Lindale Fall TFA
2020 — Online, TX/US
Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I debated in CX all four years of high school and I just graduated so it's still pretty fresh on my mind.
I'm primarily a tab judge. I'm comfortable with any argument, just debate it well and tell me why you win on that argument.
I'm okay with spreading, just make sure to make the tags clear :)
Topicality, Theory, and K's: I'm okay with these arguments, just make sure to explain them and how they apply to the debate and not just read cards.
Counterplans should have access to the Net Benefit for me to vote on it.
Overall, just have fun!!
University of Texas at Austin '23 (Business Honors & Accounting) - he/him
email for evidence/further inquiry: email@example.com
Policy Debate Paradigm:
I am a stock issues judge. I do not solely base my ballot on these issues but they are very important to me.
Please speak clearly. If I cannot understand you, I am less likely to flow your arguments. For this reason, I do not really enjoy spreading, but if you feel the need..go for it/ I won't mark off on the validity of arguments for this only speaker points.
I am generally laid back about the types of arguments ran during a round, however, I am less likely to vote on kritiks and theory arguments.
Please stay professional, I will not tolerate personal attacks of any kind. There is never a reason to be blatantly rude in a debate round.
Most importantly have fun and learn something!
The MOST Important Thing: Speech and Debate should be a safe space for ALL. So any ad hominem will NOT be tolerated, this includes racism, sexism, xenophobia, homophobia, and transphobia.
If you quote Thomas Jefferson or use him as a source, you will get downed by me...
General Debate Philosophy: At the end of the day debate is about persuasion, your job as a debater is to persuade me as the judge to vote for you. That means that just because you run an argument that does not mean you will be able to persuade me on that argument aka just because you run it does not me I have t buy it.
Debate is a communication event so guess what I believe is key…communication! I do believe that speaker points hold value, I repeat SPEAK POINTS DO HOLD VALUE and believe that speaker points come from multiple areas in the round. I am stingy with speaker points so you EARN every point with me. I normally do not award half points, because who wants to deal with that?
LD Debate: First of all, your round should have 3 things: 1) Respect. I am a firm believer in the role of the ballot. 2) Clash. IF there is no clash then you did not do your job, and nobody is enjoying the round. 3) Voters! Tell me what I should focus on and why I should believe what you are saying. I am a traditional judge when it comes to LD debate aka do NOT run a plan. It will be hard for me to get behind an Affirmative who advocates for a plan when they shouldn’t be advocating for a plan. Aff, you must uphold the resolution, do not try to spike out of it. I believe that observations are not voting issues, however, if ran correctly they may frame the round correctly to influence my vote. If an observation is not refuted or a counter observation is not proposed, and you bring this back up then that is how I will view the round.
Neg, for all that is good CLASH WITH THE AFF. I do not want to hear another round that is just two ships passing in the night. I want you to make arguments against the Aff and PROVE why they are wrong.
When it comes to FW, this is not the holy grail argument that will win the round, but it is a pretty good one to make. If you cannot uphold either VC then why would I vote for you? I do not find it abusive to absorb your opponent’s VC while also advocating for yours.
However, just because you win the VC that does not mean the round flows to you, if you can remove the opponent’s case, whether it be through removing impacts or attacking their warrants, then your opponent doesn’t really have ground to stand on.
I said this first, but I am reiterating this now. GIVE ME VOTERS!
Policy Debate: Similar to LD I am a traditional judge. I normally do not pref, but AFF it is your job to prove that SQ is not preferred, so read into that what you will. Constructive are used to construct any new arguments, do not run anything new in the rebuttals. IF you wish to bring supporting evidence or extensions that is fine, but you better be sure that it is 100% not new or I will not flow it. (This won’t cost you the round, but I won’t be happy with it as it is abusive).
YES the neg block does exist. NO Aff, just because they split it that does not mean you get to. You are more than welcome to run an argument against this if you wish, but you see my philosophy on the matter.
In regards to. Neg strat, I will vote for generic arguments, but don’t want to. Aff you have every right to refute with non-uniqueness, but that does not mean the argument just goes away, it is your job to argue why this matters and why the non-uniq should be a voting issue. Also, Topicality is NEVER theory, it IS a stock issue, which is one of the foundations of this event. However, if you argue topicality be careful that you do not contradict yourself.
Below is a little more detail about different strategies and approaches to the event to help each team out:
Closed Cross Examination X---------------------------------------------I need my partner to ask good questions and answer questions for me
(If you run a K and then On-Case without kicking OR playing scenarios, you are risking losing my ballot)
Read no cards-----------------------X------------Read all the cards
(Analytical arguments can 100% be used against cards)
(I do tend to lean more quality, but this is tough for me. Here's why, if you can layer arguments then do so, but if you run 5 different arguments and the opposing team can group and refute/disprove with one card then kudos to you!)
Conditionality good---------X---------------------Conditionality bad
(Just give me a reason to buy either argument)
States CP good----------------X------------------States CP bad
(Eh…it is what it is)
Politics DA is a thing-------X----------------------Politics DA not a thing
UQ matters most--------------------------X-------Link matters most
Clarity X---------------------------------------------Um...who doesn't like clarity
Presumption-----------------------------X---------Never votes on presumption
Longer ev---------------------------X---------------More ev
(Please do not read me a novel)
I’m a book worm-----------X----------------I only read what you read
(9 times out of 8,yes you read that correctly, I will read the evidence in your card that you didn’t read to ensure you are not misrepresenting or power tagging. Dependent on the severity, this may cost you the round without opponent call out. If you opp calls you out and it’s good luck getting my ballot)
Fiat solves circumvention-----X-------------------LOL trump messes w/ ur aff
CX about impacts--------------X------------------CX about links and solvency
DA’s -----------------------X----------------------On Case
Theory -----------------------------------X---------- Traditional (The more believable the chain link the more likely I am to to buy the impacts. It is hard for me to imagine sending Smallpox Vaccines to SSA will lead to Nuclear War)
Dash from Zootopia ------------------------------X-----------------Amateur Auctioneer
(I am fine with speed, debate should be faster than conversational, but not a race. I hate spreading/rapid fire because let’s be honest no one is good at it, you sound horrible, and it’s not impressive)
Quantity of Arguments ----------------------------------------------X-Quality of Arguments
(I have voted on a round because of T, despite the AFF having a 12 page case)
Congressional Debate: If you just read out loud to me do not expect a speech ranking higher than a 3 or to be ranked in the room. The purpose of this event is to make extemporaneous speeches, yes research is key, NO do not have a pre-written speech. The students that deliver the best speeches, while also showing they are aware of the debate in the chamber will win my ballot.
PF Debate: Don’t have me judge PF
WSD Debate: I have somewhat of an idea of what I am doing in this round. I am wanting to learn this event to judge, but just not there yet
Do NOT try to read me. You can be giving a performance of a lifetime and I may look disinterested, even though I am fully captivated. Or your piece may have a powerful line that I react to or the piece is cleverly written so I laugh, despite the performance. I have heard many funny pieces that were not performed well and heard very powerful lines that were just thrown away.
There is no magic/secret thing to do to win my ballot, except give the best performance. I know super helpful. I consider multiple different aspects when judging: polished (holding and mastery of the manuscript), presence in the room, delivery style, performer connection to selection, audience connection, did I get drawn into the performance, etc.
I do realize that because you are interpreting you have to be extra big, but I do look for realism in the performance. Ex: Should someone be sobbing because they spilt milk? Why is someone smiling when the love of their life just died? Remember this performance is all about peaks and valleys, if everyone is delivered the same, or on one level, then nothing is important and nothing stands out to me. If I am convinced that the performer is actually experience the piece, that is the best way to win my ballot, because it will draw me in. If I am not drawn in then I don't believe you really interpreted the piece. Make me care about the characters, if something is suppose to be sad I want to be sad with the character. If you don't draw me in/I don't make a connection with a character, then "I won't care that your sister died".
In introductions, I like to get to see you as a person. I want the intro to sound natural and not like a memorized piece of information. Let me see/hear YOU.
Read bolded portions if you’re in a hurry! Add me to email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Maria Judith DeMarco
Texas Tech University '19
I competed in circuit congressional debate in high school and NPTE/NPDA for 4 years in college. During 2 of those years I also competed in IEs and attended the AFA-NIET. My former coaches (including Adam Testerman, Joe Provencher, Katelyn Johnson, David Hansen, Jackson DeVight) and my former partners (Fiker Tesfaye and Cody Gustafson), inform the majority of my views about debate. If you have any additional questions about my background, where I’m at now, or anything else regarding my judging philosophy, please feel free to ask at tournaments or add & message me on Facebook.
I love good debates! <3 That is all. I do not enjoy being in the back of rounds when debaters are clearly unprepared, disinterested, or otherwise demonstrate a lack of engagement; there are too many individuals who make enormous sacrifices for students to not reciprocate by investing all they can. This also extends to my personal role as a critic. I care about the rounds I watch and will not be a judge who carelessly makes a decision.
What you can read in front of me:
I'm a progressive/flow critic so feel free to read whatever you want. I will vote on the flow and the arguments made to reduce judge intervention as much as possible. One thing to note is that I do not view values as offense in and of themselves. Just because you have a good value framing does not mean you have a good advocacy which reflects/achieves that value, so I will never vote on a value alone.
Read any argument you want but be mindful of theory. I do not prefer one type of debate over another, and do not have any favorite arguments. Though I read the K, performances, and other identity arguments for the better part of 3 years, I read straight up policy arguments for most of my senior year and fell in love with that strategy.
Feel free to read (almost) anything & please do not make assumptions about what debates I like to see – simply use the best strategy given the topic and your own personal preferences.
If you are considering breaking a new position or wondering if you can read creative arguments in front of me, go for it. I have read a wide variety of arguments from afrofuturism to feminist rap, and I love hearing unique positions. If you don’t talk about the topic, great (although specific topical links are preferred). If you talk about the topic, also great. I do not necessarily require specific links to the resolution if you are reading a “project” or other argument about the debate space rather than the topic.
However, perhaps my strongest opinion at the moment is that I am *very* over frivolous theory debates. This refers to theory that (and I’m being generous) is overly “nuanced” to be meaningful. I will reluctantly vote on these arguments if you decisively win them, but will be less receptive and have a higher threshold if you go for 3 sheets of theory in the block without collapsing, or read a canned/irrelevant “specify your ethics” argument when it is a very, very thinly-veiled time suck. Unless there are legitimate violations or these arguments are clearly applicable, there are almost always more strategic and pedagogically productive interpretations that have the same utility. To quote the wonderful David Worth, “I am tired of debates that are mostly logic puzzles.” I have taken the LSAT and can assure you I do not need further practice with it.
Theory that is going to be an uphill battle with me as your critic:
- please don't read "speed/spreading bad" args
- multiple sheets of theory which are not collapsed in the MO
- ethics/philosophy SPEC
- any CP theory that is not conditionality
- PMR theory
That being said, I do not have predispositions to viewing a theory debate any other way than how you tell me to evaluate it. I do think that most arguments function through competing interpretations; for example, reasonability is often just another way to interpret the rest of the debate that follows. I would also appreciate having a copy of any interpretations that are particularly complicated to avoid confusion and intervention.
A note on Politics DAs:
I don’t always feel the most comfortable in evaluating politics disads. Though I frequently read ptx, it took me longer than normal to fully understand how the politics scenario would break down. If you choose to read politics, it would be best to slow down slightly on the links. Also, tenuous links are a no-go. If you are creating several internal links that are only tenuous, I will have a hard time finding a way to vote for you because it’s unclear whether you even garner an impact.
How to win my ballot with the K:
Please ensure that you know what your K does, and that you are able to articulate that clearly. It’s fine to be more ambiguous in the beginning, but by the end of the round, I want to have a clear understanding of what your solvency mechanism is and what it will do to solve the main points of clash in the debate. If you are going for proximal impacts and your solvency mechanism is predicated on your K doing something in this particular room and round, you need to win why those impacts are more important than other impact calculus like timeframe/magnitude/probability/severity.
More importantly, you need to ensure your solvency mechanism addresses the impacts you are going for. For example, do not go for proximal in-round impacts if you’re reading a K that claims to solve capitalism. This does not apply if you clearly explain that in-round solvency is a prerequisite or has inroads to solving other impacts in the future. However, doing that type of analysis requires warrants (not assertions) that it might lead to something later. For example, a Cap K with dialectical materialism or similar solvency for gaining class consciousness within a certain round also needs to explain how a few people gaining consciousness could realistically translate into solving capitalism writ large.
A note on answering Ks:
Always read a perm! There is rarely a reason not to and I will be sad if you are decisively winning the rest of the debate but lose because you did not perm.
I intend to write RFDs that minimize personal biases, though I have zero problems docking speaker points for insensitive comments regarding sexual violence, racism, misogyny, etc. I have participated in too many rounds where teams read Nietzche, Buddhism, or similar Ks and thought it appropriate to inform me that sexual violence and abuse are inevitable and ought to be embraced. Not only are these arguments often traumatic to hear, but they are also gross mischaracterizations of actual philosophy; if you do not fully understand said philosophy then avoid debating it altogether. Weaponizing nonsense like this for the sake of a ballot is just not the move, and if you find yourself resorting to verbal violence to get a W, it demonstrates a general lack of care as well as skill. However, do not take this as an open invitation to pretend that violence is happening in an attempt to win by saying to prefer "tech over truth" if nothing offensive has truly happened. Tech and truth are not mutually exclusive.
I try to stick to the most commonly used speaker point breakdown. A below average debate will be around 26, average will be around 27-28, and above average will be around 29. 30s are reserved for speeches that I thought were near-perfect. If you have questions about an RFD or how you might improve speaker points in another debate in front of me, please ask for more feedback.
Use it, go for it, it's great. Frequent judging and coaching means I can keep up and my flowing is not rusty. That said, make sure you clearly signpost.
Leader speeches/1NCs and rebuttals:
I was a double leader for almost my whole career. I love LOCs/1NCs that have lots of case turns, and would prefer a few turns that are related to your off-case position(s), but are combined with more turns that garner external offense. I am willing to listen to an LOC that is straight case but have rarely seen it done well.
I also do not enjoy flowing rebuttals on separate sheets of paper. If you feel the need for me to flow them separately, it should be because the debate was particularly messy or if it is the only way you have learned to give the speech.
I love impact calculus and it is an absolute necessity to compare and weigh your impacts against your opponent’s impacts throughout the speech. I do not prefer certain impacts over others, but I do need clear reasons why your impact is more important; i.e. magnitude does not matter in a world where the impact is improbable. I also need a clear thesis and overview at the beginning of your speech that is at least one sentence explaining why you win. It is okay (and sometimes necessary) to give a speech that answers back line-by-line arguments in the block, but I would prefer if you group arguments or simply tell me what the most important issues are in the debate because it is generally more efficient. You can also provide a brief explanation about why you are not answering a certain argument with a line that says something like “the most important argument on this sheet of paper is X – the others do not have terminalized impacts.”
Warrant comparison in rebuttals is a great way to boost your speaker points. It is crucial that I know why your warrant is a better indicator of an impact than the opponent’s, especially if you are going for the same impact. For example, a round where both teams are going for an Econ impact but disagree on whether consumer confidence or investor confidence is key to the economy needs to articulate why their metric is preferable. Please also make sure you do not mix up your warrants by changing what argument they correspond to from speech to speech.
For people new to parli:
As someone with minimal debate experience prior to joining college parli, I am unsympathetic to the notion that the NPDA format is wholly inaccessible to people who do not have a debate background/did not come from policy. That being said, I am 100% understanding of the substantial learning curve when it comes to Parli, especially for teams with limited resources/coaching/travel opportunities/etc. Please let me know if you are in need of additional resources and I will do my best to help you!
Short version: I’m pretty tab, run whatever is comfortable to you. Speaks will be docked for rudeness.
Hello! I was a 4 year policy debater with extensive experience in most major circuits in Texas, and I compete in NFA LD, NPDA, and IPDA for Texas State currently, so I’ve seen tons and tons of debating styles. I am comfortable with whatever you’d like to do. I’m very tab, but if there’s absolutely NO work done towards a rotb or rotj (or theory), then I tend to default to offense/defense. I value pretty much every argument, and (without blatant abuses of this power) I usually go for tech over truth. Here are some more in depth looks at how I evaluate different arguments:
T: I love T and hold it at the highest standard in the round, when it’s used effectively. The clash on T should be heavier in the standards and voters side, rather than the interp/violation. In order to win the T the aff HAS to prove to me exactly why your interp is better, and have pretty heavy ink on the standards and voters, I typically give leniency towards grouping standards like limits and bright line (as they are essentially the same), but dropping the T, or heavily conceding huge chunks of it is pretty much an automatic win for the neg. For the neg to win T, there HAS to be some form of an impact accessed through the voters. Whether that be the fairness of this round specifically, the spillover into the debate community as a whole, a loss of education, etc. Without an impact, I have nowhere to vote. If you run T in the 2nr, it probably shouldn’t be weighed down by other arguments, but that’s ultimately up to the debaters. TVAs are ideal, and RVIs are fine (please give me a good reason to vote on an rvi tho).
DA: disads are great. Impact calc of some sort is key to win a disad (on both sides), and I’m fine with disads that aren’t terminal. DAs are won through the link chain, and lost through the aff’s offense, unanswered defense=a wash unless I’m given a reason to disregard minor defensive drops through impact calc/framing. I’d like to see framework tacked on to the disad if you’re hitting a soft left/k aff, because of you have no framework and they do it’s pretty much an auto loss.
CP: counter plans are great when used with disads/turns/internal net benefits. I’m fine with PICs, and will vote on PICs with only a solvency deficit as the NB if given no other option. I think they’re a super effective tool against the aff, but I'm also definitely ready to hear a good theory round on why PICs are bad (or why whatever method of CP the neg decides to run is bad. I think that "x cps are bad" arguments work best when they are specific to why their CP triggers whatever form of impact you're putting on the theory though).
Theory: you can pretty much copy and paste what I said about T onto here. Theory is a great tool when used legitimately, or just as a way of overloading the aff flow so they have to spend less time on bigger argument in the block. I actively enjoy deep theory debate, but encourage you to stay away from it if it’s not your style.
Framework: This is what wins rounds for me. Any sort of framing of the round helps me write my ballot and establishes what I’m voting for definitively. If you drop framework, you will not win (except in certain circumstances where there’s more pressing arguments). In framework debates, don’t just read cards back and forth at each other, give me reasons why your way of evaluating the round is better, and tell me why I should circle your name at the top of the ballot.
K: I love K debates, but I completely understand if you’re not super comfortable with K. Please don’t just throw in a random K because you think I really like Ks (don’t do that with ANY argument you’re not comfortable with). I like well constructed Kritiks that have good link chains, and solid alternatives. There HAS to be framework on the K, or you HAVE to prove to me why the alt works better than the aff (or the perm). I think that a 2nr is much more streamlined when you have either the framework or the alt, rather than both (however this is YOUR debate, do whatever is comfortable to you). Crazy Ks are super cool, and fun to run/judge, but if there's not a solid link chain explained then I'm pretty quick to buy into a no link argument on these kinds of Ks.
On Case: should be in every round
K Affs: go ahead, whatever is most comfortable to you
Speaks: speaks are awarded based on performance, strategy, comfort, and your ability to bs without me catching you. Average speaker points for me typically come out to be a 27-28, stellar speakers range from a 28.5-29, and perfect speakers get 30s. Speaks will be docked if you’re mean, rude, or say something that comes out as harmful in any way possible. Speed is cool, I’ll say clear if you’re too quick, you should probably slow down on what you want me to write down.
yes, I wanna be in the email chain: email@example.com
Feel free to ask me any other questions pre round.
I don't have a ton of experience in LD, but I know enough to judge. I'm from policy debate, and so I typically get more engaged in progressive LD rounds, but you should 100% run the round how you feel comfortable running it. I know this section of my paradigm is really short, but definitely feel free to ask me questions pre round. Also, speed is fine, and my opinions on off case arguments stay the same between policy and LD, so if you have questions specifically pertaining to that section of debate, scroll up or feel free to ask me pre round.
Just read the LD paradigm and replace "LD" with "PF". I will say "aff" and "neg" to make things easier on me and my flow.
Note: I've been out of the debate world since 2014. I debated in Texas UIL, TFA, and the NSDA circuits. I'm a third-year law student now.
I generally don't care what you run. I like good T arguments, and by "good" I mean fleshed out and not just run as a time suck on the 2ar that gets kicked in the 2nr. I think case arguments are WAY underrated on both sides, so emphasis there is always refreshing. Kritiks are fine too, I prefer specific links and need you to tell me what my ballot does. For reference, I ran nihilism and cap k/neolib k in high school.
Be collegial to your opponents and your teammate. In most cases, being unprofessional won't cost you the round, but almost certainly will cost you speaker points and be noted on my ballot.
Ask me any specific questions you have before the round.
email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
I've been competing and/or coaching in various speech and debate events since 2011. My primary experience is with policy (national circuit/toc, tfa, and regional/local traditional circuits) and parli (npda/npte). I judge almost every weekend, and I spend a lot of time in debate since it is essentially my full-time job, so I am relatively up-to-date on debate trends and norms, as well as discussions of the criminal justice topic. I typically judge ~50+ rounds a year.
I don’t have any predispositions regrading the content, structure, or style of your arguments. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm absent a team winning an argument for me to evaluate it another way. Clear impact weighing in the rebuttals and evidence/warrant comparison are typically what I notice in teams I enjoy judging.
I attempt to be a ’technical’ judge in every round I watch. I try to keep a detailed flow, and use my flow to evaluate the round that happened. If the flow doesn’t decide a clear winner, I will then look to the quality of evidence/warrants provided. I tend to find I’m less interested in where an argument in presented than others. While clear line-by-line is always appreciated, some of my favorite debaters to watch were overview-heavy debaters who made and answered arguments in the debate while telling a persuasive story of the debate. I would rather you sound organized and clear than following a template throughout each flow.
I will most likely not vote on ‘independent voting issues’ unless it’s an egregious instance. This is separate from ethics concerns, like cheating, card clipping, etc. I am not persuaded by claims that I should evaluate the entirety of the debate based upon a single argument on my flow. Particular rhetorical abuses, such as racist, sexist, transphobic remarks are a different story, and I will hold those to much higher scrutiny than a claim that I should decide a whole debate because the 2ac read a severance perm.
Instead of framing debates through ‘body counts’, I am much more persuaded by framing as ‘who saves the most lives’, or who has the best advocacy for change. Sometimes debaters talk about claims of very real violence and problems for various communities with little regard to the real world implications of their political advocacies.
I tend to prefer specific plan texts over vague plan texts. I also like specific internal link claims and impact scenarios. Specific instances of war are more persuasive to me than ‘goat power war’ claims.
counterplans, disads, & case turns
I would prefer you read at least once piece of solvency evidence per plank in the 1nc. Obviously that’s not a hard rule, but I will hold CPs that read multiple planks with no evidence in the 1nc to much higher scrutiny than a sufficiently developed 1nc shell.
I tend to lean neg on most CP theories. Obviously, the debate is to be had, but I am generally more persuaded that the negative should get access to most CPs and conditional advocacies. Specific claims about instances in-round to generate offense in these debates is much more persuasive than generic standard debates. I am more willing to vote on reject the argument than reject the team.
I find I am more willing to judge-kick in the 2nr than most judges, but think this is still a debate that needs to be had. The 2nr must have a persuasive reason for me to judge kick, and the 2ar can still win that I ought not judge kick.
Uniqueness guides the direction of the link. I like robust development of each level of the debate for disads and case turns, while telling a clear story about the thesis of the disad. I decide the probability of your impact based on the link and internal link level of the debate, and find that often times 2nrs are lacking on this level of the disad flow.
I think the impact turn is a lost art and have a special place in my heart for them. The same is to be said for developed case turn debates.
To me, the best kritiks are the ones that clearly identify a theory of power or possesses some sort of a structural analysis. I am most persuaded by specific historical examples and a clear alternative that frames what my ballot does.
The link level of the debate tends to be the most important in my making my decision at the end of the round. I like developed link blocks, and think that the aff often times doesn’t adequately handle the link section of the debate.
In reformism v revolution debates, I prefer explanations that pinpoint why the conditions of the status quo are the way they are, and can best explain casualty for violence. This is where historical examples become especially important, and where warrant comparison becomes paramount.
I think permutations in the 2ar that attempt to prove the alt is not functionally competitive are not nearly as persuasive as arguments in the 2ar that the aff is in the direction of the alt. A heg aff probably cannot go for a perm against anti-blackness, but an aff that is a step towards the same telos of the alt can.
Affs will usually win that they can weigh their aff, but I am typically not persuaded by framework arguments that attempt to tell me not to evaluate the k. I think the same is also true for the negative. Instead, I think the framework portion of the debate should tell me what my ballot does and how I should frame my decision given the context of the round.
'clash of civilization' debates
I've been seeing a lot of these debates recently, so I figured it was worth adding a section with a bit more tailored to these debates.
In these debates, warrant comparison is paramount. Rebuttals that are just extending state good/bad or reformism good/bad arguments without doing any interaction with the flow is a common mistake I see in these debates. Ideally, your arguments for this level of debate also have terminalized and developed impacts as well. The best debaters in these debates typically are those who use their evidence/examples to implicate the specific warrants the other team is extending.
Links should be explained as disadvantages to the permutation with impacts developed and extended for them. I need the 2nr to be doing more work on the permutation than just extending the link level; this isn't to say you cannot or should not extend them as disads to the perm (I think you probably should), but simply saying the phrase isn't enough to prove mutual exclusivity. I appreciate a really well developed and implicated link wall.
I would much rather not have my ballot decided by the framework level debate. Engaging the substance is very much so appreciated in these debates. Obviously this doesn't influence any debates I watch, but I tend to believe that the aff should get access to their 1ac and the neg gets to weigh their impacts against it; fiat is illusory isn't reason enough for me to moot the 1ac, and just because it's a K doesn't mean your 1ac was necessarily mooted. but again, grain of salt, do you.
A lot of these rounds are decided on which team wins their theory of power or governance, and rebuttalists that are using historical and contextual examples are typically those who win these debates. The more specific the examples throughout the debate, the better spot you will probably be in to get my ballot.
Instead of telling me what your alt does, tell me how I can do your alt. I love references to other movements, specific actions I can take, and what the telos or the vision of your alternative is; I do not like you telling me in the abstract what the alterative means. Don't try to explain the words of the alt to me, tell me what the alt means with specific warrants for how the alt can resolve the links and/or the aff.
The 2ar needs to be finding ways to extend and terminalize offense that exists outside solving the aff. If your offense on the K only relies on your ability to solve your aff in the 2ar, it tends to not bode well for the aff. Reformism/state good offense that isn't just 'we solve the aff, the aff is a good idea', or terminalized impact turns or disadvantages to the alternatives can be really useful in close 'clash' debates.
If the 2ar is going for a permutation, I must know what the world of the permutation looks like with some explanation of the solvency mechanism for the perm and why the alt is not mutually exclusive.
Competing interpretations just tells me to evaluate offense vs defense, which is what I am most likely going to do. I think reasonability tells me that even if they win the their impact claims (the standards), they haven’t won the link debate (the interp debate) because we meet/are close enough to the interp. Because I view T debates this way, I like clear and developed standard debates that clear isolate impact claims.
Case lists, TVAs, examples of affs that would violate, etc. are all useful because they help me situate your interp within the topic. These are all terminal defense, so you won’t necessarily win a debate with them alone, but they are persuasive.
Interp comparison is really useful as well. Debating the quality of interps is a lost art and can generate offense in the standard level as well.
I don’t think that the aff has to win a specific counter interp in K aff v FW debates, but rather a counter model for debate. I like these debates that break down the skills gandered from each model of debate, and use them to generate offense. Arguments like fairness claims, or claims that framework is inherently violent aren’t persuasive to me. Standards about portable skills, research, advocacy, etc. that tell me the tangible benefits of your model serve best on either side because I think helps frame what sort of method my ballot is endorsing.
Yes, put me on the email chain-
What to call me-
It's easier to just call me Allie. She/her
Do what you want. I will do my best to adjust to you and generally enjoy the round more when you enjoy it. I default tab, so you get rewarded when you hold my hand and tell me how/why to vote. I lean towards tech over truth, but you still need to warrant out your arguments and concessions are not necessarily automatic losses. Specific over generic, depth over breath, clarity over speed. Impact calc is very important to me. I will read ev during prep. I will clear call (but I try to be generous with speaks), don't tolerate clipping cards or stealing prep, and will answer any specific questions you have before round. It goes without saying, but don't be a jerk.
Note- If it’s LD, you can probably get most of what you need from my CX philosophy, but LD particulars are at the bottom.
I can go for procedural fairness or clash/topic education or whatever impact you choose to go for. Comes down to who can provide an interp that proves to be better both in and out of round (i.e. when preparing for the debate).
A better definition is an easier win on T. I value relevance of the source in relation to the topic. You still need to do leg work to win my flow, but evidence comparison does a lot for me here. I generally tend to be sympathetic to the aff on T, but if abuse is proven, you can win my ballot. T isn’t a priori unless you say it is. I don't think a TVA is necessary to win on T, but they can be useful. While I won't approach the debate with the mindset that it's the burden of the neg to solve the aff, an aff team can probably convince me it is. I'll default reasonability if you don't tell me otherwise. Also, if you're going to say pref reasonability, probably tell me what this means. Please don't waste my time running boring shells as a time suck.
I lowkey love a theory debate. I believe it is underused in many circumstances. This doesn't mean run it just because, but if you have a strong shell and can prove abuse, you'll win my flow. Explain why your interp is better for the world of debate, not just the round.
I prefer specific ev, but I'll listen to anything. I can probably be convinced more generic args are good. Probably try to have strong i/l chains. If you just say heg = nuke war that’s not cool :( That being said, I think many teams make the mistake of focusing on the impact debate and disregarding link, uq, and i/l. These debates also matter on both sides.
I enjoy hearing competitive and/or specific cp's. Love a good solvency advocate. Explain your net benefit. I'm not necessarily opposed to consult cp's, PICs, etc., but the aff can probably convince me they're bad.
I loved K's in high school. I'm familiar with most of the "well-known" lit (Cap, fem, set col, etc.). As far as post-modernism and high theory, I'm more than happy to listen to it, but please explain the jargon, give clear overviews, all that jazz. I'm a philosophy major, so I have a fairly broad range, but don't assume I know your k. If you're wondering how familiar I am with what a certain lit base, feel free to ask. I like seeing more specific links to the case as opposed to a broad critique of the topic. I like framing/ impact debates against all affs. ROBs & ROJs are useful. As far as k affs go, I like them, I read them, but have a hard time if the relation to the topic can't be explained. At least be able to clearly state why your k was brought into the debate space and what I'm doing by voting for you. Performance is cool, but framing and explanation of how your performance interacts with the res is especially important here. P.S. please have some type of alt or advocacy; I prefer to see what differentiates the world of the k from that of the aff - even if it's not real world.
Things that affect speaks:
I really try my best to give high speaks. If I have to clear call you more than 2x, I will start to dock. I have a low threshold for rude debaters. If you're in a round with a less experienced debater and use this as a power flex, I won't be happy and it will reflect. Obviously if you say anything or act racist, sexist, etc. your speaks will suck.
I love good framing. Overviews are important, but keep them concise. Line by lines are super important. I'm okay with you testing things out, but don't run any args you just don't know. You don't have to send me your analytics, but try to emphasize or slow down if they aren't on the doc. Flex prep, open cx, and prompting are fine, but if over utilized/one partner is doing everything I will get annoyed.
As I'm sure you noticed, I am a CX judge by trade, so naturally progressive LD is what is more familiar to me. Policy style arguments are easier to persuade me with. This doesn't mean I don't enjoy traditional LD, I see the value in it, I'm just less familiar. That being said, you can basically do whatever you want. I'm good with speed (just be clear, I clear call), I love kritiks, and if you properly utilize off-case or a plan that's cool too. My framework threshold is particularly higher in LD. Interacting with the framework and creating value/value criterion clash is what makes LD unique and interesting. Coming down to theory/T in LD is kind of weird, so at least make sure it's done well. Weigh impacts, framing can never hurt you, tell me how to vote, and don't be afraid of explaining topic-specific args more than you typically would. If you have any specific questions please feel free to ask!
I'm a tab judge and am completely open to judging based on how the debaters tell me to. I am open to all types and styles of arguments, from topicality to Kritiks. If debaters say nothing about the framework used in the round, I will default to a policy making framework, if you run something like a performance aff, etc., I expect you to flesh-out framework for me. At end of round I'm evaluating your offense/defense vs. your opponents. This is the easiest way for me to judge the round, with as little intervention as possible, I'm looking to hear generally how the aff is a net improvement over the status quo. From the negative I'm looking to hear how the aff is a net negative, or how it fails to affirm the resoultion.
Did Policy and LD in high school. PF for some time as well. My preferences as far as CX and LD are pretty similar. Did policy and parli in college. Coached LD and Policy in the past. Arguments that I frequently had students run were obscure kritiks, hard-policy affs, impact turns. I have always been a huge believer in the linebyline.
As far as policy, I ran policy arguments more than kritikal arguments, but as I got later in my career developed more of a preference for the K. That said, I really love good policy debates.
On the K, I expect some time to be spent on framework if it's expected for me to evaluate it through something other than the traditional way. I've been judging a lot more kritikal rounds in LD and CX than I have in the past. Frequently I find that when i vote for kritik debaters it's because they do a better job on the k-proper/linebyline debate as well as framework. Especially so if they are making good link-level arguments(not generic), RTB args. and k turns case. Explain how you get "solvency" or offense off-of the Alt. Being nebulous about the alt is generally a bad thing and frequently issues arise in k debate if this is neg strategy. I welcome the 1-off k strat, or k-affs.
Used to go for T a lot. That said, I usually advise debaters to go for T if there's an abuse story. In general have a high threshold for voting on T. If neg, extend that t is a voter, and internal link it to fairness, education, etc.
I assume condo is cool. I assume PICs are cool. I even think multiple CPs are cool (you would have to win on the theory level if Aff contests multiple CPs). Perms I assume are ok.
I encourage you to read theory if you want. I enjoy meta-debates. I especially enjoy if you put a lot of your own work into it.
Disads, you win me over if you run specific links or run multiple disads with different terminal impacts. Aff gets points for putting offense onto disads or explaining how case outweighs, or how aff solves the disad.
Affs get wins from me when they kill it on the case debate. Affs get some lee-weigh in the tight rebuttals if they're efficient and avoid drops.
I like offense from both sides. Somewhat related: recently I've found myself voting on presumption if aff drops the ball. I guess this makes some statement about what aff is obligated to do, namely defend the resolution by proving it true via 1ac. If there's some late level question about the round I may be looking at the viability of presumption. If neg tells me to vote on it, I may if there is some doubt about what aff is doing, and whether they're hitting the threshold.
Stylistic/ other things:
I am very decent keeping up with high speed.I flow the analytics as best as I can. That said, if you rush through standards one after the other, I may miss something. Adjust your pace, sign post more, be extra clear here. Generally though, I can count on two or three fingers the number of times a debater has gone too fast on theory for me.
It is very helpful to tell me what is offense and defense, this just avoids the round getting too muddy and means I adjust your speaks upward for communicating better, and for better understanding how your arguments function.
In rebuttals I generally expect things to get more big picture, in the 1ar and 1nr with drops being pointed out. I expect some level of pre-empting your opponents arguments esp. if you are the 2nr. And then finally, I expect impact calc, weighing, and some sound defense strategy (impact mitigation, timeframe, risk, magnitude, etc).
I sometimes give out 30's but generally best speakers at any given tournament get in range of 29.5-29.9. I try to keep in mind the level of competitiveness of the tournament when giving speaks, but also, try to give consistent speaks.
Things that impact me giving high speaks:
Lack of prep taken/ good use of prep time.
Being fast and efficient. Avoiding rehashing stuff that you're obviously winning and instead explaining the weight of that argument and moving on. Knowing what your cards say without having to go look.
Flowing. If cross-x is asking what number 6 argument opposing team made in the speech, I'm assuming your not flowing.
Numbering arguments, clear sign-posting, overviews, underviews, impact calc, roadmaps, referring to cross-x.
Clarity and not just looking at computer the whole time. Being sufficiently loud.
Good use of cross-x, which is underrated. I'm not sure why people don't do this, but in cross-x you can read opponent's evidence, ask about warrants in the card (sometimes they're not there), and author quals.
Kicking arguments strategically or going for something unconventional.
Using logic, analyzing evidence (looking for warrants in the cards), or a good line-by-line. Also, if neg: covering the 1AC, as opposed to generic off-case heavy strats. On case argumentation seems to be a dying art, which is sad, but as the neg if you do a good job covering case in my book it goes a long way. Aff: being super organized, grouping arguments, etc, especially in rebuttals. Handling the 2ac well is also something that helps. If you're doing a 2ac without prep and the speech is super-methodical I'm going to notice.
Being polite to opponents. Being aggressive is ok, but use best judgement.
Having fun, making jokes or demonstrating your knowledge of the topic.
I like impact turn debates and conversely impact defense, these are a great way to deviate the round from typical tropes, and can be very engaging.
I will never give you an L if I didn't like your way of debating or what you said. But if you require me to somewhat intervene in the round because of a poor debate I will give low point wins. I've given low point wins before to teams that did the better job strategically but had issues articulating things. If you cross the line as far as politeness, again, I will give VERY low speaks. Generally though, that's only happened 4-5 times in 8 years of judging for me.
LD has gotten more policy-oriented. I have no issue with this. I do see some strategic issues if a 1ar spends the majority of the speech reading cards. Conversely I see issues with a 1nc with too many cards and not enough of a linebyline.
I don't think I've ever evaluated/ decided a round off a framework flow unless it had something to do with a K/ K aff being ran. You can concede framework if you want I just need to how your offense gets some access to some framework. What I'm suggesting is not undercovering contention level arguments and the linebyline.
Something that really makes it easier for me to evaluate the round is organization: numbering arguments, roadmaps, signposting, overviews, underviews. Being very clear about where you are on the flow at any time.
There is a tendency for blippy arguments to be hidden in the framework, or as underviews. the only way I can vote on them is if they are extended and impacted out.
I'm really not sure what has happened on the cutting edge of LD since getting out of high school. I know that theory/ framework debates have gotten to be more commonplace, with the utility of some of this theory questionable at best. Since then I've judged a lot of theory heavy, k heavy and policy rounds; i would say I have not judged many of these "tricks" rounds. Arguments are arguments, and they all function the same way, generally, what I'm suggesting is avoid the buzzwords and tell me the function of the argument.
As far as theory, I have voted on all sorts of theory arguments, but they have to be impacted, and i have to know how they are voting issues. Can't ever remember voting on disclosure theory.
Usually i vote for the team that communicates better, of course they should be making the better arguments, but communication and persuasion are so important. In rebuttals I need to know about drops and hear some sort of weighing. I'm not in the camp that wants a card for every argument, speech times are already so short in PF. Go as fast as you want but realize that going faster may just make the debate more messy.
If you want to know what you can do to have a better chance at winning: extend evidence, talk about warrants, compare your evidence to your opponents'.
As a debater I had a lot of success in congress. I view congress as being an adversarial, somewhat extemporaneous event where you make good arguments backed by evidence and logic. Knowledge of parliamentary procedure is a definite plus, and I am looking for engagement and responsiveness regardless of what speech it is in the cycle. In other words, clash matters highly in congress, especially because speeches can tend to get stale pretty quickly if there are not (new) original arguments being made.
I prefer to not be involved in email chains or document sharing but sometimes I slip up and look at the speech documents. Avoid clipping cards--this is a breach of debate ethics and could result in loss of the round if there is a repeated pattern of doing it. I prefer that debaters self-police any ethical issues, and direct my attention to the issue while the round is happening, then I'll try to resolve the issue.
I don't judge as much as I used to, but I have a few additions that I would like to make to my paradigm.
1. While I generally support the idea of disclosure, especially in Policy and LD, I won't vote on most variants of disclosure theory. About the only exception would be a situation where a team or debater intentionally mis-disclosed something they were going to read.
2. In Policy, affs that just ban something that might be a source of water pollution are probably not topical.
3. If I am judging you in PF, I would prefer that you treat me like someone from the general public and not someone who has extensive debate experience. I don't want to hear a bunch of debate jargon, and you should probably speak at a reasonable rate. Additionally, if it takes you forever to show your opponents requested evidence during prep time, I am deducting speaker points. If you choose to paraphrase in your case, you better have a card available with full context if it's requested.
I haven't judged many policy rounds this year, but I have seen a few. Even though the team I coach likes to read kritikal arguments, it doesn't mean that is your best approach with me. I definitely prefer debates that revolve around the hypothetical implementation of a topical affirmative plan. FYI, if your aff doesn't link to the abolition K, then it probably doesn't enact substantial criminal justice reform. This doesn't mean you will necessarily lose, but you are probably in an uphill battle if the neg is competent at extending topicality. I am aware of the sad state of good policy neg strategies at the moment, so I will try to be mindful of that if you end up going for an argument that is out of my normal comfort zone. Everything below probably still applies.
I've probably judged about 20-25 rounds on the topic. Most of them have involved a Saudi aff. I have judged very few K debates this year, but I have voted aff on the perm in every debate I have judged this year that had a K in the 2NR.
I won't reject any argument or style of debate out of hand, but I have a preference for topical, plan-focused debate. I feel a lot more comfortable expressing this preference at tournaments that use mutually preferred judging. If your strategies only include kritikal arguments, you may not want to pref me. Util is probably my default decision-making paradigm, but I can be persuaded to adopt other impact frameworks. I think winning zero risk of something is pretty hard, but I suppose it is possible. I don't think I am very good at flowing, but I try my best. If I didn't catch something then you were probably going too fast for me, or you were unclear. If the tournament allows for it, I will assign speaker points to the tenth of a point. My usual range is 27-29.9. Yes, I want to be on the email chain (email@example.com).
MORE SPECIFIC POLICY STUFF
Unless persuaded to evaluate using a different lens, I tend to base my decision on whether a world with the affirmative plan is better than the status quo or a world with a competitive policy option. If the aff plan improves the world, the aff generally wins. If not, the aff loses. I also tend to evaluate in the "offense/defense" paradigm. Generally, I think the negative needs offensive arguments to win unless they can somehow take out 100% of solvency. 99% of the time you will need a reason why the plan causes something bad to happen to win on the negative.
I don't require strict adherence to my preferences. You've prepped the arguments that you've prepped, and it probably isn't in your best interests to drastically alter your preferred approach to debate when debating in front of me. However, I think you should probably know that some arguments are an uphill battle in front of me.
First, I generally think the aff should defend the topic. If your aff doesn't link to topic-related generics, then you probably have some work to do if the neg goes for framework/topicality. I think clash is super important, and I don't like affirmative approaches meant to minimize topic-centered clash.
Second, I don't necessarily think that fairness has to be an internal link to something. I think fairness can be an impact. It will be hard to convince me that the neg shouldn't get a decent amount of predictable ground or that fairness is bad.
Finally, I can't say enough that I need to know what your k alternative does or how it functions. The less clear I am on what the alt does the more likely I am to vote for something like "perm do the plan an all non-competitive parts of the alt." I'm sure your argument isn't that this particular round or my ballot is key to breaking down or eliminating whatever it is that your are kritiking, so please be specific about what it is that you expect me to vote for. I am not familiar with or necessarily interested in a lot of kritik literature, so you probably need to do more thesis explanation than you might usually do. You should also do as much contextualizing as possible when talking about your links. If I am going to vote for an argument I need to be able to put in my own words what I am voting for. I think it is your job to make sure that I am able to do that.
I would recommend not going at your absolute fastest pace, and this is especially true when reading complex kritikal arguments or multi-point theory blocks. Other than that, have fun.
Same as Policy. Again, I'm probably not the best K judge. I'm also probably not good for contrived or arbitrary theory interps that don't relate to topicality. Even though I could possibly be convinced to vote on one, I don't like RVIs.
I don't judge a lot of PF. Despite my Policy background, I don't think PF needs to become more like Policy. I think PF should remain accessible to the general public, and the round should be debated at a reasonable pace while using a minimal amount of debate lingo. I will probably flow, but I don't intend to evaluate the round at a highly technical level.
Policy Debater from 1996-1998 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Assistant Policy Debate Coach from 1998-2002 for Gregory-Portland HS (Texas)
Debate Coach/Teacher at Sinton HS (Texas) from 2002-2003
Debate Coach/Teacher at Hebron HS (Texas) from 2003-2007
Debate Coach/Teacher at San Marcos HS (Texas) from 2014-2017
Debate Coach/Teacher at Dripping Springs HS (Texas) from 2017-present
Last Edited 2021
email - firstname.lastname@example.org
North Lamar HS ‘15-‘19
University of Central Oklahoma '23
2x NDT Qualifier
I coach some Texas high school policy
I think I’m a flex debater/judge, 99% of people will tell you I’m a K debater/judge; you should probably listen to those people.
Do what you want, have good cards. I appreciate debates and most enjoy judging debates that are meaningful to the debaters. I judge a lot of K debates. I consider myself well-read on the following areas of literature (in order of most read to least): Settler Colonialism, Imperialism, Antiblackness, Ableism, Queer Theory, Economic Theories (cap), Poststructuralism flavored things.
In K debates, I read every card mentioned in the 2nr/2ar. In policy debates, I read cards that debaters tell me to read. (i dont like reading more than 1 sentence about BMDs or whatever) Evidence is really important, good evidence wins rounds. I don’t like cards that are super long, (its ok im guilty of it too) if the card makes multiple arguments in separate sections of the article... then cut that article as multiple cards. I don’t want to read a card that takes you 4 minutes to read.
Do whatever you think you are best at and I will evaluate whatever you tell me to, however you tell me to. I 100% believe judges should adapt to debaters in order to make it more exploratory, creative, educational, and fun for competitors. I like K debates, but I find a solid throw-down on the deterrence disad or something pretty entertaining. I evaluate arguments tech>truth. However if you tell me not to, and win that I shouldn't, I won't.
I believe anything can be an argument unless its something racist, colonial, transphobic, sexist, etc. I reserve the right to make those determinations absent someone on the other team convincing me of it. I think voting teams down for being psychologically violent is good - so if you're reading this worried about your arguments perception, you should err on the side of caution. If it meets the standard to be voted down, which is a low standard in cases of racism etc., you'll also get the minimum number of speaker points possible.
I dont think debate is a game. I think debate is a site where people come together to discuss strategies to solve something, and the judge endorses the team who comes up with the better strategy to solve the biggest something. I dont think strategies have to be exportable outside of debate if you win that its best if the strategy occurs within debate. This makes it seem like I always vote for the K, that's not true. This is my frame for how I view debate - I think a team can win the States CP is the best strategy for solving something, just as much as I think a team can win psychoanalysis is the best strategy for solving something. Win that the thing you solve outweighs the thing they solve.
I like to judge T debates against policy affs a lot more than I do against K affs. I'm not saying don't run T-USFG on the K aff, but please do it correctly. This means prove their model of debate produces poor scholarship/debate. Prove your model can solve a substantial amount of the aff. I like education impacts more than fairness claims, this is because I think fairness is an internal link, not an impact. What I'm saying is make sure you terminalize the impact on this flow.
I think a CP is almost a necessity for most policy 1nc's - they're very strategic. I'll evaluate CP's based on if they solve the aff and if the net benefit outweighs disads to the CP. I don't like theory but I think it's a good strategy against an abusive CP, so I encourage theory in the 2ac against most CP's.
I evaluate disads in what I would like to think is a pretty normal way. Win the parts of the disad and win it outweighs the aff.
K debates - FW is important so that I have something to filter all the tech arguments through. Other than that, I think neg teams need to win a sufficient link and impact on the K to garner offense with it. I think the alternative is good to have for weighing it vs. the aff, but it isn't a necessity (if you kick the alt make sure the K turns the case). I think to answer the K, an aff team should attack the link/perm debate the most. I also think if an aff team proves the alt can't solve the aff, and that the aff outweighs the K, then I'd vote for the aff on the K.
I don't really like theory debates much. I'll vote for them if you win them but I think theory debates are usually regressive. I hate when teams go for condo unless the other team just massively undercovers it.
Speaks! I adjust my speaks based on the quality of the competition pool. If the teams in competition aren't national tournament level, they won't get national tournament speaking expectations. For example, a 28.6 at Greenhill is going to get you like a 29.5 at the North Lamar tournament. The higher quality tournament, the tougher I am. I tend to give average speaks of about 28.7 I'd say, so I guess I start there and move up or down throughout the debate. I think that giving speaker points based on how well you speak is ableist, so I only give them based on how well you debated. I do give bonus points for funny jokes etc. +.5 if you send the docs before the cx period prior to your speech ends!
I reserve the right to vote a team down if they engage in insensitive/unethical debate. No excuses for things such as racial or gender discrimination. Debate should be a safe space and I think it is a judges responsibility to hold debaters accountable for that.
Hendrickson CX Debater '18-'20 (2A/1N)
TXST LD Debater '24
Yes Email Chain - email@example.com
As a heads-up/quick overview, I'm up for pretty much any type of argument, as long as it's legit and not just a meme case. I don't really have a default way I vote, but still - if there's a specific impact you think I need to prioritize, explain it!
Tech > Truth - but that does NOT mean I'll vote on anything.
I'm down for a good T debate. Topicality isn't just a one-round thing, it's a matter of how debate should operate, and that's something you need to explain - it's about the precedent the aff sets.
I'm familiar with pretty much all generic kritiks. Every part of the K is equally important, which is why if you either can't explain your alt or just straight up don't have one, I'm significantly less likely to vote for you. Links of omission are a no-go.
Additionally, the perm debate is usually going to be pretty important in my eyes, on both sides. Don't give a really vague answer to the perm and be surprised when I vote you down.
I'm typically a hard policy debater so I'm definitely down to hear a good CP debate. Specificity in solvency advocates and just in the CP itself is important, and in the line-by-line, because if you can't add specificity it shows you don't know much about either how your CP or the plan functions. Feel free to run condo and any other theory.
Updated/decent ev and a cohesive story are all I really need. Specific disads are always better. Not much else to it really.
Overall speaking -
Don't be a jerk in round, and don't get aggressive or snarky, or that'll affect your speaker points.
I will call out anything shady, like stealing prep or if I think you're cheating. Debate is also about education, not just winning.
TL;DR: I debated in high school, but now I judge debates. Any speed or style is fine by me, please don't change your argumentation to fit me, unless you really want to? Well-versed in everything typically run. Add me to the email chain by copying and pasting this:
Feel free to email me if you want more clarity on an RFD, card, or comment.
Please, call me Hunter! Don't call me 'judge." Thanks!!! As you can probably tell from the length of this paradigm, I have lots of thoughts about debate/forensics as an activity. The most important one is listed below.
I have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, or bullying of any type, but especially against younger debaters, LGBTQ+ debaters, and debaters of color. Any of the above will always supersede the debate itself, and I'll report you to tab/your coach.
- COVID Update: I'll be judging at tournaments online! No worries, I debated on the TFA circuit for years. I might ask for you to repeat stuff due to lag/poor audio quality, which is not something I would normally do. Online debate is pretty much the same though.
-Line by line >>>>>>>>>>>.>>......>>>>>>.....>>> Disorganized Speeches :(
-Debated for 3.5 years at Prosper HS in Texas, currently judging at either St. Louis UDL tournaments or national circuit places, all while attempting to force my university to fund a policy team. Open to whatever. Specific args are covered below.
-Arguments I went for too much in my high school days: Gender fluidity, Capitalism, Bio/Necro ptx, and environmental stuff.
-No one is truly tab, but I try my best to be open-minded and unbiased to any argument, and generally, I will default to truth > tech, barring a compelling debate reason.
- Ptx junkie, so higher threshold on elections/senate/x bill DAs, will burn terrible uq cards into smithereens.
-I flow on my laptop normally, but if it dies I'd like to think I can still do my pen flip from high school.
-Don't be obnoxiously rude in any round with a clear skill gap between the teams, just debate normally. Toxicity is always bad. Respect the pronouns, experiences, or identities of the other debaters/judge(s)/crowd. Treat your partner nicely, and don't lash out if the round isn't going your way.
Do these things:
-Specific line by line analysis/organized speeches = cool
-ROB/Framing = cooler
-Warrants are the coolest.
Avoid these things:
-Blippy, blitz analytics
-Stealing prep, I'll probably notice you doing it. *Merging docs together or whatever as your partner furiously types is still prep*
-I'm not a hard judge to impress, but if you want higher speaker points, debate however you normally would. Please don't try to 'adapt' to me, I won't hurt any debater's speaks for using whatever style they prefer. On my speaks scale, the points are typically 27.5 - 30. That's the range, but it's kinda hard to be at the lower end of the spectrum with me judging, I'm pretty forgiving. Still, I'll adjust it slightly to the tournament setting if I need to, yet a 30 is always a 30. Post rounding is fine, but don't overdo it.
- I'll always try to give an oral decision and RFD.
-Please feel free to ask questions and interrogate it, if it's a panel, maybe hold off until the other judges have spoken. Even though I'm fine with you grilling me about my ballot, recognize that it won't change either way.
-If we're in a rush or whatever, shoot me an email or find me later on at the tournament to clear anything up.
-Don't assume I know the aff or topic literature, especially at the beginning of the year.
-Please don't ignore the mechanism of the aff post 1AC, sticking a line in the overview isn't enough either.
-Weaponize the aff, most of the time the neg team does minimal actual debating on the solvency or inner workings of a 1AC, and they shift the focus purely to internal links to the impact scenarios.
-I think aff teams that can extend and expand on the core thesis of the plan are a lot more likely to win a perm or beat a CP or Alt straight up.
-Solvency advocates are nice.
-Every aff challenges T in some way. I'll default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise persuasively. Reasonability is a contextual argument, it can definitely be won in front of me.
-The neg needs to win an impact here, and the more articulated this is, the more comfortable I am voting on T.
-I think FXT and Extra - T are severely underused arguments that can prove abuse.
-I like the Block/2NR to have a case list of hypothetical topical affs.
-If the aff is questionably topical, make sure you convince me that it is/isn't topical
-These are super common, read them if you want, I've certainly read my fair share.
-Outline the methodology or the stance, don't be beyond shifty in CX on what the aff actually does.
-Please try to keep it in the direction of the topic.
-I'm well versed in most K lit, but don't assume I understand your unique spin on "insert author here".
-The same logic applies as above, most neg teams still fail to attack the actual mechanism of the aff, so utilize that.
-Performance affs are also awesome and totally have a place in the debate space, I've judged them in my local UDL for over 2 years now.
-The best FW args are the ones that actually recognize the point of a K aff.
-A TVA or SSD is much more persuasive than fairness by itself.
-That being said, in round abuse exists, and FW can easily be won in front of me.
-Just tread carefully, and keep how you access the ballot as the focus (for both teams, if that wasn't clear.)
-Win a strong link. Articulate an impact chain. Outline the method of the alternative for me.
-Don't assume I know the K lit. Avoid buzzwords and 4-minute overviews.
-Remember that ROB/ROJ args make it a much easier ballot for the K.
-I'll vote for any K argument that you can explain to me, but sometimes more is less with K debate on the links or MPX.
-If the K is your typical strategy, don't change it in front of me, I love hearing new critical strategies or presentations.
-The more specific they are, the better.
-Don't read outdated ptx scenarios or whatever.
-Internal link chains are nice when remembered.
-A 2NR can totally torpedo a solid policy aff with an equally solid DA, if this is your style, go for it.
-I love a unique DA with a fun MPX scenario!!!
-Innovative CPs are much more likely to get my ballot, but I'll listen to whatever.
-Consult, delay and that whole crowd are probably abusive and a reason to reject the CP outright.
-A CP that goes for sufficiency framing is cool, but you can out solve the aff if you want?
-Solvency advocates crystallize a CP for me, but you don't necessarily need one.
-Net benefits are under-explained or often chalked up to a DA, so focus a tad more on how you differentiate from the aff.
-I don't like intervening, so please don't make me vote on whether your 15-second blip in the 2AC/the block that became 5 minutes of the 2NR/2AR was worthy of voting down the other team, yet...
- Disclosure theory is :( and usually used by big schools to bully smaller institutions, but brand new K affs are probably bad.
-CP's theory is the most common stuff I come across, go for it. I'll def entertain condo theory if you read 3+ CPs or Ks or whatever. As noted above, abusive CPs like consult or delay are legit theoretical aff objections.
-Speed theory or something along those lines is solid if you can explain an accessibility concern, that's a true reason to vote down a team.
-I have a decent enough background with LD. Do whatever you normally do, everything noted above and below applies with a few caveats.
-Theory hacking is annoying and quite boring. Time sucks are probably bad.
-LARP or progressive debate techniques are totally welcomed in front of me
-Some sort of framing is probably a good idea, but I'm not some value/criterion absolutist.
-Refer to the above
-Sticky defense is fine
-Send the speech docs, I like to read PF evidence since it's so blippy.
-Impact (MPX) debate is really cool, but framing is even cooler.
-Feel free to run CX/LD style arguments
-I will never approach a PF debate as a lay judge, sorry.
I have done policy and LD for 3 years. I currently do parliamentary debate and IPDA debate.
What I like: I really enjoy line by line argumentation. Structure is key for a good debate. I enjoy critical arguments or anything fem
What I don't like: I really enjoy critical arguments but I rarely vote on K. I don't like cases that have no impacts or structures. As a female debate, I understand the sexism that some female debaters may face. So in no circumstance would I listen to an argument that is inherently racist or sexist.
Hendrickson HS'20 --- Debated all 4 years in High School
Email - Beklanelia@gmail.com
-- Not updated for recent topic specifics-----
--- Top Level ---
Tech > Truth; but I do tend to lean Truth < Tech on K debates (usually depends on how the debate is)
Clarity over speed; Please slow down for analytics and overviews
Explain your arguments and impact that out - it'll be a lot easier for me to weigh the argument
I also like top-level 2AR/2NR overviews that states why you're winning the debate and what arguments are in your favor
-- Topicality and Framework --
Not a huge T fan but impacted/explain it out well for me and I have no reason not to vote for it
Do calc bt standards - tell me why your standards matter and why that model of debate is important and better
For framework - SSD usually persuades me; tell me why your model of debate is better overall and why that allows for more conversations to happen; debate is a game
-- Kritiks --
I read Afro-pess in high school and I also know the generic kritiks
Contextualize the link to make it specific to the aff
Most teams don't have a good rebost explanation for their alt; explain the alt to me like I'm a kid who doesn't know anything, if I'm lost and don't know what you're talking about I'm most likely going to vote aff
For aff, pragmatism/state good arg are persuasive to me - give me examples if you can
-- DAs --
Impact calc is really important and needed here
Please have a clear explanation of the link
When a team goes for a DA I usually end up voting on DA o/w due to their impact calc and turns case arg
-- CPs --
Explain why the CP solves for the internal links of the aff
Re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC is a quick way for me to give you weigh a lot of weigh on the counterplan
-- Theory --
Please impact it out. if I don't know why it was abusive in specific to the debate round, I have no reason to vote on it
Pronouns: He/him she/her
I don't particularly care what pronouns you use, I'm mostly he/him or she/her. But this is a PSA you MUST respect pronouns. There is a difference between accident and intent
Affiliation: Wylie HS '18
Experience: Wylie HS 15-18 – tfa circuit hs debate for 3 years.
Rutgers Newark – 2nd year debating NDT/CEDA policy for Rutgers
"When I understand the words you say I take them more seriously
Do what you want. I follow tournament rules, try not to throw things"
Don't be a bigot, you'll lose. If both of teams are bigots, I'll flip a coin
I also love Sion Bell's paradigm and almost all of it holds true so if you're into it check that out
I'm skeptical of the utility of these things since it seems that no one listens to these anyway. But here we are
I will do my best to evaluate the round exactly as presented to me while leaving my personal opinions about arguments and ideas out of the RFD. However, for those of you who want to know, I do have some specific thoughts on certain matters. This is not to say that you should take me paradigm as gospel though. I try to keep an open mind and will listen to most arguments and strategies. That being said... you do you. There's a reason I continue to edit this page.
I may ask to see evidence after the round if it is a legitimate point of tension in the round but other than that, if I have to look at evidence to evaluate the debate you're making me do too much work.
Preface - I've run everything from politics, to afropess. My preference when I debate leans heavily critical, but I've run and judged strict policy strats too. I can judge whatever you want to throw at me and despite my personal argument choices I am just as happy to judge a good DA/CP as I am to judge a K v. K debate. This being said, don’t feel like its necessary to read the k just because I like it or it’s my specialty. I’d rather you do what you’re good at
K affs/nontraditional affs- Affs should probably defend something although my interpretation of "something" is flexible. I'm good for these affs but the explanation of these arguments are important since I'm not omniscient.
I’ve spent most of my time and had most of my success with these kinds of affs but I’ve come to believe that most of these affs don’t do anything. This isn’t generally a problem except when I’ve judged these debates on the HS level most people can’t actually explain what these aff’s do (or don’t) and end up just explaining some theory of power. And neg teams just let these teams get away with doing nothing without forcing them to defend that.
K - I mostly debate the K and particularly enjoy it, but that means I generally have a higher threshold to vote on it. Ks should definitely have links engaging the actual implications of the 1AC (more than a state link). I would say I'm familiar with a number of lit bases but don't ever assume that I know what you're talking about. I’m reasonably up in the lit on afropess, queer theory, marx/cap, semiotics, lacan. Anything else I have not spent extensive time understanding. Regardless you should debate in a way that ensure EVERYONE in the room understands what you’re saying and ensures that you’re not pulling some obscure theory that I haven’t read. EXPLAIN. I’m not omniscient like I said.
DA - Make SMART disads. explain the internal link story. The more specific to the aff the better. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link.
CP - CPs have the potential to be cool. Make smart cps. specific net benefits and concrete competition.
T - I have to admit, I like a good T/FW debate but there's a lot of mistakes made on both sides that make this kind of debate difficult. The Aff usually forgets to extend their aff but odds are the 2NR will forget to extend a terminal impact anyway. I will default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise
Case - Case debate is underutilized. I think most affs are bad. Not to say you shouldn't ever run aff, or I will never vote aff. I just think that affs always have some sort of fundamental contradiction/fallacy etc. that is inevitable in an event where we simulate praxis. Neg teams need to exploit that on the case page, and aff teams need to be ready to answer larger questions of solvency.
Theory - I actually really like a good theory debate. I think one of the most interesting things about debate, is your ability to debate debate. However I hold a high threshold to vote on it in the 2NR/2AR. You HAVE to extend terminal impact calculus though (which means shells like disclosure theory AND SKEP are rarely ever voters in my eyes).
***LD update Yale: I don’t like frivolous theory, I will likely never vote on it because I don’t think it has an impact or a point other than a “gotcha” in debates. You can try to prove me wrong if you wish. I’ve said I’m always open to changing my mind and you should absolutely read what you’re best at. This is a PSA though
I like puns and scifi/comic references.
Speed is cool. Clarity is cooler. If I can't understand your tags/analytics/line-by-line I have no way of flowing it
Once I've signed the ballot the round is over. No returns or refunds. DO ask me informational questions about the RFD. DON'T argue with the decision. If it's a paper ballot I'll just start taking off speaks
Long overviews are OK. The same way I look at speed applies here. If I can't understand you, or your overview is a total mess I won't be able to evaluate it to its full potential.
I try not to read evidence. However, I will if I feel it is absolutely necessary to resolve the round. I will default to the speaker's interpretation of the evidence unless otherwise contested.
Add me to the Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Katy Taylor '19
Updates per Online debating: Because of the nature of online debating, I am often times having a hard time understanding/taking in visual cues. Please take this into consideration when debating and prioritize clarity to an extent. Also appreciate analytics, although I guess it's ultimately up to you - if I didn't get it on my flow, it's probably net worse lol
Also feel free to email me with questions if any are unanswered, both before and post round.
I think debate is an activity formatted as a game, but ultimately should be used to reap external values/impacts. It also definitely is more than a game to most of us involved; debate is in fact a consuming activity. What I prioritize in evaluation will vary by round, based on the progression of the debate, and I will leave the strategizing for a ballot up to you.
Do what you do best. I’m open to all types of argument as long as it is well executed- I was not a big K debater through HS, but if you do your job I should have no problem understanding the round/the literature. I would much rather judge a nuanced and engaging debate that I am unfamiliar with over a poorly executed round. Likewise, Ks should not be read in the hopes of simply reading the K getting a ballot.
Proper showcasing of your knowledge in the subject, clever strategy, and some courtesy in round make judging easier, more enjoyable, and will work in your favor.
Both teams should have a defense of the model provided by their interpretation. I think Affs should have some relation/link to the topic (not necessarily with a plan text)-I don't think it's easy to win a round with an aff that has no relation whatsoever, but if this is the case, I would expect VERY good reasons to buy that. Offense is key to win FW debates- how well these arguments apply/interact in round are important for a decision. Along with offense, there needs to be well explained impacts by both teams. (i.e. explain what “destroying fairness” does to debate, etc.)
I'm usually not a heavy voter on T, because a) most times T debates feel like nothing more than a time suck and b)I do think that debate is a space that has the capacity in which a variety of dialogues can and should take place, but that doesn't mean I won't vote on it and/or this is the cue to read whatever you want w zero correlation. Both teams need to defend their interp of the topic with well-extrapolated standards and impacts. Mentioning the words “limits”, “fairness”, and “predictability” doesn't mean much until you explain why that matters. Impact comparison and substantive clash over models of the topic via definitions and standards make T debates much easier and more enjoyable to evaluate.
Despite the fact I wasn't much of a K debater, I feel they are very enjoyable to judge when executed well, and can very well be the opposite if not done so. I have found myself finding K arguments very compelling because I buy that the problematic ideologies that shaped the fundamentals of our society are violent/pose a threat constantly. Well-developed links that are specific and turn case are essential. I believe the framework debate is generally underutilized by the negative, usually those debates end up with the affirmative getting to weigh the Aff. If you read external impacts, you must explain the internal link to that impact. As mentioned above, I was not a big K debater through high school, so I'm probably super close to an actual blank slate- With that said explanation within your speeches and CX will be rewarded, and essential for me to evaluate. A clear explanation of the argument should be a requirement anyway; just know that you will not gain much if not lose expecting me to know each K inside out. The affirmative should have a combination of offensive and defensive arguments. A purely defensive strategy against a K will probably not get you a win.
They need to have a clear and preferably nuanced method that can solve the impacts of the Aff. I think the major pitfall of K Affs is having generic or vague methods that open the doors to a lot of persuasive presumption arguments. There needs to be a defense of why debate is a key space to read the Aff. The 1AR and 2AR should have both components on some level or else I’m left to guess as to how the Aff/aff offense functions against the negative's position. As explained in the K section above, do not assume I’m well versed in the literature you are defending.
Be specific. A robust explanation of the link to the Aff and impact calculus supplemented with embedded turns case analysis makes these debates very enjoyable to judge. The Affirmative should try to find holes in the DA, whether that’s through internal links not lining up or through their evidence. I think a combination of offensive and defensive arguments is smart and will make it harder for the negative to hedge their offense.
They need to have a clear plan text and an external net benefit. Make sure the CP is competitive- as simple as it is I feel like people forget and then I have to vote down on perm. Same with most arguments, the more specific the better. The 2NR should generally be the counterplan with a DA/Case argument to supplement. It's probably helpful for the aff to have some offense- just defense is in most cases not sufficient to beat the CP.
- Strategizing the round is up to you, but I do find myself not loving the timesuck-16 off- strats
- I think case debating is very under-utilized
- recutting evidence from the opposing team is rewarded
- Flashing/Emailing isn’t prep but be efficient
- If you still have questions, ask them before the round
-Don't be rude; there's a difference between that and being sharp
email@example.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.
Hebron '20. Did CX debate all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.
UT Austin '24
Work with Westwood HS.
Spreading - Yes
Open CX - Yes
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. Anything more, and you put it 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 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.
Framing pages are really boring. Spark is entertaining. Give me more spark or dedev.
If you say *anything* that is construable as racist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.
Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.
Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.
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 actually fiat anything real so it doesn't solve anything" and that will be sufficient for the aff to win the CP.
I don't judge kick unless you tell me to.
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, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. Pretty much, I won't be scared of whatever you decide to run. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you, though - explain your stuff.
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, then put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.
I'm generally quite willing to vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. With being willing to vote on small techy tricks, I'm also fine with voting on the hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.
Identity K's Warning--- I'm not against people reading kritiks outside of their subject position. However, I think that debaters who choose to run these Kritiks are obligated to do the maximum amount of research and practice necessary to make sure they do not bastardize the literature or make a mockery of the argument. You don't get just to pick up the argument, know like 45% of the buzzwords, and call it a day.
Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause then I probably won't give it much weight.
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 in and of itself. On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to be justifying your theory of the world way more than just the surface level claims. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" over and over again does not make a full argument. Ideally, for Wilderson, 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". To me, the "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis level explanation to precede it for it to be true. For both teams -- I've found that most debates are decided 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 far 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.
For the negative - I'm not the best judge for fairness as a terminal impact. I think it's tough to evaluate fairness versus K impacts, 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 a large amount of case mitigation to vote on it. BUT - fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.
The one caveat to the above fairness stuff -- hyper-personal affs that don't defend a "strategy" or "theory of power" make me more open to fairness as an impact because I genuinely can't see a role for the negative there. Note: this is not the same thing as like "Warren/Onto Terror - endurance strategies good."
Ks are often a great strategy versus a K aff if you do your HW to learn it. 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.
Impacts turns are great and underutilized. Feel free just to drop a rack of offense and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC. A great debate here will likely get you more speaks than I would normally give just because it's interesting, and the very nature of the argument is that the clash between the teams is more robust.
DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to call them out on it and drop CP/DAs in the 1NC and GO FOR THEM (but have case answers) A) I think it's disingenuous when the Neg goes for FW and acts like there was zero way to engage when CX of the 1AC explains the aff as in line with the topic, just without a plan text (debate to be had, of course) and B) how many speeches do you think the Aff team has given versus FW and versus a DA?
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, so do that work for me.
Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism. I'm not necessarily holding you to an absurdly high burden, but I need a coherent story if pushed back against, 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 really don't want to have to make a decision on something like that, especially since it doesn't follow traditional understandings of flowing and offense/defense and it effectively requires judge intervention.
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 - just 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 are telling me the exact reasons 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. What that means is that 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.
Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC. I don't like the awkward moments where people give the 2AC roadmap, and there's a silence or argument while the 2A tries to name the off-case themselves.
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.
I have never judged a trix round and I barely know what trix are. Do with that information as you will.
In order of args Im best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Trix.
THIS IS A WORK IN PROGRESS; FOR NOW, ASK ME QUESTIONS REGARDING ANY ISSUE. I WILL VOTE FOR ANYTHING.
I HIGHLY APPRECIATE AN EMAIL CHAIN: My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
Overview: As a policymaker judge, I prefer that arguments stay within the realm of the resolution. With that being said, I am okay with K’s, T’s, and theory arguments, as long as you can explain their applicability in the round or policymaking. I will break down my thoughts on most arguments. If you have any questions, please ask. As for my experience: I was a CX debater for two years and occasionally did LD as well as an HS student, and I have been coaching since 2020.
DA- With every DA, make sure it covers everything in a DA, such as impacts. Also, generic DA’s are fine, but the more specific to the AFF, the better.
CP- I am good with CP’s, but make sure that you cover everything when presenting it in the 2AC. Explain how the resolution is not plausible or why the CP is preferable. Make sure that I can completely understand
T- Topicality is fine with me, with the most crucial thing in the round being the interpretations. It would help if you also conveyed to the judge why your interpretation is preferable to the opposition’s definition.
K- While I am a policymaker judge, I am willing to hear K’s out. I ask the team running the K to take some time to explain how the K lit because I may not be as familiar with it depending on the K. Also, explain how the K does/doesn’t relate to the actual resolution and policy.
Theory- This argument is fine with me, but make sure it’s run correctly. Be able to explain if there is/ isn’t an issue of abuse.
Framework- Framework is a debatable issue in the round. Be able to explain why I should prefer your framework over the one presented by the opponent.
Impact Calc-Highly appreciated.
Speed-In regards to speed, keep it about 65-75%. If you need to finish a point before the time is up, cool, but make sure you're not going so fast that I don't understand you.
Thoughts: I lean more traditional, but I am entirely open to the possibility of hearing critical arguments. If I do hear a critical argument, it is your responsibility to explain it and its role in the round. LD debaters can cross-reference my views of policy debate. In regards to speed, keep it about 75-80%. If you need to finish a point before the time is up, cool, but make sure you're not going so fast that I don't understand you. (MORE COMING SOON, ASK FOR SPECIFICS)
I am a pretty basic judge. I like good arguments and good speaking. I prefer stock issues, but I know that I'm old fashioned and most students don't really do that anymore. Don't talk too fast, to the point where I can't understand you or am concerned about your health and safety. If you do so, I will put my pen down, and anything I don't write down didn't happen. Seriously, don't spread. As far as arguments go, I'm pretty good with anything. Don't just read a bunch of numbers or words and expect me to make the connections to your case or your opponent's. Explain why your statistics matter and why your arguments outweigh your opponent's. I also like the structure. Tell me you're on advantage 1, or you're covering inherency, etc. It really helps. Otherwise, I'm just here to listen to what you have to tell me.
School - UGA 22'
High School - Lindale High School 2014-2018
I debated at Lindale High School doing policy for 3 years and sorta did LD my senior year. In high school I went for majority of pomo arguments and 'untopical' affs. My favorite arguments were AfroPessimism, death good, and psychoanalysis. My sophomore, junior and senior year Robinson 12 or Wilderson was practically in the 2nr/2ar of every round. To give you an idea here's my wiki from hs. I debated at UGA for a bit going for policy arguments, but my last competitive debate round was in early 2019.
Put me on the email chain - email@example.com
TLDR - Do whatever you want. I'm here to judge you. If you don't read an aff and stand in silence for 8 minutes defend it. If you want to read a hardcore policy aff with 15 impacts defend it. I will vote for anything as long as it is justified and not harmful.
Disads: The more specific the better. A robust explanation of the link to the Aff and impact calculus supplemented with embedded turns case analysis makes these debates very enjoyable to judge. I'm susceptible to affs making fun of the link debate if the disad is just a generic arg.
Counterplans: The more specific the better.
Ks: I think these debates can be the most fun to judge and the worst to judge. In good k debates there needs to be in-depth explanation of the links and how they function with the aff whether that be links to the representation of the aff or post-fiat links. I also put a lot of emphasis on the framework debate. I think framework is the most strategic way for affirmatives to hedge back against ks in policy v k rounds and the most strategic way for ks to not let the affirmative weigh the aff.
- Jokes are always a good way to boost speaker points. Debate is a fun activity. You should at least pretend like you are having fun.
- Any more questions, ask me before the round.
high school = Kansas 2012-2016 (Policy and LD)
undergrad = Emporia State 2016-2020 (Policy)
grad = Kansas State 2020-present (Policy Coach)DO NOT RECORD MY VOICE OR IMAGE AND DO NOT TAKE PICTURES OF ME WITHOUT MY WRITTEN CONSENT. It's ridiculous this has to be said.
edited for the youth
Updated 2/27/21 (updates have a "---" listed before them)
---- Yes, put me on the email chain. Squiddoesdebate@gmail.com
---- Do a sound check before you start your speech. Simply ask if we can all hear you. I will not dock speaks because of audio issues, however, we will do everything we can to fix the audio issue before we proceed.
------------------- SEND YOUR ANALYTICS - if you want me to flow every word, it would behove you to send me every word you have typed. I am not the only one who uses typed analytics. Don't exclude folks from being able to fully participate just because you don't want to share your analytics.
--- the first thirty seconds of the last rebuttal for each side should be what they expect my RFD should be. I like being lazy and I love it when you not only tell me how I need to vote, but also provide deep explanation and extensive warrants for why the debate has ended in such a way to where I have no other choice to vote that way.
----My decision is most influenced by the last two rebuttals than any other speech. I actively flow the entire debate, but the majority of my attention when considering my decision comes down to a flow-based comparison of the last rebuttals. If you plan to bounce from one page to the next in the 2NR/2AR, then please do cross-applications and choose one page to stay on. That will help both of us.
I think debate should be an activity to have discussions. Sometimes these discussions are fun, sometimes they aren't. Sometimes they are obvious and clear, sometimes they are not. Sometimes that's the point. Regardless, have a discussion and I will listen to it.
I don't like to read evidence after debates. That being said, I will if I have to. If you can make the argument without the evidence, feel free to do so. If I yell "clear", don't trip, just articulate.
--- If I call for evidence or otherwise find myself needing to read evidence, it probably means you did not do a good enough job of explaining the argument and rather relied on author extensions. Please avoid this.
Your speaks start at a 30. Wherever they go from there are up to you. Things that I will drop speaks for include clearly not explaining/engaging the arguments in the round (without a justification for doing so), not explaining or answering CX questions, not articulating more after I clear you. Things that will improve your speaks include being fast, being efficient with your words, being clear while reading evidence, demonstrating comprehensive knowledge of your args by being off your blocks or schooling someone in cross-x, etc. If I significantly hurt your speaks, I will let you know why. Otherwise, you start at 30 and I've only had to go below 26 a handful of times.
----- my range is roughly 28.7-29.5 if you are curious
Prep time, cross-x, in-between-speeches chats, I'll be listening. All that means- be attentive to what's happening beyond the speeches. If you are making arguments during these times, be sure to make application arguments in the speech times. That's not just a judge preference, it's often devastating.
I like kritikal/performative debate. I did traditional/policy-styled debate. I prefer the previous but won't rule out the latter.
---- ^^ this is less true as I judge more and more high school debate but it is still true for college debate.
slow down when reading the theory / analytics / interps
don't assume I know everything, I know nothing in the grand scheme of things
don't be rude unless you're sure of it
Ask me more if you want to know. Email me. I am down to chat more about my decisions in email if you are willing.
- theory is wild. i don't know as much about it as you think I do
- tell me how to evaluate things, especially in the later speeches because new things are read in every speech and its wild and new to me. tell me what to do.
- I love the k's that are in this activity, keep that up.
Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.
I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.
27.7 to 28.2 - Average
28.3 to 28.6 - Good job
28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average
29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job
29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.
30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.
I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.
I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.
Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.
GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Codymorrowtx1@gmail.com
Howdy, I debated from 2016-2020, and participated in most circuits, so I am familiar with most forms and styles of debate.
CX: Generally, I believe in fair debates and creating fun learning experiences. I will listen to anything, but you need to show me that you understand your case and neg arguments, not just read from Open Ev. A simple way to do this is strong information during CX time, or giving a short explanation at the beginning or end of your constructive, if you don't have time that's fine. I tend to lean more towards analytical, theory, and case arguments, simply because I think they display critical thinking skills and show you can use common sense.
As far as speed, if you want to spread just make sure that taglines are clear. For virtual tourneys I prefer you not spread only because I have never seen it work out successfully, but spread at your own risk. I don't mind open CX as long as both you and your partner are carrying equal weight.
Finally, sportsmanship is very important to me. I think assertiveness and competitiveness is good, but do not be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, it will reflect in your speaker points. If its clear that your opponents skill level is still developing I will respect you more if you turn the round into a learning experience rather than a power flex. Also, don't lose sight of your burden as the aff or neg. In most cases doubt can be a very strong voter, so keep that in mind.
Case: My only request is that you know what you are talking about. I lowkey like k affs, but dont run if you dont know what you are talking about.
DA's: Truthfully, I roll my eyes at nuclear war and hyperbolic impacts, but as a former debater I know that it's just part of debate, so its fine, but I strongly value empirical evidence and impacts that are happening now(hint climate change) its a good way to win on timeframe. Impact Calculus is also good if you have time for it in your final rebuttal. To win the DA outline a strong internal link chain and strong empirical evidence if available and make the link as specific as possible.
Counterplan: Please for the sake of keeping the flow clean do not run multiple CP's I will literally lose my mind especially if they get dropped later in the round. You have a better change of winning the more specific the CP is. To win the counter plan you need to tell me why it is better than the aff, and how you claim the impacts of both the CP and the aff and solve for any DA's you read. I don't really like you just say "perm:do both" I think you need to read evidence that proves you can actually perm. Aff, literally all you need to do it show me why the aff is better(this is part of your burden anyway) and everything will be cool beans.
Theory: I LOVE theory, but I am not a fan of condo; however, if you make a compelling argument then I will vote on it. Condo tends to get messy, or turn into a time suck, or a non-issue therefore I have lose interest quickly.
Topicality: As the circuits become more progressive T has become a time suck which I really dont appreciate. Please for the love of all that is good only run T if it the aff is untopical and T is really only important to me if you make it important. Depending on the round my default is reasonability.
Kritik: I will listen to it, but same with the DA's I tend to value empirical evidence and impacts that are happening now. I will listen to any alt, but I tend to favor real world than phil. I value moral obligations, empirics, and understanding. I think it is also extremely important that you run the K as if I have no clue what I am doing, this will help you adapt to your judges and once again demonstrates that you know what you are talking which is very important to me.
Lincoln-Douglas: I will listen to anything, but you must show me that you have a strong understanding. I understand that each circuit is different, but during the debate I would prefer an emphasis on your value/criterion and framing, and once you nail those move onto more progressive ideas. I also want to see you use your brain when you make arguments so be sure to try and display common sense and critical thinking skills. I LOVE clash and real world impacts, its an easy way to meet all the criteria I listed previously. Finally, sportsmanship is very important to me. I think assertiveness and competitiveness is good, but do not be unnecessarily rude to your opponents, it will reflect in your speaker points. If its clear that your opponents skill level is still developing I will respect you more if you turn the round into a learning experience rather than a power flex.
My paradigm is mostly tab, if you tell me why I'm voting for you in a persuasive way I will listen.
I really enjoy narrative and kritikal cases that have in-round impacts and question the realm of debate as long as the language is understandable.
When it comes to policy cases I place a lot of emphasis on impact calculus. If there is any chance of a link, I will typically refer to the impact debate for my decision.
I have a pretty high threshold for T and framework, if you go for it I want it to be solid and I want you to really go for it otherwise I won't usually put much stock into it.
Last updated: September 12,2020
Background: I graduated from Karnes City High School in 2017. Debated at Texas A&M University for a year (policy) and graduated in 2019. I have a M.L.A. with an emphasis in Government from Harvard University and am currently a 1L at the University of Dayton School of Law in Dayton, Ohio.
Simply put, I am a tabs judge with heavy emphasis on stock issues. You run it, I’ll flow it. But I expect you to either carry those arguments throughout the round or kick them. Debate is educational, make it that way. Big fan of the T debate-- have every element of a T arg if you one one. Have a strong link to DAs or don’t run them.
Speed is ok as long as I can understand the tagline, author and date. Please analyze each card you read after finishing it to allow for better understanding for all parties in the room.
I tend to think I am a traditional judge. I follow traditional debate theory. Although young, I am an old debate judge at heart.
Ways to win a round: Cover all arguments and then provide meaningful impact calculus with tangible warrants that uphold your claims (VERY important at the end of the round). Convince me that the impacts of your side of the debate outweigh the impacts of the opposition.
I have extensive high school and college debate experience and am more than willing to help each team as much as I can. I am here as a resource, use me! If I don’t know the answer to something, I will certainly find it and get it to you!
Put me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I debated for Elkins High School in Policy and LD. I primarily worked with the K and IR Policy, and that is what I most like to judge.
TLDR: Tech>Truth. High threshold on T arguments against K affs. Fave debates are K aff v K, or Big Stick v Big Stick.
K and K aff: (top of the pref) -
Know your K. I'm not going to hold small semantic mistakes against you, but if they start adding up it'll make it much harder for me to vote. I know most kritiks and the theses of their authors, but I'm always open to new ideas.
I don't default to assumptions about Kritik arguments, e.g. saying you control the root cause of violence doesn't explain how you solve the violence in the aff impact/neg K. I need specific arguments about the assumptions/structures you critique, and how they relate to the affirmative. That goes for everything, but generalities tend to pop up in link, K solves case, and A2 Perm arguments.
I also like multi-layer interaction. I default to the idea that debate is kids learning things by arguing about them in a room, not a vacuum. That means real issues that you critique outside of debate exist in debate. K debaters rarely take the jump from critiquing a problem that exists in the world to finding its implications for the round. "What's the point of argumentation skills if they just end up being marketized to serve the constant expansion of global capital," is something I really like to hear an argument about.
More creative/out there the K, more speaks you get. Especially if I've never heard of the author before.
DA, CP, Policy Aff: (top of the pref for IR) (#2 or #3 for anything else)
I give some leniency towards the conclusiveness of a card vs. the purported conclusiveness of a tag. Well-researched is always better than randomly cobbled.
T/Theory: (near the bottom of the pref is this is usually your 2nr)
High threshold against K affs, Default to Reasonability and have to be convinced otherwise, I need actual explanations of terminal impacts beyond the 1nc shell.
Phil: (in the middle of the pref)
I didn't read much of this, but I don't have any predispositions about it.
Speaks: Dune and well-done Star Wars references will get you a 30. Being egregiously mean, or engaging in any -ist behavior will get you a 25. Creative IR and K arguments, especially if I've never heard the scenario or author, will get you a 30.
PF - Be as fast and progressive as you want.
I would call myself a heavy tab judge. I will listen to any argument that you could possibly read in front of me, but only if you can do so, well. Ks, K affs, theory, framework, performances, wipeout, CPs, Ts, and anything else you could possibly run is okay with me. My only condition is that Voters must always be read. I don't care how long you spend on the argument, if you don't properly cover the voters on the individual argument, then I have no reason as a judge to vote for it.
Explicitly sexist, racist, xenophobic, and homophobic discourse does not belong in debate, so don't engage in it. People should be nice. If you are not, then you may be looking at a low point win. I do not vote based purely on speaking style but if you are rude or offensive, then don't hope for anywhere near that 30. Other than these caveats, I am comfortable voting for just about any winning argument within any framework you want to explicitly place me within. Absent debate to the contrary, I default to voting for the advocacy with the most net beneficial post fiat impacts. On all portions of the debate I tend to use the heuristics of offense/defense, timeframe/probability/magnitude, and uniqueness/link/impact to evaluate and compare arguments.
Won't be able to spread me out of the round as long as you are clear. If you are not then I will say clear once and then after that anything that does not end up on the flow does not get carried over.
My fundamental maxim is that debate is a game.
(This does not mean that I arbitrarily make decisions in a non-serious fashion. Rather, debate is governed by rules that are applied in a uniformed way. For example, the rule that I ought to evaluate the claims of the debaters based on their technical function within the round rather than the truth of the argument presented should be applied universally ((with the exceptions to this rule described below)). HOWEVER, what is great about debate is that these rules can be debated. I default that conditionality, as a rule for the debate space, is good but I am open to arguments that argue that some other type of standard would be better. Below merely describes the rules that I bring into evaluating a debate. Tab does not denote judging ex nihilo, rather, every neutral position carries with it certain assumptions that constitute that conception of neutral.)
Hard tech over truth (the only claims I gut check are offensive claims)
Good with speed
Run whatever you want
On theory, while everything is debatable and can be won, I do have positions that I will default on. Condo is good, speed is good, T is good, Cps are good, ect.
In the absents of a framing debate I default to "Util" to break the tie. I.e. I will vote for an extinction claim over a "lower" magnitude impact like a war that will result in 1000 deaths. This is not to say that I am a policy maker that prefers one form of debate over another, but rather, weighing bodies seems to me the closest I can get to judge objectivity by sidestepping any bias or convictions I may have to the contrary.
I seek to find an out with the least amount of judge intervention.
T- your standards are your internal links and your voters are your impacts. Its not a question of a high or low threshold on T, but rather that you tell a complete argument. Perhaps its unorthodox, but your interp is your uniqueness, your violation is your link, your standards are your internal links, and you voters are your impacts. To win T you need win 1. The other team violates your interp, 2. that your interp has an internal link to a voter 3. that your voter is apriori; similar to a disad you need to win that 1. The other team links 2. the link causes the impact 3. the impact is bad. ( if you win that your disad leads to an extinction impact you dont need to argue that extinction is bad if they concede its bad, similarly, if the other team concede that fairness is an apriori voter you dont need to argue that fairness is apriori).
Speaks: Organization and making the right game decisions are weighed heavily for speaks. I also enjoy a good cx period which are exceptionally rare.
Please ask any question you want/need before the round. Email me if you need something answered before the round and Ill try to get back to as soon as possible.
I did policy in high school and do parli @ UT Tyler.
I firmly believe policy debate should focus on the policy - and that the point of the debate is education.
Simplified: The resolution was chosen for a reason. All teams have spent countless hours (hopefully) researching, thinking critically about, and formulating a plan that answers the resolution topic thoughtfully and intelligently. Don't muck up a debate about criminal justice reform talking about LBTQ rights or increasing teacher pay (I'm all for both of these, by the way) unless it somehow legitimately ties into criminal justice reform. I don't care if you think the resolution is not the most important issue right now - it is the most important issue in this debate and should be given it's due respect. I'm good with CP's DA's and even the occasional K (though I rarely vote for the K), but let's keep it real and on topic. I want to see that you can listen to and think critically about, then civilly debate one another's ideas about the topic given to you.
It would be hard for me to support that coconut candy is the best because, well, it just isn't. But I can hear someone else's argument, critique it, make compelling arguments against it and then promote my thought that Reese's Peanut Butter Cups are the world's finest food. If someone makes the argument that coconut candy is the best, and I start saying, "Who cares about coconut candy? Big Bang Theory is better!" no one wants to listen to that disjointed conversation. As a judge, I want you to draw me in and show me what you have as far as thinking and communicating, not reading pre-planned arguments that are not even relevant.
Spreading is fine so long as it isn't so fast or unintelligible as to complicate the round and put an unfair burden on the other team. Slowing down for tag lines is good, but tag lines alone do not convey the details of your case. All of it should be intelligible.
Speed: I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear and understandable. I'll say "clear" if I can't understand you and I expect you to slow down.
Speaker points docked for rude comments and behavior.
I am a combination of a policymaker and game player. I'll evaluate the round by how many arguments each team wins, but teams win those arguments based on their policy and how their advantages and impacts stack up.
I'm fine with Theory and Framework, but apply the card to the round don't just read it out.
Please put me in on the email chains: email@example.com
Megan Snopik - firstname.lastname@example.org 4 da email chain!!!
I am a tab judge, do as you please as long as it is not racist/sexist/homophobic/classist etc.
I prefer truth over tech, and really find it hard to vote on big stick impacts. I was a K debater and really enjoy performance. I find it pretty hard to get into hardcore technical policy rounds and really prefer K debate. I am a little rusty on spreading, so please signpost well and slow down on tags.
K: Love it. Live for it. Great. Don't read evidence you don't know the warrants to. Make sure you can explain your alternative, but honestly, I am not opposed to voting for a K with a sketchy one in a K v Policy debate. I shouldn't need to have read your lit to understand your case, that's your job.
CP: I will evaluate. Don't be crazy with the amount of planks and such. Multiple worlds is my default.
DA: I am not a fan of util, so big stick impacts are also not my fav. I will evaluate them though!
T: Yeah, I'll evaluate it. Make sure you differentiate between standards and voters pls and thank you.
FW: I like ks and I really like K affs... so make it compelling.
TDLR: read what you want, know your lit/arguments, and don't be mean.
Stephen F. Austin State University 22' (family studies & pre-law)
Please add me to your email evidence chain: email@example.com
Policy Debate Paradigm:
I am a Tab Judge, so I will vote on anything that is supported and debated well.
I highly encourage structured arguments, offense and defense, and impact debate.
Notes: If spreading then please pop tag lines, and respectful decorum is a must.
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.
I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.
In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.
My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.
I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to flash. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.
I am relatively new to critical debate. I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.
Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.
I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.
All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.
I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.
Public Forum Debate Philosophy
My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.
for email chain: email@example.com
I debated for four years at Lindale High School and now debate at Baylor University. I have had lots of technical policy debates as well as a litany of debates about theories of power, resistance, and methodology. I will listen to whatever arguments you choose to present in the debate, provided they are not offensive or rhetorically violent.
I generally start deciding debates by evaluating relative offense vs. defense. The importance of offense is determined by whatever impact calculus or role of the ballot has been provided and can be drastically be mitigated by whatever defense is won. I can be convinced to evaluate the debate differently or vote on arguments that have been framed as prior, but absent explicit instruction, this is likely how I will evaluate your debate.
Cards should be read, not 'inserted into the debate' (including any re-cutting of opponent's evidence).
I think the 2nr and 2ar should isolate the important arguments they think they are winning and spend a good amount of time framing those arguments in the context of the other team's position. Debates that are spread too thin often require lots of intervention on my part and will result in decreases in speaker points.
I think for the most part counterplans should have a solvency advocate but that's certainly a debate to be had. If your counterplan is theoretically 'eh' then be sure to spend time on that flow specifically establishing where you think you're generating competition. Most theory is a reason to reject the argument unless I'm explicitly instructed otherwise (a 2 second "reject the team to set a precedent" at the bottom of your block isn't what I'm talking about).
Disads are more persuasive with aff specific link evidence but I'm all here for block spin and contextualization. Impact comparison and analysis is the most important part of this flow and should be where you start directing my decision in these debates.
In topicality debates I usually default to competing interpretations but can definitely be persuaded otherwise. There doesn't have to be in round abuse but you should explain to me why the offense specific to your interpretation applies to how all debates on this topic would take place.
In K debates, it's important to me that you spend time instructing me as to what kind of offense I should be prioritizing and what impacts I should be assigning the most importance to. Be sure to spend a substantial amount of time explaining and framing the alternative for me, but I'm also willing to vote on just the link and impact or presumption claims if that's your 2nr move.
I enjoy K affs as well as framework debates and would prefer for both teams to explain to me what debate looks like under their model/interpretation but am also willing to vote on 'debate bad' and straight impact turn strategies.
For CX Debate, I am a stock issues judges; I love stock issues and think they will guarantee a fruitful debate. However, I really am willing to listen to any argument as long it makes SENSE.
Please, do not force me to listen to some overdone kritik that does not link any way to the affirmative teams case. I also think that debate should be a communication activity; I think every word is important and I would like to hear all of them. If you can make yourself understood while spreading, go for it. If not, that is ok; I believe in quality of arguments over quantity.
Most importantly, have fun and be respectful to all in the room.
Howdy! I started competing in 2008 and graduated from Big Spring High School in 2012. I've been coaching since 2016 at different schools in West Texas, and I’m currently at Permian High School in Odessa, TX! General rule of thumb; don't be a jerk and things will be fine.
*Include me on the email chain, firstname.lastname@example.org
I am a policy maker that evaluates all arguments. I typically judge based on impacts/cost analysis/risk scenarios, but if you don't want me to evaluate that way then let me know why. Just to go in-depth on key arguments:
T- I will evaluate T's every round but in some (most as of late) instances the T is used as a time suck and a strategy of the Neg to win on a technicality. Please do not do this. Only run T if the Aff is definitely not topical. I defer to reasonability on T.
DA- Try to have your links as specific as you can. The more specific the link, the better. That being said, I will evaluate generic DA's if the speaker can analyze and make the link argument fit the Aff.
CP- I hated CP's for years, but they seem to be almost a necessity for this year's topic so I have learned to love them. Theory debates on the CP get very muddy very fast so try to avoid running those arguments if you cannot keep a bright line in there. I err Neg on CP theory, regardless. 50 States is viable, but the more specific your CP is to the Aff, the better off you will be. I do not enjoy rounds with multiple CP's, though.
K- I'll listen to just about any K, but you have to be able to explain it to a five year old. Don't assume I am familiar with your authors. I would like to consider myself relatively well-read on some of the literature with the topic, but be able to break down arguments to their most basic level in case I'm not. I prefer more pragmatic alts to the K rather than the philosophical. Also, don't run the "Postmodern Tap Dance Theory" K that your coach cut for you last night just because nobody has anything on it. Just because you can run an argument does not mean you should.
Theory- Open to theory debates if you can keep them clean. If you know you can't, you probably shouldn't run them.
Speed- We're online so take that into consideration. I can give a verbal clear if need be.
Any other specific questions? Ask me before we start. GO MOJO!
I'm less Tab here. I enjoy a value/criteria debate with lots of clash in that area as well as lots of good framing arguments, with impacts strewn in. Please do not run any policy arguments here. I do not enjoy those rounds and one theory shell could lose the round for you in the NC.
3 years of CX with Prosper High School (TX)
Broke at TFA state and nat circuit tournaments
Important for online debates! I'm hard of hearing. For whatever reason, my hearing aids have difficulties picking up every word over online debate platforms. Spreading at your top speed for online debates probably isn't the best due to lag and me not being able to lipread properly. It's probably safest to spread at 80% of your normal speed, I'll let you know if it isn't clear enough for me to hear. FLASH YOUR ANALYTICS PLEASE! If you have any questions related to speed, feel free to spread a couple of sentences before the round starts for me and I'll let you know. :)
-Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
-I'll give an RFD unless something weird happens/the tournament is significantly delayed. If you still have questions after the round, feel free to email me
-Speed is fine. Slow down for analytics if I don’t have them.
-I'm mostly truth over tech unless the drops are very significant or if I'm convinced to prefer tech over truth. If you're trying to convince me to prefer tech over truth, make sure you explain why the arguments dropped should influence the direction of the round. (If I'm not flowing on paper, I promise I'm flowing on my laptop)
-Open CX is fine. So is prompting. (Anything too excessive may affect speaker points, and avoid interrupting or talking over a female partner as it can be very obvious and offputting)
-Line by line >>>>>>>>> overviews
-I ran more K arguments than non-K arguments, but a well-run policy argument is better than a terribly run K
-BE NICE! Especially in rounds where one team/partner is more experienced than the other, be nice. Please respect other people's identities/experiences, and treat your partner nicely
-I don't count sending the cards as prep but merging docs while your partner is typing as fast as possible is prep
LD/Anything Other Than CX:
-Just do what you normally do. Keep in mind what my CX paradigm says and feel free to ask questions about it before the round starts.
-I really like framing in LD, please have it!
-Slow down on topic-specific arguments and explain them more than you normally would.
-CPs, Plans, and Kritikal stuff is fine in LD.
-Traditional value/criterion arguments are totally fine, so is less traditional framing. Just please, please have framing arguments. :)
-Don’t assume that I know everything about the aff, especially at the start of the season.
-I’d vote on presumption if the argument is well-made.
-I especially like cases with framing in the 1ac.
-Actually explain your solvency mechanism (having a solvency advocate is also nice). Far too often, neg teams will only debate impacts and don't respond to the solvency of the aff.
-Especially for novices, don't drop your case in the rebuttals. Make sure you extend your case and not just your responses to the case arguments. Dropping the case is an easy way to lose my ballot (unless you're dropping it for a strategic/theory-related reason).
-I’ve run them, I love them.
-Please!! Don't have super long overviews!! Please do line-by-line!!
-They don’t have to have real-world solvency unless the neg convinces me that they do.
-Please don't be super shifty in cross about what your k does, try to explain and stick to the mechanism of your alt
-If it’s from an uncommon K lit base, you should probably explain it to me. You can ask me before the round if I know a specific lit base. (I specialize in qt, settler colonialism, disability ks, biopower)
-If it isn't in the direction of the topic at all, your framing should be really good. (Try to keep it in the direction of the topic please)
-I ran a k aff my senior year and did a 2ar against cap and/or t usfg nearly every single round, so try to spice it up a bit if you're neg
-Also, it's super important to be extra nice if the other team is unfamiliar with k affs.
-Just tell me why to vote for you and why your performance matters for the world of debate. I ran a narrative/identity aff my senior year if that means anything to you. I’m not going to vote you up for the only reason that you perform (framing will be an important issue) but I’ll 100% vote for a performance.
-Please, please have it. Tell me how to vote for you and why your framework outweighs.
-I love role of the ballot/judge, especially if they aren’t self-serving and can improve the overall world of debate.
-Reading a generic framing block is a lot more boring than reading framing specific to the issues of the round (but it's still better than no framing at all)
-Please!! Don't have super long overviews!! Please do line-by-line!!
-I was mostly a K debater my senior year, but please don’t run a K you don’t understand to try and get my ballot because I'd rather a well-run policy argument than a terribly run K. Don’t assume I know everything about a kritik.
-Explain the alt to me (and it doesn’t have to be pragmatic/material unless the aff convinces me that it does; just explain what it looks like). Don't be shifty about the alt in cx
-Explain why perms can/can’t solve.
-K framing is going to be pretty important.
-Root cause claims are also a debate to be had.
-T and Framework debates are especially important near the start of the season.
-Please don’t extend this into the 2nr if you’re going for another offcase (unless you have a good reason).
-I’ll default to reasonability or competing interps- just tell me (it’ll be reasonability if you don’t specify).
-TVAs+SSD with clear explanations are infinitely more convincing that "they're unfair that's bad" arguments. Fairness is a voter but there are better reasons to vote for T/FW
-A framework debate that is specific to the aff is the best type. If it's obvious you/your team read this exact framework shell in response to every single k aff ever, it's so much less persuasive.
-Specificity + uniqueness >>>> super generic
-I’d prefer it if you have specific links. Make sure you warrant each card in the rebuttals and tell me why the impacts outweigh.
-Please don't read outdated politics disads, it'll lose you a lot of credibility/speaker points
-If it's a politics disad, I love evidence recency (and also debates on why recency should/shouldn't matter).
-Innovative, unique CPs are better than a generic CP (but I'll vote for whatever)
-Explain why they can’t perm, especially if you have good no perm cards.
-“Cheating” CPs are fine unless the aff says they’re not and gives a good reason.
-Solvency advocates make your CP so much better.
-Explain your net benefit and if it is something other than avoids the DA, that's even better
-Tell me why to vote for it and how it improves the world of debate. If you're reading 4+ theory shells as a time suck that's not cool and will likely annoy me :(
-I hate intervening and voting for theory if it was a 5 second blip in the 2ac/block
-I'm a lot more likely to vote for condo if there's more than 3 condo arguments (if there's less than 3, I'll still vote if it's well explained)
-I really don't like disclosure theory but I'll vote on it if the argument is well made
-Speed theory/accessibility-related things are interesting
-Please do slow down on theory if its not in the speech doc. If its a 5 second blip that's not in the speech doc, I'll have a lot harder time flowing the theory argument
I generally give high speaker points. I won't go below 27.5 unless something problematic happens.
My speaker points will vary based off of the tournament (a 30 at a local probably won't be a 30 at the TOC)
30: Wonderful debater :)
29-29.9: Very good speaker and you make very minimal mistakes
28.5-28.9: I can tell that you’re trying although you’re doing some things that annoy me (like not warranting things or telling me why to vote for you)
27.5-28.4: You’re making significant mistakes either because you don’t care or you don’t know any better yet
0-25: I'll give the lowest speaker points possible if you're being super problematic/racist/sexist/etc
Midway '20 / BYU '24
TFA, UIL, NSDA, NDCA debater; first year judge
add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated all 4 years, qualified for TFA/UIL state 3 years, NSDA 2 years.
Generally tech over truth
I want to call myself a tab judge who acknowledges that biases exist. Feel free to run whatever you want so long as it's explained and debated well. My place in the debate is as an observer to in-round information; that being said, understanding of the world is limited and often skewed.
-Don't run it as a time skew. If you run it, I want to see it extended to the rebuttals at least, and I want to see a clear violation.
-I'm a fan of legal/textual precision - run T if there are technical aff mistakes
-For voters, I don't regularly buy in-round abuse. Limits/ground/education is the easier argument to win and normally just makes more sense.
-Otherwise, I default to reasonability. Prove a violation or there isn't one
-Assume I know nothing about your case. I probably do, but I like explanation.
-pls understand your case, if you fall apart in cx you lose a lot of ethos.
-no underview; overview should be <20 seconds [assuming your 1AC was adequate lol]
-prefer an LBL in the order of the 1NC case args but honestly idc
-Framing: preempts are ok but unnecessary, I probably default to a deontological standard (which isn't really saying much)
-Performance, narratives, etc: all cool. I give them weight in the debate space because they're still debate arguments. Hopefully they're related to the topic. Making the reason to vote AFF clear is key. FW debate is real important to me, and be prepared to defend switch side debate.
-UQ controls DA, if you run a long link chain scenario w old ev I'll probably not buy it
-I like good impact debate
-Pretty simple, prove competition with the aff + net benefit or I won't buy
-Probably won't vote on theory args here unless it's blatant, affs are better off attacking solvency mechanism of the CP in my book
-Debate the K's thesis as it applies to the topic/aff. Give me a specific link, I don't really vibe w teams who just run the same neg strat w generic parts
-I should see a well-explained alt solvency mechanism. Give me an alt that actually defends something or I probably won't vote.
-Again, I love a good FW debate, have a good interp about the ROB, otherwise it's just to vote up the better debater lol
-Well versed in biopolitics, setcol, cap, afropessimism, and neitzsche. Run whatever, but anything (especially lit heavy things) should be explained thoroughly.
-You can ask about specifics but my general answer is please don't.
-Aspec is dumb unless they really don't specify in plan text (cx probably checks)
-I probably won't vote on condo, 99% of the time just whiny debaters haha
-I think I said this already but potential abuse isn't a voter
-Speed is fine, but if you're debating online, clarity above anything else. I won't flow things I can't hear or understand.
I'll say/type clear twice in the event that your spreading is messy.
-Points are awarded for good clash, quality arguments, efficiency, judge direction, impressive cross-x, and for being an effective speaker. Try to make this interesting for me. The medium is the message; you have a better chance of winning if you phrase your argument in a professional/enjoyable manner.
-I'll typically award at least 28 speaks unless you're blatantly rude, apathetic, or otherwise disturbing the debate space. Racism/misogyny/homophobia/any other kind of discrimination is grounds for 0 speaks.
-Mark your own cards and be ready to clarify where they were marked
-I used to run spark and wipeout a lot, so I vibe w impact turns when they're ran well
-Email me w any questions, I'll typically get back to you within 24 hours
note: treating me as a lay judge in LD is not a terrible idea. I have debated and judged LD in a limited capacity, and I am fairly well-versed in LD, but it is probably a safe bet to overexplain everything.
thanks for actually reading this! if you did feel free to let me know and I'll probably see you as a more responsible debater haha
I am Dyspolity@gmail on email chains.
Who I am:
Policy debater in the 1970's and 80's. I left debate for 15 years then became a coach in 1995. I was a spread debater, but speed then was not what speed is today. I am not the fast judge you want if you like speed. Because you will email me your constructive speeches, I will follow along fine, but in the speeches that win or lose the round I may not be following if you are TOC circuit fast. If that makes me a dinosaur, so be it.
I have coached most of my career in Houston at public schools and currently I coach at Guyer in Denton. I have had strong TOC debaters in LD, but recently any LDers that I have coached were getting their best help from private coaching. Only recently have I had Policy debate good enough to be relevant at TOC tournaments.
I rarely give 30's. High points come from clear speaking, cogent strategic choices, professional attitudes and eloquent rhetoric.
Line by line debates. I want to see the clash of ideas.
Policy arguments that are sufficiently developed. A disadvantage is not one card. Counterplans, too, must be fully developed. Case specific counterplans are vastly preferable to broad generics. PIC's are fine.
Framework debates that actually clash. I like K debates, but I am more likely to vote on a K that is based on philosophy that is more substantive and less ephemeral. NOTE: I have recently concluded that running a K with me in the back of the room is likely to be a mistake. I like the ideas in critical arguments, but I believe I evaluate policy arguments more cleanly.
Poor extensions. Adept extensions will include references to evidence, warrants and impacts.
Overclaiming. Did I need to actually include that?
Theory Arguments, including T. I get that sometimes it is necessary, but flowing the standards and other analytical elements of the debate, particularly in rebuttals, is miserable. To be clear, I do vote on both theory and T, but the standards debate will lose me if you are running through it.
Circuit level speed.
I am fine with conditional elements of a negative advocacy. I believe that policy making in the real world is going to evaluate multiple options and may even question assumptions at the same time. But I prefer that the positions be presented cogently.
Rudeness and arrogance. I believe that every time you debate you ae functioning as a representative of the activity. When you are debating an opponent whose skill development does not approach your own, I would prefer that you debate in such a way so as to enable them to learn from the beating your are giving them. You can beat them soundly, and not risk losing the ballot, without crushing their hopes and dreams. Don't be a jerk. Here is a test, if you have to ask if a certain behavior is symptomatic of jerkitude, then it is.
One More Concern:
There are terms of art in debate that seem to change rather frequently. My observation is that many of these terms become shorthand for more thoroughly explained arguments, or theoretical positions. You should not assume that I understand the particularly specialized language of this specific iteration of debate.
I default negative unless convinced otherwise. Also, I fail to see why the concept of presumption lacks relevance any more.
Because of the time skew, I try to give the affirmative a lot of leeway. For example, I default aff unless convinced otherwise.
I have a very high threshold to overcome my skepticism on ROTB and ROTJ and Pre-Fiat arguments. I should also include K aff's that do not affirm the resolution and most RVI's in that set of ideas that I am skeptical about on face. I will vote on these arguments but there is a higher threshold of certainty to trigger my ballot. I find theory arguments more persuasive if there is demonstrable in-round abuse.
I won't drop a team for paraphrasing, yet, but I think it is one of the most odious practices on the landscape of modern debate. Both teams are responsible for extending arguments through the debate and I certainly do not give any consideration for arguments in the final focus speeches that were not properly extended in the middle of the debate.
1) This is not an interactive activity. I will not signal you when I am ready. If I am in the back of your Congress session, I am ready. 2) At the best levels of this event, everyone speaks well. Content rules my rankings. I am particularly fond of strong sourcing. If you aren't warranting your claims, you do not warrant a high ranking on my ballot. Your language choices should reflect scholarship.
Top level// TLDR
Preferred pronouns: they/them
I debated policy for three years at aubrey high school. I currently coach there and do some other policy oriented work. I am a first year out - I have judged about 50 rounds. My sole focus is pretty much policy debate - I debate NFA- LD at UNT but it is nothing like policy or high school LD, beyond the titles of the arguments.
if You are going for T and theory- or spreading through some other paragraph sized bullet points- you need to do a couple things for me- give me space between arguments and make it really clear that you are making a new argument and what it is supposed to answer i.e "they said 'x' I have three answers 1. 'answer' 2.'answer' 3. 'answer.'" If you don't do this for me and I miss something- or I think i missed something- I will err towards the side that cleaned up the debate for me.
Yao Yao Chen said something a lot of people quote for good reason - “If you have little time before a debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best… I would rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences.”
Unlike Yao Yao tho- I prefer one off K debates. And I won’t say go as fast as you want- you probably should give me more pen time then you usually would for other folks on taglines, CP texts, theory, perm texts etc. although I do not really care how fast you go through the evidence itself.
I really appreciate judge direction- it is probably the best thing you can do for yourself in front of me- I often find myself at the end of debates where both sides have won certain arguments- but have failed to explain what the implications of those arguments are for how I should resolve the other sub debates.
I’m not sure if I have developed a routine for evaluating rounds- it is very important that both teams tell me what they won, why they won, and what that means for the round/ for what my ballot should look like. I’ll try to defer to what is on my flow to the best of my abilities.
I enjoy answering questions after the round. I don’t enjoy rude people, if we all treat each other kindly then I will answer questions till I am blue in the face. And everyone should feel free to email me at any point with any questions.
My email (which you should put on the chain) is: email@example.com
Online debate stuff:
I like email chains over other kinds of sharing methods- it lets us get in contact with ppl in case of technical difficulties.
I think Jackie Poapst said this first, but I absolutely hate “is any one not ready” because if someone is having a tech problem then they may not be able to indicate they are not ready. It is the equivalent of “if you aren’t here raise your hand.”
There have been several times when debaters have asked “is everybody ready” and then proceeded to give their speech without a response from me- I missed several seconds of those debaters’ speeches. Please wait for me to respond I’ll usually say that “i’m good” verbally. If I see that the debater about to give a speech can see their camera- i may just give a thumbs up. If I have not done either of those things- I AM NOT READY.
This is my least favorite kind of debate- but mostly because I have never gone for T. I am slowly growing to appreciate T debates.
I think that fairness is probably an internal link to an impact- but not an impact in it’s own right, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise.
I think that reasonablity is an argument that begs the question of whether or not the counter interpretation is reasonable- not whether the aff is reasonably topical.
I think impact calculus is really important for me here- you should err on the side of overexplanation of your impact and weighing for me.
I usually vote for the team that does the better weighing- if an aff wins that there is some sort of external disad to framework but then doesn’t do the work to weigh that impact versus the impacts the neg goes for then It becomes very difficult to vote aff.
Similarly when the negative wins risk of offense but then doesn’t sufficiently weigh that offense against that of the affirmative it is very hard to vote negative.
I don’t think that the TVA has to resolve the entirety of the aff- but I do think that it is important that it captures some of the affirmative offense.
I have voted negative on framework one time- and there wasn’t a TVA- but I will still say that I think the TVA makes the neg’s life a lot easier.
I think that negative teams should make more arguments about how a good stasis point is necessary to resolving the impacts of the aff.
I think that too many teams get stuck into defending their model - instead of comparing models- good affs are able to make arguments that they generate better education or have better access to procedural fairness- good negative teams are able to explain why the aff interp bites the link and what their model does better and why I should prefer it.
Just like every other judge- I think that specificity is key- the more specific your link evidence is to the aff the more I will be persuaded by the kritik
however - I think that contextualization can be just as good as specificity- all I am looking for is language that emphasizes what the aff does to trigger an impact- and why the aff is a really bad iteration of that.
A lot of teams contextualization devolves into descriptions of the status quo- which, while these descriptions are often frightening, and enlightening, they fail to explain what the affs specific relation to their kritik is.
I don’t think debate should happen in the overview- you should do as much work as possible to describe your kritik on the line by line- it makes it so much easier for me to flow.
I am a sucker for link turns case arguments- I just ask that they be thoroughly explained if you want to go for them.
I don’t think that you necessarily need to win an alternative to win the debate- but you do have to win a reason why the link/impact debate necessitates my ballot absent one.
It is not hard to convince me that affs shouldn’t get a perm in method debates- but it is also not hard to convince me they should get perms.
Kevin Hirn said a couple things I really agree with:
“Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions)”.
“Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.”
I think that PICS are probably good
I think that process debates are interesting.
I judged a prelim at stanford this year where a kid may have won the debate in an overview- and then got mad that I didn’t evaluate their blippy cross extension onto the CP solvency flow- so this is my warning- I am not a good judge for super fast overviews explaining counterplan solvency- I would much rather you do that on the lbl- i.e explain CP solvency while answering solvency deficits to the CP.
I usually give the neg a risk of the disad- but i can be convinced there is zero risk.
I think you have a better shot of convincing me that there is 0 risk of a link than you do convincing me that there is zero risk of an impact.
Comparative impact calculus is key for my ballot- you have to tell me why your thing happens- why its worse etc,
You should definitely be doing the work to tell me how to evaluate impacts at some point- i,e probability first and why etc.
Tricks : (this section was written with LD in mind)
I am not a good judge for one line arguments that aren’t explained thoroughly- and I am an even worse judge for teams whose apparent goal is for the aff to concede “3a. Determinism means util auto negates”
I guess I am down to have debates where the neg strategy is 4 minutes on one line from the nc but I have a couple stipulations.
I think the argument should be complete when it is introduced- if it isnt then the aff should be able to get away with saying- that’s not an argument and moving on.
I have to have that argument on my flow before the final speech- i,e if i missed it in the first speech because you didnt give me the pen time or because you sent paragraph form theory blocks instead of numbering each separate arg- then I will not vote it
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.
If you say anything about "evidence theft" I'm going to actually scream- it's not offense, and if y'all go to a big school (larger than 100 graduating class) you need to check ur privilege, paywalls are a thing, and not everyone has hours to spend getting around them.
Trigger warnings are super important- descriptions of violence should probably have a trigger warning, you never know who has experienced the problems you're talking about first hand. No highlighting around descriptions of violence does change that, Idk about y'all but sometimes I just be reading the other teams cards so I can cut CP's or what have you.
Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices, I get that y'all are stressed about breaking so you can get your TOC/TFA qual, but like.... U shud know when ur winning a round. Don't make debate an exclusive activity.
Extra speaker points if you make good jokes.
I will love you if your overview does more than just "lemme describe my case to you again... Just in case you forgot"
If you misgender ppl consistently, I'll probably vote you down.
Absolutely no racist, sexist, or anti Queer rhetoric- I’ll probably slash your speaks and may drop you depending on how egregious i find the offense.
If you clip in front of me- I will destroy your speaks.
Updated September 2021
I debated policy and LD for four years (2013-2017) at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions before or after rounds. Also I would like to be on the email chain if there is one.
Public Forum: Be polite and courteous during cross fire. Make sure to utilize your evidence and author qualifications. I am open to whatever arguments you would like to make (obviously avoid racist, sexist, etc. arguments). I am open to all styles and speeds of delivery, but if your opponent is not speed reading, it would help your speaker points if you can avoid speed reading too. Everything below is more relevant to policy and LD debate, but you may find it useful for PF too.
Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, politeness, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.
TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.
Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy.
-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.
-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.
The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.
Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.
Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.
CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.
DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on what's going on.
Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.
Policy debater at Westwood High School
He/Him, you can also just call me Sean^^^
Put me on the email chain before the round:
(Don't worry I default condo)
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.
If you "disable" the navigation pane by formatting your doc in a certain way, the highest speaker point you can get is a 29.
-1 point if you play League of Legends
+1 point if you play Valorant (you should add me on Val!)
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’m new to judging, so it might take me a while to make a decision and give the RFD, so please understand. I also like to give a lot of nonverbal experience after round, so remember to check your ballot and feel free to email me.
If one team is being overly aggressive during cross x at the point where cross x will just become a huge mess and non-educational, I will likely intervene in the round and someone will say goodbye to some of their speaker points.
In the end, debate is a game, so don't be a jerk in round:)
Debate is a game, run whatever you want.
I'm fine with speed.
I know that PFers usually don't send out any speech docs, but please send me your speech docs.