Lindale Fall TFA
2020 — Online, TX/US
Lincoln-Douglas Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
I try to be as close to a Tab judge as possible. I will listen and vote on any argument or style of debate as long as it is well developed and given clear voters in your speeches.
Style and Presentation:
Maintaining a collegial atmosphere is very important to me. Try to keep hyperbolic and sarcastic comments to a minimum. Don’t expect me to disregard an argument because a debater says it’s stupid or wrong. Explain why it’s wrong and engage the warrant and evidence.
Speed is fine as long as it’s clear and consistent. The tags and analytical arguments NEED to be slower so they are easy to differentiate. I will say “CLEAR” if it gets too muddled.
Impact Calculus and Weighing will be a key factor in my decision-making. Debaters should state what they think the most important thing in the round is, why they think it’s important and why they think I should vote for it. I would also like debaters to include analysis of what the role of the ballot should be.
While overviews are sometimes useful, they are often overwrought and I ask that they be short and sweet. I would prefer most of the debate to occur on the line-by-line next to the evidence that makes the arguments to keep the flow tight and encourage clash.
I don’t like judge kicks. Debaters should have a clear and firm defense of the arguments they wish to the present in the rebuttals.
I don’t count flashing or e-mailing as prep but don’t steal prep please! If you’re talking, writing or typing, prep should be running. I do request to be on the e-mail chain if there is one. ( firstname.lastname@example.org ).
Tech vs. Truth – I would say that I am more for Tech over Truth. I try to allow the flow and the debaters to shape and lead the round in order to intervene as little as possible. Make sure to extend arguments to keep them on the flow. I don’t like whole advantages just showing back up in the 2AR after being absent since the 1AC. I will vote on weaker arguments if they were not properly answered in the constructive speeches but debaters should do extra work to build them up and explode on them in order to make them reasonable voting issues.
K – I am familiar with most common critical debate arguments and will vote on them. I greatly prefer specific links and love it when you take the time out to pick out in the evidence where it specifically talks about the opponents’ position. Debate is ultimately about education therefore don’t try to be squirrely when explaining the philosophical underpinning of your K. You should strive to give a straightforward and intellectually honest explanation that will help your opponents understand what your arguments mean. Explain what the alt does and tell me what the world of the alt looks like in comparison to the world of the aff and the status quo. I don’t like alts that are tagged simply as “Reject” because it doesn’t tell me anything about your advocacy.
Topicality & Theory – While I will vote on these arguments in a vacuum if they are properly argued and given independent voters, pointing out specific abuse in the round that relates to your violation is the best way to get me to vote on them. Don’t go crazy with a flurry of Ts or random theory args sprinkled through your speeches as time sucks.
CP – I prefer your counterplans to have an actual CP text that’s written down so it can be reviewed by both teams just as a plan text would be. PICs are fine as long as you can defend the theory and do well explaining why it gets a net-benefit against the aff’s specific plan.
I am a senior and compete in Varsity LD at Westwood.
I am fine with any type of argument - K, CP, DA, T, etc. For speaks, I'll start at 28.5 and go up or down from there.
I would like to be added to the email chain - email@example.com
If you have any additional questions, just ask me before the round.
Background: I currently compete for the UNT debate team, mostly in NPDA and NFA LD In high school I competed in Lincoln-Douglass debate.
I am Tabula Rasa.
I am fine with anything but in terms of what I weigh with each individual argument here is how I view each of them:
K - If you run a K I want to know the specific role of the ballot and why the alt will solve for the problems manifested within the K.
T - Standards and voters in terms of the real world are how I vote on topicality.If there is ground loss but you do not talk about why that is a voting issue, I am not going to vote for it. For example if the topic is on climate policy the t shell should tell me why it’s important to debate about in regards to our world and lives.
DA - Big on impact calculus, make sure to weigh the impact of DA’s vs the advantages of the aff. Generic links aren’t as persuasive as links based in specific policies.
CP - I need a flushed out method on why the Net Benefit of the CP should outweigh the case.
Speed - I am fine with speed, if you go to fast or your diction isn't keeping up with your speed I'll say clear
Hello, I'm Deborah Banketa, and If you're reading this, I'm assuming I'm your judge. I am currently a sophomore at Wellesley College in Massachusetts and a prospective International Relations-History major. I did debate for my last 2 years in high school and was the captain of the Wylie HS team my senior year. My main debate events were LD and WSD. I was decent at LD but definitely NOT the best, and I qualed for nats for WSD. Although I focused on debate I was a speech kid at heart and did OO and INFO. I triple qualed for NIETOC, TFA State, and NSDA Nationals in Info, but I doubt you care about that since you're a debater. If you have me as a judge, I'm not completely incompetent so don't worry too much, give me a good round, and I'll be the best judge that I can be.
LD is my main event so whatever you run I'll be good with it. Progressive cases are fine and I love me a good DA or CP, hate PICs but I'll vote on them only if I absolutely have to. DO NOT give me frivolous T, I only want to see theory used in the round when necessary but my definition of "necessary" is wider then most, so if you have questions on where I would be okay with it, ask me before round. I am not opposed to a decent traditional LD round, so go as heavy as you want on FW. I'm good with speed, just put me on the email chain and if you're uncomfortable with those, speech drop works for me too. If you don't know how to use speech drop, tell me and I'll help you out. If you are unclear I will say "clear" once and stop flowing. VOTERS, VOTERS, VOTERS. Make this as easy for me as possible and I will most likely vote for you. I'm good with some K's as I ran a lot of anti-blackness but I'm definitely not devoted to understanding the Lit base so if you're running some Deleuze or Baudrillard, dumb it down A LOT, but I'm okay with you running it if you argue it well enough. Be respectful to both me and your opponent, be very careful in CX because I'll drown your speaks if you're too rude or if it gets tense, but I believe in dominating both your and your opponents CX time, so cutting each other off is fine by me. It's a really fine line between the two, so walk it carefully or stay on the safe side. Though I don't flow CX, if your opponent brings it up in the round, I will consider it and it is binding. In summary, run whatever the heck you want and I'll give you bonus speaks if you can make me laugh because I want the round to be fun
bruh good luck.
Look at my LD paradigms but without spreading and FW.
I qualified for nationals in WSD and I definitely love the event. When it comes down to voting, I'm going to focus mainly on eloquence and argumentation. If you are in an impromptu round and able to give me some unique and distinct arguments, I'm willing to vote for you just on that. Use your POI's wisely, and have a good round.
Please direct me to the door, because I obviously walked into the wrong room.
I qualified for TFA State, Nationals, and NIETOC in INFO and competed in OO in high school and I've cut pieces for my team in DI, HI, Prose and Poetry and all of my events and pieces have done really well so I'd say I'm pretty good on all things interp related. I don't think I've actually ever read an Interp judges paradigm so if you are looking at this, good job! I love interp, so my goal is to enjoy your piece. If I forget to do time signals, you are probably really good (and I'm sorry!). I write a lot of advice on my ballots and tend to forget to compliment things, so if there are a lot of critiques, don't take offense, I probably still really liked it.
I'M EXCITED TO JUDGE YOU AND GOOD LUCK!
LAMDL 2017 to present (cx) (Stern 2017-19, Bravo 2020-present)
Northwood HS 2017 to 2018 (cx)
Southwestern College 2014 to 2019 (CX)
San Marino HS 2018 to 2020 (CX/LD)
Mission Vista HS 2019 to 2020 (CX/LD/PF/Parli/whatever else)
Torrey Pines HS 2020 to 2021 (LD)
YBHS 2020 to present (LD)
Boise Senior High School (LD)
I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Performances and K Affs: I like em. I'd prefer you have a topic link but I've voted for teams before that were blatantly not topical. Adhering to the thesis of your k aff and/or performance is important. Please don't run a Fem aff and then proceed to misgender someone in the round. It can get infuriating at times. I'd like an explanation of the theory of power of the aff coming into the 2ac that has sufficient contextualizing to whatever k the neg is reading. Just extending your aff can be okay but more contextualization so the turns/alt debate can be cleaner is always preferred. Just because you run a K aff doesn't mean I'll vote for you though. I find pomo k affs to be harder to evaluate compared to others but if fleshed out during the round, I'll vote for it. Run your poem. Run your narrative. Run your music. Run your 15 card k aff dump. Whatever. just make sure it makes sense and I'll try my best to evaluate it as I would other positions
Framework T: Def run it. My personal preference runs more on the line that the aff must be able to defend their model of debate. If they decide excluding portions of the resolution within their position is a good thing, but can't defend that, they probably don't deserve the ballot. I lean more on epis impx and see procedural fairness as an internal link to something else but I'll default to whatever the debaters tell me and only intervene in that regard if no one wins the argument.
Having a case list of negs you can run and cannot run and why they're good or bad is convincing. Having a story around aff limits and why they matter in the context of the debate and your impacts matter. buzz words and blocks won't be enough. really explain it to me so I have a clear area I can circle on my flow (well put ** on my excel sheet) that I can pull the trigger on. FYI. TVA without a clear plantext with advantages and a solvency story is not sufficient to win that argument. Referencing other schools' affs also prob won't help you since I could care less about what most affs are and i'm not going to do extra research during rfd time to look up at the wiki. If it's important enough to reference, you can tell me how the tva functions to solve/allow for good ground for both sides of the debate. shrug.
Topicality: Go for it. I err on competing interps and have voted for wonky T's and aff's answers to t. Reasonability with really good warrants can also convince but i'd rather not vote on if it I can help it. Your interps need to be carded. I'm done with aff debaters who have counter interps that are not backed up by data. If you read that and the neg doesn't concede the we meet, you'll prob never get the ballot. As a side not for ld, please slow a bit down when ur on this flow as most debates centered on T are very light on cards and heavy on spreading and flowing analytics for minutes on end can be difficult. I'm not looking at the doc so if I miss a blippy arg that you go for? ooops.
Kritiks: I think K's are a good thing. I think running kritiques as a way to educate not only yourself but those around you is a good thing. Spend time during cx or the block (2nr in ld) to really develop a well articulated link story. Too many times the 1nc will just read generic link cards and never really give me portions of the aff that fit into those links and why they bite the theory of power. That's bad. If I can't see how the aff links, 0 chance will I vote on a K. If you're going 1 off K, please add framework. I'm okay with not evaluating the aff if they lead to a bad for debating. In that regard I think affs underutilized the potential spin they can use in order to have access to all portions of the aff.
Floating piks are probably bad. vague alts that shift between one speech and the next are probably bad. call it out please.
Perms are good. Running the K conditionally with a ROB is probably bad esp if you kick out of the K and there's a random link turn or perm argument coming out of the aff...
CP: I like counterplans. I err neg on condo theory to a degree unless the amount of conditional advocacies gets to the point the aff is forced to double turn themselves in order to answer all those off cases. I can be convinced to vote aff easily once the abuse occurs. But if the advocacies are fine with each other, then you're gtg. If no abuse and debate comes down to condo, I can pull the trigger for the aff, they just need to win the tech. I dislike multiplank cps but ld has been heavily leaning towards billions of planks so whatever. Run your abusive counterplans. adv cps are good. pics are generally good. private actor cps and the like are probably bad.
If you drop the perm. You'll probably lose. There's no excuse. don't drop it.
Prefer the Disad/NB be on another flow as it keeps my flows a little cleaner and allows the neg to be able to pivot out of the cp and go for the disad vs the case.
DA: Use it. the more the merrier. can't be conditional if you run 6 disads, right? keep your story on how the disad turns and out weighs case and you're good. problem for me on voting for disads has usually been the impact calc debate. some debates just get messy and I don't know how the impacts of the disad vs the aff work. At that point I'm sorta lost and will have to spend time being grumpy to try to clear the picture up as much as I can. I love good UQ debates. links and internal link debates, impact turns (to a degree). This is an election year so I know everyone will be running the presidential elections disad as well as some senate elections disads. That's fine. Just please keep your internal link chain concise. If the internal links are dubious at best to get to a terminal impact, my threshold for the aff answering it will likely be low.
Case debate: Go for a dropped case turn. So many debates could be resolved very quickly if the Neg would only look at the conceded case turns and solvency deficits and just go for it. In that same sense. Defend your case. If the neg undercovers case, what does that mean as a whole for the debate? If you solve the impx coming out of the 1nc... it should do so some interesting things in relation to other positions, right? ?
Online Debate: I have amazing hardware now for online debate. That doesn't mean everyone does though. If possible please don't go as fast as humanly possible because debate platforms are still limited on how clear communications can be. Coupled that with being in a panel with observers, it's even more important to think about access for the community and competitors/judges.
If the speech cuts out due to internet issues, depending on the length, I will either have you restart from that spot you cut off or will ask what you said (if less than 5-10 seconds). I trust that the people I'm judging will not do ethically questionable actions because of the online format. My tech is good enough that unless you're internet suddenly cuts off, I will be able to keep track through most of it and if I find out you're lying to me or the competitor about what you said, a 25/L will be in the future. I put my trust in the debaters I judge. Don't abuse it.
For LD debaters:
I coach a trad lder as well so I get how it works. Just do you and lets have a fun round.
update for the sept/oct topic: my threshold on theory vs cheaty counterplans is pretty low. keep that in mind.
hi. don't read spark. the end.
I encountered something at voices last year. I hit my physical threshold on being able to fully flow a round. Enunciate your claims and slow down a bit so I can actually flow it. When half the constructive is literally just analytics and you're 300+ wpm... that's lit unflowable and I'm not going to the docs to resolve that. If you lose because it's not on my flow? Shrug. Don't care.
FW: You all need to slow down here. I'm not familiar enough with your specific event to just flow it effortlessly.
Jasmine Stidham "You have the power to stop Nebel t in this activity" Mission accepted.
no nebel. the 1ar just needs to be nebel is bad vote aff. and we are done.
yes 1ar theory. no rvis.
Aff's are capped at 29.5 if they include underview theory about why they get rvis and 1ar stuff. I repeat. You get 1ar theory (just not friv), no rvis.
I prefer a substantive debate with 3-4 off to something like 13 off. I'll flow you regardless but I reserve the right roast you.
The only reason Scott Brown can throw a mint green Tady #45 surface iron further than me is because I have a shoulder injury.
Tricks are not a viable strat in front of me. Not voting for it.
Theory is good if it isn't a blippy mess. Just saying a team is "condo" and they should lose without an interp, and why condo is problematic will not get you a ballot.
Lastly, please be nice to each other. LD is such a short event that to there's really no point to get toxic from 2 cx's. If the round gets toxic. Whoever initiated the toxicity will not be able to receive anything higher than a 27.5.
Howard University 23'
Put me on the email chain: email@example.com
Hi, I'm Jada (she/her)! I did LD and competed regularly on the Texas/nat circuit my senior year. I qualified to TFA State twice and broke at some bid tournaments. I teach at NSD, TDC, and FlexDebate. I also compete in Parli on the collegiate level.
1. All FlexDebate Participants
2. Valley AM
3. Keller HS
NOTE FOR ONLINE TOURNAMENTS!!!! : You HAVE to reduce your speed SUBSTANTIALLY! I'm talking by almost half. Send analytics - it helps me out TREMENDOUSLY. I don't want to miss arguments bc the audio cuts out or blends your words together, so please just slow down lol. Locally record your rounds please!
1. Reading radical arguments that you do not have the agency to read is a really good way to get a L 26 from me.
2. Be nice, don’t run morally offensive args (racism good, sexism good, etc.), respect trigger warnings and pronouns! I naturally will probably default to using general they/them pronouns to refer to you.
3. If you feel unsafe in the round in any way, pls communicate that to me in some way (email me during the round, knock on the table twice, come up to me, whatever it takes) and we will handle it.
4. Don't be rude to novices/inexperienced debaters if you CLEARLY have more experience than them. I will give a low point win and in extreme cases drop you.
Phil- 4 (really low 4 lol)
Tricks/Friv Theory- Strike me pls
Tricks and Spikes/Friv Theory:
Uncomfortable with Phil for the most part if it's in any form except traditional LD. I can follow along and figure it out, but you have to take it slow and over-explain things.
*I love Kritiks. I'm most comfortable with Identity-based positions but can understand anything with enough explanation. (err on the side of over-explanation for PoMo)
Performance Affs/Non-T Affs:
I love these. I don't care if your aff is topical so long as I know what happened, why it happened, and why it's good/how it can solve for whatever harms you've presented.
K Affs in general:
I love these too. Most comfortable with identity-based K affs, but I'm cool with anything given the right amount of explanation.
Sure. If you rely heavily on tech just do some good crystallization for me at the end of speeches and keep the flow clean. GOOD WEIGHING IN THESE DEBATES IS IMPORTANT.
I like T, especially creative T-shells. If your strat is just to read like 3+ generic T shells I will be unimpressed lol. Keep the flow clean and slow down.
I definitely can understand a theory debate if it happens, but complex, East Coast theory is not what you want to go for in front of me. I prefer theory when there is legitimate abuse. If this flow gets even remotely messy I'll be sad.
I think disclosure is generally a good norm, but I do not personally care if you disclose or not. If you default to reading a disclosure shell without asking your opponent to disclose differently first, I'm probably not gonna vote you up on disclosure.
Speaks are subjective and I will disclose them. I'll start at a 28 and move from there. Some rules I try to stick to:
1. Say/do anything mean or problematic >:( : lowest speaks possible
2. Give REALLY clean, concise, strategic, and interesting speeches: 29+
3. Read a relevant position about how Beyonce deconstructs whiteness: 30
Other misc. things
1. I can't vote on something I don't understand by the end of the round.
2. I always take the path of least resistance, i.e. the first place on the flow I do not have to do any work for you.
3. Please don't call me judge lol, you can call me by my first name :)
4. I will not vote on extensions/arguments without a warrant.
5. Unless you're entertaining or I'm confused, I'm probably only half listening to cx.
Updated 9/15/21 for the Greenhill RR
Hi, I’m Holden (He/They)!
Jack C. Hays ‘20
The University of North Texas ’24 (Go Mean Green!)
Put me on the email chain please: firstname.lastname@example.org
Worlds, Policy and PF Paradigm is Near the End
Random Thoughts (Updated as Thunk):
- I didn’t know I had to say this but please don’t say the n-word in ANY form if you aren’t black, this is your one and only warning. Yes this includes if the word is inside a piece of evidence, just bracket something in, or just don’t say it please
Who is Holden?
I did debate for 4 years at Jack C. Hays. Two of those were in policy, the other two in LD. Even though I don't think competitive success equates to being a good judge, I had some success on the circuit, and got pretty far at some bid tournaments. I now attend the University of North Texas, where I study psychology, philosophy, and political science, and will be doing NFA-LD in the fall.
If it means anything, I've coached everything from k debaters that go for identity related literature and pomo literature, to phil students who I have helped write tricks aff for. Meaning that anything you read in front of me, as long as it has a warrant, is fine.
You can refer to me as Holden (what I prefer most), or judge. However, I would very much like it if you left anything more formal (Mr. Bukowsky, sir, etc.) as it makes me very uncomfortable and is rather impersonal in my opinion (Update: For the future, I will be docking .1 speaks every time you say that in reference to me because it a. reflects that you haven't read my paradigm or b. you have and just don't respect my opinion).
Conflicts: Jack C. Hays (my alma mater). I currently coach Carmel CS, Midlothian AC, Perry JA, Sandra Day O'Connor WW, Sidwell SW, Vestavia Hills GJ, Village JN, and Westlake AK, and consult for Lynbrook and Cabot High School.
I have previously been affiliated with/have coached, or have been contracted by Evergreen Valley (on a team based level), and then McMillen AW, and Ayala AM (who I worked with on an individual level).
In terms of ideology, I'm pretty closely aligned with Patrick Fox, however I am much more willing to vote for phil positions and tricks.
TLDR: You do you, just be able to have a coherent argument, don't be violent, and have the ability to explain it.
Strike Guide, this is not a list of what I prefer to see, rather what I think I could adjudicate most fairly (ideally I would like to be a one for all of these, but I have yet to explore all of these forms of debate to the extent that I would like):
K - 1
LARP - 1
Clash Debates (phil v k, policy v k, policy v phil, etc.) - 1
Theory/Topicality - 1/2
Phil - 2
Tricks - 2
Trad - 4/Strike
Triggers – please refrain from reading anything with in depth discussions of anxiety, depression, or suicide that way I can adequately access and evaluate the round. Please give trigger warnings so that debate remains a place in which everyone can participate :)
I flow on my laptop, but am not the fastest typer, so I would put me at a 7.5 or 8/10 in terms of speed. Just be clear, slow down on tags and analytics please
Respect your opponents pronouns or I won't respect your speaks (I have given out 20's because of this, seriously just respect people)
I flow spark on a separate page, this may not matter to you, but it matters to me. Sign post accordingly
How has he voted?
- Last year, I judged over 200 rounds last year, sitting 3 times on panels, voting aff 56% of the time (because 1. skill difference between competitors, or 2. the 2NR most of the time lacks weighing or catching all of the 1AR argument), I averaged a 28.45 for speaks
If at any time, a debate has become unsafe for you, and I have not noticed it, please let me know. Whether this is through an email, or some other metric, just please let me know. I try my best to be vigilant in round, but sometimes I may not notice, and if it seems as such please let me know so I can do my best to correct any danger the round may be putting a debater in.
What is debate to him?
I take debate very seriously insofar as I contain a genuine enjoyment from it. I enjoyed competing, but I especially enjoy being on the other side of a ballot, and I also enjoy teaching. That being said, debate is an educational game in which my role is to evaluate the arguments as presented in the least interventionist way possible, I'm probably a lot less ideological than most judges and that's because I do not think it is my place to deem arguments valid or invalid. That means that at the end of the day, you do you to the full extent. If you do what you do best, I will do my best to evaluate those arguments fairly (granted that the exceptions are arguments that are problematic and arguments with no warrant). There are two concrete rules of debate - 1. There is always a winner and a loser, and 2. speech times are set in stone. None of my preferences should matter because you should be making those arguments for me.
What does he like?
I like debates that require little to no intervention. The way you can achieve that is weighing and making your arguments easy to flow (so label them like 1, 2, 3 a-point, b-point, c-point). I am agonistic about content, so do what it takes to get the dub. Warranted arguments are key to the dub though, that means that I only evaluate arguments that are complete (claim, warrant, impact). Collapsing in your speeches is how you get the ability to make good arguments, it shows room for explanation and proficiency that the game known as debate.
A framing mechanism to help me filter the round, whether that be a standard, role of the ballot, impact calc, or fairness v education weighing. All of them help me decide the debate and what should be preferred.
To summarize the way I feel about judging, I think Yao Yao Chen does a excellent job at it, "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."
What does he dislike?
The opposite of above.
Being exclusionary to novices, reading K's, CP's, and DA's is fine but if there's any kind of situation where you ask them about any sort of theory spikes and they ask "what's a theory spike," don't read spikes such as "evaluate the debate after the 1NC" or "no aff analytics." That extremely upsets me and your speaks WILL get tanked
Not weighing, if you can't tell by now, weighing is how you win in front of me
When people go "my time will start in 3, 2, 1"
When people ask me if they can take prep time, like it's your prep why do I need to be the arbiter of what you do with it?
What will he never vote on?
Arguments that involve the appearance of a debater in the room (yes, that means shoes theory is a no go).
Arguments that say a form of oppression is good, this is the one that will get you downed with a 25.
Arguments that contradict what was said in CX (it is binding folks, just be a good person and don’t lie).
Arguments warranted by out of round occurrences are cool if they don’t devolve into ad homs (see the strikes K read by Greenhill SK in 2017 NDCA finals).
Self-serving role of the ballots are cool, if you can’t beat them then just get better at answering them.
Cheezits are better than goldfish.
Tricks debates is a legitimate form of debate.
Now onto more specific things argument wise-
They're great, I coach them, I run them, and I enjoy judging them. I think that they're a great for the debate space by entering a new form of engagement. I don't think that they have to be constrained by their relation to the resolution, but I do think that they should defend doing something. This means that you should explain what the aff does or else presumption is incredibly persuasive. For those running them, explain what your aff is, implicate your framing, and just be able to explain everything. For those negating these aff's, don't concede the case page, and don't be afraid to run refreshing strategies, I promise I'll enjoy them!
Yup, I vote on it (often too). I think I'm aff leaning ideologically, but that doesn't matter if you don't leave anything up to interpretation. Affirmatives win because the neg concedes key framing issues (the framing debate, weighing, an impact turn, etc.), or just doesn't do any work on the line by line. Negative teams win in front of me because the aff doesn't do enough weighing or leverage the aff in a strategic manner.
Fairness isn't an impact, but it's an internal link
My order of favorite impacts goes clash > fairness > advocacy skills
The TVA is really important to me, blippy ones make me sad, contextual ones make me happy. I view these as counterplans in the sense that they resolve offense of the counter-interp so please explain them as such
Impact turns to T are fine, and I'll vote on them
Here are my defaults, but are not set in stone at all -
- Competing interps > reasonability
- Drop the debater > drop the argument
- No RVI > RVI
Topicality is fine, and some of my favorite debates to judge. Definitions quality matters, and having a definition with the intent to define is even better. Unlike theory, arbitrary interpretations probably don't resolve their offense, you need a grounded vision of the topic, not something like "your interp plus my aff." Reasonability most definitely needs a brightline please. Going for the impact turn to T when able to is really underrated, and a valuable strategy if employed correctly. Slowing down a bit on these debates is key, otherwise I will most likely miss something. Weighing in these debates will help everyone, especially me when deciding the round. Condo is good probably, but can be easily convince otherwise (leniency switches with >2 condo advocacies). I lean neg on most counterplan theory as well (that flips if there is not a solvency advocate).
Up in the air on Nebel, just be able to explain your semantics warrants and contextualize them to the topic. Otherwise just go for the limits standard.
I think that you need to read fairness and education voters (or some other voter) because otherwise I don't know what the impact to the shell is
Go for whatever shell you want, I will evaluate it, barring these exceptions:
- Theory that includes the appearance/clothing of another debater (so no shoes theory)
- Shells where the interp was checked before round, and there is verifiable evidence that it was checked
- Disclosure in the case in which a debater has said that they can't disclose certain positions for safety reasons, this is especially non-negotiable
Really cool with this, clear argument interaction and weighing is key in these debates. Evidence quality also matters in these debates more so than others (namely because of the causality that is associated with this style). I default yes judgekick, you just need to tell me to do so in the 2NR. Explanation of link chains is important because often times teams have poor explanation of them. If a link chain is conceded, then extend it briefly (meaning I want at least a condensed version of the impact story) and implicate it, saying "extend x it was conceded" is not sufficient. Counterplans are viewed through sufficiency framing until told otherwise. I need to know what the world of the permutation looks like at least a little bit in the first speech it is introduced. A few good, robust internal links into 2-3 impacts > a lot of bad internal links into 7 different impacts. The DA turning case and it's analysis matters a lot to me, do the work and make it make sense.
I tend to read evidence more in these debates, I use your interpretation of the evidence to frame how I look at it, do with that as you will
Without real meta-weighing, I default probability > magnitude > timeframe, this shouldn't matter if you do your job correctly
Contrary to what many might think about me, I am very comfortable in policy rounds. I did policy in high school and now do NFA LD in college which is just one person policy. Your lingo will not be new/unfamiliar to me, I just think that these rounds could/do get very messy without good 2nr/2ar judge instruction
This is where most of my debate experience has been, and the type of debate I am most comfortable judging, I went for the K a lot. My ideal K 1NC (if it's one off) would have 2-3 links to the aff (one of which is a topic link), an alternative, and a role of the ballot (along with weighing on the aff page as to why it's a prior question). Having links contextual to the aff, whether that be to the resolution, the reps, or the framing, is good and helps with strength of link. Winning framing for both sides is a crucial part of strategy, and controls the direction of the debate (but does not guarantee the dub). I may know the buzzwords you’re using but always be able to explain what the heck you’re saying. Don’t run a k in front of me just because you think I’ll like it, because bad k debate makes me sad and will make your speaks reflect such. Explain the perm in the first responsive speech please.
2NR's need to tell me what the alt does
K tricks are cool, just make sure you actually warrant them
Floating PIK's are ok, just make sure to hint at them in the 1NC at least
Here’s a list of literature bases I am read up on and know quite well:
- Deleuze and Guattari
- Hardt and Negri
- Stock K’s (cap, security, etc.)
- Reps K’s
Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat/am learning:
A note on non-black engagement with afropessimism, I will watch your execution of this argument like a hawk if you decide to go for it. This also means that if you are disingenuous to the literature at all, your speaks are tanked and the ballot may be given away as well depending on how annoyed I'm feeling. This is your first and final warning.
I'm good for these, I've coached debaters that have gone for tricks, and I've helped cut some tricks affs. Innovation of tricks are great because it shows that you aren't recycling the same old stuff.
These are fine, and can be quite enjoyable if executed correctly (that doesn't mean that you have the right to just extend arguments without implications or warrants). I tend to think that when done well that these debates are some of the most technical and clean rounds to judge. This doesn’t mean do it because you think I’ll like you more, because these debates can also be extremely messy. Messy tricks debates make me sad, clean and efficient tricks debates make me happy. Please slow down on your 27 point underviews, yes I think they're interesting, but I need to be able to flow them and I can't do that if you're blitzing through them. That doesn't mean go at like regular talking speed, but go at like 70% speed when you're blitzing through those aprioris please. Being straight up, delineating them as easily identifiable, and making these rounds clean is how you get my ballot in these debates.
My threshold for these arguments also depends on you being straight up about them. If you lie about a version of an aff during disclosure and I have proof of this, my threshold for answering these tricks goes down, and so does my threshold for answering a misdisclosure shell.
After coaching several students that go for phil, and judging phil debates frequently I am happier to say that I'm good for these debates. Syllogisms should be warranted and implicated in a way that shows their impact in the first speech (yes, saying solves skep for a skep trigger is enough for this threshold). Going for and impacting out a certain the 1-2 justifications needs to involve weighing (this also means collapse in these debates too!).
In phil v util debates, I think that util debaters often undercover the line by line, or just don't really layer enough in these debates, phil debaters often concede a crucial justification or undercover extinction first, so both sides be warned.
In phil v phil debates, both sides need to be able to explain their ethic more. These debates can either be super informational, or super messy, and I would prefer that they be the former rather than the latter. Explanation, clear engagement, and weighing is the way to my ballot in these debates
Hijacks that are shorter than 15 seconds are often unwarranted, and blippy, call them out as such.
Blitzing through the line by line in these debates is annoying and will inevitably make me miss a warrant. Im not asking you to go at a conversational pace but be a LITTLE bit reasonable
I am studying philosophy in college as well, which means I am reading a lot about authors that you might be reading. This means that I am antiquated with a variety of philosophy literature.
Here’s a list of literature bases I know confidently:
- Moral Particularism
Here’s a list of literature bases I know somewhat:
- Virtue Ethics
- Comparative worlds > truth testing
- Permissibility negates > affirms
- Presumption negates > affirms
- Epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
Since these are becoming increasingly read in front of me, and are becoming a separate argument in debate, I thought they deserved their own section. I think that these are good arguments when executed well. That being said, I think that for these to be won, you need to win either some meta level framing (such as accessibility first) or linking it to an ethical framework. I often have to ask myself “should I abandon the flow if I think that this is violent” and here is the litmus test for how I will determine to abandon the flow, I will:
1. See if you won the flow proper to see if I can avoid intervening
2. If you did not win the flow proper, I will see if the action in question is a legitimate question of violence in the debate space, your explanation may help, your explanation may not. As much as your 2AR ethos may be good, if I do not think that this situation is an act of violence with reasonable malicious intent, then I will not abandon the flow. A few instances in which I will abandon the flow can be: misgendering, dead-naming, some sort of maliciously intended argument meant to exclude individuals from debate
This is not to say I won’t abandon the flow, but I feel like there has to be some outline for how I can reconcile this, or else this would justify me becoming increasingly interventionist for littler reasons which I think is a horrible model of debate.
Yes, I can judge this. But I often time find these debates to be boring, and most definitely not my cup of tea. I think that given the people that pref me most of the time, it will be in your best interest to pref me low or strike me, both for your sake and mine.
I would much prefer these debates be executed as a shell rather than having the round staked on them. I hate adjudicating these debates because a. They deprive me of a substantive round and b. Are normally a cheap shot by an opposing debater. As such, if you stake the round on evidence ethics this will be the procedure for which things will go down: 1. I will look into the evidence that is in question 2. Compare it to the claim/violation that is being presented 3. Utilize the rules for which the tournament is using (NSDA, NDCA, etc.) to determine whether or not it is a violation 4. Check with the debater if they are sure they want this to be a drop the debater issue, or to drop the evidence. If it is a violation, then I will drop the person who committed such with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then I will not evaluate the evidence and we can debate as normal. If it is not a violation, then I will drop the accuser with 25 speaks if it's a drop the debater issue, if it's not drop the debater then your speaks will be capped at a 28.
Here is what I consider evidence ethics violations in the absence of guidance: 1. If the author concludes in opposition of what is cited 2. If worlds are deleted or inserted in the middle of a sentence 3. If a debater misrepresented what the author says
For the policy kids-
- I judge circuit LD a lot (and I mean A LOT), on there I judge nothing but T, cp/da, and k debates. I can handle speed, and I will understand the intricacies of whatever argument you want to run
- Sign post please
- Weighing early is how you get my ballot (best case scenario is starting in the 2AC)
- Yes open cross
- Yes K-Aff's
- Yes T-FW
For the World Schools Kids-
- I don't have TOO much experience in this, but that being said, when I did worlds I was somewhat successful (15th speaker and dubs at the 2020 NSDA tournament, went undefeated in prelims)
- Countermodels are ok, but need to be contextualized about how they a. compete with the proposition, b. solve the props impacts
- I still think that tech > truth, but this becomes muddled a bit in worlds given the nature of the activity. I think that warranting is still important, but if an argument is conceded, the threshold for explanation becomes a lot lower, BUT it needs to be implicated and impacted out
- 3rd speakers need to collapse and weigh a BUNCH. I was the 3rd speaker all of my rounds, so this is arguably one of the more important speeches to me
- Spreading can be ok? I don't know how it would work given worlds structure and nature but I'm definitely down for spreading
- Overall, do what you do best and I will do my best to evaluate the round accordingly
For the PF Kids-
- Never did pf in high school, but am somewhat familiar with the event
- Defense is not sticky, extend your arguments please
- It makes the most sense for proper refutations to be saved for the summary's but at the same time the policy mind in me says to respond to them, so I will leave that up to judge instruction
- Yes theory is fine, just be clear on the abuse story
- Yes your progressive arguments are also fine, just explain them in an efficient manner
- Yes speed is fine, just be clear P L E A S E
Across over 100+ prelims at bid tournaments, I have averaged at a 28.45 in terms of speaks, which means I'm not necessarily a speaks fairy or stingy
A 30 is very hard to achieve in front of me, and the only ones I have given out is because of the utilization of the challenges
I don't evaluate "give me x amount of speaks" arguments, if you want it so bad utilize the ways to get extra speaks I have below
They're adjusted according to the tournament, but here's a general scale -
29.6+ Great round, you should be in late elims or win the tournament
29.1-29.5 Great round, you should be in mid to late elims
28.6-29 You should break or make the bubble at least
28.1-28.5 About middle of the pool
27.6-28 You got some stuff to work on
27-27.5 You got a lot of stuff to work on
Anything below a 27: You did something really horrible and I will be having a word with tab and your coach about it
Challenges (Max up to 1 point):
- Bring me coffee with cream and sugar = +.5
- Come into the room and shout "rev up those fryers" loud enough for people outside the room to hear = +.5
- If you send pictures of your cute pets in the doc, +.1-.5 depending on how cute I deem them (no snakes please, I have a phobia of them and this will get your speaks docked half a point)
Other ways to just boost your speaks:
- Be pleasant (not in the artificial "hi judge how are you doing" way, but like just be vibey i guess??)
- Humor inserted into your speeches in an organic way
- Good strategic choices that make my job easier
If you have anymore questions about my paradigm, please don't be afraid to email me or ask me in the room.
I did LD debate for 4 year so I expect much from non novices. To be unbias, I will flow progressive arguments, but I do not prefer them in this debate. Talking fast usually isn't a problem for me but since this is all online it would be better if everyone talked in a conversation style.
***In the interest of fairness, I'm going to be detailed and include some examples, so read the bold text if you're short on time.***
My name is Alexander Chase, and I might be judging your round. I graduated from Royse City High School in 2013 and then from UT-Austin in 2017, where I studied economics and worked for The Daily Texan. I previously taught high school math and currently teach the SAT and LSAT. As a debate judge, I believe this is an educational exercise where I vote on a question, not for a person. I can handle a spread — please don't mumble — and I expect to receive what you read in some form before you start.
How I Vote
I have three rules for myself.
1. I only buy valid arguments.
Check up on your classic logical fallacies here. If your argument is not valid, I will not mark down your opponent for failing to address it, but I will still "flow" it so that I can explain to you later why it doesn't work. I don't extend this to forcing you to explain the justifications for utilitarianism-ish things in a constructive, and I do tend to trust publications in reporting facts. More than anything, I am very skeptical of appeals to authority, and I won't buy a card that's a statement of opinion without any warrants unless you give me a good reason to do otherwise. I'm also very wary of equivocation — abusing that two different authors used the same word but with very different meanings and contexts — as a means of linking arguments together.
The worst offenders tend to be Žižek cards: everyone cuts out his warrants and data, and then themselves cannot explain them. This turns his source material into an appeal to authority — it's true because he says so — and that's not valid.
Any discussion of "-isms" can be ripe for equivocation: one writer's usage of capitalism will not necessarily be the same as another's. I don't automatically discard these, but when the evidence is there, I'm looking for it.
2. I don't pretend to be ignorant of the real world.
If you introduce information that is blatantly factually incorrect, I believe that I have the right to reject it. For very minor cases I might just dismiss your point. But if you're building your approach to the round on a lie in a way that is fundamentally unfair to your opponent, I will not hesitate to stop the round and vote you down. This means no cards discussing a brink that has already occurred, no fabricated evidence, and no misrepresenting others' views. If you cite a source, I'm not afraid to follow up on it. On the other hand, I'm also willing to buy off-the-cuff evidence after some fact-checking (e.g. if you want to cite the most recent Bureau of Labor Statistics numbers or the most recent electoral college odds from The Economist in a rebuttal but don't have them on hand, I'm willing to accept a ballpark number and verify it myself).
The worst and most important example of this came in a round where the negative built their case around using an upcoming court case working as the "brink" card in a disadvantage. The only issue was that the case had already been decided, rendering their entire case moot. I voted for the affirmative even though the facts that were presented very, very clearly pointed toward a negative ballot. Don't lie.
3. I'm open to anything (in theory).
Interpret this as you will. I'm open to unconventional structure, but I want you to let me know where you're going. I'm also very open to you taking morally sticky positions or taking up unconventional value systems. You can argue an alternate theory of the ballot. But I always place the burden on the students to follow my first two rules. If I get no instructions otherwise, I'll default to a generic impact calculus with the greatest weight to probability and magnitude, and to vote to affirm when there is a preponderance of evidence that doing so is preferable to not voting affirmative.
On the good side of things, I've voted many times for negatives that concede the framework and just run disadvantages. This works really well. I've also voted against debaters who run truly terrible theory shells that just declare new terms without any justifications. Debate is an exercise in argumentation, not in being weirder than your opponent know how to deal with.
Besides how clear of a speaker you are, I tend to give speaker points largely in terms of how well you structure your rebuttals. And in the interest of fairness, here are a few things that I tend to like:
Tell me where you and your opponent disagree.
If there's one thing I dislike, it's when the round proceeds as two students see the round as a checklist of points to win by being right about the value, and then the criterion, and then all the contentions. It's not that. Our job is to answer a question; tell me where you disagree, and then tell me why your side is the correct one.
Tell me which boxes you need to check off to win.
I like a good framework. Winning framework means telling me why yours is preferable and then telling me how it affects how I make my decision. If util wins, tell me that the impact calc tells me which side to vote for. If something that isn't util is the best framework, tell me how to weigh the round.
Don't give me voters.
If you're correct, you're correct! There's no reason to list off five reasons why you've won! I'm not voting for you, I'm voting for your side.
The less work I have to do the more energy I can devote to listening to the round so make things easy on your boy. Tell me why I should care about something, why is something bad/worse, why does ______ matter to me, how should I weigh the round, etc.
I'll vote on theory, Ks, CPs, DAs, stock cases, traditional or progressive stuff. If there's logic to the argument presented, then I'll gladly listen to it. I have at least a basic to moderate understanding on what could be presented. Plus hearing the same five points round after round gets boring. Making it interesting gets extra speaker points (if anyone still cares about those).
I want there to be engagement between arguments. It's debate so...debate each other. Don't just read your points over and over again without any clash. What am I as a judge supposed to do with that? Make the two worlds smash into each other, follow the logical conclusions, get everyone thinking.
I'm a pretty happy guy so lets keep things light in round. Assertiveness and maintaining your ground is highly encouraged, but don't cross the line into being mean or disrespectful. Rounds aren't worth your character.
tldr:Keep me entertained with some logic and we're Gucci.
Hi, I'm Joon. I'm a sophomore at Westwood High School. Since I'm only able to judge independent online tourneys and novice tournaments, this paradigm will be much more contextual to novices and I will try to cater towards that demographic. However, this paradigm is also a note of my general thoughts on the competitive debate.
PLS PLS PLS PLS PLS! EMAIL CHAIN! THE NSDA FILE DROP IS SO SCUFF
ALSO RECORD UR SPEECHES, CUTTING OUT OR DISCONNECTING IS INNEVITABLE.
Speed: Go with whatever you're comfortable with I'll make sure to clear you, 3 clears = -1 speaker point
TL:DR have fun! read whatever you're comfortable with and I will try to evaluate the debate the best I can off the flow. (except tricks and abusive strats, that's an auto strike for me; though I doubt anyone will go for those at a novice tourney)
Tricks - strike
other things you’ll find helpful:
1] pls disclose, I'm more lenient with sending pre-written analytics, but if you're 1ar sounds more like a Lil Pump song, yeah, I would prob go ahead and send ur overview and the four-point you had on the disad.
2] Collapsing makes my life so much easier; I would say generally I would find it hard to vote for you if you go for way too much.
3] I believe we as debaters are lucky enough to be exposed to so much educational resource, and it's frankly a waste of those resources and people in debate to read things like friv theory and tricks. I will strike tricks and will have a very low threshold for evaluating friv theory.
Auto Hot Ls:
Being mean or manipulative of less-experienced debaters; clipping; stealing prep; if you mis-pronoun. The rest of the auto-Ls are self-explanatory use common sense :)
Things I Really Like:
Good ballot Story; Efficient Overviews; funny cx (+0.5 speaks); TKOs, presumption v k affs, historical or material examples, explaining the perm, good util justifications, weighing in theory debate, putting case on top, alt solves case + explanation, paragraph theory,
People I agree with or have learned a lot from:
I’ve coached LD Debate for 15 years. Policy debate for nine. PF Debate for seven. Other speaking events for 25 years.
I like a good old fashioned philosophy debate. With that said, I understand those are few and far between. I am not progressive. But I won’t vote you down for it, either.
In light of this new virtual format, please pay attention to your speed and articulation, especially in the 1AR and the 1NR. Both of those speeches can make or break your round if you aren’t paying attention to your speed in a virtual setting. It is also imperative that you include me on your email chain. email@example.com Many tournaments have issues with file sharing software. Email is easy and quick.
Lincoln Douglas Points ~
Speed - Don’t spread. There’s no fire. Debate is about communication, not seeing how many points you can get your opponent to skip because they didn’t hear them correctly.
Value - Choose a value other than morality. One that actually matches the resolution. I like to see a good value clash. If you don't know the purpose of a criterion don't just throw it in there to look pretty.
Theory - Make sure you understand it yourself before you try to run it in a round. Don’t throw everything at your opponent and hope something sticks. I coach theory. I know theory. If you don’t, don’t bother.
Framework - Should be clear and labeled. If you can both agree on a mutual framework, I will judge based on which debater upheld it better.
Offcase arguments- Have fun. I can follow whatever here. Just give me a heads up as to how many you have.
Topicality - I'm fine, if it's well structured.
Case/Plan - If the topic lends itself to one, that's fine. I prefer not to hear a counterplan unless you can show me the value of it. This isn't Policy. But if you want to run it, go for it.
DA's - I will vote you down for non-uniqueness. Make sure your link is clear.
At the end of the round, make sure you give me clear voters. Don’t make me pick my own. I will go for the value I like better. If you didn’t give me an overview, I expect an underview.
Last but not least, include me on the email chain. firstname.lastname@example.org
PF - Crystalize your arguments. Be civil. Give me voters. Make sure your arguments can be understood by the average person. PF is constantly evolving. As it evolves, you as a debater should evolve.
IE's ~ I'm a fan of character development, building the story arc, and clear understanding. Your piece needs to have levels. It shouldn't be the same tone throughout.
OOs and Info ~ Teach me something. Make me think. Leave me wanting to make a change in my world or the world at large. In Info, your visual aid needs to be unique, eye catching, but not distracting.
Extemp ~ I'm looking for reliable sources that are appropriate and relevant to your topic. Cite those sources. I'm looking for a solid organizational structure. Use your time wisely.
For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): email@example.com
2020-21 rounds (as of 2/15): 97
Aff winning percentage: .546
("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).
With one exception, I will not vote on disclosure theory. Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them. Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points. I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.
Special notes for virtual debates, which we're mostly restricted to for a while:
1. The shortcomings of the technologies we're forced to use mean that you need to pay special attention to clarity and volume. It's really easy for you to become unintelligible or to cause the "NSDA's" faulty platform to buffer and render you unintelligible if you try to speak more quickly than you're able to, and you're going to have to strike a balance between being so quiet no one can hear you and engaging in ear-splitting shouting.
2. Being stuck at home staring at a computer screen makes us especially sensitive to time-wasting during rounds. You should have your technological problems (and that includes setting up e-mail chains before the round is supposed to begin!) resolved before the debate is supposed to start so that you don't try our patience by making our screen time (and remember--we get all of the drawbacks of being at an actual tournament with none of the benefits) longer than it has to be.
I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate, since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year. Last season, these included state championship rounds in policy and LD (both in South Dakota) and NFL ("NSDA") qualifying rounds in Minnesota (LD), Missouri (LD), and North Carolina (LD and PF).
My overall approach to debate is extremely substance-dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I actually want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).
My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.
THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS
That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:
1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.
1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.
2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.
3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind.
4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:
a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.
b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.
c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" Refer to the above comments about negative state action. The furthest you can legitimately get with a "link" claim like this one is to argue that while the resolution is philosophically consistent with all overarching "state bad" advocacies--because it requires reduction of a core state function--it doesn't abolish the whole state at once and forces you to find solvency evidence about how abolishing the criminal justice system would collapse the state. These cards are easy to find, and making you read them to access your generic "state bad" impacts neither silences nor oppresses you.
d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.
e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.
f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?
g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.
5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:
a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you.
b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.
c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.
6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:
a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.
b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.
7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.
NOTES FOR THIS POLICY TOPIC
While I don't actively practice law at the moment, I did attend law school at the University of Minnesota, where I was articles editor of the Journal of Law and Inequality (and in charge of the below-the-line edit of a major legal history article for our death penalty symposium issue) and where my favorite class was the forensic science and expert witnesses seminar taught by multiple-time Supreme Court advocate Steve Cribari, in which I got to pick the brains of people like the Hennepin County forensic pathologist (hi, Dr. Baker!) and the FBI forensic chemist in charge of investigating art forgery (hi, Mary!). I also, in student practice, worked a case in which I had to get a fire marshal admitted as an expert witness based on the accepted soundness of his forensic methodology. It's safe to assume my non-zero knowledge of issues surrounding forensic science, policing, and sentencing and to conduct yourselves accordingly when debating in front of me.
NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!
PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory
Last year marked my return to active LD coaching after an absence of some years. However, I spend much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally-phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.
Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.
N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.
I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first one to persuade me to pull the trigger?
Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.
AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM
NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.
This may be a bit late for some of you, but in the interest of being thorough, I thought I'd add more specific thoughts. Because I'm most often judging policy debate and the two events aren't often held at the same site where I'm from, my PF judging experience last season was limited to 15 rounds--including five outrounds--at Harvard, one prelim round at the South Dakota state tournament on the UBI resolution, one elim round at Tarheel East districts and three elim rounds at the Idaho Invitational on the nuclear power resolution, and nine rounds at the Beyond Resolved Invitational on the charter schools resolution.
1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:
2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.
3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."
*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.
4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you.
5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.
6. You should cite authors by name. "Harvard," as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Harvard matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about health insurance reform to "Harvard." "According to Professor Herzlinger of Harvard" (yes, she teaches at Harvard Business School and has written extensively on the potential of a public option as a viable, pragmatic alternative to Medicare for All) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Harvard," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy.
7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.
a. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.
b. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.
c. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.
d. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?
I am a coach of all forms of speech and debate events. I competed at the high school and collegiate level in interp, speech and debate.
I would consider myself tab with a default to policymaker. I would prefer debaters establish what I should vote on and how to weigh the round. I believe it is important for the debaters to tell me why arguments are important and why they are winning it. I will vote on anything and I will not vote on anything all at the same time. It's important for you to tell me where to vote. I do not like hearing arguments that are completely squirrel of the topic at hand (ie: scream K). Feel me to ask questions if you have concerns or questions. I would prefer speakers be slow down and be very clear on the tag lines, dates and theory arguments. Speed is fine and I can flow it. I will yell "clear" if you are not.
Organization & Clarity with supporting documentation is key. When I am judging these events, I am looking for clear justification for the topic you chose. I am looking for you to be clear in your overall organization, but the internal thesis of your ideas need to be developed and organized also. I believe ethos, logos and pathos need to be developed and deployed each and every time you speak.
I am looking for originality. I am looking at individuals to create clear and distinct characters. I need to see you develop strong, believable characters. Tell your story.
If you have questions, please feel free to ask.
I competed in LD, PF, Congress, and Extemp, although LD was my primary event. I came from a traditional debate background but competed on the local, state, and national level -- so I am familiar with more progressive styles/tactics for debate like Ks and etc. I'll vote on anything as long as it clearly articulated, and that being said, I am somewhat comfortable with speed but only vote on what I can hear/understand. Feel free to ask any other questions before the round. Treat me more as a lay judge if that helps, it's been some time since I last debated.
add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi, my name is Eric! I am a parent judge so please adapt well to me. Speaking persuasively and professional dress are very important to me in round. I believe that these LD debates should be similar to the debates between the OGs Abraham Lincoln and Michael Douglas (I got a 4 in my APUSH AP tests so I know what I'm talking about). All debates should have a clear value/criterion and good weighing under that said framework!
Here is a quote that sums up how I feel about this Lincoln-Douglas activity:
"They conceded the sand paradox which triggers skep" - Abraham Lincoln
have fun ill vote off literally anything (except if it's morally dubious IE racism good, sexism good, etc)
tech > truth
epistemic confidence > epistemic modesty
debate is good and has educational value
Explain the K thesis well - I don't know the thesis level claims of most kritiks past cap, set col, baudy, security and afropess/antiblackness.
I have a lower threshold for responses for these and I'll buy RVIs good more easily for these args
My go to type of debate - I'm confident in DA/CP/Case debates and these are fun to judge if done well
Go for it. I am more inclined to believe that FW is a procedural issue that has an issue on how the 1AC debatability, so "T is policing" args usually can be beat back super quickly.
Go for it. I assume you have FW blocked out so respond to it properly not just "iTs gOoD tO dEbAtE aBoUt _____ IsSuE"
I'm reasonably versed in Kant and Hobbes with some Deluezean understanding so I'm alright on that. Skep triggers for phil takeouts are super underutilized (IE the Moen devolves to skep bc of pleasure/pain robots arg)
slow down for analytics that aren't pre-sent
if there is any clipping/falsifying of evidence, I will insta 25 L u. no questions asked.
what to do to get good speaks:
defending spark well = 30 speaks
send me FUNNY shitpost memes in the speech doc = +0.5
what to do to get bad speaks:
remember 2 weigh = u dont lose the round
I hate it. Debate is supposed to be an event of not only logic and evidence, but also persuasion. Take time to help me understand why I care so much. Side note: In the age of the internet, speed can also hurt because internet connections can cause me to miss full arguments if you cut out for even a second.
I am a traditional value debate judge. This means I want to see a clash of either which value is best, or who upholds it more. You need to give me the moral impacts. WHY do I care about equality more than equity? What are the real-world problems that come with viewing one over the other? Why do I prefer? Why are they inherently negative/positive impacts in and of themselves? Philosophy isn't a "card" nor "evidence". Value ethics are ways to judge the morality of an action. Depending on which value ethic approach you take, you need evidence that proves the universality of a philosophical perspective.
Values and criterion MUST link. The value must be met through the lens of the criterion. How does the criterion let me as the judge weigh the round? Why do I prefer that and how is it possible to weigh the value using it?
Then, I want to see how the contention-level framework proves you meet your criterion and therefore the value.
K's pretty much don't exist in LD. They are either observations or contentions. There are a very rare few that will fly, but they have to be pretty much metaphysical perspectives of why the resolution isn't or shouldn't be achieved. K's like Cap K's or Racism K's are really rebuttal arguments or contentions about teleological or deontological or other value-ethics approaches. If you run a K, you CANNOT attack the on-case.
Don't run a plan. Not that I won't accept it, but LD is a WHY should we, not a HOW should we debate. This is especially true in resolutions with no timeframe nor location frame. I will allow almost any argument poking holes in the universality of the plan as reason to down a plan/counterplan.
My judging thought process in weighing an LD round:
1) Whose value has been proven as more vital?
2) Which criteria is best to weigh that value?
3) Whose case best upholds the value/criterion from the above to?
Before anything else: Answer. The. Question. Please. If you give a great speech but answered the question incorrectly, you aren't getting a high rank unless literally everyone else did the same. But then, I may vote for myself.
I look for the standard 3x3x3 speech: Intro with an AGD, background on the topic and why it matters now, and a glimpse of your three points; three points with analysis of evidence; a conclusion putting a nice ribbon tying everything together.
- AGDs/Intro: I am a huge fan of metaphors and anecdotes as AGDs, but please, PLEASE, do not give me something canned. Please make sure the AGD flows nicely into the intro and not be super jarring. If you can make me laugh, gold stars. Don't just jump right into the speech. Hook me in!
- Points: Simple. Cite sources and dates (at least the year and month), analyze information, make sure all three make sense in answering the question. If you analysis is off, I'm going to call it out. This is a speaking event, but your analysis is most important. You can give a great SOUNDING speech; but if it made no sense, no high ranks for you. The more unique your analysis and astute your analysis, the higher you'll be ranked than the more obvious approach. I don't care what position you take as long as you do it well.
- Conclusion: Keep it short, sweet and to the point.
It doesn't really matter which event I am watching, there are similar things I'm looking for:
- Performer is living in the moments and letting me FEEL what you're saying instead of just HEARING what you're saying. You have to interpret the piece and not just let it do all the work. However, you also don't want to crush the writing by over (or under) acting. This takes LOTS of work and practice and feedback.
- Pacing should be slow enough where I don't feel like I'm watching a good performance on fast forward. There are obviously fast-paced scenes, but those should be intentionally so. Think of a roller coaster. There are peaks and valleys and different speeds. This is to make you feel a variety of emotions throughout the ride. There is NO difference between a roller coaster and interp in that regard.
- Character development. If there are multiple characters I should be able to see AND hear the difference. If the characters will blend together, I can't adequately follow the plot or understand what I'm supposed to be feeling. Be consistent. Be clear. I also want characters that don't stand in the same body positions. While they have a distinct personality, they can stand in different ways if it FEELS the same. A jock character might flex now and then, but not every single time they appear (unless the piece literally calls for it). I also want to see clever characters that aren't developed in the low-hanging fruit. Old people aren't always hunched over with a cane. Jocks aren't always holding a football. Nerds don't always have a backpack on. The more clever (but still recognizable) your character, the better.
- Piece & cutting. Sometimes the piece just isn't cut right or isn't strong enough compared to other performers. There are times I can't rank a piece higher simply because it didn't make me laugh/cry/etc. the way the others could. Obviously this depends on the category, but cutting and editing is important. I would rather hear less of a performance done really, really well than a lot crammed and rushed.
- Teasers. These should give me a taste of the characters and a basic idea of what I'm getting into. If I'm not hooked or don't "get" a character off the bat, it doesn't bode well.
- Intro. Say the piece name and author. Give me a glimpse as to what the piece is and why you chose it now.
- Uniqueness. Are you giving me something I haven't seen before? Performers who show me something new and do a good job will be ranked higher than someone doing a good job with a cliché approach.
I judge LD, PFD, Congress, I.E.'s. Coaching for 14 years and participated in more of the interp stuff when I was in high school, but that was a long time ago so don't hold it against me.
I am big picture for LD/PFD. I try to keep a tidy flow. I like solvency but don't necessarily need to vote on it if the resolution doesn't call for offense. I will vote on progressive or theory if steps are clearly defined throughout. I dislike spreading as it's not necessary. I frown upon evaluating specific cards as RFD because I don't know the authors' mindsets most of the time. I'm cool with Disads and CPs in PFD at TFA tournaments but avoid them for NSDA. In PFD, you should prefer using weighing mechanisms for your actual case instead of frontlining responses to your opponent. Students who use "kick the case and focus on responses" in PFD should probably just switch to LD or CX if they want to debate long-term. For speaker points, I typically start everyone out at the max and deduct from there, but because of their arbitrary nature, I don't have huge variances or decimals.
Congress: know your parliamentary procedure and role in the chamber. At TFA tournaments, I typically give 3's for decent attempts at a speech with some sources and some reading. 6's are very rare for me. I know that's tougher than other judges, but it doesn't affect ranks. Another thing to consider for Congress is your role of politicking. I think Congress should be treated as a competition in which the participants are able to speak on either side of legislation without regard to what other competitors are able to/going to do. That means you can "steal" a speech from someone who was waiting for their turn as part of the round, and I won't rank you down if you do a good job. Direct questioning should be concise and meaningful, not just an attempt to throw your own 2 cents in. Presiding officers don't auto-break from prelims; you need to be outstanding and any flubs or parliamentary procedure errors will result in lower hourly scores.
World Schools: I'm new to it but I tend to treat it sort of like my speaker points for PFD and LD. I start everyone out high and then work my way down. I'm less attentive about POI's because I'm usually listening/writing, so I don't mind if you're trying more than 10 times to request them.
Public Speaking: Conversational delivery necessary. I'm more of an "appeal to logos" guy than "appeal to pathos" in Extemp, so save the emotional pleas for things like Oratory instead. I will rank down if you're trying to push the grace period as part of the speech in general. I don't mind canned intros in Extemp, but at least make them connected to the prompt. Oratory should follow a clear format like "problem, effects, solutions" and not be a personal venting session. Informative speeches MUST have visual aids; considering it's the only real event that showcases one's ability to inform in this manner, I think you should prioritize including all types of measures to inform the audience.
Interp: Teasers and/or cold opens are necessary and the prepared intro should follow a format that gets the audience to understand WHY you chose the piece. Characterizations must be consistent. Be cautious and selective about how you employ accents around me. I frustrate during thematic pieces like poetry or POI if I can't tell which selection you're on. Build upon the theme in the prepared intro and fully list the authors and selections instead of just saying "a program."
Please do not spread.
Whoever persuades me overall on their position will get my vote.
Blaine High School '14 / Ripon College '18 / Assistant Coach New Trier '18-'20 / Chicago Debates UDL '20-
I'm a former debater from the Minnesota Circuit and have experience debating/judging PF, LD, and Congressional debate. I now work for Chicago Debates recruiting judges for their policy program (don't assume this means I am a "policy" type judge). Since I don't cut cards or coach for a living, I won't come with deep knowledge on every topic. In fact, most of my time will be spent in the policy world so whatever topic I am judging may be my first exposure for the season. I say this so you don't assume anything when making arguments. I come into rounds with a pretty blank slate and that's how I will evaluate your arguments.
***NOTE FOR ONLINE: Typically I'm ok with speed but with online tournaments audio can be choppy and hard to understand. You will need to slow down and adjust for this new reality we are dealing with. I'm going to get annoyed if you're running at top speed and I can't understand you because you didn't adapt to zoom.
When I competed in LD I was mainly on the local circuit and thus had a lot of VC debates. I understand that LD has changed a lot since I competed. I am open to alternative structures and off case positions but understand that I won't be technically versed on all of the nuances within these positions. Keep that in mind when making your selection. I'm not a circuit hack so if you're going to run theory, Ks, etc. just make sure you're crystallizing and being clear. DAs, Plans, and CPs are what I'm most familiar with and as an old school LDer Phil debate can even be a fun a time. Other than that I'm open to listening.
****When it comes to email chains I will only reference them if absolutely necessary such as evidence check. As a judge it is not my burden to read your docs. As the debater it is your burden to be clear and easy to follow so I don't have to reference the docs.
Speaking of being easy to follow, the flow is very important to me and thus so is organization and clear signposting. My biggest pet peeve is the abandonment of a clear signpost. Also if you're going to be throwing multiple arguments against one particular card/argument make sure to number your responses. This may seem super trivial but makes a huge difference in the quantity of arguments I'm able to evaluate at the end of the round. My rule of thumb is if I don't flow it I don't vote on it. If you're unclear or messy I won't flow it. Deductive reasoning should tell you that I'd prefer quality over quantity of arguments/positions.
In addition to signposting, weighing is huge for me! If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!
More common questions that come up: Yes I will accept disclosure theory and believe it is a good norm but I don't personally care if you disclose or not. That's up for your opponent to decide how they strategically want to handle it. By now you've probably figured out what type of judge I am so you'd guess right if you assumed I'm not into tricks debate. I have no background in this type of debate nor do I want to. Cool with speed but please see my note if this is a virtual tournament.
Speaks start at a 27 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.
tl;dr: I try to approach every round with a blank slate. The most organized and persuasive debater who takes care of the flow will win my ballot. This is a communication activity after all. Oh, and PLEASE WEIGH. It's that simple.
My biggest issue with Public Form debate is card clipping and evidence abuse. You need to make sure if you are reading evidence they are full cited cards and not a random sentence you cut for an article and strung together with sentences from other articles.
When it comes to first rebuttal I don't have preference if you go back and frontline/defend your own case. That's a strategic choice you need to make. The summary speech is the most important speech to me and often where I write my ballot. Make sure you are fully extending and weighing your arguments here. This is not just a second rebuttal. The best debaters will make time to boil down the debate and setup their partner for the final focus.
[copied from my LD section] If you're not comparing and weighing your arguments why should I have to when casting my ballot. My high school coach used to always say, "the worst thing you can do is make your judge think." Now as a judge myself, I completely agree. Without weighing or evaluating clash your arguments are just two ships passing in the night and I'm left with two random flows. If you're unsure what to weigh it can be as simple as showing me what an aff vs. neg world looks like. If you're an experienced debater give me impact analysis and/or meta-weighing. Weighing is everything!
I also look for cohesion between partners. You are working as a team so don't setup key issues in the summary and then ignore these key issues in the final focus. Work together to make a complete and clean extension through the round.
One of my biggest pet peeves in PF is when someone asks before CX "Do you mind if I ask the first question." Uh you just did. Take control and just ask a question.
Speaks start at a 27 for me if you lost the round and were disorganized/made blippy arguments. Most debaters will end up somewhere in the 28 range for me. The 29 range is reserved for debaters who were organized, persuasive, and made unique arguments. These are the debaters that understand quality or quantity in their argumentation strategy. 30s are rare for me. I save this for debaters who made me say, "wow that was a good debate." I also don't disclose speaks.
If you're competing in congress and reading this, kudos to you for being strategic about your judges. I believe judge adaptation can totally be a thing in congress.
Despite what people may think, congress is still a debate activity. The debaters I rank highest in the chamber are those that show a range in their speaking, create clash, and are actively involved through the entire session. I am not only judging your speech but also the amount of questions you ask, if you're utilizing Robert's Rules, and when you choose to speak. If you are someone that is going to give 3 sponsorship/first neg speeches then you won't rank that high. I'm much more impressed by a debater who can be flexible and join the debate at any point than a well rehearsed speaker. I also look at number of sources and times you reference other senators/reps. Flowing is still a thing that can be utilized in congress and I notice when you do it well.
If you serve as a PO that's already license for a higher rank but I will be watching to see if you take control of the chamber and if you're consistent with calling on questioners without showing preference.
Lastly the speeches you give should still be a well organized and presented speech with intro, 2-3 points, and a conclusion. I love a cheesy intro with a bit of personality so have fun with it.
Please Don't Do These (applicable for all formats)
-Forget to signpost (This is #1 for me). I hate disorganized debate
-Argue sexist, racists, or homophobic points
-I'm ok with being called judge just please don't ever call me ma'am
-Extend without analysis or impact. It's not enough to tell me to extend a card.
-Ignore the framework debate if it is applicable
-Turn the last speech of the round into a second rebuttal.
-Excessive off-time road maps, especially when there is only an aff/neg flow to worry about.
-Be mean or obnoxious to novice or newer debaters
-Look at me for facial expressions and validity if you think your opponent is being dumb or whatever. I usually have a straight face while judging and won't give any indication to validate you. The best way to tell if I'm getting everything you're saying is if my head is down and flowing.
Speed: I can handle it, but I would prefer not to see it. I think that skills students learn in debate should be transferable to other activities outside of debate.
Arguments: I have experience both participating in and judging PF and LD. If framework is introduced to the round, I prefer to see arguments link to the framework. I also tend to vote for competitors who weigh impacts. In LD, I tend to prefer traditional LD arguments, but I am able to flow other arguments and will vote off what is said in the round.
Email for email chains: email@example.com
Experience: Competed in LD, Congress & Policy in MS & HS; LD for two years in college. On the IE side, competed in pretty much the entire range of interp and original events, both prepared & extemporaneous, in HS and college. Have judged in high school and college circuits off and on over the past 10 years.
For all formats of debate: Remember that at its core, debate is the art of convincing your audience, through civil discourse, that your position on the resolution (aff/neg) should be upheld. Don't be condescending (to your opponent or your audience), but don't expect the audience (and the judge) to do the analysis work for you. Clear arguments in support of your position, with appropriately connected and explained supporting material, will win over simply bombarding me (and your opponents) with a mountain of potential arguments and piles of evidence. Quality can be more important than quantity; you may extend if your opponent drops an argument, but don't necessarily assume a dropped thread or two wins you the round. Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. I need to be able to understand, follow, and flow; I can't give you credit for points I don't catch as you go along. I don't enter any round looking for specific arguments or issues to be addressed; it is up to you to convince me that your argument/proposal/approach/perspective is superior, within the general expectations and framework of the event format.
LD: I'm a flow judge when it comes to LD. The arguments made in round, the clash between those arguments, and how well you support your position and connect your arguments typically weigh heavily in my decision. Ks and CP arguments are fine by me, though I find it is most effective if you can make very clear links when doing so. I will consider theory arguments, but be sure they do in fact specifically connect to what is going on in the round. I'm not a fan of spreading in LD; I won't drop or mark down a debater if they can do it effectively, but I defer to the quality can be more important than quantity idea in this respect.
Policy: I take essentially a tabula rasa approach when judging policy/CX debates. While stock issues, disads, etc., can (and often do) all play a role in making my decision, I am open to hearing from both sides what issues should be weighed most heavily in determining the outcome of the round--as I recognize the importance of each can change not only based on the resolution but also based on the issues that are raised in the course of the round itself. I will listen to theory arguments, but be careful that they don't end up obscuring the arguments you are presenting in support of your side of the resolution or your plan/counterplan/advantages/disadvantages.
PF: I am open to considering any type of argument (progressive is fine), as long as you clearly link it to the resolution. PF is meant to focus on advocating for a position, so don't get bogged down in specific plans or counterplans for implementation. I generally find it hard to consider completely new arguments in summary or final focus. In my experience, I find I tend to decide rounds based on impacts, so be clear with those and be prepared to convince me that your impacts weigh more heavily than those on the other side. Clash is important. I will consider theory arguments (see first sentence of this section), but I find they can muddle the overall debate if not executed well--just sharing that so you're aware of my perspective.
Hi! I'm Brian Jeon (he/him) and I debate for Westwood. Since I usually just judge for online tournaments and for novices this paradigm is contextual to those. I'm still a sophomore so I'm still learning too.
ur fine to call me Brian instead of judge sometimes i feel like judge is kinda awkward
email chain if u can: firstname.lastname@example.org (I prefer this to the NSDA file share)
TLDR: gl hf read what you're comfortable with. I'll evaluate everything with the exception its absolutely repugnant (racism good, sexism good, oppression good). MOST IMPORTANTLY HAVE FUN DEBATE SHOULD BE A PLACE WHERE YOU CAN EXPRESS YOURSELF AND READ THINGS YOU HOLD DEAR.
RECORD YOUR SPEECHES NSDA CAMPUS CUTS OUT SO MUCH OMG
1+ - LARP (fiat debate if you're Mr Jouya reading this)
1-2 - Phil (i feel good with levinas, kant, any kinda existentialism, social contract, but calm down on your pomo stuff like wtf are signs and signifiers)
1 - T/Theory
2 - Tricks
3 - Ks (identity kritiks; security and cap are prob a 2)
I am not ideologically opposed to any of these, I just ranked them based on how confident I am on evaluating them.
Dude, if you're debating a novice and you're reading tricks, T/Theory, or a K be sure that you're being NICE and INCLUSIVE. Debate is a game but that doesn't mean we don't care about what we learn.
i try to flow by ear but internet problems are gonna happen so pls disclose
sending documents/flashing doesn't count as prep (don't abuse this pls)
good analytics > bad cards (i love smart analytics, just saying it's not carded!!!! is not a response)
try to time yourselves (if its novice debate i'm more understanding)
stand or sit idc do jumping jacks for all i care
weigh, weigh, weigh
judge kick should be something made in the 1NC
idk what you want for this lol just ask any other questions b4 round
This is probably where I'm the worst at evaluating so I'd err on the side of overexplaining to me
I have basic knowledge of some of the lit but that's literally it, I usually don't think about Ks outside of debate so just explain and implicate
K affs - I'll probably be lost ngl, I've only gone for TFW so know that you will need a lot more explanation than you would normally need
Unlike the K, I actually do think about philosophy outside of debate so I have a bit more knowledge than other positions in debate (this doesn't mean I'll hack or you can skip out on explanation...)
Here's the stuff I'm familiar with - Kant, Levinas, Social Contracting (hobbes), Butler, Satre, Camus, bits of Nietzsche, and Rawls
I'd prefer you not read straight-up skep NCs but ill evaluate it
- this doesn't mean you can't read skep triggers/skep to justify a framework, I actually think using skep to justify a fw is really interesting
love, love, love these arguments
potential abuse is definitely a thing, but reasonability is very strong
every T debate should have a precision standard
here's my defaults, but if you make me decide on a default i will be mad
No RVIs > RVIs
CI > Reasonablity
DTD > DTA
i will NOT vote on any theory arguments that police what people wear, at best this is silly and at worst policing (I'm looking at you shoes theory)
shells that can be solved by cx seem silly to me but ig ill evaluate it
id prefer your shells are about in speech decisions rather than shells like you must bring a sled or may not drink water shells
I am willing to pull the trigger on these arguments if they are implicated and have warrants
I actually think stuff like condo logic and indexicals are funny af and have decent warrants (but easy responses)
Paradoxes are probably silly? Just implicate them, I'm actually way more open to tricks than ppl realize - but this doesn't mean these should be blipstorms... there should be good weighing
stuff that will make me happy :)
knowing your case
not conceding stuff in cross (defend your case!)
using cross very well (don't just use it to give them an extra 3 min speech)
explaining why you should win
weigh, weigh, weigh
creative impact turns (warning: don't do anything problematic, check TLDR for more details)
good phil debate
stuff that will make me sad :(
going for 1,000 arguments in the 2nr/ar
being mean (i know its a competitive activity but cmon be reasonable. also there's a clear difference between being assertive and just being mean)
speaking faster than you can (this does NOT mean I can't handle speed, just remember that the better debaters tend to be more efficient rather than fast. "Smart and slow beats fast and silly"
not warranting your stuff
value debates like morality vs justice vs democracy or whatever
stuff that will boost your speaks
reading and executing spark well
email chain early
reading interesting frameworks and executing it well
side quests (do these for like a small speaks boost)
memes on top of the 1ac/1nc (must be funny) - if you're reading this for novice inhouse PLEASE do this
if u make me laugh out loud
tell me your favorite tyler, the creator song (earfquake doesn't count)
if im on the same panel as joon c, aaditya g, anoop r flame them +0.5
never judged PF but all the LD stuff applies (including side quests!)
idc much abt the "persuasion" but just be techy
PLEASE FOR GODS SAKE DISCLOSE!!!!! I WILL DOC -0.5 SPEAKS IF YOU DO NOT DISCLOSE
+1 (yes an entire speaker point) if you read cards instead of paraphrase evidence (yes, I understand its not a big norm, but it should be, evidence ethics violations are real)
Hi! I'm Jhanvi (she/her) and I currently debate for Westwood as a sophomore. Since I usually judge for novices/novice tournaments, this paradigm will mostly be catered towards them. This paradigm might still need some work - I'm still learning :)
IMPORTANT - Please take note:
1. You can call me by either judge or my first name.
2. The NSDA fileshare has not been kind towards me this competitive season. Therefore, add me to the email chain please - it's email@example.com
3. I'll evaluate pretty much anything unless it's morally repugnant (racism good, sexism good, oppression good, etc.) Debate should be a place where everyone can communicate freely and express themselves. This also means that if you are directing bigoted speech (misgendering goes here as well) towards your opponent and making them feel unsafe in the round, I will give you an L25.
4. I know that there have been a lot of technological issues in the world of online debate. NSDA Campus audio software hasn't been great for me, but if you cut out for any reason, I expect you to record a local copy of your speech and email it to both me and your opponent as soon as you finish the speech (this must be timed for the appropriate length). I will NOT let anyone redo speeches.
5. Please disclose trigger warnings if you have them at the top of the case. For any reason, if your opponent is triggered by the topics in your case, I expect you to make accommodations accordingly. On the subject of trigger warnings, I would prefer if you do not read cases that specifically deal with extreme depictions of mental illness or suicide, since those are triggering topics for me.
6. Stolen from Shawkin (cause she's awesome and this is true): Performance anxiety and stress burnouts are real things in debate. I know that has been an issue for me so feel free to reach out if you need a moment to breathe - it's ok to take a moment.
Read what you're comfortable with. I'd rather see you go for a unique framework or kritik debate in which you know you can excel rather than a weak policy debate in which you do not know what you are doing.
Quick Pref shortcut:
1 - Policy(Fiat)/T/Theory
2 - Phil(Util, Kant, Hobbes, Locke, Rawls)/Identity Ks (including cap and security)
3 - K affs/Pomo Ks/High Theory/Other Phil positions
4 - Incredibly frivolous T or theory shells
Strike (5) - Tricks
If you read anything that is considered on the prefs that is a 3 or lower (3-5), then you might need to do a bit of explaining as to what your position entails for me to vote on it. It doesn't mean I won't vote on it, but I need to understand a clear link or impact/alt story in order for me to make it a part of my RFD.
1. If you have a question on whether your argument is a trick, here's that answer: If you think an argument is a trick, then I will consider it as a trick. This includes stuff like aprioris, paradoxes, skep, permissibility, and other arguments in that vein. However, I will vote on tricks that do have a conceded warrant/impact.
2. For goodness sakes, please be NICE when reading tricks and don't hide them in walls of text. It both scares the other debater and confuses the heck out of me when I can't find them. Delineate them (idc how u do this) so at least I will know what I'm looking at.
3. On presumption, I presume negative unless the negative defends an advocacy that deviates further away from the status quo than the affirmative advocacy.
1. I will NOT evaluate any T or theory shell that has to do with the way debaters present themselves (shoes theory, etc.) Do not abuse T this way. Furthermore, the more frivolous a theory shell happens to be, the higher threshold I will have for abuse.
2. On condo, I consider anywhere from 1-2 condo to be alright. 3+ is a bit too much and I would probably default aff on condo in that situation.
3. I default to competing interpretations, drop the debater, and no RVIs, but can be persuaded otherwise.
Policy Style (Counterplans and Disads):
1. All off case positions in this category should have the appropriate portions associated with them (especially links and impacts). If there are any parts missing for whatever reason, I will not evaluate it as highly.
2. For disads that are tied to warrants that are changing (politics DA, etc.), please ensure that you have correct information. If someone is polling at 40% and you say 20%, it discredits the evidence and I will not evaluate it.
3. Aff plans MUST have a solvency advocate (K affs, not so much)! Counterplans should have a solvency advocate, and I would prefer if they do (I'm more lenient on this for some reason)
4. I do not prefer one style of debate (traditional or progressive) over the other. If someone has a different debate style than you do, adapt.
5. Don't read claims that are obviously false - ex. Global Warming doesn't exist, etc. While I am fine with impact turns and spark, there should not be fabricated information at any point.
6. Multiplank condo counterplans are fine.
1. Don't assume I know your lit base. I'm pretty comfortable with cap, security, fem, orientalism, imperialism, and set col, but not so much with other bases. Make sure you are prepared to defend your alternative and why it should be preferred over the aff.
2. I would like it if you had topic-specific links. While generics can get you to a certain point, having those specific links makes all the difference and makes it easier on you to explain why I should be voting for the K.
3. Please ensure that your alternative is appropriate. I will not be evaluating "Death Good" or "Suffering Good" Ks. I will also not vote for alternatives that prescribe oppression as a path of action we should take.
4. Explain to me in your rebuttal why you should win the K. This is far more than just reading a long overview - talk about how the links and alt take precedence over the perm, why the perm is bad, etc. Weigh the impact of the K against the aff if you need to. Make sure you are able to explain your K to other novices who are debating you.
5. If you do choose to read an overview in the rebuttal, please go at 70% of your normal speed. I want to ensure that I'm not missing anything.
6. If you are reading an identity kritik from a subject position in which you do not belong against someone who is of that subject position, it will be harder for you to win the debate. Please be respectful of others' experiences in this space.
K Affs vs. T-Framework:
I think that these debates can be very interesting and educational if done correctly. I believe that kritikal affirmatives with some link to the topic are good for debate and slightly lean aff on the T-FW debate, but can be persuaded otherwise. But if you are reading a kritikal affirmative, please note the following:
1. Ensure that your method is compatible with your advocacy (I DON'T want to hear things like intersectional fem is a policy-making strategy or rejecting settler colonial logic is good with fiat -- it's just not true). If your method isn't compatible, I will most likely end up voting neg via presumption.
2. Try to have some link to the topic (if possible). If not, it's easier to persuade me on T-FW. This is not universal by any means, but education is important to debate.
3. Know what you are defending. Explain why your method would be preferable to that of the negative debater regardless of what they read.
4. Get creative! The debate against T-FW can be one of the most interesting if you know how to create specific standards. In this case, don't hesitate to answer the TVA, standards, and voters with specific counters of your own. +1 speaks for someone who can really impress me while doing this.
5. BONUS: +0.5 speaks to anyone who can make a theory shell in the 1AR regarding your kritikal method/discourse and how we need to consider it first in the round. These are very entertaining and educational to hear.
If you're on the negative and reading T-framework, try to note the following:
1. When reading your standards/voters, don't just say "x is a voter because fairness and education." That is in no way persuasive. Instead, attempt to focus on why specifically their method or discourse is bad for debate and how it can harm other debaters.
2. BONUS: +0.5 speaks if you attempt to read a TVA that the aff can actually follow. This is not always possible, but will go a long way in winning you the ballot, especially if the aff method could be done under your TVA.
3. Get creative here! I don't want to keep hearing "the standards are limits and ground, so vote neg." The more creative you are with your standards, the more likely you'll win my ballot.
4. Don't be afraid to cross-apply this position to the case debate and vice versa. Specific examples will get you a long way.
Things that you should be doing ALWAYS:
1. Disclose. You should always be disclosing to each other. If for some reason you decide not to disclose, then I will subtract 0.5 speaks. The only exception to this is if you have zero clue of what disclosure is.
2. Sending your full speech document. Do not hide any cards in different files because all members need to see the evidence to evaluate it. Furthermore, please cut and cite your evidence properly, especially if it consists of pages from a larger book. Evidence ethics is an actual issue that will be penalized if called for a challenge/called out on it.
3. Be respectful of your opponents. This is a basic courtesy that must be followed. Any rude/intolerant behavior will not be acceptable.
4. Weigh in round! This is more than just giving an overview of the position in your rebuttals - tell me why your impact matters and why I should vote for you!
5. Know your case. It's imperative to debate.
I will start at a 28 and go up or down from there depending on how the round goes and your ability to communicate/leverage offense.
Ways to Boost Speaks (+0.1 for each thing you do here):
1. Knowing your case extremely well
2. Using cross well (asking smart/offensive questions)
3. Weighing and proper explanations (more than just an overview in rebuttal)
4. Signposting without deviation from the order you gave before the speech
5. Creative arguments - especially analytic ones
6. Strategic collapsing
How Speaks will be Dropped (-0.1 for each thing that happens):
1. Drop case in the 1AR/2AR
2. Going for a billion arguments in rebuttal (mainly 2NR/2AR)
3. Being disrespectful towards anyone
4. Speaking faster than you are able to
5. Stealing prep
6. Not having warrants for specific arguments
Good luck and have dun debating!
School Affiliation: Coach at The Episcopal School of Dallas
Coaching & Judging Experience: I have been coaching teams and judging tournaments since 2006. This includes LD, PF, Congress, CX and IEs at different schools in Virginia and Texas. I have had debaters qualify for NCFL and NSDA on multiple occasions which are both considered traditional tournaments.
Speed: Although I am personally not a fan of it, please make sure your spreading is clear and coherent. If I can't understand you, I probably will not flow it. If you see me stop flowing for an extended period of time then it would be in your best interest to slow down. I also heavily prefer if you go slow on your taglines, analytics and any theory arguments, especially during your rebuttals.
Types of Arguments: Although I prefer framework heavy debates, a lot of clash in the round, and good crystallization and overviews in your final rebuttal, I will still vote on topicality, counterplans, some theory arguments at times and kritiks if they are explained well by the debater. I am not a fan of non-topical Affs as I tend to favor whole resolution ACs. Make sure when you run T, that you are linking your violation to your standards/voting issues and that when you run a CP, you explain your net benefits and how it's competitive.
Theory Argument: If you run any disclosure theory or new affs bad arguments, make sure you thoroughly break down the reasons to prefer. Although I have never really been a fan of these types of arguments, I am willing to consider them if you can show the impacts of the abuse committed by your opponent and how this outweighs. Please make sure that whatever theory shells you plan on running are presented at a slower rate of speed.
Kritiks: Run at your own risk because I'm not really a fan of complicated philosophical arguments that have nothing to do with the actual resolution that should be debated upon. I'm not saying you can't win if you run them, but I might look at you funny and simply not flow the argument depending on the complexity of the K.
Speaks: Clarity over speed is prefered. If your spreading is incomprehensible, this will reflect on your speaker points. Any acts of rudeness or displays of an unprofessional demeanor towards your opponent will also be taken into account. If you go against an inexperienced debater or a traditional style opponent, it would be in your best interest to accommodate their format and invest some time clashing with or turning their value, criterion and contentions. Also, please do not ask me if I disclose speaker points. It's not going to happen. In addition, please do not use profanity at all during the round. It will impact your speaks and could also impact my decision so don't do it. Lastly, please refrain from attacking the character of any political figures or political parties as a whole. It's okay to discuss policies of the USFG but please avoid bashing politicians or parties that you may dislike as I consider that type of tactic in a debate to be very unprofessional and offensive. Debaters have lost my ballot over this in the past.
Tricks: Please don't.
Overview: Debate the resolution, clash with your opponent's arguments, provide framework, slow down during tags and analytics, throw in some voters at the end.
Email Chain: If and only if both debaters are sharing files, please include my email as well: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi, I’m Gabby! (they/them)
Please put me on the email chain. My email is email@example.com
I debated for 4 years at All Saints in Tyler (‘20) and now I go to the University of Houston (‘24) where I do policy debate with Patrick and am majoring in biomedical engineering. I was told that I should mention this: I never qualified to the TOC but I did qualify to the NDT last year. Not sure why this matters since competitive success doesn’t guarantee high-quality judging.
NOTE ON E-DEBATE: I kind of suck at flowing online. I have tinnitus and that zoom mic quality really makes my ears scream. Please keep a local recording of your speeches in case of tech issues. Also, make it clear where and when you’re extending arguments. PREP TIME ENDS WHEN YOU SEND THE DOC. I am impatient :(
In general tech>truth, run what you want, but I will not vote on an argument that I don’t hear, flow, or understand. I don’t like doc-botting (not the same as having some pre-written extensions). Please contextualize arguments. Voters are greatly appreciated. Don’t call me ma’am I’m not a ma’am. Feel free to email or Facebook message me after the round with any more questions. If I find that you're purposely clipping in your speech you get an automatic L20. I’ll be more lenient if it’s an internet issue or otherwise unverifiable.
I have a horrible poker face. Watch my non-verbals. I have hearing problems so you should be clear, start sloww then speed up but don’t go more than 80%. S I G N P O S T. I will not cross apply arguments for you. Tell me where to flow things. I’ll vote on almost anything as long as it’s warranted/impacted well and isn’t morally repugnant. I’ll vote on capitalism or extinction being good but not any oppression good args. Presumption goes to the side with the least change. CX is binding. Don’t try to convince me it isn’t. I don’t judge kick arguments. Please just pick one.
Update for LD SepOct Topic: I am a biomedical engineering major. The chances I know more about you on certain parts of your 1AC/DAs are high. This DOES NOT mean I will accept poor explanation and fill in the gaps for you.
Overall: If you’re going to run something you think I won’t understand then err on the side of over-explaining or else I probably won’t vote for it. EXTEND WARRANTS. I WON'T EXTEND ARGUMENTS FOR YOU. I generally don't vote on new arguments made after the 1AR but I can be convinced to make exceptions.
Phil: I did a lot of this in high school but have forgotten a solid amount. Don’t assume I know what the white guy you’re talking about is saying. I probably understand Kant the most. Always loved me some Mouffe. Rawls is cool but kinda cringe. You should put turns on the contention. Independent voters (Kant is Racist!) need warrants and implications. Please don't make me vote on "induction fails" because I will if you reallllly sell it but you'll probably end up with an LPW.
Straight Policy: Did/still do a lot of this debate and I think you should too. Use normal/simple jargon (uq, links, etc.) I still don't understand sufficiency framing tho lol. Zero risk is possible especially if you don’t read a complete link chain. Can you even quantify this stuff otherwise? Idk. If you say uniqueness controls the directionality of the link I will laugh at you. Be efficient. Wacky impact d (mushrooms, bubbles, etc) on case is funny and I like it. Reading it will probably bump your speaks. Smart analytic advantage counterplans are cool. Solvency advocates are cooler.
T/Theory: Please don't make me have to sort through more than 3 shells in a single round. I have a high threshold for voting on "new affs bad" and I EVALUATE DEBATES AT THE END OF THE ROUND. I'm dropping speaks if you read "eval the debate after x speech that isn't the 2ar." Make the abuse story clear. Spikes are fine. Tricks are less fine. If indexicals are true then I evaluate debates under the index that they're not real arguments that can win you the round. I'll vote on frivolous theory but I DO NOT WANT TO. I will not vote on theory args about your opponent’s appearance or clothing. I’ll end up going truth>tech if you annoy me with too many shells. I default competing interps and drop the argument, but if you warrant reasonability and/or drop the debater better than your opponent, then that’s the way I’ll evaluate the shell. I'll vote on paragraph theory but please be clear enough for me to flow it.
Mini Note on Framework/Clash Debates: Being topical is probably good I guess. Negation theory is true. I like "semi-topical" K affs that show how much you've researched/worked. All these debates I’ve judged have been hella boring. Make it funky, make it fresh please. I’m not good at flowing lots of little arguments in these types of debates so you have to be very clear/slow down and sometimes you really just gotta persuade me. I usually think you have a better shot going for K/case in these debates if you're a 2+ off team, but you do you.
K: I’m the quiet 2A of a K team so let that guide your decisions. Don’t have a 4 min long overview and then explain again on the line by line. Pick one, preferably the second. Don’t use big words to explain big words. Use little words. From what I’ve gathered, affect is the ~vibes~ so maybe I’m not the best for the gooey-est of pomo debates. Role of the ballot debates feel more like a role of the buzzword competition. These debates tend to be incredibly irresolvable and still don't give me much of a direction in terms of how the ballot functions (is it an endorsement of a research model? why do you want the ballot?) I will be highly skeptical of you reading an identity-based K and not being that identity. I won’t auto drop you but I probably won’t think it’s a very good debate if you say self abolition 20 times. Make sure the alt resolves the link or I’ll vote aff on presumption. Floating PIKs don’t make that much sense outside of technical offense but if you really sell it I’ll vote on it. Don’t be sketchy about them in CX. Tell me why the link being a disad to the aff even matters. Perms need warrants and implications/net benefits. Low key most Ks are just CPs with multi-actor fiat but that’s just my hot take.
Performances: I think these are pretty neat. Please contact me if the content might be triggering in any way or talk explicitly about queer/trans experiences. Have a theory of power. Explain your method. If you’re playing music or have background noises make sure it’s not too loud.
Tech>Truth. Be nice to your opponents. Being rude in cross will hurt your speaks. I really don’t feel a need for you to be spreading in PF. I don’t mind if you say "clear" or "slow" to your opponents if they spreading in round and you are not comfortable with it. Giving me a framework will only help your case. No framework/standards mean that I default to a cost-benefit analysis. Observations need a warrant, and I will not vote on them alone. Don’t run sketchy/abusive/messed up arguments. Please terminalize/contextualize your impacts (e.g. don’t make your impact “bees will die” without telling me why bees dying should matter). Give good voters (the framework is not a voter) and an impact calc (comparing your impacts with theirs and why yours will matter more).
A note on Speaker points (ALL EVENTS)
rule of thumb: happy Gabby = higher speaks!
I determine speaker points based on a mix of strategic choices, persuasion, and good, positive vibes. IF YOU ASK FOR A 30 YOU GET A 25! Speaks will start at a 28 and go up or down from there. Speed is fine. I’ll say clear 3 times before I dock speaks. Slow down on tags and analytics. Please be nice to your opponent. Snark and sarcasm are fine, being outright rude and dismissive is not. If you fail to read content warnings and your opponent ends up feeling unsafe or triggered in round, you won't get automatically dropped but you’ll get 25. If you purposely misgender your opponent you will get no higher than a 25 and I will find and talk to your coach and school sponsor. Doing the listed things might get you some extra points. Kind of important: I will be very very unhappy if you take more than 20 seconds to send out your doc. More than a minute and you're capped at 29. More than 2 and you're capped at 28.
- for every silly spec shell you add (shoes, internet spec, etc.) - minus a full point
- clown Patrick Fox for not having a life outside of debate (in a way that makes sense in the round) +.2
- read an argument that has to do with space/aliens/frogs and win it +.4
- outspreading someone you know can’t keep up or being an ass to novices/lay debaters - 27 max
- ask for a 30 or other speaks theory = 25 max for not reading my paradigm
Last note- have fun!
CX: I'm a policy maker, but I'm open to other arguments as well.
T: I appreciate a good T argument as long as it is run correctly and isn't frivolous.
DAs: DAs are good.
CPs: CPs are good.
Ks: I'll be honest that I don't prefer Ks, but if you really would like to run them, you can. I won't count it against you, and I'll evaluate it. I'm familiar with most of the more generic ones, but if you are running something a little more unique, please be clear on the arguments presented.
Framing is fine.
Case: For case, please extend throughout the round in every speech that goes for any other argument in the round that either side plans on keeping.
Speaking: I am fine with speed, but you need to slow down on taglines, authors, and important/emphasized information (plans, CP text, etc.). Please say "and" or "next" or another appropriate term when moving between cards. I appreciate a good strategy throughout the round, and I would prefer an organized debate.
I would like to be included in the email chain. (firstname.lastname@example.org)
I'm a tab judge who defaults to policymaker if you do not give me any other framework in the debate round. I do require debaters to give me voters and impact calculus otherwise the round becomes messy as I judge the debate on the things that happen in the round.
I do not tolerate racist, sexist, or otherwise offensive arguments or behavior in-round, including being disrespectful or condescending to lesser-experienced teams. Additionally, I have no tolerance for male teams who belittle women who are being aggressive. I do not care how far ahead you are on the flow; I will vote you down if you engage in this kind of behavior.
Also if you post-round me expect me to edit your speaks for them to be dropped as well.
Questions? Just ask.
Email Chain: email@example.com
Yes, Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated Congress, Extemp, PF, Policy and World Schools in high school. I am a well-rounded debater that understands the flow and structure of every event.
I tend to fall in the perspective of a tabula rosa judge, evaluating each round within it's own parameters. I am a flow judge and feel speed is okay in PF - let the natural course of the debate determine the speed. I live for solid clash. I will not hesitate to call for evidence at the end of a round if a card doesn't make sense or your opponent effectively convinces me your source/analytic is not credible.
While voters are important, I will vote on the entirety of the round. Don't mention something in your voters that didn't occur throughout the round. Make sure you weigh in your latter speeches - failure to weigh leaves it in entirely in my opinion of what occurred during the round.
I am absolutely a tabula rosa judge in LD. While I will accept any argument introduced in the round, I do not prefer K's, but I can appreciate a crafty and logical use of them. This style of debate is value-focused - make sure that you provide me a solid weighing mechanism that aligns with your value criterion. Speed does not bother me - just ensure your opponent is at the same level as you. While I typically won't decide a round based on theory, I will take it into consideration if abusive arguments or tactics are highlighted, not through a block and jargon, but a logical explanation of the theory and why it matters.
Reference my PF/LD paradigms to see what I look for from general terms on argument structure. I highly value clash in congressional debate. I do not like the congressional debate role play - use that time to make substantive and logical arguments. I pay close attention to evidence used in speeches - academic journals and case studies in addition to publications in the last two years will rank you higher. Congress speeches are short, so make you evidence use short, impactful and highly analytical to show your understanding - don't just read other people's work to me during your speech.
I fairly consider PO performance in my ranks. I will give the 1 to a PO that has zero issues with precedence/recency (speeches and questions), actually runs an efficient chamber (I should hear you talk as little as possible), understands Robert's Rules of Order (know the difference between majority and super-majority votes) and expertly manages the chamber (if there's no prefacing, rule down prefacing; stop speakers or questioners that go over time; enforce the rules that are set). Not everyone is GUARANTEED an opportunity to speak on every bill in this event. I expect a strong PO to strike down one-sided debate and use discretion to move to previous question without chamber approval for the sake of active debate.
Your ability or lack thereof to rebutt as a questioner and answerer in questioning will be considered in my rankings. Questioning is an exceptional opportunity to convince me of your ability to ask well-intentioned questions. As mentioned in the beginning of my congress paradigm... clash is vital to doing well on my ballot.
!! Note on Inclusion !!
Speech and Debate is SUCH a fun activity - which makes it even more important it's inclusive and accessible. Do not utilize CX time to assert dominance and/or privilege. Condescension, consistent interruptions of opponent, xenophobia, racism and classism are all behaviors that absolutely have no place in this activity. Your crossing of the above-mentioned lines will decimate your speaks and potentially get you dropped in that round whether it's round 1 or finals. There is absolutely no reason in this activity to make people feel unsafe or uncomfortable.
I debated policy and then switched to LD on the national circuit as part of GBN's team and have since coached policy at various high schools across the country. I can handle any speed, as long as its clear and you slow down tags. I have a philosophy degree focusing on language, ethics, and political philosophy. This means that I have likely read most of your authors and that if you want to run moralistic based arguments or K's in front of me, make sure to do them well. In my opinion the most important thing in an argument is its warrants. Thus, if you fail to mention the "why" when extending, I'm going to have a hard time evaluating your argument. As long as you do this, I don't care whether you run personal narratives, bring a painting into the room for your K, etc.
If there is a place where it's easy to vote off of, that's where I'll look to. So if one part of the flow has been cleanly extended the entire time while another part has ink from both sides, I will more than likely vote off of the first part.
Hope Moffatt Paradigm (She/Her): Updated 1/07/2020
Hello all! I am so excited that you are involved in an event that I've learned so much from! I debated Lincoln Douglas for all four years of high school, was the president of my debate team and involved my self heavily in learning about the different styles of debate. My circuit oscillated pretty frequently between progressive and conservative styles so I am very familiar with how almost all argument strategies should be run. This paradigm is lengthy but don't let that intimidate you, I am so happy you are here and am sure you will do wonderfully. I have only written a lot because I remember appreciating when others did so and want you to know that you deserve the fullest of my efforts.
If you are looking for a quick synopsis of what kind of judge I am here is a summery of what you should know:
I will evaluate any case you read to me and am comfortable with speed (I spread frequently in my time as a competitor). However, I do not think that progressive cases are inherently better than a traditional style and will consider counter arguments that question the traditional ordering of strategies in round. For the most part, I will evaluate the round how I feel that you and your opponent best communicate that I should. I think framework is a really valuable tool if used correctly, but is not essential to my ballot. Even so, if your opponent has a really strong framework that is uncontested you need to give me some sort of weighing mechanism if you don't want me to default to theirs. Weighing is your most valuable tool, and I often find myself wishing debaters would weigh more strategically. In any case, be nice to each other and try your best. Feel free to send me your case to look at during the round to Hopeemoffatt@gmail.com . Be forewarned I read quickly and critically so if your evidence is misleading in a way that I perceive as dishonest that may be reflected in your speaks. That said, I will try my best not to let my own view of what I read impact my evaluation of your case as a whole and will leave it to your opponent to point out the flaws. If there is a major problem with the way you portray your evidence and your opponent does not mention it, I will not fault you (unless it appears blatantly dishonest) but will mention on your ballot so that in the future you can improve!
Note for online debates: You may want to consider speaking slower with more exaggerated pronunciation than normal to reduce the effects of technology on your delivery! If an internet issue occurs in round we will follow tournament policy. I understand this format can be daunting and will try to be gracious where I can be.
For a more detailed view of my paradigm:
Go as fast or as slow as you like, I will most likely be able to follow it. If your speaking is unclear or too quick I will say "clear." However, I expect that after saying clear you will make some kind of adjustment and if you do not that may be reflected in your speaker points. If you are skipping words or mumbling I will not be very impressed, nor will my flows for you be a great reflection of what you are trying to get across. Crisp speech can make your spreading much easier to flow and thus give you a better chance at winning your arguments.
In general, I am not of the belief that more arguments mean you are winning unless the round is framed that way or if there is no other weighing mechanism for the round. Thus, even if you have 6 arguments on the flow and your opponent has one or two they may still win if there is sufficient weighing or reasoning as to why that one or two points are critical for the round evaluation. I really love complex analysis so if you need to cut down one or two cards so that you can make ground breaking analysis you should. However, this does not mean you need to re-explain what your cards already have said - your tagline is enough for that.
Layering (what I default vote on first)
When I was on the circuit most rounds were evaluated with theory being the highest level to vote on followed by a ROTB or ROTJ followed by traditional framing and the offence that could be weighed underneath. This typically meant that theory trumped K's which trumped DA's which trumped Stock. As a whole I will probably evaluate the round in a similar manner UNLESS you or your opponent make a convincing argument for why I should otherwise. K's and traditional frameworks (especially the standard) can go head to head super strategically so if you want me to evaluate them on the same level make a case for it and I will probably agree. I also am not sold on the fact that theory has to be the highest. Re-order the round by telling me what is most important based on previous and upcoming arguments and I will do my best to evaluate the round like that.
Example: I ran a specific K in high school that when up against theory could implicate the theory itself thus making the K the highest level in the round. That same K literature I had restructured as traditional framework. As a result, in some rounds I could argue that my value and value criterion (standard) were a higher level than theory.
Make the argument if you think it is necessary. I will weigh the round based on what you and your opponent tell me is logically the highest.
I will evaluate any framework you present and have a fairly high threshold for both traditional and progressive frameworks as I did both often and successfully when I debated. As stated above I will weigh the framework however you present it to me.
You do not have to have framework to win but you do need to provide me some tangible way that you can gain offense. Really clearly explain why you have offense and why that gives you voters and you will be making a good step towards winning the round.
A really well thought out and written framework is a dangerous weapon that not many people understand. If you are running a framework I expect to see really clear reasons as to why that framework deserves our attention.
On value / value criterion (standards)
Your value and value criterion need to be linked together pretty strongly, if they are not you are loosing a lot of possible ground. Philosophy is one of my favorite areas of research (especially Kant and Mills) and I have read a lot of primary work for a lot of the authors commonly used for framing. Most of the time debtors use these author's work incredibly incorrectly. If you or your opponent can convince me that the philosophy of the other is misrepresented it will effect how I evaluate the round. Know your philosophy well, understand the philosopher's pitfalls and be ready to defend your case regardless. You do not have to use philosophy for your value and criterion, and it can be really strategic not to, make a case for whatever and If you are convincing I will evaluate it fully. If you do use philosophy consider making a few clear lines of reasoning to explain the application of the philosophy. In your constructive speech there should be authored justifications.
The value criterion is typically an action but it does not have to be. I will also evaluate a value criterion that explains how to approach a philosophy or a specific value. This is the area where I think practical philosophy really shines through.
As a whole, implicate your framework fully. Explain how your framework plays out in both the world of the aff and the neg and how that colors the round as a whole.
Just as I expect that traditional framework is well explained, I expect that you provide clear warrants for the ROTB and ROTJ. It is not enough to just say something is bad (or good), you have to tell me explicitly why what you advocate for is the sole way to win the round. Implicate this out if you want your framework to hold up against a competing framework. I will vote on traditional frameworks over the ROTB if it is not properly understood to be the only viable mechanism in the round. Explain how your framework plays out in both the world of the aff and the neg and how that colors the round as a whole and you will be much closer to convincing me that your ROTB / ROTJ is worthy.
Your ROTB / ROTJ does not necessarily need an author to justify it as long as it is clearly linked to your case and has some sort of warrant.
Plan texts and CP text:
A good plan and counter plan are really fun in the debate space and I am all for it. The more specific a plan text the better. If your plan or CP plan text is not specific enough it may create problems for me when I evaluate the round. Structure accordingly.
I loved to run K's as a debater and would love if you do too. I am most familiar with Biopower (I know Foucault extremely well and his work is much more powerful than most think. Pros of running Foucault in front of me: I know his theories very well so it takes less explaining for me to understand, I will see links fairly easy, I just think its super cool. Cons of running Foucault in front of me: I know his philosophy well and can you do not, I evaluate counters highly, I won't buy a not implicated case). I ran into a wide variety of cases and authors when I was in high school and can understand them fairly well.
I do not know the complexities of every author (even some of the more popular ones). It is your job as the competitor to explain the complex theories in a way that is both accurate and effective. I will vote off of how I perceive the round and not off of my preconceived ideas on the literature. I ran a lot of authors not well known and did fantastically with them, you can to. Don't be afraid of Kritical literature that is not mainstream in the debate world, if you believe the discourse matters it matters. Read it, and I will evaluate it.
In general I have a much higher threshold for topical K's (I loved running a topical K aff), but am okay with non-topical K's as well as long as you have strong linkage.
I really do not care if you link to your opponent and kritik them or if your links are to an idea in the case, as long as you have a link standing at the end of the round you should be good. More links at the beginning are strong but it just takes one to implicate the case. However, make sure your link is secure and specific enough to your opponent or whatever it is you are kritiking. K's that are general enough to be read every round are fine, but I will vote on non-uniqueness if there is not a substantial reason why the world of your opponent entrenches the implications.
Have many of them and weigh them well.
I will evaluate any alternative. Discourse alts are cool, more specific alts are cool, just make sure you actually know what they are and clearly communicate what they do.
Here is a list of K's I am most familiar with: Affro-pessimism, Ableism, Biopower, Cap, Feminism
These are broad categories of K's I either ran or studied a lot. However, I was familiar with many K's and read kritikal literature often so don't be afraid.
I have very little experience with performance, and may not evaluate it how you wish. In general, I prefer empirical evidence to back up claims so I would prefer performance only takes up part of the speaking time and is supported by evidence heavily. However, make an argument for how I should weigh performance and I will consider that in my evaluations.
I have a pretty high threshold for theory in that I understand how it works and will vote on it as a strategy. However I do get disillusioned with theories that are run by a competitor just to win the round. Frivolous theory takes away from the purpose of theory as an argument and although I will evaluate whatever you read to me, if a counter theory calls out your frivolous theory well, I may be moved to vote on it. Theory is an interesting strategy and has its place, I will vote according to how it was portrayed in round.
A note on disclosure:
Rarely have I found that lack of disclosure is more harmful than the way disclosure theory can be read in round. I will vote on disclosure theory if I am forced to by the way the round progresses. However, run disclosure theory at your own risk. If your opponent answers it well you could be in trouble. That said, I will evaluate disclosure theory like any other argument- it all depends on you and your opponent.
I do not look kindly upon creating a space that is unsafe for other people. Show incredible kindness to others in everything you do. I will not vote you down for being rude but your speaks will suffer. Be kind. If your opponent is not comfortable with speed adapt. If your case is possibly triggering, warn others. If you are a champion against a novice be patient and understanding. I value debate and debaters and care that we create a community that is safe and enriching.
A Final Note
I can not wait to see what you can do. If this paradigm has left you with doubts let me reassure you, I am the judge you can run your most loved but weirdly progressive case against and at the same time the judge who would love a deep phil heavy traditional round. Run whatever plays to your strengths!
Howdy I'm Jayme (or Jam :^)) & my pronouns are she/they
Blanco HS (TX) 2014-2019
Texas Tech University 2019-2020
I debated UIL Lincoln Douglas for 5 years before debating parliamentary (specifically NPDA) for Texas Tech.
> not huge on T, will vote on it if i HAVE to
> If you know you're fast, I'm too slow for you. Other than that, I'm decent at keeping up
> I get lost sometimes, I don't want to have to signpost for you, and if I do I'll be upset. make it super clear
> i DONT know your K, but i love to learn
I still don't know how to write these so here's an update as of 9/26:
> im much slower than i remember being, but if you send me the speech doc i'll be happy to follow
> pls read what you want, but if it's complicated simplify it for me.
> I still don't really like T, but if you read it PLEASE slow down for the shell lmao. it's hard for me to vote on standards I couldn't flow
> top speed isn't impressive if I can't understand you (fluency mostly)
I don't know how to write one of these if im being honest so here are some bullets that might help:
> im not a huge fan of T. I get it, I appreciate it when necessary, but overall its not my thing.
> I have only started learning Ks in the last year, but I have a decent handle on how they function.
> the way I did LD was Value/Criterion but I appreciate the way it has evolved to be single person policy
> parli is policy without cards so I know a thing or two about policy args
> I'm generally decent at speed but I have trouble keeping up online sometimes.
Competed in LD and WS at Plano East for four years mainly in TFA but also at some NatCircuit tournaments.
email@example.com put me on chains
These are all just preferences, TL;DR debate how you want to I might give the wrong rfd if I'm in the back of a tricks or phil round.
I should be able to make a decision looking only at your 2nr/2ar flows.
Be CIVIL and strategic and you will get high speaks -- online debate especially makes it difficult to differentiate between being funny and rude so please be respectful.
+.5 speaks for wearing war room drip.
Shouldn't have to explain much here. Just do good weighing explaining how the DA turns case or case turns DA.
CP Theory is cool.
Give me some pen time between flows -- 1-2 seconds is enough if I have sheets in order.
Nebel is a meme but sure.
I'm good for this. I tended to go for 1ar theory a lot when I debated and I tend to think it's a good thing but that doesn't mean you don't have to answer the hedge if the 1nc has one.
Theory is not just a tool for norm-setting and can be used strategically
Friv theory doesn't exist b/c it forces intervention -- if you win an abuse story it obviously isn't 'frivolous'
Hate it and love it. Almost every 1ar I gave had a few of these arguments in it and I understand why it's needed especially considering how skewed the 1ar is. If you plan on going for it, it should still have a warrant and impact (i.e: condo is a voting issue vs it splits the 1ar destroying engagement key to fairness.)
Policy AFF vs K:
1. AFFs should make arguments as to why they get to weigh the case.
2. Alt solvency needs to be explained in the 2nr unless you are going for the K as a disad to the 1ac. Explain very clearly why they don't get the perm.
3. Assume I don't know the K lit, this is most likely a safe assumption as I've never gone further than reading Harney, and a little bit of Wilderson. I probably will be able to understand debates over more common arguments like afropess, setcol, cap, Puar, etc. But you need to err towards over-explaining anything complicated. (edit: sorta hate pomo)
K AFF vs T-FW:
I've been on both sides of this debate, very rarely read big-stick extinction AFFs alternated between egregiously non-t affs and soft-left affs. However, I went for framework a lot and think it is correct on a truth level, often find myself voting for it because very few teams have a good defense against framework.
1. Explain why voting AFF is a good idea non-contextual to FW. Having a nuanced defense against presumption can also be leveraged against
2. Impact Turns don't need a CI but it's strategic to have a competing model of debate that sets some limit or new stasis point for debate that is able to resolve some (if not all) of the offense coming off of T.
1. Don't spend much time on individual standards (Limits, prep, clash, etc) because let's be honest most K teams will just impact turn.
2. Spend more on explaining the terminal impact of your model. You should approach the round as a question "Why does fairness matter in a world of the affirmative? How do more fair debates solve the AFF?"
3. I don't think the TVA is a CP but it can be good to frame the TVA as advocacy that solves all their offense with the net benefit of clash/testing/engagement/fairness, etc. Think of it as a CP+DA 2NR, makes the offense you have to win so much less when you win the TVA.
4. Turning framework into a state good/bad debate on the case and leveraging that state good offense on T is a very good strategy and will be rewarded with higher speaker points.
I read almost exclusively Util and a Kant NC once or twice every topic. I find Phil debate very fun and engaging but I hate how they have died. Kant in the 1nc too often ends up as condo logic or skep in the 2nr which makes me sad but I end up having to vote on it.
Having a strong defense for your framing mechanism is much more useful than extending 6-7 blips to their method, just use the blip storm as a time suck so that you can spend more time on your own flow.
Welp. I will vote for these but I am kinda awful at flowing through them.
This covers exclusively substance or LARP debates, anything else will be in the LD section of my paradigm. Here is a short version if you don't have much time to read through everything before the round: (all the LD paradigm applies here too)
ill evaluate anything and evaluate arguments however you tell me to in round. These are just my preferences/defaults as to what I believe is good for debate.
Defense has to be extended through speeches
2nd rebuttal needs to frontline everything you want to go for, this doesn't mean you can't kick out of arguments, you just need to
Weighing is never new
New offense past rebuttal is kinda sus.
I have done PF as a middle schooler and occasionally at some locals. I didn't go for the K much when I did LD and almost exclusively LARPed so I feel pretty comfortable judging this event. However, there are definitely a lot of 'procedurals' that PF messes up pretty badly and you need to be mindful of if I'm in the back:
a. Sticky arguments are stupid. You can not make arguments in the last two speeches that weren't extended the speech prior. There is no logical justification for this except that it forces you to extend a bunch of different conceded arguments in which case you can just extend one of them quickly and since it's conceded and explained it is true.
b. Second Rebuttal should frontline everything. Obviously you can concede defense to answer turns on arguments you aren't going for but if you want me to vote on an argument later on, you need to answer everything.
c. Link turns aren't offense w/o UQS. Obviously, this isn't the case for Linear DA's without uniqueness but just keep in mind that if you don't straight turn an argument then your opponents can just say UQS overwhelms the link (insert explanation) and kick the argument which makes your link turn a glorified piece of defense. If you are going for an impact turn this isn't a problem.
d. Weigh. PF'ers spend too much time weighing in the wrong ways. "my impact is bigger" and "My impact has a fast timeframe" isn't weighing. Weighing should be comparative, and not just at the impact level because from what I have seen most PF rounds will end up with the same impact level and no external impact like extinction. Internal link arguments (i.e: CC = crop shortage = ag industry collapses = recession) and x turns y arguments are much better allocations of your time and will be rewarded with high speaks. Remember you only need one good weighing argument, not seven bad ones.
I did LD in highschool and did serve as an assistant coach for a year and then have judged in person at various tournaments. I am very familiar with TP and LD but I have the ability to judge other debates.
Generally what I look for above all else is evidence. Show me substantively why I should vote for your side with examples, statistics and application. If you are trying to win based on procedure I will listen to your contention but it must be convincing.
My email address for the email chain is firstname.lastname@example.org
I prefer quality of arguments over quantity, however I will note if something is dropped. I am open to hearing anything, but I will vote on topicality if dropped or answered inadequately. I like to see good clash. I am also fine with speed as long as I can still understand you! Not a fan of Ks.
DEBATE: Competed in LD for the last three years of High School (graduated 2019). I am comfortable with whatever argumentation that you'd like. But if you speed, I prefer that you either slow down on taglines or add me to the email chain (email@example.com). Because it's LD, provide some sort of framework or adapt to your opponent's so I know what to vote on in order for you to be able to access your impacts. I generally tend to go with tech over truth, except in the case of racism, sexism, xenophobia, etc...
***Debate was such a fun time in my life when in high school, but I know how stressful it can be. That said, enjoy yourself and have fun. One way we can do that is to make sure that we are inclusive and accessible to all. I find that some debaters believe that cross-x is a time to "flex" and assert dominance/privilege. Condescending mansplaining, consistent interruptions of your opponent, or otherwise aggressive behavior will not be accepted, either resulting in a loss (at a maximum) or a decimation of speaks (at a minimum). Debate is cool, but it's not important enough to do anything that makes people feel unsafe/uncomfortable.***
SPEECH: I competed in poetry, prose, OO, and info off and on for four years of high school (again, graduated in 2019)
In interp events, I look for a compelling story line, well developed characterization, clear and concise teaser/intro, and ultimately dedication to the story telling
In platform and limited prep, I look for confidence, time allocation, speech structure, and enjoy humour in the right context.
Ultimately, speech events are all about what you make of them and I am just here to watch you use your platform to discuss subjects that are important to you!
Last updated 9/8/21 for UK PF
Note for PF: I am almost exclusively an LD judge - do what you want and I'll evaluate it as I will evaluate any other debate.
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Lindale '21 U of Houston '25
Conflicts: Roberto Sosa, Leah Yeshitila, Anastasia Keeler, Ben Freda-Eskanazi, Adeeb Khan, Armaan Christ and Andrew Tsang
I coach Armaan Christ privately and coach Andrew Tsang through DebateUS!
Somewhere in the middle of Megan Wu and Patrick Fox or The Walmart brand of Andrew Overing
Tech > Truth to the fullest extent ethically possible
Phil - 1
Theory (Friv and Not-Friv) - 1
Policy - 1
Tricks - 3
K - 2
Quick Pref Guide: My judging philosophy is that the debaters control the debate so I will intervene the least. All preferences are preferences and not hard boundaries. Stolen from Patrick Fox who stole it from YaoYao - "I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. You work hard to debate, and I promise I will work hard to judge you and give a decision that respects the worth of that."
History: I debated at Lindale for 4 years doing LD the entire time. I did traditional debate for a year and a half my freshmen year and the first semester of sophomore year. I was introduced to circuit debate my junior year and read some anti-cap lit all junior year. Senior year though I read mostly phil and theory with the occasional DA 2NR or policy aff.
Senior year aff wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Aff
Senior year neg wiki - https://hsld20.debatecoaches.org/Lindale/Pittman%20Neg
- Favorite type of debate
- Probably comfortable with whatever author you read
- Syllogism > Spammed independent reasons to prefer
- Dense framework debates should have good weighing and overviews
- General Principle means nothing - just answer the counterplans lol
- default epistemic confidence
- Moderately comfortable with
- Taught with enough K coaches and helped enough K debaters to feel comfortable with K debate even though I didn't personally do it (I teach with Holden Bukowsky a lot and I was coached by Patrick Fox for 2 years)
- Not susceptible to K tricks
- Love K affs since clash debates are fun and nice to judge
- Just don't be cringe (no edgy for the sake of being edgy)
- Alternatives should probably do something (eMbRaCe tHe DeAtH dRiVe means nothing) do material actions like joining the Communist Party or burning down the state
- Second favorite type of debate
- Weighing is how you get my ballot (sometimes my ballot is literally x weighed, y didn't so x wins).
- Will evaluate your wacky impact turns
- Probably not great for Spark though (don't really understand it)
- Please do more case debate (I love case debate)
- Perms are tests of competition not advocacies
- Uncondo means, unless going for theory or a higher layer, the advocacy must be in the 2NR
- I will judge kick if instructed but I really don't want too since I think that forces the aff to debate both the world of the CP and the squo
- pretty comfortable with
- Basically Hacks for Disclosure
- Don't think voters are needed (every standard can be impacted out independently and probably connects to both fairness and education)
- I think RVIs are great, underutilized and important for debate.
- Will vote on friv theory but it should be related to the round i.e I like AFC but I don't like "must wear x clothing"
- Default on drop the debater, competing interps, yes rvis
- Love Nebel but probably not a true argument
T-Framework v K Affs
- Not Dan Ban also don't think framework is genocide
- Err neg unless the aff is black, if the aff is black I probably err aff because of Debate's history with Blackness
- Not at all susceptible to debate bad affs as I think it's intuitive that debate is good
- 1AR probably needs a counter interp
- TVAs are overrated and usually don't solve the 1AR offense
- the 1AR should still do LBL and the 2NR should not be 3 minutes of an overview that can be summarized in "I think clash is cool"
- I read tricks every once in a while and understand the strategic value in them but if your opponent missed something I probably did too.
- I'll evaluate it.
- If you don't have too, please don't.
Default is 28.5
Being annoying with the word 'oopsie' -.1 speak per time you said oopsie
Showing me your wiki with good disclosure will award +.1 speaks
Beginning CX with 'Riddle Me This' +.1 speaks
Sending a cute pet pic in doc +.1 speaks
Just have a good time - at the end of the day, you are all high schoolers yelling at each other about random topics whether it be Kantianism or International Relations in random classrooms or zoom calls this isn't as serious as you think it is, just have a good debate and everything will be fine :) Also non-CX clarifications are fine - I'm not someone who will yell at you and say "grr questions only cx!!!1111!!" I do not care
I have been coaching all debate events for the past 6 years.
I'm a stock issues judge. I prefer traditional formatting and style of debate. I love to see a lot of framework debate in LD. I do understand at TFA tournaments a more progressive style is the norm. I will judge progressive rounds fairly and will not vote against someone because they are more progressive. I just prefer traditional.
I'm not a fan of spreading. I have found that in a virtual format it is next to impossible to understand you when you are spreading. I don't mind if you are speaking fast and clearly.
Respect and professionalism are important to me. There is no reason to be disrespectful to your opponent. Professional language is important for you to be credible in a round. I don't like to hear ums, uhs, likes in rounds. This is a speaking event as well as a debate event and I want to hear excellent speaking.
I am a stock issues judge but I will happily listen to counterplans. I do not like new arguments in the neg block, as it is unfair to the affirmative team. I will not listen or flow K-Affs, it gives the neg every disadvantage since they are just supposed to prep for the resolution. I will not normally listen to Ks (I will not flow Ks in UIL tournaments). I will listen to topicalities as long as they're warranted. If a team drops an argument, put it on the top of your order of arguments. I do not time road maps, but do not take advantage of that. This is a speaking event, so I expect to be able to understand you. If we are doing an online tournament, please do not spread. I am alright with speaking fast; however, if I cannot hear or understand your arguments, I cannot flow them. Give me Impact/Calc during your rebuttals. I will listen to warranted theories. I usually do not tolerate neg multi-world if the arguments conflict too much, but if the arguments still link to the affs plan I am more lenient. If you decide to do neg multi-world, kick the arguments that contradict each other by the rebuttals.
This resolution is about criminal justice reform, I expect to hear plans about criminal justice reform. I will dock speaker points and will not flow any derogative, racist, xenophobic, or homophobic arguments/statements. Use proper decorum when you debate.
ask me if you have any specific questions!
LD: This topic is fairly new to me; however, I do not like spreading for LD. This is a speaking event, so I would like your case to be spoken clearly. I am a classic LD judge so i dont really like CPs or Ks in LD. Ask me if you have any other questions!
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 arguments. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.
In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to speak slower on tag lines. Remember, If I am part of the email chain then that makes speed much less of a factor in my decision.
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 kritics and how they impact the debate.
Counter plans & disadvantages great.
I am open to any and all arguments as long as you know how to run them. I hate spreading. Talking fast is one thing but if I can't understand you then I won't flow it. If I don't flow it then I won't vote on it. Debate at the core is a communication event and I need you to communicate your arguments to me. I will vote on virtually anything so I want you to tell me what you want me to vote on. VOTERS ARE KEY.
Public Forum Debate Philosophy
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.
Hi, first I want to say thank you for allowing me the pleasure of watching your round/s and I hope what critiques I give you help you in future rounds. A little background on me first. I did debate in high school and debated in college for Texas Tech University. I think that debate is always flowing and always changing so that leaves me open to any type of arguments. I am good at a understanding the straight up policy debate and I can understand the theoretical/philosophical debate. With that being said I do not understand every theoretical/philosophical argument so I do ask like in any debate to explain the argument and tell me why you should win. I am also not going to tell you what arguments you should run and which ones you should not. I would say almost every argument has some sort of utility and you should deploy that as you see fit. Debate is all about deploying the best strategy and educating your peers but that does not mean you should not try to win. If you need to kick an argument then kick it. I am not going to penalize you for it. Also I am also okay with not debating the topic as well. If you think there is a more pressing issue that we should be talking about rather than the topic then go for it. I am not going to vote you down for that. I think that debate facilitates a space where we can have these types of discussions and it would be wrong of me to silence your voice when debate is suppose to teach you to have a voice and why YOUR voice is important. So if we want to talk about race, feminism, heteronormativity, queer theory then go for it. I will not stop you from having the debate that you want to have. Remember have fun and be heard because your voice has meaning.
Hi! Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I did basically all events in high school and am comfortable and experienced judging everything but congress. In college I debated parli for 4 years at Texas Tech University and was very nationally competitive by the end of my career. I have been coaching for 6 years now and judging for 10.
Extemp: My main thing is to answer the question. If you have a topic, your speech shouldn't be about anything else. If it asks you a yes or no question, your argument should answer that. Sources are critical.
Here are specifics for debate:
What I vote on-
I default Netben unless told otherwise. Impacts and solvency are the best things to convince me to give you my ballot. Be civil or be tanked on speaks.
I don't mind hearing policy style or critical arguments, but you still need to engage with opponents that use Value and Criterion. You can't just format your opponents out of the round.
I'm good with everything. Don't name/card drop at me assuming I have heard the card you are talking about. (Cause I probably don't remember it lol)
I'm ok with it as long as your opponent is ok with it. I refuse to let someone just spread a newer and/or traditional debater out and not allow them to engage in the debate. I will tell you to slow down if I need you to. Particularly so on online tournaments, speed needs to be accessible.
Don't name drop and assume I know what your talking about. I expect links and impacts just like any other argument.
Need to prove abuse, don't just say it is unfair.
Absolutely my favorite thing to listen to in debate.
I'll follow whatever kind of case strategy being run based on the established framework.
Claims should have warrants, I put a lot of weight in evidence (either hard or philosophical) to support well developed arguments. There needs to be a clear link in value/value crit and evidence should be topical. I lean slightly pragmatic.
Quality of arguments are valued over quantity, but there should be sufficient evidence regardless of which strategy.
Opponents should always remain respectful to each other.
My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link.
PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the biggest impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments.
Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please time yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.
As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve after the round or for advice.
If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.
Byron Nelson High School (2018-Present)
Royse City High School (2013-2018)
Online Stuff [Please record your speech if you can in case of tech issues. You absolutely should be sending your case over additionally because of mic issues that can happen.]
More truth over tech. If you're real big on theory, I'm not your judge because I'm definitely gonna goof up that flow.
I like disclosure, don't like disclosure theory.
Default offense/defense if I don't have a framework to work with. Winning framing doesn't mean you win the round.
Whatever you AND your opponent are okay with! Speed shouldn't be a barrier to debate. Slow up for Taglines/Cites, give me a filler word ("and," "next," etc.) to let me know when you're moving to the next piece on the flow and be sure to give me some pen time on Theory/Topicality shells.
Don't be sketchy, rude, or hostile to judges.
Starts at 27 and goes up based on strategy, delivery style, and round conduct. Sub 27 means you did something really gross
-Debate what you want to debate, I would rather try to meet you on your side of what debate is rather than enforce norms on you.
-I will NOT shout clear at you, but I'm pretty nonverbal so if I'm not with you, you'll see it.
-Open CX and Flex prep are cool with me, but check with your opponent before starting the round.
-I'm pretty non-verbal as I'm flowing and listening, so for better or worse that's gonna be there.
-Just be chill. Debate the way that is most comfortable for you...hopefully that isn't a really yelly and rude style because I'd prefer you not. Respect each other, do your thing, and we'll all have a good time!
-A roadmap is just telling me what order to put my flowsheets in
-Be kind to novices, be the support you wish you had during the round. Bonus points for treating newbies nice.
-Extending specific warrants WITH your cards is good, so is doing evidence comparison and impacting out drops
-The less work you do on telling me how to evaluate the round, the riskier it gets for your ballot
-The phrase "Cold Conceded" STILL makes me want to puke
FLASH YOUR EVIDENCE OVER TO YOUR OPPONENTS SO WE DO NOT WASTE ROUND TIME FOR YOU TO FIND IT. If you aren't okay with sharing the case you better have your evidence ready to send or I'm docking speaks heavily.
Summary Speech should start collapsing on what you're wanting to focus on in the round
Final Focus should be comfortable with collapsing down on a couple arguments rather than carrying the whole flow
Extend what you want to carry to the end of the round
[Entry current as of the 1/12/21 after my debaters bullied me into making it shorter :(, stay humble]
TFA State Congress Stuff (20-21 season)
I'm just going to answer the posed questions:
Thoughts on rate of deliver/number of arguments addressed?
-Definitely more extemporaneous of a delivery, it doesn't have to be a full out DA/Adv kind of thing with speed and argumentation. Just elaborate on your main points and use those sources effectively.
Thoughts on use of evidence/how much to cite/is it necessary
-Your arguments should have sources, especially if you are going to impact out to some big stick claims, you are gonna want a source to back that up. Sources are necessary when your analytics require more than you just wanting to believe your claim is true. Use evidence is the point i'm getting to here.
Thoughts on use of clash/necessity of bringing up new arguments to keep debate moving
-Whoo buddy, I don't want ten speeches of the aff/neg repeating itself. I know you prepped a speech but be aware of where we are on the floor debate, its much more useful for you to clash or crystallize after the first two or three speeches. This is a huge thing in congress and it needs to progress to more clash and less prepared speeches over and over
What can/should PO's do to earn high ranks?
A good PO just keeps the chamber running efficiently. I don't need to hear yelling about prefacing, make it less about you showing me you run the chamber and more about you actually doing it. I think in a virtual world this is even harder, so if you can make it happen without a lot of downtime, and precedence is on point, then you're gonna rank pretty well.
I am a high school debate coach. I have been judging debate for ten years, and am experienced in judging both Lincoln-Douglas and Policy Debate.
The distinction between the approaches to Lincoln-Douglas debate and Policy debate is important to me. Spreading, voluminous evidence, and complexity as competitive tactics make sense to me in Policy debate and are inherent to the nature and style of the activity. In contrast to that, Lincoln Douglas in both style and content should in my opinion emphasis values driven debate, logic, and articulate delivery that emphasizes eloquence and effective speaking. I do not think that spreading makes sense in Lincoln Douglas - it is not consonant with the nature of the activity in my opinion.
I am a tabula rasa judge in the sense that I do not enter a round with a predisposition to emphasize one side's burdens over another's. I flow the constructive arguments and rebuttal looking for which side most effectively addresses the resolution, creates the most coherent and relevant case, and effectively clashes most thoroughly and effectively with the elements of the case presented by their opponent. Speaking and poise help to convey the logic and clash that are the substance of debate, but it is the rhetoric itself that matters most to me.
I am a parent judge from Westwood High School. I used to be a litigator. Here is what I would be comfortably focused on:
1. Be organized with your key points, clear and crisp, from the very beginning;
2. Be respectful to your opponents, and challenge each other To The Point;
3. Prioritize your arguments and evidence;
4. Persuade me with your prioritization.
Medium speed is good for me.