interacts with the affirmative will be rewarded in speaker points and in the decision. Unlike many other judges, I will certainly be willing to vote on turns case arguments when your link arguments are well-explained in the context of the affirmative.

5. The permutation is overrated as the basis for affirmative strategy because of debate’s reliance on offense/defense evaluation. Winning on the permutation often requires winning independent of the permutation as well. Instead, Affirmatives should prioritize developing their aff as offense more.

6. Extinction outweighs is a devastating argument against most neg Ks. I have a difficult time understanding neg responses as they are reliant on Framework and/or do not contest the specific scenario for extinction in the 1AC. “If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs” – DKP.

Kritiks/Other Strategies v No Plan

If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in.

1. It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation.

2. I am not persuaded by “no perms in method debates”. Although permutations tend to get out of control in these debates, I do not believe entirely abandoning competition is the solution. The negative needs links that disprove the aff. However, the threshold for a no link argument if one is forwarded by the affirmative will be higher. The neg is best served explicitly establishing a higher threshold which I will be receptive to.

3. Go for presumption. Press the aff on its ability to solve. Vague assertions about your aff will not be rewarded with either the ballot or speaker points and I will not be lenient to new aff extrapolation.

4. Go for Topic DAs and Impact Turns if the affirmative links. Or better yet, link them to it. Usually, aff responses are woefully insufficient.

5. This might sound terrible for the aff, but if the neg does not refute aff shifts with specific link explanation, I’m likely quite a good judge for the aff. Kritikal affirmatives have easy angles to exploit vs substantive negative strategies. Neg teams are often awful at contesting the aff, so applying your theory and solvency explanation to different pages effectively should be an easy route to victory.

Topicality

1. “A decent amount of evidence with intent to define considerably improves your offense.

2. Caselists on both sides help.

3. I tend to care most about predictability” – Ruby Klein.

4. “The articulation of reasonability that will persuade me is that the substance crowdout generated by T debates outweighs the difference between the two interps” – Anirudh Prabhu.

5. In most circumstances, affs should utilize reasonability, functional limits, and arbitrariness as their 2AR strategy.

Counterplans

1. Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way.

2. I will default to judge-kick unless told otherwise. Generally, I believe no judge-kick arguments should start in the 1AR at least if you want to win them.

3. I will default to the model that counterplans must compete functionally and textually, but I am willing to hear alternative models for competition.

4. Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus.

5. Presumption goes to least change.

Disads

1. “Turns the case” is important in some debates, but not others. It’s important to recognize when to prioritize it. The argument that war causes structural violence is intuitive and should not require too much explanation aside from explaining how it implicates framing. Turns case arguments at higher levels of the DA are more persuasive when applied to the aff’s internal links.

2. I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor.

3. Smart analytic arguments are significantly under-utilized. Most politics scenarios, for example, can be logically disproven by a series of analytic arguments. But, the better the other team’s evidence is the more you’ll need of your own.

Case

1. Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.

2. I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.

3. Everything from the DA section apply just as much here.

Theory

1. I’m likely better for theory arguments than most because I evaluate them similarly to every other argument. But, if left to my own devices, I’m neg leaning on most questions.

2. “A creative perm debate is likely better and less life-denying, but I understand that theory is necessary to beat process CPs that steal the aff and cheat" - Ruby Klein.

3. I'm far better than the average judge for aff-specific PIKs. I think they're heavily underutilized and a personal favorite of mine. Defeating a strong aff theory argument is still difficult given significant aff pushback especially if the PIK was not explicitly one in the 1NC. However, I find these strategies are often most true to nuanced disagreements in the literature, so there is a strong pedagogical benefit to pursuing them.

4 years HS debate

Missouri State '24

Assistant Coach- Springfield Catholic

Pronouns- She/They

Email Chain-

danicolvin2@gmail.com

I will be flowing, even if it doesn't seem like it.

Aff

I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. Be ready to tell me why the affirmative matters and have the proper evidence to back that up. Please don't wait till the 2AC to explain the plans actions.

Topicality

Not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates. Although if the affirmative is not topical you should prove it. That being said, please bring it up in a constructive and follow through with it. If you throw it in during a rebuttal I won't vote for it

Neg

I'm really okay with any strategy. Just give me evidence, I won't vote on arguments without solid evidence to back it up.

Pet Peeves

Be kind. There is a difference between debating and arguing, so please be respectful and make this educational. Being rude will not win you the round and I will take off speaker points.

Please give roadmaps, so I can flow your speech correctly.

Don't try and talk over each other during cross.

I don't care about speed- I don't love spreading, but if both teams are comfortable with it I'm good. Just make sure that you're at a pace that everyone can understand.

Don't go over time, there is no 15 second grace.

Bottom Line

I will leave comments on your ballots, I want to help you get better at debate. Don't read to much into what I say.

At the end of the day, debate is meant to be fun and educational. The more you put into it the more you'll get out of it.

Quick Overall Summary: I was a high school debater, so I understand the need to get an easy dub or cut corners. Its not educational for you or me to do such, so save yourself some time and put in the work to do research. Don't be a jerk ok. It might be cool to run a K about how the government is fascist but I guarantee you that you will have lost educational ground on any other on-case argument even if your opponents can't quite answer it. Be polite to each other, its really not that hard. Speak clearly, and make eye contact (reasonably because we are on computers, but I don't want to see you reading EVERYTHING off your computer.) If you don't have time to read all of my paradigm, the key idea is to stay on-case (generally) and articulate your links. I feel one of the most overlooked transitions are the Links and internal links. It would also be great for you to provide some impact calc, and a roadmap for your speeches. Also have fun! Debate is cool activity and you should be proud to be a part of something so great!

Affiliation: Missouri State University and Missouri University of Science and Technology (concurrently), Greenwood Laboratory High School (former Competitor)

Experience: 4 years HS policy (Greenwood Lab. HS), NCFL Grand National Qualifier - Congressional Debate, NSDA national Qualifier - Policy Debate, All-District Lincoln Douglas Debate.

Education: (In Progress) B.S. in Architectural Engineering and a Minor in Political Science (MSU/MS&T)

Approach: ~Tabula Rasa (with the exception of the biases I describe below).

Communication and Presentation: Unless unclear communication inhibits my ability to accurately evaluate the round, communication and presentation only matter for speaker points (at the margins). Spreading: Its not my ideal form of evaluating a debate round. I'm not saying you can't, but if I can't understand you then neither can your opponents. At that point you just shot yourself in the foot so to speak.

General Principles: My ideal debate is a debate over the topic. The affirmative reads a plan text implemented by a policymaking body via fiat with two advantages stemming from the implementation of that policy in a fiated world. The negative would read a counterplan, disadvantages, and case arguments. If it gets more kritik-oriented, that's fine, it's just not my ideal debate to evaluate.

While I will generally try not to enforce my ideology through the ballot, I find that the following significantly harm my ability to do so:
* Making people feel unwelcome in debate, either through violent rhetoric, actions, or general rude behavior. This includes, but is not limited to, “Vote against X-school because they're facist”, name calling, profanity, yelling, or asinine impact turns (genocide good, patriarchy good). This does not include De-Dev, Rights Malthus, or Wipeout. I just think those are stupid arguments to begin with.

* Clearly lying or misrepresenting facts (i.e. WW2 didn’t happen, Napoleon was a lizard, etc).

* Going for “blippy” arguments with the expectation of winning on a “cheap-shot”. For me an argument includes a claim and data.

* Making causal assumptions that are not clear.

* See impacts portion.

Don’t be afraid to ask! For the sake of transparency and open communication, I am willing to do the following before the round for you: (1) If you ask, I will give you my frank opinion of how you should rank/pref me. I may or may not know your “style”, but upon a ~2-3 minute conversation I can accurately answer this question for you to the best of my ability. (2) Answer any impromptu questions before the round while at least one representative from the other team is also included.

***Back to the details***

Pedagogical Moment: None of us our policymakers – we are not actors of the USFG and like such I do not believe we role play as them as automatic. This isn't drama/theater production. The key is to emulate the structure.

I say that as a way to have you consider how I view framework, affirmatives, and the criticism. I consider the language of the affirmative’s (fiat/role play based framework) v. some critical-theory based approach of the criticism – framework is a weighing of the best way to solve those implications in the real world.

If that doesn’t make sense, let me know.

Impacts: I think one poverty of modern debate, and I know it’s one that I certainly participated in, is using heuristic shortcuts to efficiently produce impacts at the cost of clearly articulated impacts that would perhaps be more specific to the topic. I think there are a couple of examples of these shortcuts, and even if I have some biases, I can be convinced otherwise:
* “This group is dehumanized, which outweighs nuclear conflict”. I think dehumanization is a heuristic stand-in for something that may be better described in the context of the advantage and the topic. For example, saying “poverty is dehumanization” is not saying that people’s sense of humanity is stripped from them through conditions of economic inequality. Instead, what this argument is describing, is that poverty undermines life expectancy and health care, the ability to be well-nourished, and produce the luxuries that make life more enjoyable. With that being said, life expectancy and starvation are impacts that can be quantified and are exceedingly probable. While it may be harder to make these arguments, I generally find them more convincing than individuals who are often in positions of privilege waxing poetic about the suffering of individuals that they can never truly empathize with.

* “Economic decline causes nuclear conflict and extinction.” This argument is often made with the assumption that judges will fill in the gaps, and I think absent any clear articulation of a particular scenario that makes conflict likely (i.e. a power-keg exists, and economic decline is the spark), it’s really easy to lose these impacts to terminal defense. Additionally, I think even if war occurs, the escalation to nuclear conflict is exceptionally unlikely given some unique feature to that conflict.

I say all of this to say something simple: “I generally prefer impacts that are falsifiable (and as a result measurable), quantifiable (death is usually me heuristic for evaluating impacts, given a good enough reason I could be convinced otherwise), and will maximize the utility associated with those impacts.” That last part may require clarification: The risk of 1,000 people dying with a probability of 0.01 (expected death of 10), versus the risk of 12 people dying with a probability of 1 (expected death of 12) means I’d act to save those 12 people. This is cold and calculative, but I’m not entirely comfortable wading into the waters of comparing quality of life as I have no objective measure with which to make my decision.

If you are to read a criticism, you can clearly make impacts that operate within this metric. It is to say that I prefer impacts like “Borders are the root of conflict” than “Borders and nationalism create a distancing from our own sense of self”.

It is also worth mentioning that if you are a team that would read critiques of impacts, I rarely think these are more convincing than well thought out impact defense. I am more likely to vote for your aff that saves 12 lives if you have put terminal defense on their big-stick impact than if you said “save 12 lives and ignore the threat of nuclear conflict”.

Topicality/Theory/Procedurals: Generally I find limits to be the essential standard for evaluating T. I find "predictability" and "grounded in the literature" to be important as well. I also don't feel like there has to be articulated abuse to win. Other than that, spec, and condo I don't know why winning a theory argument means you win the round. Conditionality is generally good, but the more advocacies there are, the lower my threshold becomes for voting on condo is bad. If you go for it in the 2AR, make sure the 2AC was large enough on it.

Critiques: They’re fine, but anyone who knows me knows that I do not prefer to evaluate this debate. The only problems I could possibly have with a criticism are a result of a lack of clarity. A clearly articulated framework and an explanation of the alternative following it would be awesome. I will evaluate the criticism is a world absent fiat – but that may mean you don’t get links to your criticism and may mean alternative solvency is rough. if you are thinking of running a K, you might want to see if there is a counterplan and/or case negatives to use. It saves just as much of my sanity as will save you (trust me).

Competition and the Permutation: A theoretically legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously. If you go for the perm (which I think is generally a good strategy), I think it usually needs to be the cornerstone of the 2AR strategy and an articulation of why it makes the alternative or CP uncompetitive.

Remember – winning a permutation does not mean you win the debate, it just means that the alternative or the CP is uncompetitive. This means that it is the disad v. the aff – make arguments assuming that difference.

PICS: Not my ideal form to evaluate. However, a well thought out and well researched PIC is damning. I think theory can be convincing if they pic out of a non-mandate of the plan. An example: If the plan was to go to space, and the counterplan was to go to space but to use the Windows 7 OS as opposed to the Mac OSX, I think that the aff will probably win that the perm is justifiable. Just please do your research well before you decide to run a PIC, or else you'll be floundering and that's kinda awkward to watch and judge.

Language and Word pics: Eh. They're alright, but you have to be able to win that language or reps matter, this is an all-or-nothing thing to me unless you convince me otherwise. I also think these should be contextual, generic pics are unconvincing (that doesn't mean I won't vote on them). Also, I don't think you should be able to pic out of things not in the plan text. Severance only happens from the plan, not the rest of the speech.

Case debate: Fantastic, I love a good case debate. Really do. You'll get brownie (speaker) points if you're good on your case, or good on someone else's. I feel like most the time people undervalue this.

Defense: "This is just defense" isn't a response. Diversify your defense.

Politics: They’re fine, but know, if the debate comes down to whether or not some obscure piece of legislation is on the top of the docket or not, and I haven’t heard of it, the decision will not be favorable for you. I also think people go way too fast through politics – uniqueness in particular.

Counterplans: Do whatever you want here, just make sure it's competitive. I say whatever, but again let it be within reason. If the plan is to increase education spending, please don't run a counterplan that allocates funding to "re-education camps" for X group of people. That's wrong on so many levels, and you will most likely not receive quality marks on your ballot.

Perms: They're checks of competition. If you think you're tricky, and it come out in the 2AR that you're advocating the perm, I will be sad. If it is, articulate that in the 2AC. If this is done, and the negative doesn't read theory against this in the block, I may slam my head on the table. A theoretically legitimate permutation in my book is all of the plan and all or parts of the alternative.

Framework & Performance: I generally think that you should defend a plan text enacted by the government via fiat. However that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance debate or any alternative frameworks. I'll vote for your movement, but with that being said, I find that many of these debates frankly go over my head and beyond my limited knowledge of the lingo and tricks that are associated with these forms of debate. If your primary strategy is performance, I may not be the judge for you. Framework is a way to evaluate impacts. Give me Impact calc.

And above all else ARTICULATE and have FUN!!!!

I was a policy debater in high school so I should not have any issues understanding complex topics as long as it is explained clearly. I am not a huge fan of spreading but if both teams agree to spread in a round I will have no issue with that. If one team spreads while the other team stated they cannot spread, the team that starts spreading will be automatically voted down. Only one team spreading ruins the whole reason for debate and it's a waste of time. Don't argue about authors unless you have evidence to back it up, because if you don't it probably isn't worth talking about. If you say you like KU basketball you're losing the round, sorry.

Quick Summary - I am a former high school debater, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. DISCLOSE AND DO NOT PARAPHRASE! Have fun and be nice. I will be voting in a vacuum of the debate without any bias.

Background - Hi, I'm Blake Dodd I am currently a Freshman at the University of Kansas. I am a former Champ Public Forum debater, I have competed in PF my entire debate career but know how to evaluate other forms of debate as well. I always will be flowing and evaluating your arguments. My pronouns are he/him/his.

Style - I am much more of a flow judge then a lay judge. Do what you want though, I'll accommodate to your style of debate. Slow down during tags, If I don't flow it you didn't say it. Any discriminating slur used will tank your speaker points and most likely the loss. Most importantly, remember it is a debate round, learn lots, and have fun. I know the pain of a judge not evaluating or just not listening. So with that said I will be flowing everything you say. Tech>Truth, you must explain why arguments matter or do not matter. I will not make arguments for you. Otherwise I am a pretty chill debater and judge. Be nice to your opponents. If you want to spread ask your opponents and check with me before you do. If you are going to spread I expect a speech doc with what your are reading. I strongly believe in disclosure, please disclose before round on the PF/Policy debate wiki (if you have more questions about disclosure please email me or ask before the round), if your opponents ask for your case or any evidence give it to them. I am strongly against paraphrasing, I highly recommend to not do it in front of me. There is no grace period beyond 3 seconds, once your speech time is up stop reading.

Specifics - "Abuse" This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Pronouns - If you have different pronouns or would like to be addressed in a different way please let me know and I would be happy to change my language. Please always use your opponents preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop very quickly.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I am perfectly fine if you want to read any progressive arguments in front of me such as disclosure theory or paraphrase theory. Other progressive arguments just check with me before you read it. More than likely it will be fine.

Contact - Email: blakedodd04@gmail.com

What’s up. I did policy for 5 years, so as long as you explain your arguments in an order that makes sense I will understand. It’s probably worth mentioning that I qualified to Nationals 3 times, placing top 20 junior year and then 12th as a senior. I’ve been to a few nat circuit tournaments, so I have some experience with speed. However, don’t go fast just for the sake of it, make sure most of your arguments have some quality because that’s what matters in the 2nr/2ar. I generally lean to truth over tech, if a clever analytic is asserted well. However, I can be convinced otherwise if your tech argument is laid out well. I prefer policy-DAs, CPs, T, and strong case are all great. If your case attacks are light, elaborate on how the CP solves case, or why the DA outweighs and turns case. While I prefer seeing some offense, if you truly knock out a stock issue I could be convinced to vote on it, if there are lay judges on the panel. Usually I don’t care about generic theory arguments unless there is real abuse in the round. Otherwise, T or a K usually accomplishes the goal better. Kritiks are cool, they aren’t my speciality but as long as you explain unique links and impacts I would be fine voting on one. If you have any questions, feel free to email me at blaise.w.e@gmail.com.

My philosophy is to cover, work and win the flow. Argumentation wins, whether debating topicality or DA you want to win the argument and be more advantageous is the general argumentative space than your opponent. This is an educational event, and ultimately the purpose of the very real discourse had between teams, should be to challenge both teams intellectually and embolden the value of debate.

Rather than judging purely off of the number of arguments an affirmative or negative team can proffer, I will base my judging decisions on the merits of those arguments. Therefore, I value the quality of evidence over the quantity.

I want you to effectively communicate what you are attacking and link your attacks. Give me clear voters in the end. Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Give the performance you think is the best.  That’s all I ask for! 

PF: I still think Public Forum should hold to the intended purpose when it was first introduced. Persuasion is key. Speaking fast with lots of arguments and debate jargon is not persuasive and will probably cost you the round. Sound reasoning and logic should be a significant part of the round. Evidence should be used as support but not the only the thing to vote on. Referring to the “Smith 16 card" will not tell me anything. Refer to the argument or contention and the evidence used there.

Carthage Senior High School (2010)

Missouri Southern State University (2015)-BS Psychology

Missouri State University (2019)-Master of Social Work

Debate Background:

I competed in policy debate at the high school level and NFA-LD/parliamentary debate briefly in undergraduate. I have judged tournaments off and on since graduation.

General Paradigm:

I try to keep my evaluation of the round as flow-centric as possible. This means that I’ll try to limit my involvement in the round as much as possible, and I’ll pick up the worse argument if it’s won on the flow. That being said, I recognize that there’s a certain degree of intervention that’s inevitable in at least some portion of rounds, and in those cases my aim is to be able to find the least interventionist justification within the round for my decision. For me, this means prioritizing (roughly in this order): conceded arguments (so long as there's a basic justification and implication outline in the round), arguments with warranted/substantive analysis, arguments with in-round weighing/framing, arguments with implicit clash/framing, and, worst case, the arguments I can better understand the interactions of. Please don't make me do the work for you. You're all very capable.

Speed is fine. Critical debate is fine. I prefer topic specific debate and I also understand that folks come up with some off the wall stuff that is difficult to argue on the spot.

(This is my PF paradigm. For other debates, a lot of this is applicable, but I will always vote on quality analysis and speaking. Just be persuasive, and you're good.)

About Me

Hi, I’m John! I debated all 4 yrs of high school (class of 2020 baby), starting in policy and then senior year switching to PF. With that in mind, I switched to PF for a reason; please don’t give me PTSD. I qualified for NSDA Nationals in US Extemp junior year and was a National Semifinalist in USX senior year, so speaks and quality analysis are my highest priorities when judging your round. I’ll go into much more detail later in the paradigm, though.

My Judging Process

I use a Microsoft Excel document that evaluates each speaker based on speaking, analysis, and CX. Speaking and analysis both make up 40% of the score individually, and CX makes up 20% of the score. This isn’t the only thing I use when making my decision, but it is how I give out speaker rankings and does have a large impact on my evaluation of persuasion, from a (relatively) objective standpoint. Above all, I vote on persuasion. Sometimes it lines up with the flow, sometimes the excel doc, sometimes both, and sometimes neither. It really depends on the round, but if you are persuasive to the best of your ability, that is all I ask of you.

What I look for in each portion of the debate Constructive

Really, all I look for here is that you speak well and have pristine analysis. You (hopefully) spent a while writing this case and perfecting it, so I am expecting that it has no lapses in logic and everything is fully warranted/impacted out.

Rebuttal

This speech needs to be focused on attacking your opponent’s case, but I’m cool with 2nd rebuttal frontlining if they want to. If not, I won’t count it as a drop just yet. If you do frontline, just make sure it is not the focus of your speech.

Summary

This speech needs to be primarily frontlining, but at the same time, it is called the “summary” for a reason, so this speech should begin to tie everything together. If that means collapsing, that’s fine. BUT, know that if you do collapse, it could hurt you depending on your opponent’s response.

Final Focus

This speech needs to be all weighing through whatever method you prefer. Voters are fine, line-by-line works (as long as you tell me why arguments are important), really whatever, as long as you substantiate each impact and tell me why it’s important.

CX

Keep clarification questions to an absolute minimum. If you lead your opponent into a trap, you gain major respect and will gain points on CX. However, if they see the trap coming and can escape it/turn it against you, the same will happen for them. Don’t yell, but at the same time, don’t seem disinterested. Confidence is key to persuasion, but don’t be overbearing/condescending. Your speaks will go down.

My thoughts on debating styles/analysis Speed

Absolutely do not spread. You will lose points in the speaker section of my analysis. Speaking quickly is fine, but be aware that I will not flow it if I can’t understand it or if it’s too fast. Ultimately, efficiency shows ultimate debate maturity. Persuasion should be the main goal of your speaking, not getting everything in. If you persuade me, you’ve done your job. If you spit a bunch of evidence at me, I will wipe it off and ignore it. This all boils down to one simple rule: if you’re concerned that you’re too fast, slow down.

Progressive Arg’s (K’s, theory, CPs)

K’s – It REALLY has to be convincing. I have no clue how to “properly” evaluate a Kritik, so beware of my inexperience. If you are not 100% convincing (which is virtually impossible with this style of debate), you are wasting my time, your time, and your opponent’s time.

Theory – Theory is fine ONLY if you tell me why it’s important and don’t let it take over the debate. If theory takes over the debate, you lose BIG on analysis.

CP’s – Don’t run CP’s. If you run one, I will ignore it and lower your analysis score. Instead, if you can prove that something will happen in the SQ (without voting pro), you’re good. I actually like those arguments.

Ad hominem attacks

My rule of thumb is “don’t be a jerk.” Any ___-ism / offensive comments will hurt you significantly. If you are kind, you’re golden.

Flow vs. Lay

I prefer lay debate because I believe debate is about persuasion, not necessarily the nitty-gritty. However, a lot of times, if you are persuasive, that entails you win on the flow. So, I will be keeping a “flow,” but keep in mind I won’t vote based on it alone. I will, however, vote more on flow later in a tournament (elim rounds) because the persuasion really should be there at that point in the tournament.

Tech vs. Truth

I always prioritize truth. Just because you might put 20 responses on their case doesn’t mean they are quality or persuasive at all. However, if they are, you basically win on truth, so ur good.

Clarity of arguments

This might be the most important thing in the debate. If you are not clear, consistent, and refined, you will lose on both speaks and analysis. Use summary and final focus to drive in each detail of your arguments. If you are confusing there, you may as well concede the debate.

Evidence ethics

Indicts are fine, but if there is an indict, I will ask for pertinent evidence flashed/emailed/whatever to me after the round. If I find that you falsified evidence, not only will you lose that argument, but I will consider dropping you entirely and reporting you to tournament directors.

Pacing

PLEASE, don’t wait until the last minute to respond to an argument. Frontlining in summary is perfectly fine, but after that, ur done for. More specifically, onto pacing within your speeches: SIGNPOST. If you don’t, I have no idea what you’re talking about, and you lose big on clarity. Also, grace periods do not exist. If you go over time, not only will anything you say not get on the flow, but it will eat into your prep time as well. During cross, if the question is asked before 3:00 on the clock, you can answer it, but the answer better be concise.

Language

Please be professional. Jokes are fine as long as they make sense and actually make me laugh. But don’t let the round get too casual. Saying “judge” in any of your speeches immediately removes 0.1 points from the evaluation. The debate is about persuasion, not about a winner or a loser. Please don’t use big words unnecessarily. It’s pretentious. Swearing will deduct 1 point from the evaluation. Keep it clean.

Prep time

I score prep too. Using less prep gives you big points. You can work on your feet and don’t need to rely on extra time. ALSO, the team that spoke second will get fewer points on this since they get ~10 minutes of extra prep time during their partner’s speeches/cross.

Framework

If your logic makes sense, I might vote on it. If not, you’re wasting my time. I’m not very big on the debaters dictating the ballot (obviously, since I’m the one judging), but if it's legit, then it's legit.

Key Takeaways

Analysis and clarity are the biggest things I will vote on. A debate is about persuasion, especially public forum. Also, if you can pronounce my last name correctly, you get a bonus speaking point for reading my paradigm (it is pronounced like George-ee-AHH-dis).

6 Years of policy debate at Union High School in Oklahoma.

2 years at Baylor University.

gerbrandt.eve@gmail.com

I am often tempted to leave my paradigm blank but that is because I consider myself largely agnostic on most issues. I’ve read and gone for every genre of argument, So I am not inclined to reject, or even really cringe at anything on face. I believe the default role of the judge is always to be an educator, but the way I think I’m supposed to do that is by fairly evaluating every argument made, and making decisions based on the quality (and sometimes quantity) of those arguments. Don’t worry if you don’t know the big fancy debate words, an argument is an argument even if you don’t know the proper buzz word for it.

My default is that judge kicking CPs is okay but not alternatives, but that can be debated.

Typically speaks will be decided on how well you know your stuff but if you are a jerk (making debate a space not safe for other people) it will take a HUGE hit on your speaks and make me raise your threshold to win the round overall.

*For both policy and LD* When no one extends a framework for the debate (or it is a total wash) I always default to offense-defense.

This is my third year judging Lincoln Douglas Debate. I am mostly a lay judge; I do not understand spreading or vast amounts of jargon. I can understand complex arguments and appreciate a good cross-examination. Factual evidence from reputable sources and clear constructs inform me best. If you speak too quickly, I may not catch everything. I appreciate it if you point out any drops, as it validates my flow. Being aggressive and confident is fine, just be sure to watch your tone and high level of respect for your opponent. Overall, have fun!

Please put me on the email chain-chasity.hance@mjays.us

Note- Some of the things written here are for our local circuit and may not apply.

These are just my thoughts on how a debate looks/is won. However, just because I don't think about debate the same way you do does not mean you won't win my ballot. Just tell me why I should be voting there.

I have a diversity of experience as a debater, judge and coach. If you have questions, just ask.

Affirmatives
I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. I understand the need to read a non-plan based affirmative (I read a project and have coached a team who read one), however I can be easily swayed by theory/topicality debates in such a situation. Be ready to explain why your project/movement/ etc is important or apriori.

Affirmatives shouldn't wait until the 2AC to explain the plan's actions.

Topicality
I am not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates, with that being said if the affirmative is not topical then it is smart to prove such.

However I will vote on topicality if the negative is winning the position, even if I think the affirmative is topical.

If you are going for topicality you need to actually go for it, not just throw it in the 2NR on hopes that I will vote on it. If you aren't focusing the 2NR on T, then it is really just a waste of your limited time.

Being Negative
I am pretty okay with just about any strategy. If a debater is going for a kritikal position, they need to be ready to explain the literature. You should be more well read on the literature than I am, and ready to discuss how they operate. If you can't explain the K to me or still debate on the line by line, there is a high chance you won't win my ballot.

I prefer a thought out strategy compared to a bunch of positions, when most of them are not viable 2NR choices. I don't see the value in reading positions that can't be winnable, why waste your time?

Pet Peeves
Don't be rude or hateful to one another. Whether this be in prep time, in speech, and especially during cross examination. Being rude is not the appropriate way to show that you win the round, in all reality it makes you look like you are losing. Being offensive is a good way to lose a ballot.

If you are paperless, you need to be providing evidence (whether through email, flashdrive, etc) in a timely and efficient manner. If you are taking forever to do such, you probably need to take more prep time. You should be providing organized speech docs. As the receiver of doc you should still be flowing not just reading ahead.

In a virtual world everyone needs to be efficient at sharing the evidence, remember that comes out of YOUR prep time. I suggest dropping speeches before you begin your speech if not you will have to use your prep if the other team asks for it. There is a difference between prep time and tech time, don't try to steal prep during tech time.

Respect the norms and customs of the circuit you are debating within. Lots of types of debate are good, but if you have the opportunity to debate in a community/circuit that you are not typically part of it is your responsibility to understand the way that circuit works. Creating the debate space as an opportunity for others to not participate is completely unacceptable. This could be within your own circuit or not. This all goes back to being kind and respectful.

Bottom Line

I will always evaluate the debate on offense and defense and impact comparisons that are drawn by YOU THE DEBATER. Don't make me do that work for you, it might not turn out in your favor.

Have impacts. Weigh those impacts.

Debate is good. Debate is educational. Debate is fun. Make sure everyone is able to achieve these things in the round.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q- Can I spread?

A- Go for it. Just be understandable. If you aren't clear, slow down a tad.

Q- Open Cross?

A- Go for it, but I don't like when one partner controls every cross x. Your speaks will probably suffer because of it

Q- How do I boost my speaks?

A- Being clear, making smart strategy positions, being kind, being actually funny/witty

**LD Paradigm**

I am fine without whatever approach you choose to take to Lincoln Douglas debate. I have taught traditional value style debate, and have been around college NFA LD.

As you can see from my above paradigm, I have more experience with policy debate. That may help guide your decisions in a progressive Lincoln Douglas Round.

I have judged both progressive and tradition LD.

I am a pretty open book and will judge however I am told to. I default to weighing impacts.

I have been a coach for several years and during this time, I judge often. One of the most important things I look for when judging is that your arguments make sense and are supported with reasoning and evidence. The most unique and crazy argument will not necessarily win over a stock argument if you can't argue it well. But, if it is well supported and explained with solid links, then go for it! If you have a partner, you need to share the work load and have an actual partnership. Always maintain decorum! Do NOT speak so quickly that I cannot follow what you are speaking. I like to flow the round and if I can't write down what you are saying, then something important will be missed. There must be clash but don't get hung up on one point.

I participated in High School Speech/Debate from 2005 to 2007 and Collegiate Speech/Debate from 2007-2011. I competed in a little bit of everything (Extemp, Policy, LD, Oratory, Dramatic). I have coached for the past twelve years. Listed below are my paradigms:

Policy Debate

At its core, I believe that debate is a truth-testing activity. What this means to me is that all arguments are on the table, and it is up to you to challenge and weigh the arguments. At the end of the debate, I will evaluate the logic that you presented to determine which side of the debate is more "true". I will consider any argument that you wish to run, whether it be a kritik, counterplan, theory, etc. It is your duty to explain each position and how it directly clashes with the opposing side. I will say that my experience in the more progressive styles of debate is limited, so if you choose to run a criticism, I am not super familiar with all the literature behind those positions, so you need to spend time explaining the issue and creating a solid link between your criticism and the affirmative team's advocacy. I keep a rather good flow, and I am annoyed when team's drop arguments and fail to extend.

Here are some of my other general thoughts specific issues in Policy:

-Speed: I will listen to however fast you want to talk IF AND ONLY IF you can speak quickly and still remain clear. If you are having to take gasps of air (in my opinion), you are speaking way too quickly and the likelihood of me understanding you is low.

-Conditionality:I am perfectly fine with conditional arguments, as long as the team is transparent about their conditionality. If you aren't transparent about it, I feel like you are a moving target that creates unpredictable ground for your opponents.

-Decorum: This is a formal debate activity. I expect each debater to treat the other debaters with humility and grace. All people in that room have invested time and energy into their positions. At the end of the day, THIS IS NOT A PERSONAL THING. Do not attack your opponent's character...period.

-Kritiks: The link must be direct, must be clear, and must be well warranted for me to even consider weighing. Your job is to do the work on establishing the position. Your alternative cannot just be reject the aff. If you read a kritik, I expect your alternative to actually do something.

If you have any other policy specific questions, ask me in round. I will be honest and transparent.

I currently coach Lincoln-Douglas debate. I competed in LD and Public Forum (PF) formats in high school, and International Public Debate Association (IPDA) and British Parliamentary (BP) formats in college. When competing, you can treat me like a lay judge who knows nothing about the topic for most rounds. Therefore, I look for clear definitions, arguments, and substance. However, if you decide to run a fancy framework or philosophy in LD debate, consider me as a tabula rasa judge who looks for an extension or articulation of that framework throughout; I need to be convinced why an elaborate framework is needed. If you run a plan or counterplan, I will look for more stock issues because of the nature of policy debate.

I don't heavily weigh the delivery of arguments while judging, but please speak clearly, as I find it challenging to understand those who talk exceptionally quickly. Also, please respect one another. Any rude or unethical behavior will result in a loss of speaker points or a ballot in the most extreme cases.

If there's an email chain, yes I want to be included, just ask for my email.

If you have questions about my ballot after the tournament is over, shoot me an email and we can talk about it.

(Also, most of my paradigm is debate focused, but there is some speech stuff at the bottom that may be important for you)

General Paradigm:

I debated traditional LD for 4 years in high school at Camdenton HS in Missouri, went to state, nats, all that good stuff. I also did every Interp event over the course of those years, again, state, nats, blah blah blah. Currently, I study Ethics & Public Policy and Philosophy at the University of Iowa and I debate NDT/CEDA policy on their team here.

You should always be a good human in a debate round. Whether that's conforming to the rules set by the tournament, NSDA, etc (I will read and know them), or just generally being a good person. Don't be abusive towards your opponents. There is a fine line between being assertive and aggressive so please be careful.

Also, please understand that debate doesn't happen in a vacuum. I am not a tech-over-truth judge. If you are wrong, you are wrong, plain and simple. A dropped argument doesn't automatically make it true. I don't believe you should be rewarded for peddling false information for strategic advantage. If your opponent is wrong, call them out. If you don't have evidence to combat their claim, but it is wrong based on common sense or knowledge, just point it out, chances are I will believe you. Of course, in complex and high level debates it is rarely the case that one side will be flat out wrong. But I'm talking about misrepresentations of simple things (ie basic government processes, who is on the UN security council, the decision of a court case, etc)

A note on evidence: generally I am a quality over quantity kind of gal. A million bad cards will not overpower fewer cards of a higher quality. I love to hear qualifications for your evidence, it adds to your ethos. You don't need evidence for everything. There are bad arguments that can be picked apart using pure logic/analytics. If an argument is fallacious, you will rarely need evidence to attack it as far as I'm concerned. The only caveat to my quality over quantity rule is definitions. There are two ways for you to win a definitions debate: one, you can tell me why your definition is the best one to use in the context of the topic; or two, you can present me with more sources that say your definition is true. I get really bored when folks just keep leaning into "well my definition says this so obviously its true." Quality can certainly still play a role here as well. If your definition is from "the white box on Google" and your opponent's is from a well versed scholar...not looking great for you.

For high school debates, PLEASE don't treat me like a college policy judge. I dislike spreading/talking fast because it harms my ability to properly understand your arguments. Debate is a communication activity, so I value good delivery and presentation of your arguments first and foremost. That being said, you can't save bad arguments by talking pretty...I will be flowing, but I tend to keep a lax flow as I want to be able to make eye contact with you as much as possible. However, if at any point you see me put down my pen (which doesn't happen very often), I am probably very confused as to what you are saying (judge adaptation folks, great skill to have).

For Springboard Debates:

Everyone is learning! I understand that these debates are opportunities for y'all to gain some experience. If you feel completely lost, don't remember speech times, etc, feel free to ask a quick question so we can keep the round moving! While my ballot will be as in-depth as possible, I am also willing to give you verbal feedback after the round if you want to talk more, BUT I will not disclose who won the round during verbal feedback.

LD:

Of course LD has a special place in my heart. I have the most experience debating and judging LD. That being said, if you are debating LD, debate LD. That means you're using some ethical or philosophically based framework and argumentation. Don't run a plan in LD...please. I prefer the traditional value/value criterion format as opposed to the nat circuit/NFA style, I just don't have much experience hearing those arguments. All of your arguments should relate to your framework! Framing is always a voter for me, even if you don't explicitly tell me it should be. Tell me why your opponent's framing is bad at a fundamental level, or why you better uphold it, etc. Also, if you are misconstruing or misrepresenting basic philosophical ideas...that will work against you. Please provide me with some voters in your last speech, it helps me understand why you think you should win.

PFD:

While I never debated puf, I do still have a very in-depth understanding of how it works, and how it should work. In general, just make good arguments, give me some clash, contextualize your topic well, and you should be fine. I like some framing in PFD, especially when you're talking about foreign policy ideas. Be careful in cross-fire: you should be asking each other questions, not just having a conversation...

And a note on generalized solutions, BE CAREFUL. I really have mixed feelings about these, and you may very well have to defend the concept of a generalized solution in your speeches. To my understanding, it should go something like "We shouldn't be doing the resolution when X is a much better alternative." In college, we have a much looser view of what a "plan" is, so tread carefully if you get into a debate about whether its a plan or a generalized solution. Of course, if you use them well, that's fine. But don't be abusive with generalized solutions.

Policy:

Fair warning, I had very little to do with policy in high school, my only experience is what I've done in college. I haven't judged it a lot. But similarly to puf: make good arguments, give me some clash, contextualize, and you should generally be ok. I've read both policy and k aff and neg strategies, but that does not automatically mean I am familiar with your literature base. Every policy round is different, and I will go where you lead me. Any arguments are fair game. Feel free to run kritiks, counterplans, framework, etc (as long as the tournament will allow, sorry novices). I don't think there's much that you shouldn't do in general. Policy rounds should be productive. I really dislike when the 2nr/2ar sounds just like the 1ac/1nc. If you are running a k, make sure you are telling me why the debate is the platform you are using to get that message across/how your theory of power exists in debate. I believe you should win the round if you convince me that your method/plan/alt is a good idea. I am open to other roles of the ballot, but that is what I default to.

Speech events:

In speech events, your delivery is the single most important thing to me, no matter the event! In general I don't have many strict paradigms for speech events, just do the event and I will be happy.

One note I do have is that I will try not to react to your speech in a way that is distracting, but I will react. If you are really funny, I will probably laugh a little, etc.

Extemp:

Answer the question...if you don't answer the question or you try to weasel out of giving a straight answer, you haven't done your job. Give me some evidence for what you are saying, I have a pretty good basis of domestic and foreign issues, so don't get up and lie to me :(

OO:

Be persuasive and inspiring. I should have the urge to do something after you finish your speech.

Info:

Be careful when you start blurring the lines between info and OO. Just tell me about stuff, but be interesting and keep me engaged. Use your visual aids appropriately.

Congress:

A lot of my stuff about debate will apply here. There are good arguments and there are bad arguments. In Congress, there are good pieces of legislation and there are bad pieces of legislation. Just because the concept sounds good doesn't mean the legislation will actually achieve it. If you are defending the legislation, it is your burden to tell me why it can accomplish what it aims to. The strongest arguments against legislation are solvency-style arguments.

Interp:

Obviously, follow the rules...if you are in duo, don't touch your partner, and don't look directly at each other. No matter the interp event, be engaging. If it's a DI and you're playing a serial killer, I should feel uncomfortable being in the room with you. If it's HI, I should be laughing. For POI, I should feel inspired after your piece. In the mainstream interp events, I want to be convinced you have become the characters you are portraying. Also, I'm not a big fan of people being on the floor...it sounds weird, but in many instances, I cannot properly see you if you are rolling around on the floor, and it can look a little clumsy.

For poetry and prose, my biggest pet peeve is when people treat it like POI. The binder is not there for you to never look at it and use as a prop for 8 minutes. If it is clear you just took a POI and tweaked it a little to fit into prose/poetry, I will not be happy.

If there's an email chain, yes I want to be included, just ask for my email.

If you have questions about my ballot after the tournament is over, shoot me an email and we can talk about it.

(Also, most of my paradigm is debate focused, but there is some speech stuff at the bottom that may be important for you)

General Paradigm:

I debated traditional LD for 4 years in high school at Camdenton HS in Missouri, went to state, nats, all that good stuff. I also did every Interp event over the course of those years, again, state, nats, blah blah blah. Currently, I study Ethics & Public Policy and Philosophy at the University of Iowa and I debate NDT/CEDA policy on their team here.

You should always be a good human in a debate round. Whether that's conforming to the rules set by the tournament, NSDA, etc (I will read and know them), or just generally being a good person. Don't be abusive towards your opponents. There is a fine line between being assertive and aggressive so please be careful.

Also, please understand that debate doesn't happen in a vacuum. I am not a tech-over-truth judge. If you are wrong, you are wrong, plain and simple. A dropped argument doesn't automatically make it true. I don't believe you should be rewarded for peddling false information for strategic advantage. If your opponent is wrong, call them out. If you don't have evidence to combat their claim, but it is wrong based on common sense or knowledge, just point it out, chances are I will believe you. Of course, in complex and high level debates it is rarely the case that one side will be flat out wrong. But I'm talking about misrepresentations of simple things (ie basic government processes, who is on the UN security council, the decision of a court case, etc)

A note on evidence: generally I am a quality over quantity kind of gal. A million bad cards will not overpower fewer cards of a higher quality. I love to hear qualifications for your evidence, it adds to your ethos. You don't need evidence for everything. There are bad arguments that can be picked apart using pure logic/analytics. If an argument is fallacious, you will rarely need evidence to attack it as far as I'm concerned. The only caveat to my quality over quantity rule is definitions. There are two ways for you to win a definitions debate: one, you can tell me why your definition is the best one to use in the context of the topic; or two, you can present me with more sources that say your definition is true. I get really bored when folks just keep leaning into "well my definition says this so obviously its true." Quality can certainly still play a role here as well. If your definition is from "the white box on Google" and your opponent's is from a well versed scholar...not looking great for you.

For high school debates, PLEASE don't treat me like a college policy judge. I dislike spreading/talking fast because it harms my ability to properly understand your arguments. Debate is a communication activity, so I value good delivery and presentation of your arguments first and foremost. That being said, you can't save bad arguments by talking pretty...I will be flowing, but I tend to keep a lax flow as I want to be able to make eye contact with you as much as possible. However, if at any point you see me put down my pen (which doesn't happen very often), I am probably very confused as to what you are saying (judge adaptation folks, great skill to have).

For Springboard Debates:

Everyone is learning! I understand that these debates are opportunities for y'all to gain some experience. If you feel completely lost, don't remember speech times, etc, feel free to ask a quick question so we can keep the round moving! While my ballot will be as in-depth as possible, I am also willing to give you verbal feedback after the round if you want to talk more, BUT I will not disclose who won the round during verbal feedback.

LD:

Of course LD has a special place in my heart. I have the most experience debating and judging LD. That being said, if you are debating LD, debate LD. That means you're using some ethical or philosophically based framework and argumentation. Don't run a plan in LD...please. I prefer the traditional value/value criterion format as opposed to the nat circuit/NFA style, I just don't have much experience hearing those arguments. All of your arguments should relate to your framework! Framing is always a voter for me, even if you don't explicitly tell me it should be. Tell me why your opponent's framing is bad at a fundamental level, or why you better uphold it, etc. Also, if you are misconstruing or misrepresenting basic philosophical ideas...that will work against you. Please provide me with some voters in your last speech, it helps me understand why you think you should win.

PFD:

While I never debated puf, I do still have a very in-depth understanding of how it works, and how it should work. In general, just make good arguments, give me some clash, contextualize your topic well, and you should be fine. I like some framing in PFD, especially when you're talking about foreign policy ideas. Be careful in cross-fire: you should be asking each other questions, not just having a conversation...

And a note on generalized solutions, BE CAREFUL. I really have mixed feelings about these, and you may very well have to defend the concept of a generalized solution in your speeches. To my understanding, it should go something like "We shouldn't be doing the resolution when X is a much better alternative." In college, we have a much looser view of what a "plan" is, so tread carefully if you get into a debate about whether its a plan or a generalized solution. Of course, if you use them well, that's fine. But don't be abusive with generalized solutions.

Policy:

Fair warning, I had very little to do with policy in high school, my only experience is what I've done in college. I haven't judged it a lot. But similarly to puf: make good arguments, give me some clash, contextualize, and you should generally be ok. I've read both policy and k aff and neg strategies, but that does not automatically mean I am familiar with your literature base. Every policy round is different, and I will go where you lead me. Any arguments are fair game. Feel free to run kritiks, counterplans, framework, etc (as long as the tournament will allow, sorry novices). I don't think there's much that you shouldn't do in general. Policy rounds should be productive. I really dislike when the 2nr/2ar sounds just like the 1ac/1nc. If you are running a k, make sure you are telling me why the debate is the platform you are using to get that message across/how your theory of power exists in debate. I believe you should win the round if you convince me that your method/plan/alt is a good idea. I am open to other roles of the ballot, but that is what I default to.

Speech events:

In speech events, your delivery is the single most important thing to me, no matter the event! In general I don't have many strict paradigms for speech events, just do the event and I will be happy.

One note I do have is that I will try not to react to your speech in a way that is distracting, but I will react. If you are really funny, I will probably laugh a little, etc.

Extemp:

Answer the question...if you don't answer the question or you try to weasel out of giving a straight answer, you haven't done your job. Give me some evidence for what you are saying, I have a pretty good basis of domestic and foreign issues, so don't get up and lie to me :(

OO:

Be persuasive and inspiring. I should have the urge to do something after you finish your speech.

Info:

Be careful when you start blurring the lines between info and OO. Just tell me about stuff, but be interesting and keep me engaged. Use your visual aids appropriately.

Congress:

A lot of my stuff about debate will apply here. There are good arguments and there are bad arguments. In Congress, there are good pieces of legislation and there are bad pieces of legislation. Just because the concept sounds good doesn't mean the legislation will actually achieve it. If you are defending the legislation, it is your burden to tell me why it can accomplish what it aims to. The strongest arguments against legislation are solvency-style arguments.

Interp:

Obviously, follow the rules...if you are in duo, don't touch your partner, and don't look directly at each other. No matter the interp event, be engaging. If it's a DI and you're playing a serial killer, I should feel uncomfortable being in the room with you. If it's HI, I should be laughing. For POI, I should feel inspired after your piece. In the mainstream interp events, I want to be convinced you have become the characters you are portraying. Also, I'm not a big fan of people being on the floor...it sounds weird, but in many instances, I cannot properly see you if you are rolling around on the floor, and it can look a little clumsy.

For poetry and prose, my biggest pet peeve is when people treat it like POI. The binder is not there for you to never look at it and use as a prop for 8 minutes. If it is clear you just took a POI and tweaked it a little to fit into prose/poetry, I will not be happy.

I am a former policy debater and current speech and debate coach. I coach policy, LD, and PF. I am a flow judge. I want to see good communication in round.

I would like to be a judge for debates where debaters speak clearly, concisely and build up their argument in a logical manner.

Facts and evidence are important, but logic and clarity also takes precedence. Making arguments without evidence, or cramming facts without building up your argument, or building up an argument with facts and evidence but without clarity will probably result in a lower score. Good luck!

Background

I am a speech and debate coach at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing speech and debate in some capacity for 11 years. I am versed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum mostly, but can keep up in a policy round.

Lincoln-Douglas

You must win the value-value criterion debate in order to win the round. I am a stickler for time management, so make sure you divide your time wisely in each speech to attack each argument with an emphasis on weighing values and value-criterion. I would like Key Voter Issues from both Aff and Neg in their last speeches. I will vote against spreading in an LD round due to auditory processing issues.

Public Forum

I prefer the 1st rebuttal to be fully spent attacking your opponents' case instead of using it to circle back around and re-build. It makes it less confusing. I like clear, offensive voting issues in the final focus.

Policy

I can follow a quick policy round, but warn me beforehand. I prefer analytics over cards and/or explaining why one card is better than another with logic or analytics. No "Refer to author B to cross apply to author C and D." I won't follow that because I don't have a photographic memory for evidence. If you're spreading, make sure to say your taglines very clearly or slow down so I can catch them. Provide a clear roadmap before and during each speech. If you do not tell me where to flow something, I will absolutely NOT flow it or vote on it. I prefer a full document for each speech with each argument typed out. I know that's annoying, but it ensures that I can follow your arguments even if they're fast or confusing because I have trouble with auditory processing. I like out of the box arguments if you have constructed them fully. I'd rather listen to something crazy and mentally engaging than the same old thing. I understand 90% of policy terms, but it is more convincing to me if you can explain them in your own words and explain how they play into the debate. It helps your ethos if I know you know what you're talking about.

Yes, email chain: sohailjouyaATgmailDOTcom

PUBLIC FORUM JUDGING PHILOSOPHY IS HERE

Update:

- Probably not the best judge for the "Give us a 30!" approach unless it becomes an argument/point of contestation in the round. Chances are I'll just default to whatever I'd typically give. To me, these kind of things aren't arguments, but judge instructions that are external to making a decision regarding the debate occurring.

BIG PICTURE

- I appreciate adaptation to my preferences but don’t do anything that would make you uncomfortable. Never feel obligated to compete in a manner that inhibits your ability to be effective. My promise to you will be that I will keep an open mind and assess whatever you chose. In short: do you.

- Truth > Tech, but RELAX: All this means is that I recognize that debate is not merely a game, but rather a competition that models the world in which we live. This doesn’t mean I believe judges should intervene on the basis of argumentative preference - what it does mean is that embedded clash band the “nexus question” of the round is of more importance than blippy technical oversights between certain sheets of paper - especially in K v K debates.
Don't fret: a dropped argument is still a concession. I likely have a higher threshold for the development of arguments that are more intrinsically dubious and lack warrants.

- As a former coach of a UDL school where many of my debaters make arguments centred on their identity, diversity is a genuine concern. It may play a factor in how I evaluate a round, particularly in debates regarding what’s “best” for the community/activity.

Do you and I’ll do my best to evaluate it but I’m not a tabula rasa and the dogma of debate has me to believe the following. I have put a lot of time and thought into this while attempting to be parsimonious - if you are serious about winning my ballot a careful read would prove to serve you well:

FORM

- All speech acts are performances, consequently, debaters should defend their performances including the advocacy, evidence, arguments/positions, interpretations, and representations of said speech acts.

- One of the most annoying questions a judged can be asked: “Are you cool with speed?”
In short: yes. But smart and slow always beats fast and dumb.
I have absolutely no preference on rate of delivery, though I will say it might be smart to slow down a bit on really long tags, advocacy texts, your totally sweet theory/double-bind argument or on overviews that have really nuanced descriptions of the round. My belief is that speed is typically good for debate but please remember that spreading’s true measure is contingent on the number of arguments that are required to be answered by the other team not your WPM.

- Pathos: I used to never really think this mattered at all. To a large degree, it still doesn’t considering I’m unabashedly very flowcentric but I tend to give high speaker points to debaters who performatively express mastery knowledge of the subjects discussed, ability to exercise round vision, assertiveness, and that swank.

- Holistic Approaches: the 2AR/2NR should be largely concerned with two things:
1) provide framing of the round so I can make an evaluation of impacts and the like
2) descriptively instruct me on how to make my decision

Overviews have the potential for great explanatory power, use that time and tactic wisely.

While I put form first, I am of the maxim that “form follows function” – I contend that the reverse would merely produce an aesthetic, a poor formula for argument testing in an intellectually rigorous and competitive activity. In summation: you need to make an argument and defend it.

FUNCTION

- The Affirmative ought to be responsive to the topic. This is a pinnacle of my paradigm that is quite broad and includes teams who seek to engage in resistance to the proximate structures that frame the topic. Conversely, this also implicates teams that prioritize social justice - debaters utilizing methodological strategies for best resistance ought to consider their relationship to the topic.
Policy-oriented teams may read that last sentence with glee and K folks may think this is strike-worthy…chill. I do not prescribe to the notion that to be topical is synonymous with being resolutional.

- The Negative’s ground is rooted in the performance of the Affirmative as well as anything based in the resolution. It’s that simple; engage the 1AC if at all possible.

- I view rounds in an offense/defense lens. Many colleagues are contesting the utility of this approach in certain kinds of debate and I’m ruminating about this (see: “Thoughts on Competition”) but I don’t believe this to be a “plan focus” theory and I default to the notion that my decisions require a forced choice between competing performances.

- I will vote on Framework. (*This means different things in different debate formats - I don't mean impact framing or LD-centric "value/value criterion" but rather a "You must read a plan" interpretation that's typically in response to K Affs)That means I will vote for the team running the position based on their interpretation, but it also means I’ll vote on offensive responses to the argument. Vindicating an alternative framework is a necessary skill and one that should be possessed by kritikal teams - justifying your form of knowledge production as beneficial in these settings matter.
Framework appeals effectively consist of a normative claim of how debate ought to function. The interpretation should be prescriptive; if you are not comfortable with what the world of debate would look like if your interpretation were universally applied, then you have a bad interpretation. The impact to your argument ought to be derived from your interpretation (yes, I’ve given RFDs where this needed to be said). Furthermore, a Topical Version of the Affirmative must specifically explain how the impacts of the 1AC can be achieved, it might be in your best interest to provide a text or point to a few cases that achieve that end. This is especially true if you want to go for external impacts that the 1AC can’t access – but all of this is contingent on a cogent explanation as to why order precedes/is the internal link to justice.

- I am pretty comfortable judging Clash of Civilization debates.

- Framework is the job of the debaters. Epistemology first? Ontology? Sure, but why? Where does performance come into play – should I prioritize a performative disad above the “substance” of a position? Over all of the sheets of paper in the round? These are questions debaters must grapple with and preferably the earlier in the round the better.

- "Framework is how we frame our work" >>>>> "FrAmEwOrK mAkEs ThE gAmE wOrK"

-Presumption can be an option. In my estimation, the 2NR may go for Counterplan/Kritik while also giving the judge the option of the status quo. Call it “hypo-testing” or whatever but I believe a rational decision-making paradigm doesn’t doom me to make a single decision between two advocacies, especially when the current status of things is preferable to both (the net-benefit for a CP/linear DA and impact for a K). I don't know if I really “judge kick” for you, instead, the 2NR should explain an “even if” route to victory via presumption to allow the 2AR to respond.
“But what about when presumption flips Affirmative?” This is a claim that I wish would be established prior to the 2NR, but I know that's not gonna happen. I've definitely voted in favour of plenty of 2ARs that haven't said that in the 1AR. The only times I can envision this is when the 2NR is going all-in on a CP.

- Role of the Ballots ought to invariably allow the 1AC/1NC to be contestable and provide substantial ground to each team. Many teams will make their ROBs self-serving at best, or at worse, tautological. That's because there's a large contingency of teams that think the ROB is an advocacy statement. They are not. Even more teams conflate a ROB with a Role of the Judge instruction and I'm just now making my peace with dealing with that reality.
If the ROB fails to equally distribute ground, they are merely impact framing. A good ROB can effectively answer a lot of framework gripes regarding the Affirmative’s pronouncement of an unfalsifiable truth claim.

- Analytics that are logically consistent, well warranted, and answer the heart of any argument are weighed in high-esteem. This is especially true if it’s responsive to any combinations of bad argument/evidence.

- My threshold for theory is not particularly high. It’s what you justify, not necessarily what you do. I typically default to competing interpretations, this can be complicated by a team that is able to articulate what reasonability means in the context of the round, otherwise I feel like it's interventionist of me to decode what “reasonable” represents. The same is true to a lesser extent with the impacts as well. Rattling off “fairness and education” as loaded concepts that I should just know has a low threshold if the other team can explain the significance of a different voter or a standard that controls the internal link into your impact (also, if you do this: prepared to get impact turned).

I think theory should be strategic and I very much enjoy a good theory debate. Copious amounts of topicality and specification arguments are not strategic, it is desperate.

- I like conditionality probably more so than other judges. As a young’n I got away with a lot of, probably, abusive Negative strategies that relied on conditionality to the maximum (think “multiple worlds and presumption in the 2NR”) mostly because many teams were never particularly good at explaining why this was a problem. If you’re able to do so, great – just don’t expect me to do much of that work for you. I don’t find it particularly difficult for a 2AR to make an objection about how that is bad for debate, thus be warned 2NRs - it's a downhill effort for a 2AR.
Furthermore, I tend to believe the 1NC has the right to test the 1AC from multiple positions.
Thus, Framework along with Cap K or some other kritik is not a functional double turn. The 1NC doesn’t need to be ideologically consistent. However, I have been persuaded in several method debates that there is a performative disadvantage that can be levied against speech acts that are incongruent and self-defeating.

- Probability is the most crucial component of impact calculus with disadvantages. Tradeoffs ought to have a high risk of happening and that question often controls the direction of uniqueness while also accessing the severity of the impact (magnitude).

- Counterplan debates can often get tricky, particularly if they’re PICs. Maybe I’m too simplistic here, but I don’t understand why Affirmatives don’t sit on their solvency deficit claims more. Compartmentalizing why portions of the Affirmative are key can win rounds against CPs. I think this is especially true because I view the Counterplan’s ability to solve the Affirmative to be an opportunity cost with its competitiveness. Take advantage of this “double bind.”

- Case arguments are incredibly underutilized and the dirty little secret here is that I kind of like them. I’m not particularly sentimental for the “good ol’ days” where case debate was the only real option for Negatives (mostly because I was never alive in that era), but I have to admit that debates centred on case are kind of cute and make my chest feel all fuzzy with a nostalgia that I never experienced– kind of like when a frat boy wears a "Reagan/Bush '84" shirt...

KRITIKAL DEBATE

I know enough to know that kritiks are not monolithic. I am partial to topic-grounded kritiks and in all reality I find them to be part of a typical decision-making calculus. I tend to be more of a constructivist than a rationalist. Few things frustrate me more than teams who utilise a kritik/answer a kritik in a homogenizing fashion. Not every K requires the ballot as a tool, not every K looks to have an external impact either in the debate community or the world writ larger, not every K criticizes in the same fashion. I suggest teams find out what they are and stick to it, I also think teams should listen and be specifically responsive to the argument they hear rather than rely on a base notion of what the genre of argument implies. The best way to conceptualize these arguments is to think of “kritik” as a verb (to criticize) rather than a noun (a static demonstrative position).
It is no secret that I love many kritiks but deep in every K hack’s heart is a revered space that admires teams that cut through the noise and simply wave a big stick and impact turn things, unabashedly defending conventional thought. If you do this well there’s a good chance you can win my ballot. If pure agonism is not your preferred tactic, that’s fine but make sure your post-modern offense onto kritiks can be easily extrapolated into a 1AR in a fashion that makes sense.
In many ways, I believe there’s more tension between Identity and Post-Modernism teams than there are with either of them and Policy debaters. That being said, I think the Eurotrash K positions ought to proceed with caution against arguments centred on Identity – it may not be smart to contend that they ought to embrace their suffering or claim that they are responsible for a polemical construction of identity that replicates the violence they experience (don’t victim blame).

THOUGHTS ON COMPETITION

There’s a lot of talk about what is or isn’t competition and what competition ought to look like in specific types of debate – thus far I am not of the belief that different methods of debate require a different rubric for evaluation. While much discussion has been given to “Competition by Comparison” I very much subscribe to Competing Methodologies. What I’ve learned in having these conversations is that this convention means different things to different people and can change in different settings in front of different arguments. For me, I try to keep it consistent and compatible with an offense/defense heuristic: competing methodologies require an Affirmative focus where the Negative requires an independent reason to reject the Affirmative. In this sense, competition necessitates a link. This keeps artificial competition at bay via permutations, an affirmative right regardless of the presence of a plan text.

Permutations are merely tests of mutual exclusivity. They do not solve and they are not a shadowy third advocacy for me to evaluate. I naturally will view permutations more as a contestation of linkage – and thus, are terminal defense to a counterplan or kritik -- than a question of combining texts/advocacies into a solvency mechanism. If you characterize these as solvency mechanisms rather than a litmus test of exclusivity, you ought to anticipate offense to the permutation (and even theory objections to the permutation) to be weighed against your “net-benefits”. This is your warning to not be shocked if I'm extrapolating a much different theoretical understanding of a permutation if you go 5/6 minutes for it in the 2AR.
Even in method debates where a permutation contends both methods can work in tandem, there is no solvency – in these instances net-benefits function to shield you from links (the only true “net benefit” is the Affirmative). A possible exception to this scenario is “Perm do the Affirmative” where the 1AC subsumes the 1NC’s alternative; here there may be an offensive link turn to the K resulting in independent reasons to vote for the 1AC.

Speak slowly. Not necessarily too slow but should not be so fast as if its like some of the commercials on radio or tv when they explain the fine-prints.

Carson Kennedy

Kickapoo High School

Missouri State University

He/Him/His

Email: Kickapookm@gmail.com

TLDR

My philosophical rules change a lot, while my debate views are more static. I view debate as a competitive activity that happens to be educational. Absent problematic action, I will prioritize the competitive aspect of debate over educational benefits. However, these are not mutually exclusive, but can compete occasionally. In other words... tech > truth.

1 - Policy v Policy

2 - Policy v K [my favorite debates]

3 - K v K

Specifics

This is all of my personal beliefs but by no means does it dictate a majority of my decision. But playing into my strengths may assist with speaker points, and understanding of arguments  both philosophically and functionally.

Topicality

T V Policy---I think these debates are all to common and ruin the substantive engagement in debate. In my opinion, The negative needs to win the affirmatives version of the topic is untenable in the context of research required to adequately engage substantively. While affirmatives will need to frame the debate to cater towards that opinion. The impact level debating in these contestations is usually lackluster and copy and pasted. Please, contextualize your arguments for what the affirmative does to make limits increase and ground decrease. Predictability is probably more important than debatability but no strong feelings about this. Fairness is an impact, but a better internal link. I'm guessing I err affirmative in these debates.

K v FW---I love these debates because I think there is lots of impact work being done, but I think they lack internal link work. I need a fortified defense of either's model of debate, what the opposing side justifies, and how that interacts with the stability of the topic. I understand these are mostly analytical but please do not fly through your 15 DA's to FW. I'm guessing I err negative in these debates.

Theory

Probably my favorite part of debate. I went for condo bad at least 10 times my senior year and never lost. I think dispo is good but I don't necessarily think condo is bad. Honestly no bias on a truth level, but in debate condo is atrocious. If the block drops dispo solves just make it the 2AR and you'll most likely win unless you make a worse technical error. A lot of stuff is reject the argument for me unless given a persuasive reason not to, hidden ASPEC shells will drop speaks by 1 minimum. I do believe performative contradictions are probably bad and have gone for this argument a decent amount, but if responded to would most likely err neg. Overall I'm slightly neg leaning except on condo potentially slightly aff leaning.

CP

Counterplans are very enjoyable to judge when done correctly. The influx of process cp's has been bad for debate in my opinion, but what are you going to do with terrible resolutions. Advantage CP's are greatly under utilized and are highly effective for dealing with affirmative with silly impact scenarios. If you read a counterplan that you know is probably bad for debate please preempt the intuitive theory arguments (new 2NC Cp, read 2NC Cp good).

DA

I love them. Politics is probably my favorite singular argument. I think winners win is more true than political capital, although most stories are fairly contrived and rely on spin more than quality. I enjoy these especially when the politics story is different than what the "DA of the week" is. Other disads are also enjoyable especially when involving phrases such as "case turns the DA", "DA outweighs".

K

I enjoy these debates when executed properly. Some of my most educational rounds were K v K debates. I would say my highest understanding of literature is in Settler Colonialism and Cap. However, I do enjoy reading authors such as Bifo and other PoMo peoples, even if the concept is still out of my grasp. That being said, I'm open to learning through excellent link and theory of power explanation. I don't think K's need alts and can be debated as a DA.

AFF

I would love to watch a soft left affirmative with a well structured framing contention that makes its way into the 2AR. These affirmatives are most persuasive to me because of the Intrinsicness of the advantages. These also tend to have good built in deficits making them very strategic. Especially because debaters have no idea how to answer framing pages properly. However, I will enjoy your BS extinction scenarios just as much as I understand the strategic purpose towards these affirmatives. Kritikal affirmatives are very interesting. I enjoy these debates but I'm most likely a lackluster judge for complex high theory arguments. If you are not related to the topic by any stretch of the imagination then I will feel great sympathy for framework based argumentation.

Email: maggie.kester04@gmail.com for any evidence sharing or communication purposes

-3rd year Speech and Debate student at Kickapoo High School in Springfield, MO

I'm not picky, and I'm generally okay with whatever flow a debate develops, but I do have preferences for how a debate should run and general procedures:

-I'm not at all a fan of spreading. If you're going to make an argument, it should be clear and spoken at an understandable pace. I don't think there's a point in having a debate if it's incomprehensible.

-Evidence is important, but I'm also not a fan of reading card after card back to back with little/no elaboration. Your arguments should be derived from evidence but you should still be participating as a debater and not a narrator.

-Debate, especially with community judges who may not have much information about the topic, should deal with realistic and relevant arguments. Whatever you say in a round could sway a judge in the real world, lay or flow. I still enjoy complex and hard hitting points, but please don't make outlandish arguments when you have a very real effect on everyone in the room.

-I prefer few well spoken and strong points to several weaker, fast paced points. If you have multiple strong arguments to bring up that's good, just be careful about pacing yourself with time so that they don't blur together or get weakened by time constraints. Quality over quantity.

-For time I'm fine with a 15 second grace, but do not go over that.

-I love debate wholeheartedly, and I want to see a respectful round. I know debate can naturally get quite fierce, but unnecessary rudeness or disrespect does not need to interfere.

-If there are tech issues and I can't hear or see, I'll tell you in the chat, I think it's easier if competitors do the same.

-If it's possible I prefer cameras on, but I understand it can complicate the smoothness of rounds and I won't count it against you if they're off. I ask you try them on first, but it's not a make or break.

-I'll get into rounds ASAP and I ask you don't keep a round waiting. A few minutes won't ruin things but rounds shouldn't get backlogged. Too long is a no-show and forfeit.

I'll make sure to give good insight on ballots, but that's all I have! Have a fantastic weekend and good luck :)

I am a 4-year LD debater and a 7-year debate coach. I have been the debate coach in Joplin and am now the assistant at Broken Arrow.

If you are doing LD/PF, you do not need an off-the-clock roadmap as I am actively flowing your round and know what you should be doing next.

LD - The debate should have a heavy focus on the V/VC - this is a values debate, not a policy debate. However, I would vote for a K if the debater is in fact better.

CX - I vote heavily on stock issues.

(Parts shamelessly stolen from Joon, Yao Yao, Azja, and hundreds more I've learned and pulled from indirectly "Nothing is original")

James! Not judge :/

Westwood 23'

Northwestern 27'

jlidebate1@gmail.com

Please name the email chain: "Tournament - Round X - Team (AFF) vs Team (NEG)" - "TOC - Round 1 - Westwood CC (AFF) vs Westwood BS (NEG)".

Top Level Thoughts:

Policy Oriented for 2 Years, K Oriented for 2 Years (Do what you want!)

Hold my hand! The top of the 2NR/AR should be verbatim what my RFD is.

Tech > Truth - That said: truthful arguments will naturally have a lower bar

Organization is key - Both beneficial for me and you. Label, compartmentalize, number, whatever you have to do

Please don't clip - happens more often than it should.It won't lose you the round, but shitty speaks will be inevitable. Also, please mark your own cards. I'm not here to be a referee, only to decide who wins.

Have fun!

<3 music! Play good music only >:(

Don't be mean

Argument Specifics:

Framework

- Feel very comfortable evaluating these debates. Having ran a K-Aff for 2 years, I also went for FW almost every debate. I do not think I have significant ideological preferences for either side and have spent an absurd amount of time strategizing arguments for both sides.

- “Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison” – Yao Yao Chen.

- TVAs should make sense (the more attached to the debate meta is, the better). Please impact out TVAs.

- SSD should also be impacted out. Please connect SSD with the rest of the arguments presented.

K - Affs

Top Level

- "Judge instruction and strong articulation of your relationship to the ballot is necessary. At the end of the debate, I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless/disjointed from debate and your chosen literature base." - Azja

- Please explain your argument CLEARLY by the 2AR. There's no need to explain in the same rhetoric the original literature is written in. Keep it simple.

- Explain what I'm supposed to do by the end of the round. Ballot? Role? Debate? All should be abundantly clear by the end.

Strategy

- "[The impact turn] is only particularly persuasive if you win an argument aside from competing interpretations for how a debate should be evaluated. Unless your argument is debate bad, I will struggle to find a way to vote for no topic at all against a competent negative team. However, if you do win an argument that reduces the question of my ballot to an individual debate, the impact-turn only approach becomes much more viable." - Joon

- You know exactly what the neg is going to go for. Pre-empt that starting from the 1AC.

- I feel like I've seen (and been guilty of) too many Aff teams just having totally incoherent strategies. Explain how I weigh the impact turn along with the CP/CM.

K v K

- Fine for these.

- Most K v K debates just have no argument interaction. Don't make debate boring and harder for me to evaluate.

- Please. I beg. I think this could be sooooooooo interesting.

- "If technical debating and argument comparison is not lost, I will enjoy the debate. These debates are incredibly difficult, but rewarding to engage in." - Joon

- "It will be difficult to convince me that your K aff does not have to defend something. You got to pick and choose what to defend and should be held responsible for those choices. This becomes less true as the neg's criticism becomes more trivial, but I will have a relatively lower threshold for link explanation." - Joon

K v Plan

- As a 2N, bread and butter :)))

- I've gone for a majority of the common ones or at least comfortable in the literature base.

- I love stories, you love stories, everyone loves stories! K debate is about storytelling. Frame the K, think about the round holistically, strategize cross-x, and package your arguments well.

- Evaluate how much framework matters to your K. Cap K? Maybe less so. Techno? Maybe more so. However, if framework is essential to the neg strat: "A vast majority of judges seem to arbitrarily intervene and decide to take a middle stance on the framework debate and generate their own justifications for why this “middle stance” is preferable. I will avoid doing this at all costs and only decide between the interpretations present in the 2NR and the 2AR." - Joon

- Although high link specificity will be rewarded and are SUPER interesting and amazing debates, I probably care about this a lot less than most other judges. Run your generic state links >:), just be ready to defend it.

- I've always been a big fan of reps work. Pull quotes, make the aff nervous :))


Topicality

- I personally don't think that the evidence or the quality of the evidence is that important. As long as you have an intent to define and it's about the word or phrase that you are trying to define, then it's probably fine. That said, make sure you're ready to defend a terrible interp.

- Go for whatever impact you want. I really don't care. Although I'll evaluate whatever you decide to go for, I do think that it is important that you know I almost exclusively went for debateabilty over anything else.

Pointers

- Limits/Ground: I think that this is a pretty convincing argument as long as you have a few key aspects in the block: a caselist, version of the topic, and a clear explanation of why their interp is bad for limits. Also win the overlimiting/underlimiting arg.

- Precision: If you go for precision in the 2NR, please make sure that your evidence is thoroughly explained. Also, your evidence in this context is actually important. If you're actually going for a LEGALLY PRECISE or PRECISE argument, your 1NC evidence has to be good.

Counterplans

- Good with these

- Tend to get boring. Please make it interesting :) (no strategic reason, just makes me happy)

- Specificity (including PICs) make everything so much more interesting and fun. "Well-researched strategies (especially PICs) will be rewarded. Topic/aff-specific advocates go a long way." - Joon

- Default judge-kick

- Don't have huge biases toward functional/textual competition. If this crucial, can be convinced in any direction.

- "Sufficiency framing is asserted without an implication in most instances. You should set a threshold for how much the CP needs to solve i.e. “1AC ev says we need to meet the 2 degree threshold – if the CP gets there it’s sufficient to solve and deficits do not matter past that”. Otherwise, this seems to be intuitive and just an assertion that serves as a poor substitute for impact calculus." - Joon

Disads

- "I generally care more about link defense than impact defense. Link framing is especially important because it can start argument resolution in your favor." - Joon

- I like turns case but I feel like these debates always get muddled by the end of the debate. Although war causes structural violence is intuitive, please make it clear to me.

- Use analytics! Underutilized for sureeeeee.

"Case

- Like everyone else, I like good case debating. 2Ns that show they know the aff better than the other team will especially be rewarded with higher speaks.

- I will be very strict for the 2AC and 1AR on case. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments not just re-explain your advantage. I will also be deeply skeptical of new 1AR/2AR arguments on the case especially if your explanation of the aff shifts.

- Everything from the DA section apply just as much here." - Joon

I am an informed lay judge who is very aware of debate as an activity. I am able to flow, but not well, and certainly not at speed.

I appreciate all forms of debate, and I don't mind kritical or performance debates, but I am not well-read in philosophy. I also don't mind if things get a little meta, I don't like it when debate lingo starts getting thrown around without explanation to the judge. Debate should be inclusionary, and when parties are using unknown terminology, the activity becomes elitist. I also end up confused, which harms your ability to win my ballot.

I am a firm believer that public forum debate should be done at a normal speaking pace. If you want to speak quickly, do policy. Even with policy, I prefer when participants speak slower and are more efficient than just trying to get more cards in. I understand the reasoning behind speed and spread debate, but it makes the upper echelons of the activity elitist and inaccessible to lay judges and competitors who may be competing in a second language.

gavinloyddebate@gmail.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."

If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.

LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.

Quick Bio:

Hebron '20. Did CX all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.

UT Austin '24

TLDR:

Spreading - Yes

Open CX - Yes

Flex Prep - Yes, but only clarifying questions

No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes

No Plan Text (Novice) - No

Kritiks - Yes

Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.

Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. If there are more cards than that, then you put them in a document.

If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.

I do not keep track of your prep unless you explicitly ask me to and there's some reason you can't do it.

General Philosophy:

I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.

I'll vote on anything, but some things I'm more comfortable evaluating than others. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over-adapt to me.

Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.

If you say something racist or sexist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.

Disadvantages:

Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.

Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.

Counterplans:

Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.

If a CP text just has "do the aff" or something similar instead of explicitly saying the portion of the aff that the CP is doing, the Aff team can just say "They don't know how to write a plan text. They don't fiat an action - textuality matters so they don't get the part of the CP that claims to do the aff" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win that portion of the CP, or maybe all of it depending on the context.

Kritiks:

4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.

I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, Cap, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you.

Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.

I'll vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. Similarly, I'll vote on hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.

Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause, then I won't be voting negative.

I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates, so here are a few things.

On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory itself. This doesn't require reinventing the wheel. Think "progress is possible. institutions are malleable tools of humanity and biases can be overcome."

On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to justify your theory of the world rather than rehashing debate's greatest hits. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" repeatedly does not make a full argument. Ideally, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation, like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is, rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy." The "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis-level explanation to be true.

For both teams -- I've found that I decide most debates by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things, so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are fewer scenarios where that's true.

University K's that PIK out of the university or debate suck. Do with that information as you will.

Kritikal Affs:

For the negative - I am a bad judge for going for fairness as a terminal impact. So, I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with significant case mitigation to vote on it. A couple of conditions that the neg ideally meets at least one of for me to vote on fairness as the 2NR terminal impact include:

1. Dropped TVA/Neg is clearly ahead on TVA that solves all of the Aff's offense.

2. The aff has failed to explain a counter-model for what debate is/should be and concedes that debate is only a game with no implication past that.

3. Significant explanation for how fairness implicates and turns aff offense at the level of the aff's explanation, not just generic claims.

4. External offense not within that framework flow that impact turns the Aff's value claims and implicates the Aff's fw offense.

Independent of all that, fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.

Ks vs the K aff are cool. A good debate here is realistically one of the top places I'll give high speaks along with impact turns. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.

Impact turns are great. Feel free just to drop 10 scenarios and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC.

DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to go for the DA and CP, but make sure you have case mitigation or some framing device.

For the aff -

You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.

I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense.

Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism if it is attacked. I need a coherent story about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under-covering it.

I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I don't want to have to decide on something like that. It requires too much judge intervention for my liking. Strike me if this is something you plan on doing. If you do not strike me and this type of round happens, then I am flipping a coin. Heads for the aff. Tails for the neg.

Topicality:

I am not anywhere near the best judge for T. If your A strat is Topicality, then I'd recommend striking me or having me hover around a 4. If you are forced to go for T in the 2NR/answering it the 2AR, then hold my hand through the RFD and explain how things should interact.

If you're put in a position where T is your only option, don't worry and keep the things below in mind.

I default to competing interpretations.

Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.

Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.

Make sure you tell me why I should vote for you rather than just have floating offense.

Weird and Random Technical Things:

Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. That means I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.

No, the neg will never get a 3NR.

I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.

1NC/1AC mistakes -- if you read something like a CP or T and forget to read some critical component or have a massive typo in that critical component (where relevant), the 2NC is not an "oopsie, we can revise that" speech. This also includes situations where a policy aff forgets to read a plan text in the 1ac. If your T/FW shell is missing a violation in the 1NC, you do not get to create one in the 2NC. If you read a CP text with a massive typo including part of the text of a different 1AC from a previous round rather than the 1ac you are debating, you don't get a new one in the 2NC. However, if you have a typo in your speech doc and verbally correct yourself in the 1NC, I am completely ok with that revision. I'm sure other judges and people in the community have different opinions about what the 2NC/2AC can and can't do, but I'm going to be transparent about my bias. Theoretically, you could argue to change my mind in the debate, but it will be an incredible uphill battle.

Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC.

I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.

Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.

The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows, so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.

Please don't send pdfs. Verbatim > Unverbatimized Word > Google Docs > Pdfs.

LD --

I am not evaluating tricks.

In order of args I'm best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Tricks.

Most of my thoughts on policy debate apply to LD. However, the way y'all debate T, theory, procedurals, etc sounds like a second language to me that is vaguely mutually intelligible to my own. I'm not great for these arguments in policy, so I'm probably even worse for them in LD. Y'all will need to be very clear and overexplain argument interaction to get my ballot

background

kickapoo '21

e-mail chain - grmaggard216@gmail.com

first things first

- PLEASE be clear. I'll reward clear speakers with high points. I have APD and its hard for me to keep up sometimes.

- I'll be sure to be engaged & listen to analytics not on the doc

- I'm pretty much willing to listen to any args other than "racism good", "debate bad", or any argument that promotes sedition.

- I will start the debate assuming that the squo is the best option, but that'll change based on the debate

- if you argue disclosure well I am willing to vote on it.

speaker ratings

- it'll be pretty hard to go below a 26.5, just sound clear & don't be rude

- racist/sexist/anti lgbtq remarks will immediately hand you the L and very very bad speaker points

-if you are rude to your opponent that will affect your speaks. don't be a meanie.

general stuff

- I like impact comparison. this includes args like timeframe, probability, & magnitude. why should I prefer avoiding your impacts over the other team's?

- line by line is important. even if arguments aren't fully explained or seem incomprehensible, you have to put those words next to that argument. dropping a floating PIK in the 1AR and 2AR that is never fully explained by neg wins them the debate because the aff has definitionally even less explanation

topicality

- i think t debate in ld is generally pointless. you can pretty much go anywhere you want with a philosophy/ value debate.

-puf and policy t is chill

framework & V/VC

- I read very heavily on most major philosophers. if you try to misconstrue a philosophers theory or your v and vc doesn't make sense I will know and I will vote on it.

-love love love when a debater knows how to balance framework and case ev, but if you feel like you're falling behind on one opt to make your framework stronger and argue it- that will be to your benefit when it comes to my vote.

-I expect there to be value clash. debates without clash are boring and I don't want to judge them.

- framework teams that actually argue will do far better than framework teams that complain

counterplans

- counterplans are good if they're competitive

- FRAME THE DEBATE. this is really important. tell me why the net benefit outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit. if the aff doesn't read theory, you're pretty lucky

- you can definitely read theory in front of me. if the aff goes for theory in the 2AR, the neg is in trouble. that being said, that shouldn't dissuade you from going for good solvency deficits. I won't kick the CP unless you tell me to

if u read to the end of this: thanks :)

about:

I debated all 4 years at Kickapoo HS. I competed in multiple debate types, but mainly as 2nd speaker in PuF. My circuit was mostly lay, but I have experience and understanding of nats circuit/flow debate. IMO debate can be a fun and helpful activity as long as everyone does their part to not make it toxic.

judging/paradigms:

- Be mindful and respectful of who your opponents and judge are

- You don't have to address me as 'judge', I promise I'm already listening

- Don't go way over time (15+ seconds) it doesn't reflect well on your ability to be concise.

- I will not vote for or against you based on your debate style. (i.e. if you want to spread and your opponents don't, etc, vice versa)

- Please signpost/make clear when your evidence starts and stops or I will have trouble flowing properly

In PuF:

I don't mind if you run framework or definitions as long as it makes sense. For cards I think quality matters more than quantity, esp if you and your opponents have direct clash. Explain why your evidence matters and theirs doesn't. I'm willing to vote on logic/theory as long as it's based in truth.

In LD:

I love to see a debate that focuses on V/VC. Your contentions/other arguments should just be extensions of why your framework applies to the topic. That said, I don't love prag but I won't vote against it solely bc of my preference.

I value stock issues, communication (speed is okay, but not preferred...unintelligible spreading is strongly discouraged). I value clear clashing on stock issues.

https://debate.msu.edu/about-msu-debate/

blaine montford---they/them

blaine, not judge

Kickapoo HS '23, Missouri Revival '23 (ROLL MO), Michigan State '27

email 2 add:

bmntdb8@gmail.com

----

TLDR:

i flow on paper. give me pen time.

clarity + speed > clarity > speed

tech + truth > tech > truth

----

debate nihilist--do whatever makes you happy, comfortable, or what you think would help you win. Debate is a communicative activity, probably, and thus if you can communicate your argument well, there should never be a world in which you would ever need to adapt to me.

currently unhappy about the rise of blatant fascism in the community--if this upsets you or you think it is not an issue strike me. i likely won't be good for you anyway.

i read a lot of critical literature--i'm not well versed in the specifics of your theory, even if i am, no i'm not. i am not an ideologue for k debate. i will vote for whoever presented the better arguments.

irrespective of how you choose to approach the round argumentatively, i will always default to well-explained and warranted arguments over anything else. bonus points if you make me laugh. thus, i really don't care what styles of arguments teams read in front of me, I prefer if both teams engage with their opponents' arguments. I don't enjoy teams who avoid clash. i dislike having to read your evidence to figure out what your arg is trying to say. i do not open docs unless your debate was very close and i need to actually adjudicate something about your ev or something went incredibly wrong and nothing either side said made sense.

----

i prefer k debates that either:

1] contain robust explanations of each team's model and pedagogies in debate and why that is good/preferable to the other or

2] center around questions of which side's praxis is best to resolve certain impacts. what that entails is up to you.

reading an un-contextualized link wall straight down in the block is not good link debating. making a theory of power claim about the world and then saying "The 1AC is complicit in it!" is not good link debating. links of omission can be good if you have a persuasive reason that matters. the cap k link into the k-aff that "the 1AC didn't talk abt capitalism so vote neg" is usually not persuasive, a link, or worth anyone's time to debate. if you read a k please know the literature around it. very tired of hearing people butcher people's work.

I judge k debates like 2004 Jason Regnier.

----

i prefer policy debates centralized on da/case strats---not the biggest fan of teams who proliferate counterplans to minimize engagement from the aff. Katsula's ideology is something i can easily get behind, but i won't vote you down if you "break the rules" per se. i subscribe to the cult of negative flexibility [I'll still vote on condo tho] and still understand the strategic value in both approaches. you do you but if adjusting matters see previous. people like Astrid Clough, Jeff Buntin, Kevin McAffery, Will Repko, and Bill Batterman share a lot of debate hot takes I do in this regard.

----

you should disclose. policy teams saying silly voting issues is frustrating and i have a low bar for the other team answering them unless you can explain why it isn't.

don't be racist, a bigot, ableist, or violent to another person in the room. infringing on the safety of your opponents is bad and i will likely have to step in and make it tabs problem.

clipping needs proof and you have to stake the round on it.

don't steal prep. prep ends when the email is sent.

please flow. people who ask "can i get a marked doc/can you list the cards you didn't read?" when the other team clearly marks cards/a low number of cards are marked.

I have been a coach for 4 years. Debates are about persuasion and communication, not cramming the most arguments into a time span. Treat me like a lay judge...explain all of your arguments with a minimum of jargon, spell out your analyses. If I am not flowing you, I can’t judge you, so while you can speak at a relatively fast pace, please do not spread. I have the most experience with LD and PFD. For CX, I vote on stock issues. PFD Crossfire should be disciplined about asking and answering questions, not arguing back and forth. I value civility and respect in debates.

tldr:

• policy coach, tech > truth, tabula rasa critic of argument (details below but basically this means tabula rasa with complete claim-warrant-impact arguments &a premium on logical analytical work - quality logical analysis can easily beat subpar evidence)
• be excellent to each other - "Keanu Reeves & Alex Winter explain "Be Excellent to Each Other" ": this video gets the spirit of things right (minus Alex Winter's gendered language) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gv0i8YasmEM
• adaptation to panels + doing your own style = good & respected (i'm just as happy in a stock issues or case / DA round as in a circuity policy or K round as long as there's clear clash, weighing,& analysis, not just a card & block war)
• if you do fast policy debate, i prefer the depth and clarity of an 80% of toc style speed and fewer off [happier with the depth in a 4 or so off situation] but you do you
• but please no blippy unwarranted args - esp not for theory (needs initial claim-warrant-impact to be a voting issue)
• everything below mainly includes background info, advice, and predispositions which you can override w/ skillful debating as long as you hone in on the basic ideas above

about you:thank you for being here and for your commitment to this activity! before we even meet, i already have so much respect for you - for your time spent working on this life-changing activity that builds essential life skills and shares important messages and advocacies! i'm here to listen and respond and will put 100% effort into that for you during your debate / performance! please communicate with me if you need any sort of support or accommodation during the round!

about me:

• she/her...and you can call me Michaela; michaelanorthrop@gmail.com – put me on the chain

• current policy debate & spontaneous events speech coach at Leland High School in San Jose; have coached policy debate on a spectrum from slow lay judge format to fast circuit style nearly every year since 1999 but have focused less on circuit style the last few years - more lay & semi-fast / mixed pool debate for regional / state & nsda / cat nats

• former head coach for all speech & debate events; experience coaching all of them

• competed in hs & college speech & debate (policy, extemp, congress, duo, oratory, & parli) in the mid-to-late 1990s

• tabroom experience is deceptive; i judge 50+ practice rounds a year for our team

• coaching areas / experience:

• 2000-2003 - head speech and debate coach at Lynbrook H.S. in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2003-2006 - head speech and debate coach from at Chantilly H.S. in the Washington D.C. metro (D.C. metro and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2006-2008 - assistant coach for policy debate at Wayzata H.S. in Minnesota & Twin River (formerly Henry Sibley) H.S. (Minnesota and some national circuit tournaments)

• 2015-present - policy & impromptu coach at Leland High School in San Jose (California and some national circuit tournaments)

most general paradigm for all debate events (please see below for more specific paradigms for Policy, LD, PF, Parli, and Speech - it’s a lot more specific below)

• i'm a critic of argument open to most arguments you might want to advance (see exceptions below in terms of arguments which marginalize or seem to create harm) with more policy strat experience than K experience and very little high theory experience.

• i used to run Ks on the neg but my experience as a competitor was before K affs really hit the scene, so though i'm open to hearing K affs and have judged some K v framework and K v K rounds, i wouldn't call them my wheelhouse. i'd say 90% of my judging experience - just based on types of tournaments judged and the timelines for those - lines up with either policy strats or Ks on the neg as opposed to 10% K affs / clash rounds. see details below for more of my thinking on K affs & framework debates.

• unless persuaded into another vantage point and role, i first view myself as an educator seeking the outcome of advocacy skills and informed activism in / beyond the debate space

• If you're not familiar with “critic of argument” as a paradigm, it’s probably most helpful to interpret it as a tabula rasa judge who is open to whatever role of the judge / ballot you want to set up but who defaults to the side with the overall best-warranted logical argumentation (with well-substantiated analysis and judge direction held in nearly equal weight with strong evidence) and the side with the best control of clear comparative impacting throughout the debate (not just in final rebuttals).

• i think this is not much different from what a lot of coaches a few decades into the activity are saying except that i flag it as what we used to call it (critic of argument paradigm): yes do line by line, yes tech > truth, but also get out of your blocks and compare stuff; it's not just having a solid line by line or having more arguments or flagging that they dropped more than you did...but saying why your line by line is better and why your arguments >>>.

• Typical concerns about a critic of argument paradigm are: How do we know the judge won’t intervene? What are “quality” arguments? Is this just a strategy contest comparing the first constructives? Nope. Here are some other core beliefs which check against those concerns and provide more information on how i judge argument quality:

• tech > truth: i vote off of the flow guided by your comparisons of argumentation strength and your assessment of the significance of arguments extended or dropped… with the caveat that the tech (right out of the gate, not just by the final rebuttal) needs to have clearly articulated substance (claim-warrant-impact) to be a voter. dropped arguments are true, provided they were originally presented as a complete argument (claim, warrant, impact).

• evidence quality + analysis quality instead of evidence automatically being weighted over analysis: Quality evidence (breadth and strength of warrants, relevant source with expertise for the claim at hand) is important to me. So is analysis. Contextualized analytics with clearly isolated warrants demonstrating logical reasoning (empirics, cause and effect, argument by sign with clear justification for the link, or other clear categorical reasoning) easily beat vague evidence missing clear warranting other than having a source. Evidence with more warranting > evidence with no warrant other than the source. However, source quality is persuasive as a separate metric. The basic point here is that arguments like “I read evidence, so you must prefer it over a high school debater’s analysis” aren't persuasive for a critic of argument. Warrant breadth, isolation, and application via analysis is persuasive. Flagging fallacies also moves you up the believability spectrum.

• the best stuff as far as i'm concerned (highly rewarded w/ speaks and tipping me towards your side before you apply any other particular structure or goal to the round):

  • demonstrating strategic thinking in speeches and cx

  • in-depth discussion and comparison of evidence (source quality, internal analysis, warrants);

  • detailed, clearly substantiated analytics;

  • clear advocacy (applies to condo / dispo as much as any other advocacy - tell me what this advocacy means and why it's good);

  • cross-ex as an art form which i'm flowing and applying highly to speaks and then to the round if you apply cx concessions during speeches;

  • a good balance of ethos, logos, and pathos - which breaks the speaker / audience barrier a bit, generating audience goodwill and communicating empathy which elevates your speech acts / projects

  • See below under particular event paradigms for specifics according to common argument categories.

• i love comparative overviews telling me your path to the ballot via the avenues above, the flow, and clear impact calculus, starting some of this party BEFORE FINAL REBUTTALS
  
  

Other General Points Across Debate Formats:

• rate: speed is fine but needs to be clear; no predisposition for or against a rate as long as it's clear but I'm happiest and doing the best processing and evaluation when debaters choose a *moderately* fast rate [see special note below - command F Debating for Panels - about mixed panels / local lay tournaments though! i want you to include / consider the whole panel!]

• for online debate, a caveat to the above: due to the special constraints of judging online (home wifi issues, multiple windows / programs to manage on the computer while tracking the debate, etc.), i really prefer a moderate rate of delivery at most - what i view as about a 7/10 vs. full-speed TOC-style rounds. feel free to run a quick pre-round calibration w/ me to get a baseline as i realize this is subjective.

• If you're not clearly communicating (too fast, not enough articulation or separation of words, etc.), I'll indicate that once by typing "clear" in the chat or in person by saying "clear." If you don't change and i've already indicated an issue, don't expect me to flow.

• Debate needs to be a safe space for all participants. Be kind. We're all here to learn and grow. You can be assertive, authoritative, and forceful without being dismissive or rude. Be inclusive and respectful of others' expressed concerns. Consider the assumptions behind your claims and arguments carefully as well as their impact on all involved. Ad hominem and exclusionary behavior are unacceptable. At a minimum, you will lose speaker points. Personal attacks or marginalizing behavior that seems intentional or that's repeated without apology / recognition after an objection is raised may also be grounds for a loss, especially (but not only) if your opponents raise the issue.

• i am not going to vote on an individual's behavior *outside* my ability to observe it within the round. this includes any flux time before or between rounds at tournaments. this is not to say that you can't use examples about what a team has *run* at other tournaments to substantiate T or theory or credibility arguments or to add pressure about a team's authentic advocacy during cx based on their prior arguments; feel free to do that

POLICY DEBATE SPECIFICS

the commentary below isn't meant to be prescriptive but instead serve as guideposts - the thinking i'll tend to apply absent specific guidance on an issue; you can always make a push for me to see it from your perspective! in that case, what i wrote about my default paradigm (critic of argument) comes into play for how to best persuade me into a particular vantage point

Fiscal Redistribution / 23-24 topic experience:

• some policy-focused strat familiarity and experience: i led a middle school policy debate workshop this summer on this topic. we focused on policy strats and the NFHS / NSDA novice case areas.
• i spent some time reviewing various summer camps’ literature and doing personal research; this was mostly policy-focused
• year-long involvement with our team's policy strats in lay and mixed judge pools

Style / Approach: Your rate, style, and argumentation are your own decisions (with the caveat above about mixed / lay panels as well as thoughtfully considering any expressed concerns for access and content). i'm happy to hear about whatever you think is important. i do especially enjoy thorough case, theory, and T debates, but i'm no more likely to vote on them vs. other positions.

Number of off case / depth vs. breadth:

• it’s your call, but as a critic of argument who values argument development, i'd say you'll generally fare better with me in a 1-4 off round than a 5+ off round. i'd much rather see a few well-developed arguments.

• if your shell is undeveloped and under-highlighted, you will have a lot of catching up to do in the block and i won't be filling in conventional blanks for you on missed steps in a disad or K shell. i'd rather hear more internal analysis in fewer quality cards than lots of cards highlighted down to bare bones.

CX: love it, pay attention to it, actually flowing it for reference, but waiting to hear you integrate it in speeches to factor it in beyond speaker points and general credibility

Overviews - love them! i think impact calc and setting a clear lens for the round at the top of a speech and / or on top of the core issues you're going for is strategic starting in the 2ac and in most subsequent speeches. (just make sure the line by line is developed enough to substantiate this work!)

Clash rounds: i don't have a strong default for sequencing arguments, so please clearly articulate criteria for how you believe clashes of advocacies should be resolved with strong warrants as to what level of impact / implication comes first and why. tagline advocacy won’t be enough. cross-x will matter. escape your own perspective enough to make comparative claims

Theory - enjoy it but cannot be blipped - i don’t vote on *tagline* theory debates, even if conceded; not inclined to revert to status quo / judge kick unless 2nr advocates it but sympathetic to 2ars if that happens and definitely open to advocacy shift arguments on that; please warrant any "drop the team" arguments heavily

T / framework

• i default to competing interpretations with an eye on education unless given another method of evaluation

• i REALLY dislike the trend toward underdeveloped standards and warrantless voters. i prefer instead to hear distinct, warranted standards and voters, case lists and articulation of the quality of debate and other impacts those case lists create, and the *importance* of the ground you've lost.

• i have no preference for potential abuse vs. in-round abuse arguments so long as you warrant them.

• i think a clean articulation of a counter-interp that hones in on one impact turn and how the counter-interp solves it is a pretty straightforward approach as long as you are articulating why this outweighs

• perfectly willing to vote on old school T metrics like jurisdiction and justification if you tell me reasons that would be good in the debate space or in life; i’ve loved T debates forever including reading 80s backfiles so do with that what you will…T theory is cool!

• Framework specifically:

• K affs which focus on impact turning education args have been pretty compelling to me

• both sides can provide a lot of clarity for me by throwing down on a TVA and what it does and doesn't resolve

Case debate

• yes please; i love a good case debate (not to say that a K cannot access this love...but i enjoy hearing about the fundamentals and nuances of a case)

• yes i will vote on presumption (if you tell me how & why i should) and case defense can be very helpful in the overall decision (assigning relative risk, forefronting your own arguments)

K affs: looking for a clear thesis, connection to the resolution, clear articulation of method or solvency, and a clear role of the judge and ballot

Performance specifically: i've judged very few rounds of this; you'd have to be pretty specific in telling me how to evaluate it and the role of the ballot and judge

Off case generally

• no real preference for what you run (Ks, DA/CP, whatever else) but looking for strong analysis of the evidence and well-developed overviews clarifying your impacts / implications and overall position starting in the 2N

Disads:

• yes zero risk is a thing; i heavily lean towards the link strength of your evidence + analysis (critic of argument lens here is relevance + significance + proof)

• love to hear about how the world of the disad implicates case claims and solvency

• strong uniqueness and link specificity explanation > giant uniqueness walls

Ks

• yes, no problem, excited to hear these but i'm not steeped in high theory lit so you need to use overviews and analysis to develop those particular arguments for me

• the link story and overall reasoning of the position need to be clear, as well as your suggested role for me as a judge and the role of the ballot

• love and reward debaters who do the work to contextualize specific links to case / speech acts instead of relying on generic links

• i really prefer a structured debate here (clear sectioning of framework, perm, link debate, implications, alt, etc.)

• long overviews are fine and probably most helpful in resolving the ballot as long as you get to the line by line to justify and substantiate the overview work

• in a pretty balanced debate, aff probably gets to weigh their plan and neg probably gets some offense from their discourse

• i need to hear details about what your alt is and does to give it much weight; evasiveness is hecka bad for your ballot odds

Counterplans

• if your CP doesn't have a solvency card / advocate, you're way behind and probably have to justify that with something like how small the aff is + some reasonable indication of solvency based on facts in the round (e.g. aff evidence)...or exploiting a plan flaw…but in general, i think the playing field needs to be level and counterplans should have solvency given affs should have solvency

A few args i'll admit to not liking:

New affs bad isn't usually persuasive to me. i don't reject it out of hand but it's an uphill battle. i value research and innovation. T, significance / impact weighing, and args against the evidence quality are probably better ways to go if you think their new aff is abusive or bad.

Disclosure theory is similarly uphill; as a coach who believes in the life skills of debate, i believe you should have a generic strat and some confidence in your analytical skills. i will vote neg on analytics or logical application of general evidence to a specific case, so you're not disadvantaged in front of me by not having case-specific evidence. i don't think there's information you're definitively owed before the 1ac speaks...nor are you owed time to prep with a coach before your round given that your opponents may not have that opportunity...though i do think reciprocal agreements should be respected and any disclosure misdirection i can verify / observe will result in low speaks at a minimum.

SPEAKER POINTS

• i try to fit into the rubric of a particular tournament’s level of challenge and objectives; in lay local debate, i tend to defer to the adaptation goals of that community and adjust accordingly; in circuit, certainly i hold the line more on substance and relative skill in the pool

• speaks are earned by a combo of:

• style (art, creativity, accessibility, memorability, ethos/pathos/logos balance)

• + substance (tech, strategy, demonstrating knowledge and control of the flow + clearly writing my ballot)

• + adaptation (because i’m here for you and you can be a little here for me - and i think this shows your ability to pave a way to persuasion and willingness to make a speech act connect; as a critic of argument focused on education, to me that seems like part of the mission; you make a clear effort to reach out to my understanding of and goals for debate; it’s flagged; it’s obvious; bonus points in paneled prelim round situations if i can tell you're doing this for the whole panel)

• Generally, i think the College Debate Ratings speaker point scale from a few years ago is a good guide for toc-qualifying tournaments but here i overlay my personal rubric from above so you see more of what i’m looking for per level:

• 29.7+ – exceptional; top few speakers; you’ve blown me away in style + substance + adaptation

• 29.5-29.6 – should be top 10 speakers; the force is strong with you across style + substance + adaptation

• 29.3-29.4 – still high points for top 10 speakers; very strong in at least one subset of style + substance + adaptation and other areas are still high

• 29.1-29.2 – median for top 10 speakers; by here, you may not have the full package of style + substance + adaptation but you are excellent in at least some of those areas

• 28.8-29.0 – roughly 75th percentile at the tournament; bubble territory; i see a bright spark in at least one of the areas of style + substance + adaptation but the breadth isn’t there yet / today

• 28.5-28.7 – roughly 50th percentile at the tournament; emerging strengths in style + substance + adaptation but some clear deficits in skills or effort across the areas

• 28.3-28.4 – roughly 25th percentile at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation; clearly uneven performance

• 28.0-28.3 – roughly 10th percentile speaker at the tournament; not projecting certainty in style + substance + adaptation

• 27.5-27.9 – having a tough day / round or looking early in your journey for style + substance + adaptation; some skills which seem basic for the tournament mission aren’t clear yet

*************************************************************************************************

OTHER DETAILS & DEBATE FORMATS:

Debating for Panels:

State Quals / NSDA National Quals / Panels with Lay Judges: i'm an educator who believes in access and participation. If you go warp speed, choose a hyper-technical style, and / or present esoteric arguments and in doing so exclude a lay judge, i will be peeved and your speaks will be low. i'm fine with you picking a moderate rate and trying to hit the middle most of the time by occasionally getting more technical, but i'm a proponent of including all your critics. i also see a value in lay debate and stock issues, so if you do that, i'm not going to be bored or think you're not a smart debater. This isn't to say i believe you must take a stock issues approach to mixed panels - just saying i'd recommend you err towards what includes the panel's understanding of debate.

debate events besides policy: i primarily coach and judge policy but have coached and judged all debate events; my paradigm below has sections for LD, Parli, & PF; you might want to read the Policy section above to get more insight about particular positions; ask if you've got questions...but i'll go w/ the standards the debaters set as opposed to judging your LD, PF, and Parli rounds "like a policy judge" unless you give me no guidance, in which case i default to being a critic of argument

for LD Debate:

• i've most often judged traditional "California style" LD but i'm open to other styles

• my default is to look for contentions which are clearly impacted to the criterion based upon warranted, high quality evidence and / or analysis

• will listen to theory arguments and consider them if they are substantiated and impacted...but also...i will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules such as "no plans" / "no counter plans") in those particular settings if a student raises an objection regarding event rules

for PF Debate:

• my ideal PF round has debaters setting a clear framework / objective / goal for the round and pointing their contentions and their impacts towards this goal

• my rfds - absent guidance otherwise - tend to hone in on how the debaters resolve the framework of the debate and the relative weight of their impacts

• conceded args / defense / whatever is NOT sticky - you need to say it in summary for it to be valid in final focus (i don't think it's fair for me to have to evaluate what was responded to directly / indirectly or enough vs. not enough - requires too much subjectivity - so the objective standard for me is concrete extensions)

• can you pls just share your ev w/ one another before speeches rather than making everyone wait for these vague and lengthy specific card requests? pls???

• cross-fire / grand cross-fire are very important to me in terms of argument testing and argument resolution and i'm flowing them; however, debaters should carry these concessions or other components into speeches and weigh them out in the context of the round's framework / objectives / core claims if they want cross-fire content to be a voting issue

• theory - sure if substantiated and impacted, though i think PF lacks adequate time for impacting such arguments without placing yourself significantly behind on clash

• will follow / enforce the specific rules of a tournament (e.g. "no plans" / "no counterplans") as directed by debaters' objections or formal protest (e.g. CHSSA or NSDA rules) in those particular settings

• cards, not links or vague paraphrasing - "[author name] says X in 2022" where X is not a direct quote or at least mentioning a very specific data point / argument rather than a broad claim is absolutely not evidence to me; i'm dismayed by the amount of paraphrasing i've seen in the event lately; paraphrasing brief claims without warrants or drop quotes...or simply providing a pile of author names...these things truly aren't persuasive if there's no quoted evidence or warranted analysis based upon specific conclusions; this isn't to say you need giant paragraphs like policy evidence but actually cite specific details and quotes with warrants for your claim if you want me to view that as a supported claim. i am not going to go through your separate evidence doc to find the support for you if you haven't read it into the round. you don't get to summarize a whole book or article w/o detail. NSDA rules (which apply to CHSSA & CFL tournaments as well as NSDA tournaments) are very clear on this point. See NSDA High School Unified Manual (Feb. 2023 updated version) (command F "Evidence Rules for Policy, Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, and Big Questions Debate" and in particular, rule 7.2.B.3 on p. 30: "If a student paraphrases from a book, study, or any other source, the specific lines or section from which the paraphrase is taken must be highlighted or otherwise formatted for identification in the round.")

for Parli Debate:

• mainly looking for clear warranting & impacting as well as linking plan provisions / thesis to benefits or the agreed upon / debated out goal of the round

• will apply other frameworks based upon debaters' warranted advocacy and clash

• theory is fine if substantiated and impacted; T / other theory / off-case positions are welcome if clearly warranted

• either "dismiss the argument" or "drop the team" claims need to be very heavily substantiated and demonstrate clear potential or in-round abuse with demonstrable impacts

• generally no RVIs absent substantial work in justifying them

For Email Chain:paynel@parkhill.k12.mo.us

Experience: I debated primarily CX at the high school level (2016 graduate) for three years, but I am familiar with all forms of debate. That being said, I was much more invested in interp. I have three years of experience as an assistant coach in northwest and southwest Missouri, and as a judge at the state and national level (NSDA and NCFL) for several years after graduating.

Disclaimer: I was in debate for the respectful, argumentative skill-building and enjoyable experience. If you are not actively learning and/or having fun in every round, speech and debate has lost its meaning. I do not tolerate disrespect or deceit from anyone (i.e. clipping cards, using time spent flashing evidence to prep, hurtful cross ex/rebuttals, rolling eyes/sighing while other team is speaking, etc.) I also find rhetoric important and expect the word "abuse" to NOT be mentioned in round, as it is harmful to those who have experienced this trauma firsthand. PLEASE DO NOT SCROLL ON YOUR PHONE/PACK UP UNTIL THE ENTIRE ROUND CONCLUDES. By getting on your phone in the last speech and stopping your flow, you are implying that because YOU are done speaking that the entire debate is done, therefore undermining the learning space.

General: Ultimately, I want a majority of on-case arguments with specific links to the case. That being said, I believe T should not be used as a crutch. If you have complied specific evidence against it, it is probably topical.

I love a good K or other theoretical arguments, but be sure that you make clarity your top priority. I enjoy a well-run Counter-Plan as well. I'm pretty flexible when it comes to arguments being made- just make sure you are analyzing and telling me why I should pref.

Analyze the evidence, don't just read it. I need evidence and arguments in human terms. This might not be typical of a flow judge with experience in policy, but remember, I was an interp kid from the midwest. We DO NOT spread where I'm from. Be quick and efficient, but be aware I have a very hard time understanding spreading. Debate (especially Policy debate) should be an inclusive space that is accessible for all.

Good luck and most importantly, learn from each other!

Experience: I debated primarily CX at the high school level (2016 graduate) for three years, but I am familiar with all forms of debate. That being said, I was much more invested in interp. I served as an assistant coach for one year, and as a judge at the national level for several years after graduating.

Disclaimer: I was in debate for the respectful, argumentative skill-building and enjoyable experience. If you are not actively learning and/or having fun in every round, speech and debate has lost its meaning. I do not tolerate disrespect or deceit from anyone (i.e. clipping cards, using time spent flashing evidence to prep, hurtful cross ex/rebuttals, rolling eyes/sighing while other team is speaking, etc.)

General: I prefer on-case arguments with specific links to the case. That being said, I believe T should be an absolute last resort. If you have complied evidence against it, it is probably topical.

I'm not opposed to K or other theoretical arguments, but be sure that you make clarity your top priority. I enjoy a good well-run CP.

Explain the evidence, don't just read it. I need evidence and arguments in human terms. This might not be typical of a flow judge, but remember, I was an interp kid.

Good luck and most importantly, learn from each other!

Meg Petersen

they/them

barabriefs@gmail.com

Conflicts: Joplin High School, Missouri State University

Experience

Policy - 2 years of competition at the collegiate level at Missouri State University. Experienced mostly with policy-based debate but somewhat knowledgeable on K debate as well.

Lincoln-Douglas - 4 years of competition at the high school level, 2 years of competition at the college level with Missouri State University, plus a half year of high school coaching experience. Very experienced with value-based LD debates at the high school level. Very familiar with policy-based Lincoln-Douglas also.

Speech - 4 years at the high school level. Most experienced with informative speaking, oratory, and extemporaneous speaking.

Interp - 3 years at the high school level. Most experienced with duo interpretation and humorous interpretation.

Congress - 2 years at the high school level, plus experience with different styles of student congress at NSDA nationals.

Above all

Speech and debate is an activity you spend a lot of time and energy working on. You've already prepped for this tournament and put in the effort for this round. Relax and communicate your arguments to us. This activity should be fun! Have fun with it and be respectful to your fellow competitors, they've worked hard too.

Policy paradigm

Speed - I am comfortable with spreading as long as your opponent is. The debate should be accessible to everyone in the room. If I or your opponent call for speed or clarity and you do not accommodate, I will stop flowing the speech.

Documents - I like to be on any email chain or speech drop, my email is above. If you cut cards in speech, I need to know where. Flagrant card clipping will result in a loss from me.

Evidence Quality - In general, I am willing to accept evidence unless challenged by the other team. Exceptions to this are cards from sources that are clearly intended to spread misinformation and/or hateful messages (think Infowars or Breitbart).

K's - I don't know every critical author out there, so I may not immediately be completely familiar with your advocacy or position. If you can clearly defend what the advocacy is, why I should be voting for it, and what your critical basis for those things are, you can win on any K with me.

Theory - It takes a lot for me to vote on theory. I have biases but am willing to be persuaded by very good argumentation. Saying "condo bad" and moving onto the next page isn't enough for me to vote on. My biases are as follows:

Fine/good: Conditionality, dispositionality, PICs, kicking planks

Bad/not cool: Uniform 50-state fiat

No preference: Process counterplans

Anything not listed here, feel free to ask about pre-round.

Framework - I tend to think framework debates have been settled and that K debate is a valid form of debate at this point. That being said, I will listen to any framework argument and decide the round purely off of the flow here. I've debated as a policy-only team and know what it takes to win on framework. I generally default to fairness and proven in-round loss/abuse. Tell me what to vote for and why though.

2AR and 2NR - Go for fewer arguments. I want a couple of reasons to vote for in those last few minutes. Don't try to bring every page into your last rebuttal. Pick a couple of really strong ones and tell me why those issues win you the round.

Topicality - Topicality is pretty important in policy aff debates, and I'll listen to any argument you make here. If you're going for topicality, it usually has to be the entire last rebuttal to be cohesive enough for me to vote on it.

K affs - See framework for most of my thoughts on this. I just need a clear reason why you shouldn't be putting forward a plan and you're good to rock and roll.

Lincoln Douglas Paradigm

Values - If you're running a value and criterion, that's how I will evaluate the round. Prove to me how (1) your value clashes with or outweighs your opponent's and (2) you achieve your value better than your opponent does.

Progressive LD- See policy notes above. The only difference is your arguments need to be concise. Pick a few good arguments that you can make in the time you have.

Speed - I am comfortable with spreading as long as your opponent is. The debate should be accessible to everyone in the room. If I or your opponent call for speed or clarity and you do not accommodate, I will stop flowing the speech.

Documents - I like to be on any email chain or speech drop, my email is above. If you cut cards in speech, I need to know where. Flagrant card clipping will result in a loss from me.

2AR and 1NR - Go for fewer arguments. I want a couple of reasons to vote for in those last couple of minutes. Don't try to bring every page into your final focus/voting issues. Pick a couple of really strong ones and tell me why those issues win you the round.

Evidence Quality - In general, I am willing to accept evidence unless challenged by the other debater. Exceptions to this are cards from sources that are clearly intended to spread misinformation and/or hateful messages (think Infowars or Breitbart).

NOTE: This is geared towards policy debate at the moment, but much of the logic here applies to PF.

Note for NSDA Nationals 2022

I am a very late add to the policy pool. I should mention that I haven't heard a round on the topic this year.

Additional PF-specific notes at the top:

I find the practice of card paraphrasing to be problematic. It's educationally unsound and ethically problematic because the structure of the event really makes it difficult to check abuse. I would much rather see a long card with aggressive highlighting than a paraphrase.

If you are reading one-sentence cards or paraphrased cards, you should know that I will be very receptive to a theory block about it. If you present a card inside quotation marks that is not an actual quote, I will vote on that evidence abuse almost every time.

If we're going to run 20+ cards in public forum rounds, my expectation is that both teams share speech docs with full cut cards at the start or end of their speeches. Don't send cards one at a time, don't send one-sentence quotes, send full, cut cards.

That being said, my preference is for evidence-heavy debate (at least in constructives) where the cards provide the warrants and backing evidence.

My biggest pet peeve is teams reading blocks in rounds that they don't really understand and are maybe reading for the first time. There are moments when you are going to be surprised by a position or case in a round, but most of the time, you should be familiar with the blocks you read. This activity has to be more than teams reading blocks written by their coaches and other debaters. I want smart, round-specific analytical arguments and will give far more credit to a round-specific claim than something you read from a block.

I have been involved with policy for a long time, but have been out of the judging circuit after a long pause from the activity as a coach. In general, that means I am open-minded about any kind of argumentation but tend to prefer a policy-oriented round. I will listen to and vote for kritiks and critical Affs but I will be very sympathetic to arguments against K Affs. Very sympathetic!

Happy to vote on big impact positions, but perhaps more inclined to listen to smart analytical analysis of flaws in the evidence and link stories than most judges.

Perhaps a bit more clarification here is warranted: I really dislike the trend of contemporary debate to have rounds boil down to arguments about fairness/reasonability/etc. These arguments are often reductive and repetitive. They also encourage judge intervention if they become major voting issues, Make them in the constructives, but by rebuttals, let's move to more substantive analysis.

A few things I don't like

Really rapid analytical arguments without context or development (fewer, better analyticals are better for me), arguments that are exclusionary or demeaning, misrepresentation of evidence, stripping cards of their warrants in your highlighting.

Things I do like

Thoughtful comparison of impact calculus in rebuttals, respectful debate that is inclusive, thoughtful analysis of framework debates, signposting arguments.

Things worth knowing:

I want the 2AC/2NC/1NR/1AR segment of the debate to compare evidence and analysis. It's great that you've got some prepared frontlines but I am far more interested in strong in-round analysis than in competing prepped positions.

If the Neg runs a series of contradictory 1N shells, I am very inclined to consider Aff arguments that claim it's an abusive strategy. I prefer the Neg to take an intellectually consistent approach to the round. Don't run a K that says state action is genocide and a states counterplan and expect that you'll easily get out of it by kicking one in the block.

I flow what I can hear. Sure, I will look at the e-mail chain, but even if we're on Zoom, I want to be able to hear and understand your cards. I am not particularly interested in policy debate becoming an activity where five people read Word documents sent to one another. I will use your doc to supplement my flow, but I expect you to be clear enough that I can understand both tag and cards.

Joint Winner of the Harvard College Tournament Costume Contest 2023

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Niles West 23-

KU 24-

rebound23sp@gmail.com

I cannot read blue highlighting. Green/Yellow is most ideal BUT most other colors are fine. If you are struggling to figure out how to change your highlighting, Verbatim has a standardize highlighting feature.

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. However, teams calling out the reading of an author and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker) is totally fair game.

Prefer debates where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that the AFF is bad. What this means is open to interpretation.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not.

Enjoy debates where teams forward and construct a coherent story and uses that story to implicate other portions of the debate.

I am willing to vote on condo bad.

Unnecessary time-wasting irks me. The 1AC should be sent before the round starts.

Hidden Aspec is one of the worst trends I have seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you do not even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding Aspec will have a speaker point implosion.

I prefer to be called E.C. rather than judge or any other version. (I go by my initials if that helps with pronunciation.)

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

Glendale ‘21

Missouri State ‘26

rauhoffdebate@gmail.com---yes chain---please include tournament, round, teams debating, and sides in the subject line.

TOPIC KNOWLEDGE:

Education (HS, debater)

Immigration (HS, debater)

Arms Sales (HS, debater)

Criminal Justice (HS, debater)

Water (HS, coach)

NATO (HS, coach)

Fiscal Redistribution (HS, coach)

Nukes (NDT, debater)

I was exclusively a policy debater in high school and I’m exclusively a policy debater in college. Debating the college nukes topic now. Currently coach for Glendale and cut lots of cards for them, so I will be up to date on the vast majority of the topic lingo.

FOR MISSOURI:

If I am judging you and you want to spread, I love it! You all don't get that opportunity much, and I remember being ecstatic in HS when I'd get a flow judge/panel at a Missouri tournament. However, there are a few things to note:

1---I very much dislike spreading that sounds horrendous. This looks like debaters mumbling through cards incomprehensively, making it impossible to distinguish tags/analytics from the body of a card, attempting to speak faster than you can read, etc---you should prioritize clarity over speed.

2---Your opponents should be able and/or willing to participate in a round with spreading.

3---I will flow, and will decide the debate based off of said flow.

I've noticed some debaters in MO bragging about not taking as much prep time as their opponents or making it a goal to not take prep time at all. I will audibly laugh if you stand up for the 2NR/2AR without prep, and immediately after the debate, tell you several things you could've used prep time for to improve your speech. Prep time is useful. It's there for a reason, and no debater that has ever stepped foot in a debate round is too good for prep time.

FIRST THINGS FIRST:

Will vote on whatever, just impact it out & tell me why your argument matters more than/outweighs your opponents’ argument. Don’t care if you read death good in front of me, but just know that the threshold for beating that argument is pretty low. Same goes for ASPEC/FSPEC/whatever weird stuff you feel is necessary to read.

I try not to be a very expressive judge, because I find these judges to be extremely annoying.

Clarity is more important to me than speed---go however fast you want, but make sure I can hear taglines/analytics, regardless of whether they’re in the speech doc or not. If you want to blaze through cards, that’s fine, just make sure I can hear like every fifth word or something.

Condo is good (within reason), judge kick is good, reasonability is stupid, utopian alts are stupid.

I will not adjudicate out-of-round events, regardless of the situation. My role is solely as an educator, not as an executioner. If you bring up an issue to me that has happened outside of the context of the debate round that involves your opponents and you refuse to debate the round, I will give all debaters involved a 27.5, immediately stop the round, and report the issue to tab/let them deal with it.

ONLINE:

Could not care any less if you have your camera on or off.

Slow down slightly.

Include analytics in the doc (don’t care if you do this in-person, but tech issues makes it important).

Use an external mic if possible.

TOP LEVEL:

Probably about 60/40 on tech v truth. If you explain to me why one matters more than the other, I will evaluate the debate that way. I lean slightly more tech, because you can’t just answer an extinction impact with “extinction won’t happen!” with no ev or warrants to substantiate that claim.

I typically vote pretty quickly, but this doesn’t mean the debate was bad or lopsided. All it means is that I feel as if the debate was clear enough argumentatively that I was able to adjudicate it without putting pieces together at the end or looking at evidence. This is my ideal situation. Debates are long and we all want to move on. That said, if I need to take 20 minutes to decide a debate, I will do so.

If you’re rude, it’ll affect your speaks in a negative way, though I might have a higher threshold for what I constitute as “rude” than most. For example, if you’re giving a long, drawn-out answer to a question and your opponent cuts you off, they’re not being rude---they have more questions to ask and you don’t get to use CX as 3 minutes of extra speech time. Calling an argument “trash” or something isn’t rude, but calling your opponents “trash” is. If you’re REALLY rude, it is possible for me to vote you down, but this is an extremely high bar that I’ve only come CLOSE to crossing once.

I will only intervene if neither side has made the arguments they’ve gone for clear. This is my least ideal judging situation. The more I have to intervene, the lower your speaks will be.

SPEAKER POINTS:

I do not pretend to have a strict rule for speaker points, and they are adjusted on a tournament-by-tournament basis. What this means is that my average will be contingent upon various parameters of the tournament (i.e. size, pool, length, etc.). My average is a 28.5 and you’ll go up or down from there.

DISADVANTAGES:

They’re great and ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Politics DAs are awesome.

COUNTERPLANS:

They are also great and the other ½ of my favorite 2NRs.

Textual v functional competition can be debated out. I don’t have particularly strong thoughts about either. Competition is more impactful than theory.

Conditionality is definitely good, but I’ll vote on condo bad if you decide to go for it. That will, however, require lots of work done on the line-by-line and there should probably be an example of in-round abuse.

Advantage CPs are great and underutilized at the high school level.

Multi-plank CPs are fine.

Probably better for Process CPs than most.

PICs are good, but can be persuaded otherwise.

Plan-plus counterplans are bad 99% of the time---not from a theory perspective, but from a substance perspective---just stop reading these

TOPICALITY:

Pretty bad for T vs policy affs, unless

1---The violation is obvious or

2---It’s a new aff.

In situations where your opponents break a new aff that has not been read commonly on the topic, I understand T as a last-ditch strategy and will give the negative some more leeway. That being said, if the aff IS clearly topical, it will still be difficult to get my ballot on T.

While I don’t consider myself a good judge for T, I do place importance on having good interps/reasons to prefer. It is possible for the aff to get my ballot with just a “we meet” argument, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Fairness & clash are not independent impacts---but rather internal links to impacts like education---this is especially true for T against K affs.

T is not an RVI.

Will not flow an ASPEC shell or any other theory shell if it's hidden inside a T shell---stop doing this

KRITIKS (on the aff):

In my ideal debate, the affirmative will defend a hypothetical plan through the USFG and the negative will negate the effects of said plan’s implementation. If I was a critical debater creating my pref sheet for a tournament, I would likely place myself in the 70% range. I personally believe that in an equally debated framework v framework debate, I am likely more easily persuaded by the negative.

In order to get my ballot, you will have to convince me of three primary things by the end of the debate:

1---My ballot in this particular round is key for the solvency of the affirmative.

2---The world of the affirmative creates a better model of debate than the negative, or at the very least, does not create a worse model of debate than the status quo.

3---The affirmative out-teched the negative team and voting affirmative outweighs the offense that the 2NR has.

If you think you are unable to convince me of these three things, you should not read a critical aff in front of me. While it may be harder to win my ballot than some judges, it will not be anything close to impossible. I will reward good debaters, regardless of the arguments they read.

Having a strong framework argument is integral to getting my ballot. In order to prove to me that the model of debate you produce is better or equal to the status quo, you will first have to win that debates over the resolution are bad.

KRITIKS (on the neg):

The three questions from above also apply to this section. In order to win my ballot, you will have to convince me that my ballot in this round is key to solve, that you create a better and/or equal model of debate than the squo, and that you have out-teched your opponents.

If your kritik is a DA, i.e. just “aff perpetuates x, no alt”, refer to the DA section.

I think that the Cap K is extremely strategic on this year’s HS topic---and I’m more than willing to pull the trigger on it if there’s a viable link to the aff. I think that it is extremely strategic to run this as more of a linear DA, too.

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails. I honestly prefer speechdrop, but email is ok if that's your norm or what your coach prefers. My least favorite option is the file share.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2022-23 topic marks my 27th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

Update - 1/20 - a note about prepping your speech before you speak

My expectation is that you send out a doc BEFORE you speak that includes the evidence AND analytics that you intend to read in the speech if they are typed up. They should also be in the order that you are going to speak them. It is an accessibility issue. If you type them up in the round, that's one thing - but if they are your blocks (or your team blocks) they should be sent. This includes AT A MINIMUM the text of perms, the texts of counterplans, the text of interpretations of why you reject a team, etc. Also, if you choose to just randomly jump around in a document please know that it will dramatically impact your speaks. Nobody is as good at flowing in online debates as we are in person, having the doc and reading it in order helps improve the activity.

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

Please show up to the room to establish email chains/ speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, do tech checks, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after pairings have been released (read at least 20 minutes prior assuming pairings come out 30 minutes prior to round). The 1ac should start when the pairing says unless there is a tournament related reason. Once you get to the room and do tech check, feel free to use the rest of the time to prep, etc. If it's an in person tournament, please show up when the pairings get released, set up an email chain or speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, and then go prep - just come back to the room before the round is supposed to start. If you can't get to the room for some reason, it is your responsibility to email me and the other team to let us know.

Please know that if you don't do this, it will negatively effect your speaker points by .5. Choosing to show up late makes tournaments run behind and gives unfair advantages to teams with multiple coaches (I have to be here to judge and coach my team - if you choose to be late, I assume it's because you're getting extra coaching which gives you an unfair advantage over teams whose coaches are judging).

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- I know that the last couple of topics don't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are three specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament or on a previous day and is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text before the round.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 4/7/23)

COVID and other diseases are still real. If I'm feeling at all under the weather, I will wear a mask. I ask you to do the same. All other things being equal, you are free to debate with or without a mask. However, if you are asked to wear a mask by an opponent or judge who is also wearing a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give. This is a safety issue.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails. I honestly prefer speechdrop, but email is ok if that's your norm or what your coach prefers. My least favorite option is the file share.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2022-23 topic marks my 27th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

Update - 1/20 - a note about prepping your speech before you speak

My expectation is that you send out a doc BEFORE you speak that includes the evidence AND analytics that you intend to read in the speech if they are typed up. They should also be in the order that you are going to speak them. It is an accessibility issue. If you type them up in the round, that's one thing - but if they are your blocks (or your team blocks) they should be sent. This includes AT A MINIMUM the text of perms, the texts of counterplans, the text of interpretations of why you reject a team, etc. Also, if you choose to just randomly jump around in a document please know that it will dramatically impact your speaks. Nobody is as good at flowing in online debates as we are in person, having the doc and reading it in order helps improve the activity.

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

Please show up to the room to establish email chains/ speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, do tech checks, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after pairings have been released (read at least 20 minutes prior assuming pairings come out 30 minutes prior to round). The 1ac should start when the pairing says unless there is a tournament related reason. Once you get to the room and do tech check, feel free to use the rest of the time to prep, etc. If it's an in person tournament, please show up when the pairings get released, set up an email chain or speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, and then go prep - just come back to the room before the round is supposed to start. If you can't get to the room for some reason, it is your responsibility to email me and the other team to let us know.

Please know that if you don't do this, it will negatively effect your speaker points by .5. Choosing to show up late makes tournaments run behind and gives unfair advantages to teams with multiple coaches (I have to be here to judge and coach my team - if you choose to be late, I assume it's because you're getting extra coaching which gives you an unfair advantage over teams whose coaches are judging).

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- I know that the last couple of topics don't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are three specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament or on a previous day and is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text before the round.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 4/7/23)

COVID and other diseases are still real. If I'm feeling at all under the weather, I will wear a mask. I ask you to do the same. All other things being equal, you are free to debate with or without a mask. However, if you are asked to wear a mask by an opponent or judge who is also wearing a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give. This is a safety issue.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

- I judge in a circuit that debates slowly. I prefer quality of argumentation to quantity.

- My default is to evaluate the round as a policymaker, but I'll listen to arguments about why I should do otherwise. I'll vote on a procedural or critical argument if you give me some good and clear reasons for doing so.

- I did policy debate in high school, parliamentary debate in college, and studied philosophy in grad school.

Chris Rothgeb

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Head Coach

I currently coach the following events: Policy, LD, Public Forum, Congress, Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, Storytelling, Prose, Poetry, Duet Acting), USX, IX, OO, Info, Radio Speaking.

Former Assistant and Head Coach at Jefferson City High School, Jefferson City, MO

I debated Policy, LD, and PF in High School. I debated Policy for 2 semesters in college at Missouri State University. I have also judged NFA LD and College Policy/CEDA/NDT.

Policy Debate (below)

In high school and in college, I almost always gave the 1AR.

Role as the judge - I tend to not define what judge I am in a single term. Basically, whatever you present, I will listen to and evaluate that.

Flash Time - When someone is flashing evidence, NO ONE IS PREPPING!! I will count off your own prep time if you are prepping while someone is flashing.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life a little easier and I can be a better judge for you.

If you are unclear, I will yell for you to be clearer. If you continue to be unclear, I will dock speaker points.

I will read evidence if I believe that it is important. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I do not. I will only read the un-underlined portion of evidence if it is brought up in the round and I believe it to be important to decide the outcome of the round. I don't usually do this though.

Topicality - I have voted on T in the past, but that does not mean I like it. If the aff is being blatantly untopical, then T is clearly going to matter. If there is no offense from either side, I will discard T. Make it count.

Theory - Theory debates are so tricky. I was never really exposed to theory until college and it still confuses me today. If you decide to go this route, make it count and explain it well. You do not have to dumb it down, but you need to explain it.

Kritiks - Again, I never debated K in high school. It just wasn't a thing in my circuit. I only did K debates in college because my partners wanted to. I never understood them which made it difficult to convey to the judge. This is important to know. If you do not fully understand your K position, then you cannot explain it that well to me. This presents a problem when it comes down to me making an evaluation of the round. The other thing I find with most K debates is that no one ever tells me the "why" component - or the Impacts. The theory behind the K may be super interesting, but what is the actual application to the round? If you cannot explain this, odds are I will have a hard time making the K matter in my decision.

AFF duties - You must read a plan in the 1AC. This is non-negotiable to me. Waiting until after the 1AC to read a plan is abusive and we just wasted 16 minutes of good speaking time.

Performance debates - I have only ever seen 1 performance debate in my entire career. I didn't vote for it. Not because it wasn't effective, but because they couldn't defend it. Keep that in mind.

Speed - I am "okay" with speed. Most people seem to think that if they read it fast enough, that counts. This is incorrect. If I cannot perceive your words, then I cannot digest the information that you are presenting. BE CLEAR!! Just because you can speak fast, does not mean that I can digest it that fast. I need to be able to understand what is going on in the round in order to make the most accurate decision after the round. On the standard 1-to-9 scale from the NSDA (with 1 being slow and conversational and 9 being rapid and fast), I would go with a 5. If you are speaking and I am not flowing, you are going too fast. I will tell you to be clear, but I will NOT tell you to slow down.

In-round K - I put Language K and Speed K here. Unless the other team is ACTUALLY being abusive, then this should NOT happen. Again, I need impacts.

Abuse - Potential abuse is not a reason to vote someone down. If you feel you were actually at a disadvantage in the round caused by the other team cheating, or what-not, then show that to me.

TL;DR - Impact your arguments.

Have fun with the debate! This is supposed to be fun! So enjoy it! A bad attitude is so easy to see for a judge and it makes me not have fun either. Then we are all sitting there with bad attitudes for an hour and a half. No one wants that.

I really enjoy case and DA debates the best. Impact analysis is always fun to judge. I will listen to all of your arguments - that I can promise you. But you need to make it count.

World Schools (below)

Summer 2022 is my first time judging WSD. All I ask is to be respectful towards each other with POI. Turning down too many points will lose some speaker points. Be sure to carry your arguments from the first speech all the way through (unless you are strategically kicking out of arguments). Make sure you are keeping the big picture in mind. This is a holistic debate -be holistic. 

National Tournament Paradigm Available through National Tournament Site.

Beyond the filled out card NSDA requires, I'm interested in accessible debate. Don't gatekeep the activity by making it harder to understand. (This is especially applies to K's, some kinds of Theory, speed/spread, and unnecessary jargon that clutters the debate space). Every time you use the phrase "cold concedes", J Scott Wunn sheds another tear.

Debate IS an educational communication activity first and foremost. To that end, passing a card to your opponents and not reading it aloud, or any other version of the debate being "on paper but not verbal" (which includes reading at a pace that exceeds public retention of ideas) is a self-defeating practice in the activity that I strongly discourage. If you're right, but you can't articulate it in a way someone who has never watched a debate before can appreciate, it doesn't matter!

If you can't trust your partner to give their speech without your constant input, don't do a team debate. I want to vote for good teams, not someone trying to carry or someone who is too controlling to maintain decorum.

In every form of debate, there should be detailed voting issues!

If you cannot appear civil, it doesn't matter if you're right in a space like this. People don't want to listen to shouting. Decorum is a part of debate, always.

More words don't make better arguments.

Evidence, evidence, evidence. The side that presents and most effectively uses, analyzes, interprets, and refutes opposing evidence will be the winner.

About Me:

I debated for 4 years at Central High School in Springfield, MO, competing at mostly local tournaments. I primarily competed in Public Forum, International Extemp and Original Oratory, and have a little bit of experience with Policy Debate (but only at a very basic level).

General Debate Preferences:

1. Speaking:

I will be flowing, and I do my best to try to write everything down BUT if you go too quickly, I may not be able to catch everything. Be mindful of your speed, and if you think that you're speaking too quickly, you probably are.

Signpost. I won't know where to flow things if you don't.

2. Argumentation:

Warrant everything!

Smart analytics combined with evidence are always going to be better than just evidence.

Weigh the impacts of the round! If your argument doesn't have an impact, I will not vote for it.

Interact with your opponents arguments with analytics and evidence; if I don't understand why a piece of evidence is a response to something, that's on you.

Making good comparative analysis is one of the most compelling things you can do in a debate round, so show me why your arguments are better than your opponents.

3. Progressive Arguments:

I have no experience with these arguments and I am generally uncomfortable voting on these arguments. To ensure that I can judge the round as effectively as possible, I won't evaluate theory, Ks, etc. unless there is an in-round violation that hurts or excludes somebody. At that point, I would prefer that it was not laid out in the format of progressive argumentation, but in paragraph form with a warrant and an explanation.

4. Speaker Ratings/Points:

I am not opposed to low point wins, speaking better does not always mean that you debated better.

If you spin 360 degrees every time you say "turn," I'll give you a 30.

5. Miscellaneous:

Have fun! I know it's stressful, but it'll make the experience better for everyone.

If you are offensive, you will lose on the lowest speaks possible.

If you are reading an argument that you think needs a trigger or content warning, use one.

Don't call me "judge."

If there is ANYTHING you think I should know before the round starts that is pertinent, send me an email at askolnic@trinity.edu.

Clarity is far more important than speed. I write slower than you talk, so spreading is likely to result in me missing some points, and I can only judge on what I can record.

Theory and k's are technically acceptable, but I would prefer you actually debated the topic on its merits. It makes for a more interesting round.

I will judge only what you actually argue. Claims made, so long as they aren't obviously false, will be accepted as true until the other team challenges them.

If you're going to link to an annihilation scenario, your link needs to be super strong. Everything doesn't result in nuclear war.

I am thinking impact calc the whole time you're talking. Explain the significance of each of your points and be very clear about why it weighs out in your favor. I will reward this.

Civility is of the utmost importance in a round. Any behaviors that demean or belittle your opponent will be reflected in your speaker points and possibly in my decision.

Have fun!

Missouri State Debater (NDT-CEDA) 2007-2011; Judged NDT - 2011-2014

Greenwood Lab School - Middle and high school coach - 2011- 2023

Crowder College Director of Forensics (NFA-LD and IPDA debate formats) - 2015-2023

Missouri State Tournament Update

I have spent the last decade being around basically every other kind of debate besides NDT. I have judged at primarily regional and end of year national policy tournaments (NSDA and NCFL) for middle/high school and a ton of NFA-LD at the college level.

I have been working with novices and the packet this past month so I have some exposure to the topic (I also debated nukes) but you should assume I need a bit more explanation than the average judge about your argument.

Things I know to be true about myself as a judge:

1) I have a higher threshold for explanation and explaining how arguments interact than others. That is likely supercharged by the fact I haven't been around NDT in a few years. There are arguments that are just understood to mean certain things and I might not know what that is. Defer to explaining WHY winning an argument matters and interacts with the rest of the debate, even if you think it is obvious.

2) I don't have a lot of tolerance for unnecessary hostility and yelling (I am not talking about you being a loud person. You do you. I am talking about this in the context of it being directed towards others) in debates. There are times you need to assert yourself or ask a targeted series of questions, but I would much prefer that not to escalate. There is very little that is made better or more persuasive to me by being overly aggressive, evasive, or hostile.

3) Debate is an educational activity first, competitive second. I will judge the debate that happens in front of me to the best of my ability. Full stop. However, I believe in the educational value of what we learn in debates and will likely defer to the education side of things when in conflict.

4) My debate knowledge base is primarily shaped by NDT norms circa 2007-2012. I know some of those norms have changed. I will do my best to adapt the way the community has.

5) Policy arguments are more comfortable to me and what I know best. I would not consider myself particularly well versed in the nuances of most "K" literature that is read these days. However, with proper explanation and connections, I think I can judge any debate that I am presented with.

There is a ton not covered here. Feel free to ask questions or clarify. As I judge more, I am sure I will have more specific thoughts about specific parts of these debates and will add more.

I apologize in advance for the countless grammar mistakes I made in this paradigm.

He/him/his

General very short overview

Tech > truth, though if the claim made by the evidence is blatantly false or outdated that will be considered.

I am a policy judge, please strike me or pref me low if you are strictly a K team.

K debate is so boring because every 2NR is fw and every 2AR is "we outweigh"

Politics DA's are the best things in the world.

Big stick impacts > soft left impacts 

I will vote on all theory, including disclosure. If you are aff and don't disclose before the round you will get -2 speaks. 

Extinction > all impacts but theory and T

No death good, please and thank you :)

I kinda find T debates boring so don't go for them please!

2NR should be a disad, CP, or framework if neg wants to win 

K's

Like I mentioned earlier I'm a policy judge. If you choose to run a K aff be my guest but neg will probably get an easy win on framework unless they drop like every answer you make in the 2AC. Also if neg can prove that there is a TVA it is probably a lost debate for the aff.

If you choose to run a K set col, security, or something basic like that would be your best bet. I would most definitely caution you against a 1-off K strategy. Most of your off case arguments should be policy if you want to win. PLEASE DO NOT GO FOR ONLY A K IN THE 2NR YOU WILL PROBABLY LOSE AND I WILL BE CONFUSED AND BORED!

I'm honestly not a huge fan of the cap k. If the aff is any form of government regulation don't read it. All the aff would have to say is "we're anticapitalist" and they'd be right.

I wish this could go without saying but unfortunately it can't. DO NOT READ AN IDENTITY K UNLESS AT LEAST ONE DEBATER ON THE TEAM IS THAT IDENTITY. 

DA's

Politics is my favorite argument. Link turns are epic. Please go for it in the 2NR, I love politics debates so much. I'm cool with all disads though. Tradeoff DAs kinda suck but I understand that on sucky topics there is only so much you can read.

CP's

Theory outweighs all impacts.

Counterplans are pretty awesome. I will only vote for them if they have a distinct net beneft. "Solves better" probably won't be enough to persuade me to vote for it. I will not vote for a counterplan if the aff wins a perm. That was all pretty "duh" so sorry for making you waste 10 seconds reading that.

If you read an uncondo cp I will give you 30 speaks (though I will laugh at you).

T

I've already said this like 3 times but framework is a pretty easy way to win.

I lean aff when people read T against an obviously topical aff (i.e. fracking for water, MMS for cjr, Saudi for arms sales) but I will still vote on it if neg wins the argument.

Effects T is inevitable deal with it.

If neg wins T I don't care if aff solves every problem ever. If it's not topical I'm voting neg.

Theory generally outweighs T though.

Other random stuff

DO NOT READ SPEC UNLESS YOU ACTUALLY HAVE NO IDEA WHAT THE PLAN DOES!!! I WILL NEVER VOTE FOR IT!!!

NO problematic arguments like racism good or something like that. You will 100% lose with lowest possible speaks if you read something like that.

Spark, climate change good, pandemics good, Bio D loss good, autocracy good, and absurd impact turns are totally cool. I will vote for them.

And one last comment

This is quoted from the paradigm of a judge I once had:

"A little political rant--it feels like a lot debaters take for granted how progressive and left the debate community is. And despite my own leanings towards the left, I think debaters doing so has caused a really bad model of debate where we make too many assumptions. Just because it seems like a no brainer that capitalism is bad, you can't just be like "capitalism is bad, obviously." In better words, your impact shouldn't be capitalism. Capitalism should be your internal link to like climate extinction, genocide, etc. I'm not walking into every debate thinking capitalism is bad just because I'm left-leaning; I (at least try to) walk into every debate as a blank slate, and you should treat me as such."

I honestly couldn't say that in a better way.

Good luck to everyone!

P.S. If you tell me who your favorite piano composer is and then play one of their songs (idrc how just like with your phone or something) for 15 seconds of your constructive you get automatic 30s. The music must be piano ONLY. Any vocals will make it not count. 

Me:

- Did PF, grad 2020

- I'm gonna flow

You:

- I don't care how pretty you sound

- I don't care how nicely you're dressed

- Line by line w/ clear signposting, weighing

- have fun :)

Quick Summary - I am a second year college debater in NPDA, I am a flow judge but will change to however you debate. If you refuse to disclose, you will lose the round. Dropped arguments = conceded arguments, and it's hard to come back from that. Have fun and be nice.

Background - WSP. I'm Pat, I competed in PF for most of my highschool debate career. I qualified to a multitude of post season tournaments in that and did well in policy when I debated it. I am now a debater for William Jewell College and have improved greatly since leaving highschool, breaking at many tournaments and being a tournament champion.

Style - I am a flow judge. Any discriminatory language will lose you the round if it is deemed to be that way from your opponents and the subsequent reaction that is taken to apologize or dispute the claim.. Debate is about learning and having fun, but winning while you do it. SIGNPOST, if you lose me in an argument dump without signposting, it could cost you multiple arguments. Tech=Truth (both will be evaluated to some extent)

Spreading - If you want to spread, ask your opponents and let me know beforehand. When spreading, I expect a speech doc for every speech in which you do with warranting and tags.

Paraphrasing - If you paraphrase your ev will not be worth as much until i can see the whole card

Specifics - "Abuse" - DO NOT use this term to define anything less important than legitimate material violence.

Pronouns - Always use your opponent's preferred pronouns or your speaker points will drop and if it is repeated you will lose the round.

Theory/Progressive Arguments - I think progressive arguments are very interesting (K's, theory's, etc.) and I will evaluate them just like any other arguments

Contact - Email: Pterry4c03@gmail.com

I graduated HS in 2017 and was an LDer. I have been judging LD (as well as CX and PF) for around 5 years in a traditional circuit.
When it comes to speed I am fine with it, but I must be able to understand you and will take speech clarity into consideration when voting. I will not vote on theory or Ks.
Both framework and evidence are absolutely essential and heavily impact my vote. My final vote comes down to who wins the flow, which will always include the value and criterion debate.

I have been a coach for fourteen years. I like debaters to talk slow enough so that I can understand what they are saying and for them to articulate clearly. I also like debates about the topic and not about the rules of debate. I would prefer debaters to "suggest" what I should do if something happens in a round instead of telling me what I now "have" to do. Finally, I want debaters to use excellent public speaking skills such as good eye contact, few vocalized pauses, and no distracting movements.

Policy: I competed in policy debate in high school, including at NSDA and NCFL. I'm familiar with the debate form but not extensively familiar with the topic so be sure to define stuff if it isn't common knowledge

I'll be flowing the round. Anything goes, I'll vote in- or out-round. Ks are cool if you know what you're doing. Just make good arguments and don't run T simply bc you have nothing prepped

Good spread good, bad spread bad

LD, PF, etc.: I've competed in every debate form, so I know the gist. In LD I primarily value good value/framing debate, but your claims should be backed up as well. In PF, I want to see quality evidence and actual clash. I'll flow these rounds as well

Long time coach with tons of judging experience across most events. California doesn't have OI, Prose, or Poetry so those would be exceptions.

Policy, PF, LD, and Parli you can run any argument you wish. However, you'll need to go slow and explain the position. "Politics Disad" means nothing to me....explain the argument. The default is probably for a debater to think I'm a slow judge or a traditionalist, and on some level that is true, but I'm willing to listen to most any argument if it's explained and warranted.

Aubrey Webster

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Assistant Coach

I did not debate in High School but performed Storytelling for individual speech tournaments. This is my second year as the assistant speech and debate coach at Parkview High School in Springfield, Missouri.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life easier in case there are tech issue or if I need to look things over again.

When judging, I look at the following details:

How well you were able to explain and provide evidence.

How well you were able to ask questions and answer questions during cross examination.

How well you were able to attack your opponent's case.

How well your speaking skills were during your speech.

I truly believe speech and debate provides so many life skills for students and it is an honor to be apart of this amazing activity!

About me:

I come from a very traditional circuit. Luckily, our school allows it's students to travel and learn about the progressive debate format. Full disclosure, one of my students helped me write this paradigm. I would prefer to watch a traditional round but I am open to viewing a BASIC progressive round.

Speed:

I will not understand what you are talking about if you are spreading. It is your responsibility to make sure that I understand your case.

CX:

I enjoy cross examination. I do not appreciate snarky remarks. I prefer for you to conduct yourselves in a polite manner. I will not flow CX and I will not connect your arguments, you need to make the connection for me.

K's:

I would really appreciate if you would not read any Kritiks, only because I will not understand what you are talking about. If you do choose to read a K, you need to explain everything so that I can understand.

Other notes:

*Off time road maps are a necessity and greatly appreciated

*I am willing to give you a 10 second grace period after the timer has gone off to wrap up your final thoughts. Any continuation beyond the grace period will not be flowed.

MOST OF ALL: Make sure you are having fun! I am looking forward to judging your rounds. <3

I graduated a few years ago after doing Lincoln-Douglas debate for four years and placing top 20 at nationals 3 times. For IEs, I do not have any particular preferences, but for debate:

Please no spreading or insulting opponents. I am a genocide researcher for a non-profit advocacy group in San Francisco (where I go to university), so I am comfortable with going into the weeds with research and philosophy. Kritiks and CPs are fine!

For my LDers: I judge largely on V/VC clash and debate, so make sure you know your philosophy! Also, congratulations on choosing the best form of debate! :D

I do not mark down for spotty wifi, overheated computers that crash, casual clothing, messy rooms, or anything other than your performance in the round. Good luck and I hope you are all able to stay safe!

Speech and Debate in both Highschool and college. Prefer a good flow with all topics covered over eloquent speakers.

Going fast in a debate doesn't make you a better debater, and yelling doesn't make you more powerful. In a debate you should speak clearly and articulate what you are trying to persuade me, as your audience, to vote on.

Off the clock roadmaps should be used for Policy debate and Policy debate only. I understand what you do in each speech.

I follow the rules and appreciate the students who do as well. Stand for speeches, have an appropriate attitude, and play fair.

This was because I was bored in class.

SHARE EVIDENCE. I am not afraid to pull a spicy move and vote against you. idc what you read. share. evidence.

follow time limits please and thank you.

LD-

I do LD so don't disrespect it by debating it like it's policy. That means yes a v and vc are needed, if you want to the opposite direction you need to be an eloquently spoken debate god. No pressure.

Feel free to talk fast, I can catch up but at least speak clearly.

Don't try and assert your dominance in cross by speaking over your opponent, it's not cool it just makes you look bad.

I do indeed flow, so try and pay attention to arguments made and I respond, but I do keep in mind that sometimes you only have so much time.

On a real note though be nice, don't say the mean words and you know what I mean when I say that lol the basics.

If you have a quote at the beginning of your speech from Shakespeare or something EXPLAIN THE RELEVANCE or else your feel-good quote has no point whatsoever and does not earn any sympathy from me.

Other than else I try to be oh so chill, so no worries about trying to dumb things down.

Puff-

You should try flowing, I know zero about puff so just don't say anything outrageously dumb.

Policy-

policy is really long, so excite me, I am completely okay with you making spicy arguments I will gladly try and wrap my head around them.

since you guys have so much time in your speeches, be sure to thoroughly respond to as many arguments as possible.

try to be respectful even if you think your opponent is bad.

even though I don't do policy, I am still able to tell if your arguments is wacky out of there, so be prepared to say words well to justify it.

I debated in high school (2 years of public forum, 2 years of policy). I did mostly lay debate in high school, so I'd prefer a slow round. I don't know much about the CJR topic.

my email if you want to put me on the chain: kathyxing02@gmail.com

Westwood HS

2022-2023 Season Update:

Senior at Westwood High School this year.

Most of the things below still apply when I evaluate a round. However, I have switched to mainly judging PF, and I have more topic knowledge on PF topics than CX since I have not debated CX for quite a while now.

If I do get put in the CX judging pool, yes, I will still know how things work, but when it comes to more complicated arguments such as Kritik or Theory, It might take me a while to process these arguments. So, please be careful when you choose your strat and be clear in the round.

He/Him, you can also just call me Sean

Put me on the email chain before the round:

condobad@gmail.com

PF:

- 30% Truth, 70% Tech:I believe the nature of PF is a bit different than CX and that truth should be evaluated. However, it does not mean that you can just throw out random truths in the round and call it a day. Empirical evidence is important in any debate and should be evaluated first. It is your job to prove to me why these truths matter in the debate and how they should be evaluated.

- Disclosure (Sending Docs/Open Sourcing): I will not make you send your case docs to each other, but I do strongly encourage disclosure on both sides. The consequence of not disclosing will be reflected in your speaks. I would appreciate it if you do choose to disclose, but please DOWNLOAD your docs from whatever software you use and then send it. I do not want to see a live shared google doc in my mailbox.

- Speed: you can go as fast as you want, but again, If you do choose to not disclose your document, I would not be able to flow your speeches if you are not clear. Also please give a roadmap before every speech.

- Theory: I have a good knowledge of the different types of theories and how they work, at least in CX. Here are some thoughts on theory:

1, Topicality (I guess you can put it under "theory"...) GO FOR IT! Topicality is definitely underused in PF and should definitely be an "official" argument in the future. I will evaluate it if it's used correctly, but If I see some randomly copied CX blocks on T...it won't go well:)

2, I am biased in some ways...If you debate theories such as "disclosure bad", "paraphrasing good", or "sweater theory", I most likely won't evaluate them in the round.

3, Perf con always exists

4, Go look at AMOGH MAHAMBARE's paradigm, he's cool.

- Kritik:To put it in short, I know what a K is, I have some knowledge on specific Ks and philosophies, I have some knowledge on how it can be used in round (in CX), and I have no idea how it's used in PF.

- Speaks:same as CX, except if you choose to not send out your docs, speaks will cap at 29.

CX:

- Generic Thoughts:

P L E A S E time your own prep time and speeches.

Tech > Truth, don't rely on "common sense"

Don't be overly aggressive in c-x, if you turn c-x into an interrogation I will take away ur speaks.

For more info, James Li has a pretty good paradigm.

- Speaker Points:

Please do not do things like disabling the navigation pane by doing special formatting in your word document, I will destroy your speaks.

I take off speaks with a .25 increment.

- Topicality: It is up to the debaters to determine how I evaluate topicality. Explain to me why T matters to the debate space, and if you read T at full speed during NR/ARs, is going to be really hard for me to hear you, so please be clear.

- Counterplans: The more explanation the better, I know most of the generic CPs.

Counterplan Theory: I will buy theory if the counterplan is super sketchy. However, it’s still up to the Affirmative to prove to me why I should reject the team.

- Theory: I do think that sometimes the neg just gets too much “cheat”, but I’m not gonna just vote Neg down if they run multiple contradictory arguments if the Aff doesn’t do anything about it. However; I will buy theories that are well structured and developed in a debate, again is up to the aff to prove to me why to reject the team, and I do not like cheap short theories, especially if you are “hiding” the theory shell. Most likely I will not vote for cheap short theories even if they get dropped.

- Disads: The more specific the better. I prefer 1 or 2 good cards to 10 bad cards, warrants of the cards are also very important. Analytical arguments under DAs are fine.

- Kritik: I’m mainly a policy debater, I understand the generic Ks (set col, abolition, etc), but again, the more specific the better. When it comes to Ks like Baudrillard, I will try my best to understand them, so the more specific and explanation the better. K flows tend to get messy, so please be clear and signpost if needed while reading K. Overall is up to the debaters to prove and teach to me within the round, if you cannot explain the K and your position at the end of the debate, most likely I will not vote for it.

I think reading K Aff in novice yr is abusive.

Case: Please debate on case stuff… Good args on case and some offcases > a bunch of offcases with barely anything on case since case is pretty much the only aff offense. A good dropped case turn will likely win Neg the round. I’m open to any kind of argument you have as long as it is intelligent, arguably true, and not problematic.

I am a parent judge and this is my third year judging. Please write your title in the chat as it will make it easier for me.

For extemp, I am looking for someone who has a clear understanding of the question. Please state your opinion and have the facts and mainstream media sources to back it up. Incorrect facts will be affect your ranking. Please use your time wisely, pace yourself and don't finish 3 minutes early.

For HI, OO, PO, PR, DI - I will rank based on speaking ability, content, confidence and interest. I have been very entertained by the high level of talent in these tournaments.

For virtual setup - please verify your setup to make sure the judge can see you. I can't see if you if you shine a light in my face.

I would like to see logical reasoning applied to debates not just evidence battles