Ad Astra October Opener
2020 — Online, KS/US
Policy Debate Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Lansing High School '21
Debating at the University of Kansas '25
please at me to the email chain: email@example.com
- tech over truth but arguments must be warranted
- Read whatever aff/neg strategy that you are the most comfortable with and I will do my best to adapt and be unbiased
- I haven't done much research on the water topic so explaining acronyms will be helpful
- Judge instruction is important and often underutilized
- I went for t a lot my senior year and I think it is a good strategy that more teams should go for
- I default to competing interpretations
- Explain what your model means for the topic, case lists can be helpful for this
- I am not familiar with a lot of K affs so you should overexplain the mechanism and what/how the aff solves.
- framework - I think that fairness and clash can both be both impacts (but that's also up to the debaters to prove). Don't just read generic framework blocks - try to contextualize them to the aff. Specific evidence can be helpful for a TVA but isn't absolutely necessary
- probably not the best for k v k debates
- make turns case args and impact calc is helpful
- process counterplans are okay, but I probably err aff on theory
- delay counterplans are cheating
- textual and functional is always good
- err neg on condo but can be convinced otherwise
- all theory args except for condo I default to reject the arg not the team
- I will only judge kick if the neg makes the argument and the aff doesn't contest it, best to start this debate before the 2nr/2ar
- I am not very well read, so try to explain in simple language rather than buzzwords
- answer arguments on the line by line instead of in a long overview
- specific links are better than generic ones
- clearly explain the link, impact, and alt
- aff gets to weigh their impacts
- neg should utilize case debates more - could definitely win on presumption
Currently a four year debater at Lansing
-I'm fine with speed as long as the tag lines are clear
- T is cool as long as you're running it because the other team is clearly untopical.
-I think case is really important in debate
-I understand majority of args so :D !!
-impacts are cool, gives me a reason to vote for you
-don't be rude. It really bothers me when people are informal/ breaking the rules
Yes email chain: Averyadover@gmail.com
I have debated 2 years a Eisenhower High school
and 2 years at Maize High
And am now debating for the University of Mary Washington.
The Debate stuff
I will vote for anything you want to read, if you are technically winning it on the flow. I have read a lot of weird arguments throughout my career, meaning that I am totally down to listen to whatever you want as long as it is not harming people in round.
PROVIDE A CONTENT WARNING: When in doubt if, I am in the back of the room provide a content warning. If you go in depth on a soft left advantage and the people in the round including me are not prepared I am more likely to stop listening and dock your speaker points
Cross Ex: Im not strict do whatever you want as long as you are the "Asking team"
Ill go into specifics now
Topicality: I default to competing interpretations, but like everything else, you can persuade me otherwise. If you are going for T I need analysis on why this is important for my ballot. All to often I see debaters undercover or dont provide enough offense of topicality.
Kritiks: I will listen to them but do not expect me to know the nuances of how your K works, you are going to have to explain that to me. K Affs need to tell me what my position in the debate round is along which how I resolve the problems they speak of.
Theory: More likely than not I wont vote for stand alone theory arguments, I think debaters should frame theory as a threshold or mitigation question.
FW: I lean towards resolutional action being good but I can be convinced otherwise.
I will vote on presumption
I love a good case debate.
My favorite arguments in debate are case arguments and impact turns, and I have empirically been known to go for them. If the aff can clearly articulate how their aff interacts with the off case, it can mitigate the offense on the off case.
Impact Calc: This is incredibly important
You can't just tell me you are winning the debate, tell me why you are winning specific arguments and what it means to the debate if you win them.
If you have any other questions feel free to email me or ask me before the round.
Policy Debate experience: Novice, JV, Varsity, for 2 years now start of my 3rd year,
Truth over Tech
Can't win on just defense for example: neg can't win on just solvency
Slow Spreading (I know that's a contradiction) is fine as I cant follow your 82 page K but I'm not a parent judge. If too fast or not clear speaking, I"ll say "clear".
If you throw out T in the begging of every 1NC in case they don't answer it, and they do answer just kick it otherwise you are wasting your time unless they are legitimately not topical.
Don't like K affs, but neg can have a K
I am a third year debater.
I like to hear clear tags, authors and dates. Signposting is huge for me.
Don't drop args.
Keep Topicality short.
Please add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I've competed at multiple TOC tournaments and know this topic fairly well.
Speed is cool with me, but i have to be able to understand you. Don't go so fast that you sacrifice clarity.
Being racist, sexist, and whatnot to anyone in the round will result in a loss for that team.
Haven't gone for many K's, so if you want to go for it, then you have to explain what your K does and tell me why it outweighs the aff.
Please don't read like 9-10 off, it's not as good as you think I promise
Love impact calc
This is your debate round, read what you think is the best. Just have fun, I'm open to new ideas and will vote on them.
Speaker points - Clarity will get you the most speaker points. Consistent roadmaps and judge instructions will also award you with more speaker points.
DA - Go for them. Love these, but make sure you have a clear story of what exactly happens when the aff passes.
CP - Love them as well. But just keep in mind that I think anything more than 3 condos is pushing it.
T - Love them. Go for it if you think you're winning on this flow. I will vote on it if you can explain how the aff violates it and why that's bad.
K - Like I said above, I'm not well versed in K lit, other than Cap and Abolish K. But if you want to read a new K, go for it, but you have to explain what your alt does and why that outweighs the aff. That really goes for any of the K's you read, you have to explain them well.
Theory - I'll vote on them, but I'm not a huge fan. If there is truly an absurd amount of abuse (like 8 condo or something) I'll probably sympathize with the aff.
I am a senior with three years of experience with policy debate. I primarily debated in open and PFD, but I do have varsity experience. I will understand your argument if well put together and is presented clearly. Run any arguments you want, but they must pertain the round and you must have proper reasoning for running the argument. Feel free to speak at whatever speed, just make sure that you are clear with your words and arguments. I will not try to figure out who won, it is your job as debaters to present why you won and why I should vote for you unless you are in a circumstance where the other team dropped everything, then in that case I know who has won the round. Frankly, just have fun with the round and be respectful towards your opponents, partners, and your judge. I do not tolerate unnecessary rude behavior, it’s a huge ethos kill. Don’t be a jerk.
If you have questions email me at email@example.com
Hi! I'm Reeya (she/her) and I'm a fourth-year debater at East. Make sure to focus on clash in round, and be as clear and logical as possible when speaking! Email me with any questions you have about ballots: firstname.lastname@example.org. Thanks and good luck! :)
Hai, my name is Zainab and I'm a fourth-year debater at East. I'm okay with some speed if you're going too fast I'll clear you. Focus on making ur arguments solid and being able to explain the point you are trying to make. Be good to those around you and have fun:) if you have any questions let me know! [quality of args over quantity]
maize '21, ku '25 (not debating)
i competed in policy for 4 years and almost solely ran policy argumentsfor online debate, especially
- make sure everyone is present and ready before you begin your speech
- weigh going top speed vs clarity and me getting your arguments on my flow since online
- give road maps -- stay organized during your speech by numbering your arguments and doing line-by-line
conditionality good----x---------------------------conditionality bad
i don't have many predispositions about particular arguments -- my preference for policy arguments over kritikal ones is not out of distaste but out of ignorance so if you want to run them, i will listen but don't assume i'll know what you're talking about -- i primarily ran counterplans and disads so i know those best
i have not competed in or judged ld before so i can't really offer specifics to how i will judge it but please ask questions if you have any -- i won't vote on tricks
I am a Senior at Hutchinson High School who has competed in Open as well as DCI levels. Overall I promise to keep an open mind to any arguments.
How I determine who wins:
Clash is very important.
Tell me why you have won the round with a good impact analysis. Don’t, however, just come up and say “we outweigh” tell me why! I want to see you weigh your impacts with your opponents and explain why that means you win.
As a general rule, I frown upon the use of sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist/homophobic/etc. language.
Speed is fine but I prefer a more moderate pace. If you do want to speed then you could help me out by flashing/emailing the evidence
I flow so I expect you to as well. Don’t come up to give a speech and expect to answer everything if you don’t flow. If I have a difficult time flowing because you don’t signpost or are unclear that is YOUR fault.
If I do not understand you, then I will probably give you a “wth” face
- Overviews can be a great resource for you.
Truth vs Tech:
I lean tech as I appreciate a good line by line, but don’t read 10 cards on cap bad and expect me to vote for you because you read more. I will vote for big impacts as long as you can explain a good impact story
I am not well versed in the world of theory so read it at your own risk but make sure to explain it. By explain, I mean treat me like an elementary school student. If you are unable to do so then you shouldn’t be running theory in the first place.
In general, I default policymaker, but I can be swayed to view the round in any way. Tell me why it is important to frame the round in a specific light.
Run them if you want, just make sure they are mutually exclusive.
I believe perms are a test of mutually exclusivity. You can advocate the perm, as I have seen it work before.
I’m not as well versed in Kritiks so you need to explain them. This also means that you need to understand them. Don’t just go up and rattle off a bunch of buzzwords and jargon because I will get lost. This does not mean that I will not vote on a K just that there needs to be extra work done to win my ballot.
Love them. Make sure there is a well-analyzed link story and the impacts make sense
I don’t end up voting on T a lot as I lean affirmative. If there is a blatantly vague or untopical case then run it.
To me, Topicality is more of a strategic choice.
T usually boils down to competing interpretations so tell me why your interpretation is better.
Lansing High School 21'
Debating at the University of Kansas 25'
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Do your thing. I'll resolve the debate with as little intervention as possible, that's not to say I don't have preferences or am free of bias (no one really is). But I'd rather you read something you enjoy/feel comfortable reading than something you dislike reading. As always I'll do my best to adapt to what arguments you read
tech>truth - make sure you warrant your arguments out
I've yet to do much research on the water topic, so please explain acronyms
If anything on my paradigm isn't clear or your have questions - feel free to ask me before round or shoot me an email
You're good to read one in front of me. I'm best at adjudicating debates with policy affs, but I'll definitely vote on a planless aff- just make sure you're explaining the literature/process that your aff takes
Being in the direction of the topic is pretty important
Framework - 2nc/2nr's should interact with the aff at some level, ie. don't just read generic uncontextualized t-usfg blocks. Give a detailed explanation as to why their specific model/aff is worse for debate, I'd be hard pressed to be convinced that any and all planless affs are bad for debate. Fairness and education can both be impacts (unless argued otherwise), but personally think fairness is argued best as an i/l to education
Going for presumption is an underrated strategy
I default to competing interpretations
Reasonability is a framing argument for how I should view the competing interpretation debate - it doesn't mean that you should win because you are "reasonability topical", don't make that argument
TVA's are good to help explain impacts and help contextualize what offense you lose under the aff's model
Slow down a little bit on analytics
Da/cp debates are usually pretty fun and probably my favorite to watch
Specific links>topic links
Default condo is good, but can be convinced otherwise
Process cp's are fine, but I do eer aff on theory
Judge kick is fine, but the neg has to make the argument for me to judge kick
Condo is the only theory argument that is a reason to reject the team
Textual and functional competition is important for a competitive counterplan
2a's: please utilize going for theory, negative teams can be pretty abusive when it comes to fiat - even if you don't end up going for it, having it in your arsenal is good practice and might save you from losing to a random process cp one day
Assume I don't know your lit, make sure you are explaining your ev and contextualizing it to the topic/aff
Better judge for: cap, security, identity K's. Not great for: postmodern K's
Aff gets to weight their impacts
Line by line>long overviews
Judge instruction is important and will be rewarded
Be kind to everyone in the round - that goes for yourself too! Debate is a fun and educational outlet for people - don't make me intervene because you've made someone else feel uncomfortable/unsafe in the debate space. If you are racist/sexist/homophobic - I won't hesitate to report the incident, doc speaks, etc.
I’m a 3rd year debater from Lansing I’m really familiar with this years topic I can flow fast and lay debate and understand complex arguments
K-if you run them I can understand stand them but make sure to explain why this is a more important topic in today debate
DA-make sure the impact is much greater than what the aff is solving make sure it links as well
CP- there needs to be a net benefit to the cp and also have substantial solvency
T- it is a voting issues for sure just make sure you have voters ground limits etc
I have been coaching debate since 2009, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.
First: Debate is a game we play with our friends. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to belittle your opponent, mock them, laugh at them during their speeches, etc. This can cost you speaks, ranks, and in really egregious cases, the round. Obviously any racist, sexist, transphobic, or other hate speech will not be tolerated.
Framework: I am most comfortable judging the round as a policy maker; that's default. But I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I WANT you to tell me how to evaluate the round. The team that does the best job filling out my ballot for me and telling me where to vote is probably going to win.
I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.
Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I don't want to read your evidence if it can possibly be avoided. I want you to read it to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. (2020 edit - I will ask for your speech docs, because sometimes audio cuts out)
Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to a something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.
Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow (otherwise they are usually terrible). I have opinions about theory, but I will vote for the team that wins the theory flow, on really any theory argument. That's the game.
Any other questions, ask away.
I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.
I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.
Any other questions, ask away.
I'm definitely a policy maker at heart, but if you don't give me great impact calc. I will resort to stock issues.
I am not the biggest fan of counter plans but I recognize that some resolutions lend themselves to them and they are justified and in those cases. I actually enjoy judging them in these situations. Don't run one if you don't know how to do it well though...that will just frustrate me.
I like specific DA's but again, I'll vote on a generic one if they aren't argued well.
I think T is a priori and will vote on it first--even if it's crappy. Answer it.
K's aren't my favorite either--mostly because they aren't run well. However, if you know how to run it and the opposing team can keep up, making it a genuinely good debate, go for it. I'm all about listening to good arguments. Just don't run them if it's a tactic to trip up the other team. That won't fly and it will only be a waste of your time and mine.
Speed doesn't bother me. I can keep up. But spreading as a tactic to avoid clash, and genuine persuasive debate, won't get you far with me.
So, basically, give me clash. Give me a solidly good debate where you are all trying to communicate well. That's what I want to see. I was a 3 year high school debater, and a 1 year college debater. I've been a coach for 12 years. (I took a break to raise my daughter). I know what I'm doing. If I give you a verbal critique at the end of the round, listen. I don't give them often and when I do it's because something is in earnest need of being addressed.
I don't put up with rudeness. Period. I will give you the loss on a 7 if you are awful to an opponent or your partner.
That's it. Good luck!
Background: I am currently the Director of Debate at Illinois State University. I have been involved in debate since 2001. I was awarded the 2020-2021 Fulbright Award to coach debate in Taiwan.
DISCLOSURE THEORY IS LAZY DEBATE AND I WILL GIVE YOU NO HIGHER THAN 15 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU RUN THIS POSITION (this means at best you will get a low point win). I will also NOT evaluate it OR flow it. If you run this I will take a selfie and mock you on social media for being a lazy debater.
I believe that the debate is yours to be had, but there are a few things that you should know:
1. Blippy, warrantless debates are mind numbing. If you do not have a warrant to a claim, then you do not have an argument even if they drop it. This usually occurs at the top of the AC/NC when you are trying to be "clever." Less "clever," more intelligent. I do not evaluate claims unless there are no real arguments in a round. Remember that a full argument consists of a claim supported by warrants with evidence.
2. I CANNOT flow speed due to an issue with my dominant hand. I will give you two verbal "clears" OR "speed" if you are going too fast or I cannot understand you. After that I quit flowing and if I do not flow it I do not evaluate it. Additionally, I do believe that the speed at which you go should be accessible to everyone in the round, this means your competitor, other judges on a panel, AND audience members. I am open to voting on accessibility and/or clarity kritiks. SPEED SHOULD NOT BE A TOOL OF EXCLUSION!!!!!!
3. I often vote for the one argument I can find that actually has an impact. I do not evaluate moral obligations in the round (if you say "Moral Obligation" in college LD Debate I stop flowing, take a selfie, and mock you on social media). This does not mean I will not vote for dehumanization is bad, but I need a warrant outside of just telling me I am morally obligated to do something. Moral obligations are lazy debate, warrant out your arguments. HIGH SCHOOL LD DEBATERS- IGNORE THIS, I will vote for moral obligations if they are explained and well warranted.
4. Run whatever strategy you want--I will do my best to evaluate whatever you give me in whatever frame I'm told to by the debaters--if you don't give me the tools I default to policy maker/net benefits, if it's clearly not a policy maker paradigm round for some reason I'll make something up to vote on...basically, your safest bet is to tell me where to vote and why to vote.
5. If you are rude, I will not hesitate to tank your speaker points. There is a difference between confidence, snarkiness, and rudeness.
6. When running a kritik you need to ensure that you have framework, impacts, links, an alternative text, alt solvency, and role of the ballot (lacking any of these will make it hard for me to vote for you)...I also think you should explain what the post alt world looks like. I'm very easily persuaded by arguments about the post-alt world not being possible if the debater running the K does not explain the post-alt world to me.
7. If you are going to run a CP and a kritik you need to tell me which comes first and where to look. You may not like how I end up ordering things, so the best option is to tell me how to order the flow.
8. Impact calc is a MUST. This is the best way to ensure that I'm evaluating what you find to be the most important in the round.
9. Number or letter your arguments. The word "Next" or "And" is not a number or a letter. Doing this will make my flow neater and easier to follow and easier for you to sign post and extend in later speeches. It also makes it easier for me to make a decision in the end.
10. I base my decision on the flow as much as possible. I will not bring in my personal beliefs or feelings toward an argument as long as there is something clear to vote on. If I have to make my own decision due to the debaters not being clear about where to vote on the flow or how arguments interact, I will be forced to bring my own opinion in and make a subjective decision rather than an objective decision. I do reserve the right to intervene when any -ist argument is made or advocated for.
11. If you advocate for a double win I automatically vote for the other person, issue you 1 speaker point, and leave the room. This is a debate, not a conversation. We are here to compete, so don't try to do something else.
12. Wilderson has stated that he does not want his writings used in debate by white individuals. He believes that the use of his writings is contradictory to what he overall stands for because he feels like you are using his arguments and black individuals as a tool to win (functionally monetizing black individuals). So for the love of all that is good please stop running these cards and respect the author's wishes. If you are white and you run his evidence I will not evaluate it out of respect for the author.
13. I will allow you ONE counterplan or ONE kritik in a round. I do not believe that multiple counterplans in NFA-LD are educational or beneficial based on the time allotments we have. If you run more than one I will only flow and evaluate the one you read FIRST.
14. I will give you auto 30 speaker points if you read your 1AC/1NC out of a black book with page turns. (this is still offered for digital debates)
Really, I'm open to anything. Debate, have fun, and be engaging. Ask me any questions you may have before the start of the round so that we can all be on the same page :) I also believe this activity should be a learning experience for everyone, so if after a round you have any questions please feel free to approach me and talk to me! I truly mean this because I love talking about debate and the more each debater gains from a round will provide for better rounds in the future for me to judge. If you ever have questions about a comment or RFD please ask. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
I've been an assistant coach at Campus HS for 4 years, and I was an assistant in Valley Center for 3 years. I also debated in high school. Clarity of arguments is most important to me. Debaters should be understandable, and they can speak at a rapid pace. However, extreme speed--like that of an auctioneer--is unnecessary. It is better to have quality arguments that read a ton of evidence. I like for debaters to explain how the evidence supports that argument he/she makes. Merely reading a ton of evidence with no analytical link to voter issues is not productive debating. Keep it civil as well.
If I stop flowing and cross my arms, that means you have lost me. Either you are confusing or you are reading so quickly I can't understand the words coming out of your mouth. This is your visual cue to adjust your speaking style to make yourself more understandable.
Above all, I vote on the logic and clarity of the arguments.
I am a pretty traditional LD judge. I want a focus on the moral obligations and the value/criterion framing. Make sure that your framing connects to the contention level. Any questions, feel free to ask.
Warrants: Whichever arguments are being read, whether evidence-based or analytical, the ability to clearly explain your warrants instead of just asserting stuff is what gets you ahead on my ballot and in speaker points. This should be obvious, but it doesn't always play out that way.
Aff burden: Defend the resolution. My bias is towards a policy plan, but if you can provide a clear and compelling framework for another way to support the resolution, you can certainly do so. If you do want to get creative, however, you will have to do work explaining your framing and why/how I should evaluate the round.
DA's & CP's: Core negative positions. Case specific links are preferable, but I'll vote on generic links if the neg explains how it applies to the aff and the aff doesn't give a good reason why the link is either untrue across the board, or there is something unique about their position that disproves the link.
It's going to take some work to show me that conditionality is abusive, but I'm willing to listen to the argument. As is true across the board, abuse claims are strongest if they are specific to what happened within the round in question.
T: I'll vote on T, but it's not my preference to do so. I try to strike a balance between competing interpretations and reasonability (i.e. it is good to explore multiple definitions and why some may be better than others, but if in the absence of the debate clearly demonstrating that one definition is preferable and the aff meets their own interp, I'm going to lean aff on T).
K: Don't trust that I will automatically know your literature. In addition, just because a literature base exist to claim something, I will need clear analysis from the neg as to why I should buy that literature base. Framework is generally going to be important for me. Is the K presenting an alternative policy action to be evaluated like a CP? Is it proposing an individual action on my part? Something else? Let me know. Framework debates will vary depending on the answers to those questions, but affirmatives have options to contest the viability of the alt, either based on the specific action being suggested or on the way debate rounds function and whether I should buy that accepting or rejecting ideas on my ballot has any real world impact (e.g. does policymaking or the k have more educational value/skill development; if neither have out of round impact, is there benefit to game playing or not?). I am more likely to buy an alt if it actually gives me a different policy or mindset to adopt instead of just telling me to reject a mindset.
Impact Framing: I find arguments that say "any chance of the link means you vote" to be rather weak. First, I find that debaters tend to describe the probability of their scenarios in terms that are not only not realistic, but have no objective basis whatsoever. It often feels like arbitrarily pulling a statistical percentage out of a hat. This isn't just about debaters overstating the odds of big impacts like extinction happening. The same problem exists (in either the aff or the k) in claiming that you have 100% solvency for racism or sexual violence. This probably puts me more in a probability first camp, less because I won't look at big impacts than because I want clear warranted reasons that your impact will happen before I look at anything else.
Voters: Assume that I will take you seriously about what you go for at the end of the round. What you go for in the 2NC will be what I focus my decision on, even if I thought you were ahead elsewhere. Importantly, even if you extend a card in the 2NC, but don't give me any analysis of why that is something I should be voting on, it probably won't be part of my decisions. Don't expect me to do the work of framing your voters for you.
Argument Interaction: Give me clear direction as to the way that your arguments interact with one another. If you are running arguments that contradict one another, give me explanation of why doing so makes sense. If you are running T and saying that the aff gives you no DA ground, how does that interact with any DAs you are running? Are you going to just simultaneous ask me to believe that your links are trash when I am looking at the T flow and awesome when I'm looking at the DA flow? Running both of these arguments together can be strategic in a number of directions, but I'm going to need you to clarify that by the end of the round rather than just leaving it unresolved.
Speed: I'm not the fastest at flowing, so give me clear tag lines. If the tournament allows it, I appreciate being on the email chain/receiving the flash of the speech.
Experience: Head coach for 6 years at Wichita Northwest. Assistant coach for 3 years at Topeka High. Debated 4 years in high school. I have judged at nationals in debate/speech events for 17 years.
Speed: Okay with moderate to quick pace. Spreading okay on evidence BUT you need to be slower and more deliberate with analysis.
Paradigm: I default to policymaker. I will listen to critical arguments but I prefer real world consequences for those criticisms that can easily be weighed against the other side. I weigh topicality roughly equal to other positions in the round.
Novice Rounds: If this is a novice round. I expect to hear case debate. You should avoid arguing a disadvantage or counterplan unless you understand it and have discussed it with your coach.
Tabula Rasa but I'll default policy maker, if I dont have context or why I should vote on something I'm not going to vote on it. That being said I'm ok with most arguments (T, Ks, CPs, etc.) but if it has to be able to make sense. If I can't understand whats being run I can't vote on it, always summarize.
For Counterplans if its not necessary and competitive don't run it. If a debate comes down to evaluating the pros of two plans I'll vote aff.
Line by line, signpost and fully respond to arguments; a well covered point is more effective than a sweeping generalization. I'll vote on generics but you have to prove to me why I should.
Umm, just debate and I'll catch on.
I hate topicality. Don't waste my time. :)
I competed in HS during the 90's.
I coached at Shawnee Heights HS in KS for 11 years
I seldom think speed is a good idea
I am largely policy maker, at least in background
I do not mind debating debate, real world implication, politics, social issues or narratives
I want clash over just about anything else
I prefer argumentation over cards
it is possible I have become a grumpy old man
I will try to answer any questions and offer any support I can to help debate, debaters, and the round I am watching
I cannot stand teams that abuse their competition
I hate most everything about the K. I understand them, and know they are a thing and you may have them as a central part of you strat., so run them if you must. Just know that there is no such thing as taula rasa, and my extreme bias will likely influence how I view things down the flow, even as I actively try to prevent it.
FOR POLICY DEBATE:
I approach debate rounds as a presentation on whether or not to take a particular course of action. I'll judge in favor of the more convincing presentation, even though they may not have an air-tight case.
I prefer not to judge K, as they are often difficult for all involved to parse. If you want to run a K, make it clear and concise, and provide specific links to the Aff. I also dislike counterplans, as I see the Neg as speaking directly against the course of action suggested by the Aff.
Specific links and clear "bright lines" are most convincing, while vague or generalized statements will likely make me question the validity of your entire argument.
DO NOT, under any circumstances, insult or demean your opponent(s). That may be how "real" debates go, but your goal here is to convince me of the validity of your course of action. Maintain professionalism while you're in the round.
FOR LD DEBATE:
I'm primarily familiar with policy debate, from what I understand LD is much more about moral arguments. As such, my own moral standards are relevant, even though I will try not to judge based on them.
I consider myself an 'act utilitarian,' meaning I judge the morality of an action based on its consequences, and prioritize maximizing the most good for the most people. In the classic 'trolley problem,' for example, I view it as morally good to kill one person to save 5, and I view abstaining from making a choice as a choice in and of itself. That is, I view choosing not to kill the one person as the same morally as choosing to kill the other 5.
That said, you do not have to play by this framework, if you provide sufficient grounding for your stance and arguments. If you argue from some diametrically opposed moral perspective, but do so in a consistent and well-thought-out manner, I will probably still disagree but won't judge against you for it. I simply provide this so that you know where I start the round.
***I'm adding this mid-tournament because I'm getting annoyed. DO NOT run cards or arguments that state a moral framework's inability to predict the future is a reason to vote against it. NO ONE CAN PREDICT THE FUTURE. It doesn't matter what morality you approach the world with, there will always be times when you can't accurately predict outcomes. This line of reasoning is bad, and I will vote against it.***
FOR ALL NON-PERFORMANCE EVENTS:
Do not try to pull the wool over my eyes. I know you're stressed and under time pressure for many events, but that doesn't excuse lies or fabrications. If you think something is true, try to back it up. If you tell me something I know not to be true, I will count it against you, and I will tell you so. Considering I have the ability to look it up myself before I submit my decisions, I strongly suggest you back up your important claims and responses with evidence. I won't pretend to be the smartest person in the room, but I know enough to double-check things I doubt.
Don't take arguments personally, we're here to have fun and to learn. Each team is just doing their job.
Framing arguments and K are fine, just please understand them if you're going to run them.
Unconditional or conditional, both are fine, but if an argument is made that one is to be preferred, I will absolutely listen.
Unless given a different framework, I default to util and policy.
LD: I'm fine with any speed, just give clear tags and authors. Same as above, if you don't understand something, probably shouldn't use it. Quibbling over definitions for values and criterion can get stale quick, and probably won't be a voter for me unless it's dropped or is egregious.
Try not to curse, looks unprofessional. Hate speech is unacceptable and will mean an automatic loss.
Be polite and have fun!
Eisenhower High School
Previously Mulvane High School
Assistant CoachDebating experience
3 Years High School Policy
2 Years HS Lincoln-Douglas
1 Year HS PFD
I typically fall within the tabula rasa archetype with some caveats.
Flash Time/Email Chain Time should be OFF Time
I expect every debater to keep track of everyone’s prep time.
I would prefer to be included in all email chains and sharing of evidence to ensure best practices.
I will typically take speaker points away for jumping around on the flow haphazardly, or disrespect in CX or in speeches. There’s a fine line between aggressive and rude.
I can handle all speeds, but I would like you to slow down on tags and cites a bit.
I will not interrupt you during a debate round. However, if you are unclear, I may miss something on the flow. Make sure you annunciate tags and cites well.
On T: This is a valid strategy for the negative. I treat it with equal voting power as a DA or CP.
On CPs: CPs can be conditional or unconditional.
On DAs: Generic DAs are fine, but I do tend to vote on DAs with strong, specific links.
On the K: I will only vote on a K if it is unconditional. The K debate is the one argument that I do not believe should be gamified. If you run a K or K AFF, believe in it. This means that Ks NEED specific links. NO GENERIC K’s.
Ask me any questions for clarification.
Update Sep. 25, 2021
Have questions? Email me: email@example.com.
I am the debate teacher and coach at Wichita Collegiate, where I also competed when I was a student there. I completed undergraduate work in public policy, am doing graduate work in history, and have contributed with time and policy writing to numerous public servants at various levels. I am a stock issues judge with a soft spot for policymaking.
As a judge, I do not like fast speakers. I would rather you not hit every point in your case and be able to understand you, for the benefit of myself and for your opponents, than for you to hit every point but give me nothing coherent to influence my vote.
At the beginning of the round, please introduce yourself. Remember that you are representing your school, and do so in a way that would make your grandparent proud.
Cite your sources when you have them. This helps me differentiate between cut cards and pure analyticals, though the latter cannot be discounted.
Speaking style can be what persuades me when evidence presentation is even. Make note of your delivery if you want me to remember a particular point.
CPs and Ks to me are used as a last resort. I'm fine with a solid T argument, but make it solid.
Please remember to breathe. Please be respectful. Please enjoy yourselves.
Competed in Forensics in the early aughts (IX, Congress, and the occasional Poetry)
Mostly just have fun :)
(Yeah, I know, everyone says that...)
NSDA 2021 update: I haven’t judged much policy this year, so be sure to spell out any shorthand the first time you use it in-round and don’t assume I know the common arguments from the year (Ex. I won’t be super familiar with topic-specific abbreviations or meta-theory arguments from this year). Think of me as an experienced technical judge who isn’t experienced with this topic, so who you should treat as pretty tabula rasa.
Quick update for online (10/14/2020): I will try to keep my camera on so you can see my reactions, but if my internet is slowing down and hurting the connection, I’ll switch to audio only. For debaters, just follow the tournament rules about camera usage, it doesn’t matter to me and I want you to be comfortable and successful. I haven’t judged enough fast rounds online yet to know if it will make speed harder to follow; I will say slow or find another way to communicate that to you if need be. If at all possible, do an email chain so we can see your speech doc/cards in case technology gets garbled during one of your speeches (and because email chains are good anyway). We’re all learning and adjusting to this new format together, so just communicate about any issues and we’ll figure it out. Your technology quality, clothes, or any other elements that are out of your control are equity issues, and they will never have a negative impact on my decision.
TLDR I am absolutely willing to consider and vote on any clear and convincing argument that happens in the round, I want you to weigh impacts and layer the round for me explicitly, and I like it when you're funny and interesting and when you’re having fun and are interested in the debate. I want you to have the round that you want to have—I vote exclusively based on the flow.
If you care about bio: I’m a coach from Oregon (which has a very traditional circuit) but I also have a lot of experience judging and coaching progressive debate on the national circuit, so I can judge either type of round. I’ve qualified students in multiple events to TOC, NSDA Nats, NDCA, has many State Championship winners, and I’m the former President of the National Parliamentary Debate League. See below for the long version, and if you have specific questions that I don't already cover below, feel free to ask them before the round. I love debate, and I’m happy to get to judge your round!
Yes, I want to be on the email chain: elizahaas7(at)gmail(dot)com
Pronouns: she/her/hers. Feel free to share your pronouns before the round if you’re comfortable doing so.
I vote on flow. I believe strongly that judges should be as non-interventionist as possible in their RFDs, so I will only flow arguments that you actually make in your debates; I won't intervene to draw connections or links for you or fill in an argument that I know from outside the round but that you don't cover or apply adequately. That’s for you to do as the debater--and on that note, if you want me to extend or turn something, tell me why I should, etc. This can be very brief, but it needs to be clear. I prefer depth over breadth. Super blippy arguments won't weigh heavily, as I want to see you develop, extend, and impact your arguments rather than just throw a bunch of crap at your opponent and hope something sticks. I love when you know your case and the topic lit well, since that often makes the difference. If you have the most amazing constructive in the world but then are unable to defend, explicate, and/or break it down well in CX and rebuttals, it will be pretty tough for you if your opponent capitalizes on your lack of knowledge/understanding even a little bit.
I’m pretty standard when it comes to types of argumentation. I've voted for just about every type of case; it's about what happens in round and I don’t think it’s my right as a judge to tell you how to debate. Any of the below defaults are easy to overcome if you run what you want to run, but run it well.
However, if you decide to let me default to my personal preferences, here they are. Feel free to ask me if there's something I don't cover or you're not sure how it would apply to a particular debate form, since they’re probably most targeted to circuit LD:
Have some balance between philosophy and policy (in LD) and between empirics and quality analytics (in every debate form). I like it when your arguments clash, not just your cards, so make sure to connect your cards to your theoretical arguments or the big picture in terms of the debate. I like to see debates about the actual topic (however you decide to interpret that topic in that round, and I do give a lot of leeway here) rather than generic theory debates that have only the most tenuous connections to the topic.
For theory or T debates, they should be clear, warranted, and hopefully interesting, otherwise I'm not a huge fan, although I get their strategic value. In my perfect world, theory debates would happen only when there is real abuse and/or when you can make interesting/unique theory arguments. Not at all a fan of bad, frivolous theory. No set position on RVIs; it depends on the round, but I do think they can be a good check on bad theory. All that being said, I have voted for theory... a lot, so don't be scared if it's your thing. It's just not usually my favorite thing.
Framework debates: I usually find framework debates really interesting (whether they’re couched as role of the ballot arguments, standards, V/C debates, burdens, etc.), especially if they’re called for in that specific round. Obviously, if you spend a lot of time in a round on framework, be sure to tie it back to FW when you impact out important points in rebuttals. I dislike long strings of shaky link chains that end up in nuclear war, especially if those are your only impacts. If the only impact to your argument is extinction with some super sketchy links/impact cards, I have a hard time buying that link chain over a well-articulated and nicely put together link chain that ends in a smaller, but more believable and realistically significant impact.
Parli (and PF) specific framework note: unless teams argue for a different weighing mechanism, I will default to net bens/CBA as the weighing mechanism in Parli and PF, since that’s usually how debaters are weighing the round. Tie your impacts back to your framework.
Ks can be awesome or terrible depending on how they're run. I'm very open to critical affs and ks on neg, as a general rule, but there is a gulf between good and bad critical positions. I tend to absolutely love (love, love) ones that are well-explained and not super broad--if there isn't a clear link to the resolution and/or a specific position your opponent takes, I’ll have a harder time buying it. Run your Ks if you know them well and if they really apply to the round (interact with your opponent's case/the res), not just if you think they'll confuse your opponent or because your teammate gave you a k to read that you don’t really understand. Please don't run your uber-generic Cap Ks with crappy or generic links/cards just because you can't think of something else to run. That makes me sad because it's a wasted opportunity for an awesome critical discussion. Alts should be clear; they matter. Of course for me, alts can be theoretical/discourse-based rather than policy-based or whatnot; they just need to be clear and compelling. When Ks are good, they're probably my favorite type of argument; when their links and/or alts are sketchy or nonexistant, I don't love them. Same basic comments apply for critical affs.
For funkier performance Ks/affs, narratives and the like, go for them if that's what you want to run. Just make sure 1) to tell me how they should work and be weighed in the round and 2) that your opponent has some way(s) to access your ROB. Ideally the 2nd part should be clear in the constructive, but you at least need to make it clear when they CX you about it. If not, I think that's a pretty obvious opportunity for your opponent to run theory on you.
I'm also totally good with judging a traditional LD/Parli/Policy/PF round if that's what you're good at--I do a lot of that at my local tournaments. If so, I'll look at internal consistency of argumentation more than I would in a progressive debate (esp. on the Neg side).
I'm fine with speed; it's poor enunciation or very quiet spreading that is tough. I'll ask you to clear if I need to. If I say "clear," "loud," or “slow” more than twice, it won't affect my decision, but it will affect your speaks. Just be really, really clear; I've never actually had to say "slow," but "clear" and "loud" have reared their ugly heads more than once. If you’re going very quickly on something that’s easy for me to understand, just make sure you have strong articulation. If you can, slow down on tags, card tags, tricky philosophy, and important analytics--at the very least, hammer them hard with vocal emphasis. My perfect speed would probably be an 8 or 9 out of 10 if you’re very clear. That being said, it can only help you to slow down for something you really need me to understand--please slow or repeat plan/CP text, role of the ballot, theory interp, or anything else that is just crazy important to make sure I get your exact wording, especially if I don't have your case in front of me.
Don’t spread another debater out of the round. Please. If your opponent is new to the circuit, please try to make a round they can engage in.
I love humor, fire, and a pretty high level of sassiness in a debate, but don’t go out of your way to be an absolutely ridiculous ass. If you make me chuckle, you'll get at least an extra half speaker point because I think it’s a real skill to be able to inject humor into serious situations and passionate disagreements.
I love CX (in LD and Policy)/CF (in PF) and good POIs (in Parli), so it bugs me when debaters use long-winded questions or answers as a tactic to waste time during CX or when they completely refuse to engage with questions or let their opponent answer any questions. On that note, I'm good with flex prep; keep CXing to your heart's desire--I'll start your prep time once the official CX period is over if you choose to keep it going. CX is binding, but you have to actually extend arguments or capitalize on errors/concessions from CX in later speeches for them to matter much.
If I'm judging you in Parli and you refuse to take any POIs, I'll probably suspect that it means you can't defend your case against questions. Everyone has "a lot to get through," so you should probably take some POIs.
Weird quirk: I usually flow card tags rather than author names the first time I hear them, so try to give me the tag instead of or in addition to the cite (especially the first few times the card comes up in CX/rebuttal speeches or when it's early in the resolution and I might not have heard that author much). It's just a quirk with the way I listen in rounds--I tend to only write the author's name after a few times hearing it but flow the card tag the first time since the argument often matters more in my flow as a judge than the name itself does. (So it's easiest for me to follow if, when you bring it up in later speeches or CX, you say "the Blahblah 16 card about yadda yadda yadda" rather than just "the Blahblah 16 card.") I'll still be able to follow you, but I find it on my flow quicker if I get the basic card tag/contents.
Final Approach to RFD:
I try to judge the round as the debaters want me to judge it. In terms of layering, unless you tell me to layer the debate in another way, I'll go with standard defaults: theory and T come first (no set preference on which, so tell me how I should layer them), then Ks, then other offs, then case--but case does matter! Like anything else for me, layering defaults can be easily overcome if you argue for another order in-round. Weigh impacts and the round for me, ideally explicitly tied to the winning or agreed-upon framework--don't leave it up to me or your opponent to weigh it for you. I never, ever want to intervene, so make sure to weigh so that I don't have to. Give me some voters if you have time, but don’t give me twelve of them. See above for details or ask questions before the round if you have something specific that I haven't covered. Have fun and go hard!
Additional note if I'm judging you in PF or Parli:
- PF: Please don't spend half of crossfire asking "Do you have a card for x?" Uggh. This is a super bad trend/habit I've noticed. That question won't gain you any offense; try a more targeted form of questioning specific warrants. I vote on flow, so try to do the work to cover both sides of the flow in your speeches, even though the PF times make that rough.
- Parli: Whether it’s Oregon- or California-style, you still need warrants for your claims; they'll just look a little different and less card-centric than they would in a prepared debate form. I'm not 100% tabula rasa in the sense that I won't weigh obviously untrue claims/warrants that you've pulled out of your butts if the other team responds to them at all. I think most judges are like that and not truly tab, but I think it's worth saying anyways. I'll try to remember to knock for protected time where that’s the rule, but you're ultimately in charge of timing that if it's open level. Bonus points if you run a good K that's not a cap K.
Hey all! I am a former policy debater of 3 years. I have done an immense amount of rounds in my time, at all speeds so I am fairly up to date on it all. I vote on most arguments and will give explanations in ranks or arguments as see fit or if I am asked to do so.
Side note: I am only two years out, so I understand how specific arguments work (also I have not done much work on this topic so make sure your arguments are clear as you speak).
Ask me any questions, if paradigm is unclear or want few more specifics on preferences! :)
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Overall- Debate is fun and is what you make of it. I enjoy all arguments and will vote as told to. I enjoy comparing of impacts between the aff and neg. I am a flow judge and will look at my flow as I weigh the ballot. Have fun through civil discourse and smart arguments; be persuasive and communicative.
Speed - I can do all speeds. If you do spread very quickly, I ask that you read tags clearly and show a tonal difference between tags and evidence to allow flows (both mine and competitors) to be smoother and faster for the round overall.
Additionally, I prefer flashes of the speeches to ensure that flowing is proper and no card clipping or to ensure if arguments are dropped, that I am seeing it in multiple instances across the flow.
Topicality – I do believe in topicality arguments, and I will vote on them. However, if the plan and the aff is blatantly topical, don’t run topicality because that is my point of not voting on it. If you do run T, make sure it’s good and the links are there. If you run T, and decide to carry it through, tell me it is a voter and I’ll evaluate it otherwise I will decide from other round arguments. If you carry it through also, 2NR doesn’t need to do in-depth work; touch on it, tell me it’s a voter if it is and continue in your speech.
Disadvantages – I enjoy DAs a lot and love to seem them, especially if you can pinpoint where the aff is flawed. Make sure your story makes sense, especially with the link level. If you can’t produce a good link, the internal link and impact is not likely to happen and won’t do much for you in the end. Produce a clear story, clear links, and ensure impacts will occur. Again, I love DAs so I’m open to any DA.
Counterplans – Counterplans can be fun! Make them competitive in function and text. For me, showcase how your CP will effectively produce the plan’s advantages without running into other off-case arguments. I am not a fan of PICs so please don’t try and run those much with me. Do the work, do the CP, show me why it’s better.
Kritiks – I don’t mind Ks. I enjoy listening to them and they can create interesting dialogue. However, I prefer a more classic style of debate and would prefer to work through the case without a K. If you do run a K, make the link level make sense, explain your narrative, and type of K. You will need to do impact calc heavily if you run a K. I do look at impact calc regardless if a K occurs or not. Keep the flow neat if running a K.
I have judged debate off and on for the last 5 years.
Debate is, first and foremost, a communication activity. Arguments should be clearly laid out in a way that allows me to understand, but also shows that the debaters have a firm grasp on their evidence and why it is being used. Pretend I know nothing. I am not a flow judge, but I do take notes in the round.
I don't ask to see speech docs. My decisions will be made off of what is said in the round.
I encourage you to speak at a conversational pace.
I've debated four years at Derby High School.
If you have any questions: email@example.com
Overall: Speed is fine. Please put me on the email chain. Please be clear. I lean policy but critical arguments are great too. What ever you do just make sure you give good explanation and impact calc. The debate will go a lot faster if early on you make it clear on what I should be voting on. Don't just read mass amounts of evidence and make sure your line by line is clear. CX is basically a speech so treat it as such, it's 3 min where you could poking holes in your opponents case or making key arguments, I highly value CX.
Case: Case debate is very important and clearly undervalued. Case turns are great. Make sure you have ink on all pieces of the case, don't just grant them an advantage at least give your self some options going into the block or else you're just talking in circles.
DA: Specific links are always better than generics. I am familiar with most of the DA on this years topic. I will play the date game when it comes to your uniqueness evidence especially when it comes to politics. Obviously how I evaluate the impact depends on who does the impact calc and prove to me that the link will trigger the impact before the aff can solve for their advantages.
CP: Counter plans that focus on the agency of the affirmative and or the immediacy of the affirmative are probably cheating, but that is your job to call out. Don't just spout off a bunch of perms without explanation. Perm theory is fine but it is more of reason to reject the perm rather than a reason to reject the team.
Topicality: Personally I haven't seen a lot of good T debates on this topic but I definitely believe there is room for a good T debate especially if there is proof of in round abuse through the aff no linking out of the DA base on substantiality. I think the T eliminate argument is pretty hard to win but if you can explain it well and prove loss of ground then go for it. Obviously make sure you impact out T and explain your voters, please do not just say "this is a voter for fairness and education" and then move on. I will vote for T but if you are going to go for T then just go for T not the buffet.
K: I am fine with critical affirmatives or Kritiks. Please explain your links and impacts, don't assume I know the literature because I most likely don't. I have gone for the K before. K's I have either ran or read about: Set Col, Nietzsche, University, Anthro, Cap and Derrida, but please explain what your alt does or why it doesn't have to do anything. I think Frame Work is definitely a good answer to the K because in the end a K v K debate gets very messy.
I did not debate in high school or college, but have served as a debate assistant for several years. I have judged about 10 rounds on this year's topic. I am policy maker or stock issue judge. I appreciate when teams listen to the evidence that the other team is reading and analyze it and check the warrants. I hate just reading blocks without explanation.
The Affirmative has the burden of proof to support the resolution. You will probably do better if you do not speed read to me.
Generic Disads, Counter Plans, Kritiks are fine. Topicality is fine. Specific links are important. Explanation is important.
The last speakers should weight the round.
I will penalize rudeness. Just be nice to each other.
General Experience: Over 15 years of experience in the Debate & Forensics community (competing, judging, and coaching).
Policy Debate: Tabula rasa with policy roots. Negative conditionality good; love counter-plans. Open to K's and K Affs.
I debated 4 years in High School, and 4 years for Washburn University for parliamentary debate. I now coach at Topeka West High School (6th year). I am a flow centric judge and I am willing to vote on anything that is articulated well with a clear framework. I can handle most levels of speed so long as you are articulate. It is in your best interest to start relatively slow and speed up as the speech progresses (crescendo). The rest of this judge philosophy is how I will default in the event that you DON'T tell me how to evaluate a position (but why wouldn't you just tell me how I should evaluate the position?).
Lincoln Douglas Debate
I believe that an LD round is decided by both the aff and neg presenting a value, and a criterion that measures the achievement of that value. I vote aff/neg on the resolution by evaluating the contentions through the winning criterion to see if it achieves the winning value. I am very flow centric and will weigh arguments that aren't answered in favor of the other team. I am not a super fan of turning LD into policy debate but if you argue for that and win that position then I will play ball. I am fine with speed. If you have any questions feel free to ask before the round.
Theory: I love theory debates. Generally I will evaluate them through competing interpretations based on the standards and which standards I am told are most important.
Advantages/Disadvantages: Generally, uniqueness controls the direction of the link; extinction and "dehumanization" are terminal impacts. A 1% chance of a disad/adv occurring gives that team offense for the ballot.
CP: Counterplans should be competitive and switch presumption from the negative to the affirmative. Thus, the CP has to give me a net-benefit over the case or a perm to warrant a ballot. I am willing to vote on CP theory if those arguments are won.
K: I wasn't a big K debater, but I have argued them and judged them frequently. You should be able to explain your K, its framework, link, impx, alt and alt solvency. Buzz words, and name dropping are not a substitute for the former explanation. I am willing to vote on framework and similar arguments if those theory arguments are won.
Speak slowly! Articulate your verbiage with great diction. Please present as few contentions as possible to allow both the affirmative and negative teams to have a quality debate. Always have excellent eye contact with the judge. Take pauses occasionally to allow everyone a break from the intensity of the argumentation. Use wit from time to time to lighten the moment. Never, never be sarcastic against your opponent! Be as passionate as possible no matter what side of the debate you are on.
Despite the fact I have never been a debater, nor have I ever coached debate, I have been judging debate for 15 years.
As a judge, I value the following:
A logical stream of arguments that are tied to solid evidence and even stronger analysis.
Respect and professionalism between debaters.
Passion for the art of debate.
I do NOT appreciate the following:
Belittling your opponent
Speed-talking--I must be able to follow the argument.
I am an old school "Get off my lawn" kind of judge. I have been an assistant debate coach for 17 years and I was a high school debater but not college. I prefer real world arguments with normal impacts nuke war and extinction really annoy me. I hate spreading and will stop listening if you word vomit on me. I can handle speed but double clutching and not clearly reading tags will be a problem. I am being forced to do an electronic ballot but that DOES NOT mean I want a flash of your stuff. I HATE KRITIKS but will vote on it if it is the only thing in the round. I prefer nontopical counterplans and will tolerate generic DAs if the links are specific. I like stock issues and policy impact calculus. I like quality analytical arguments. Teams who read good evidence not just camp and wiki stuff will get my vote.
I debated for four years. I absolutely love seeing CP and Ts but if you don't know how to run them, please don't run them. Aff must answer all arguments brought up by Neg. Neg must tell me WHY an argument is important & why I as the judge should care. DO NO RUN A KRITIK.
This is my first year as an assistant debate coach at the high school level. I have volunteered as a judge over the years in both debate and forensics- most recently for the four speaker regionals in Lawrence. I prefer civil discourse in the rounds that I have the privilege to listen to and assess. I also prefer a stable pacing as opposed to a racing, rapid approach to speeches. Topicality is important but a reasonable interpretation by the affirmative will be something that I judge. I prefer that a team uses reliable evidence over simple analysis. I try to take an open mind into the round and listen to the cases as presented by the competing teams.
I am a stock issues judge.
Former debater/forensicator from Buhler High School, current Musical Theatre student in NYC.
Speed - I prefer clear and concise. Faster is okay, but it needs to be clear and I need to hear the tag with author and date.
I am pretty Tabula Rasa but default to a flow policymaker with a high regard for stock issues if no one tells me how/why to vote.
Explain the Link to any disadvantages clearly.
I will not vote against my own self interest. (don't read death, wipeout, spark) Make your impacts real world and make it make sense.
Kritiks: I enjoy the philosophy but you have to make sure it makes actual sense, you also need to explain the logic of the K for me to vote on it.
The biggest thing for me is that you tell me WHY I should be voting for you at the end of the round. Including flow is important.
Good Luck, and Happy Debating!! <3
email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
policy 4 years at the high school level
Currently debating at UCSB.
Zoom - Don't hesitate to mention any issues you are having, i'll do the same. Remember to be patient we never know what people might be experiencing. I would recommend sending analytics def not required (unless that's argued.)
In general if you can debate it, I can vote on it. I'm fine with everything (I am not against voting on a troll.) I highly value good impact analysis. A good rule of thumb is to debate your opponents as if any argument they make is the best form of the argument. Debate is supposed to be fun!
Spread to your hearts content.
Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR. Overviews are great.
Don't talk out loud during your partners speech.
Tag-teaming is fine
Aff's - You do you. I'm fine with anything policy. Its the 1AC what are you gonna do. I am definitely kinder to soft-left AFF'S. Have proper framing
Non- traditional aff's- I've ran them. I am a little familiar with the language. I think they are great especially if they have a performance, that's a lot of fun. However, make sure to extend it, the argument is not "I danced, I win" rather what value did this performance add to this debate. Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does. I think these debates, for me, come down to f/w, as in whose model of debate I've been made to believe is best. Some of my K philosophy works here.
Topicality/theory- I would recommend running it if the Aff is actually not topical otherwise I probably won't vote on it. I don't love hearing theory debates but I can vote on it.
Da's - Need to have good internal link work. I would love to see some "non- normative" DA's
CP's - Make sure its good, perms are the easiest way to vote here. I don't love specific CP's like Agent, consult, delacy CPs, but I will vote on them. Have a net benefit.
K's- I would say the I am more friendly to these arguments. Know some lit. I am very familiar with K literature, but don't throw jargon. I think that K teams can have a issues with throwing around arguments that they think have more weight than they actually do to judges. Explain your arguments. Links of omission are a no go. Have a really good link story and alt explanation. Frame debates through the K.
Cards VS. Analytics
I value both. I think cards are great but the personal aspect that an analytic brings, which could never be explained through an author writing about what they have never experienced, is inherently very valuable in debates.
Background: debated for 3 years in high school.
Speed: Fine if you're clear and I can understand you.
I'm a mix between stock issues and policy. However, I will also go with the flow, especially in a panel situation.
If you run Topicality it has to be really good. REALLY good.
Love DAs and CPs.
If you have specific questions, please ask.
As a former forensics competitor and coach, I pay a good deal of attention to delivery (you need to speak at a rate such that I can understand you!). Just rattling off info without emphasis or proper inflection damages your credibility for me. Logical arguments are important. Finally, professional and courteous conduct is always appreciated!
I am much more experienced in forensics than I am in debate.
I have been judging all types of debate for a few years now, so I know the basics, but I generally prefer to be treated as an inexperienced judge (in other words, please speak fairly slowly).
I care most about competitors speaking clearly, acting professionally, making logical arguments, and having solid evidence to support those arguments. I have found that I am difficult to be persuaded on Topicality arguments.
I am basically a policy maker judge. However, I also consider stock issues.
Things I dislike:
Generic arguments unless they can be directly linked to case.
Speed. I'm an English teacher, and I can take notes. If I can't keep up, you're going too fast. And no, I don't want a copy of your speech. I am judging the round based on the speeches, not the written notes and cards. Your responsibility is to get the information into the round--verbally. That's what I judge.
*Counterplans: Debate the affirmative case! Unless the aff case is totally non-topical, then engage with them. Offering your own plan (which you had ready before the aff ever spoke) defeats the purpose of a debate round, in my opinion, and is actually dodging the responsibility of the negative.
* I know this year's topic is one that spawns counterplans, so I'm not going to give you the loss JUST because you offered a counterplan. I also understand how a counterplan with a Kritique could be effective. However, my basic philosophy is that you should debate the affirmative plan, not offer your own and ursurp the round.
Position on the following:
Topicality: Rarely do I award the win based on topicality. Unless it's blatantly non-topical, it's topical. I do understand though that running topicality arguments gives your partner more time to prepare their speech; just know that your splitting hairs over definitions isn't going to affect my decision.
Kriitiques: I haven't judged a round where a kritique is offered. However, I understand the concept and would expect it to be presented and explained as a Kritique, and an alternative solution/plan should be presented with it.