Hi everyone! My name is Jordan Akins and I was a four-year debater in high school at Pittsburg. I went to nationals twice in policy debate. I'm at Washburn University right now, but I chose not to debate in college. I currently work for an attorney in Topeka and am attending Washburn Law next fall. I have judged on this topic only once, so I'm excited to hear what arguments you make. I would say that I like traditional debate and would classify myself as a policymaker. I'm not a huge fan of Topicality, but if you feel that you need to run it, then run it. Please don't speak too fast. Be concise. Most Importantly, EXPLAIN what you're reading to me. It's not my job to understand your cards on my own, it's your job to explain to me what your evidence says and what you're trying to say. Just remember, I haven't researched the AFF but you have- prove that to me!

AFF:

I'm all for advantages, so if the 1N doesn't give you enough to go off of, then don't be afraid to run an add on.

Slow down on the plan and read it as clearly as possible.

Make your case make sense. Reading from cards is one thing and knowing your case is another.

NEG:

I do not like Kritiks and I won't vote on them.

Disadvantages, Theory (if necessary), and LOTS of SOLVENCY are very good.

I am not a fan of dramatic impacts if they don't make sense. I prefer probability over impact.

Please be respectful and try not to cut each other off in CX. That being said, CX is very important and I like seeing teams set themselves up for the next speech in CX. Above all else, have fun, be articulate, and be respectful!

Also, if you could please add me to the email chain, that would be great! jordan.akins@washburn.edu

I coach at a 4A school in southeast Kansas. I did debate & forensics in high school, but not in college.

-Topicality is important to me, but actually make a point with it. Don't just run T to run T and then drop it later.

-DAs are great, generic DAs are fine as long as links are clearly analyzed.

-CPs are fine as well, but again don't just run it to kill time only to drop it later.

-I judge pretty big on speaking - speak "pretty". Be organized, concise, have good speed (as long as I can understand your words I have no issue with speed), make me apart of the round. Advocate for your viewpoint and why I should prefer it.

-Make me whatever kind of judge you want me to be - policy maker, real world, but if all else fails I'll fall back on stock issues and aff burden of proof as a guide for my RFD.

Former four year debater. I follow the flow so make sure to answer all of the arguments. I default policy-maker so DA's/Advantages are important. I don't mind topicality if the other team is blatantly untopical but I don't want that to be your only argument.

Email:

Mcchristensen@bluevalleyk12.org

I am a Stock Issues/Policy Maker judge.

Use me as an example of how you sometimes need to gear the round to a judge's specifications as I am clear in what I expect in a round--if nothing else, it's good practice

Summary:

• Pay attention to Stock Issues as losing a single one sinks the AFF--AFF must fulfill all burdens
• FIAT is a tool, not magic
• I weigh Probability over Magnitude
• I will not vote for K's (K AFFS or Neg K's)
• CP's need to be fleshed out with solid reasons to prefer over AFF
• Topicality should ONLY be run if you genuinely think AFF is non-topical
• Speak clearly and deliberately; if I cannot understand you due to inordinate speed, you will lose
• I count Stock Issues debate as "Offense"--it doesn't need to be purely off-case offense for NEG to win
• Cross-X is binding
• Impact Calc is important to a Policy Maker judge

My questions for any round that I judge are always as follows:

Is the AFF truly Topical? Does it fit the confines of the Resolution and/or meet the premise intended by the Resolution's drafters?

Does the AFF have Inherency? Is their plan not already happening in the Status Quo and/or is the Status Quo flawed due to a lack of the AFF plan? What is hindering the implementation of the AFF in the Status Quo?

Is the Harm the AFF is claiming to solve significant enough in the Status Quo that it warrants a solution? And, will the AFF genuinely be able to solve for this Harm?

Can the AFF genuinely claim their Advantages? Are they reasonable benefits that will happen because the AFF is passed? If there are no Advantages, refer to the above questions. It is fine if the AFF only has Harms as it still provides me a net benefit with which to weigh against the net negatives provided by the NEG--this applies to only having an Advantage as well.

Can the AFF solve? Does their Solvency hold up to LEGITIMATELY being able to solve for the Harm(s) while also claiming the Advantage(s)? - I put a large emphasis on Solvency. If you can case-debate the AFF's Solvency out of existence, the round will go to the Neg. For Solvency, the AFF needs to be able to convince me that whatever they're claiming will genuinely be able to happen once their plan passes. If you're using some random person on an internet blog to back up what you're saying, then that's not true Solvency as I do not trust their Ethos and the AFF's ability to claim that they solve. Legitimate sources and legitimate means of solving are mandatory. I will be looking at the sources for your evidence and their date of publication when making my decisions on your Solvency.There must be Solvency for the AFF to have even a semblance of merit; an AFF without Solvency is not an AFF.

If the AFF has no Harms they're solving for AND no Advantages they are claiming, they will lose the round as there is no reason for me, as the judge, to pass the AFF. I need to see that my signature on the ballot for the AFF will have Net Benefits that outweigh the negatives presented by the NEG. If you're going to try to sell me something that solves no problems in the Status Quo AND doesn't come with any benefits, then why would I vote AFF?

If the AFF legitimately fails any one of the Stock Issues checks outlines above, they will lose the round. The AFF has the advantage of having infinite prep time going into the round, and so I expect them to come with a fully fleshed out plan that they can defend to the bitter end. Inherency, Solvency, Harms/Advantages are vital for a legitimate AFF. If the AFF is lacking any one of these, it is thereby not legitimate and will lose the round. Topicality matters too; if the AFF isn't Topical, it will obviously lose the round.

If the AFF declares FIAT, then that means that the AFF will pass. There is no debate over this issue. NEG cannot argue whether or not the AFF will pass, because it will. FIAT. However, FIAT is not a magic wand for the AFF team. If FIAT is claimed, the AFF does not have to worry about whether or not their plan will pass, but they DO need to worry about whether or not they have true Inherency, and whether or not they're actually able to provide Solvency to back up their solution to their Harms they're solving for, and/or the Advantages they're claiming. FIAT is a tool, not magic. If FIAT is brought into the round, the NEG needs to focus on the net negatives that will happen because of the AFF passing. I'm not going to hear an argument on why the AFF won't pass because X, Y, or Z if the AFF has claimed FIAT. That being said, if AFF doesn't claim FIAT then I am willing to hear an argument about whether or not the AFF will even be able to pass; if the AFF doesn't want to use a tool that is given to them, then whatever happens next is on them.

How do I weigh the AFF's Advantage(s) over the Neg's Disadvantage(s)?

I weigh Probability over Magnitude when it comes to Policy Maker, which means that I absolutely do not prefer Kritikal argumentation in a round. I am completely and totally open to Topicality, Disadvantages, and Counterplans when it comes to off-case argumentation. Again, however, Probability outweighs Magnitude in my mind 100% of the time; if a Disadvantage has a probable impact then I am much more inclined to weigh it against the AFF plan as opposed to a Disadvantage that claims the AFF will lead to the extinction of all life on Earth...somehow. I understand that some resolutions lend themselves to global extinction more than others, but if you're going that route then you really need to sell me on the PROBABILITY of total human annihilation.

If you run a K, just know that I almost certainly will not vote for you--this is for both AFF and NEG. The only way I would vote on a K is if it holds legitimate probability and isn't just random incoherent noise meant to distract or confuse the other team; K AFFs are just as much to blame for this as a K introduced by the NEG. I've been around Debate long enough to not be impressed by whatever K or K AFF you found on that Camp file that was written by other high school debaters at 3AM after 27 energy drinks. They're just not how I base my decision in a round.

If a Counterplan is being run, it must be a full Counterplan; there must be plan text and solvency that supports the Negative's ability to link to the AFF's Advantages and/or Harms and solve for them better than the AFF can. Alternatively, I am willing to listen to an Advantage Counterplan where the Negative offers up a Counterplan with their own Advantages that the AFF cannot Perm and link to; were this to happen, I would weigh the advantages provided by the Neg's Counterplan against those of the AFF. Finally, the Negative must be careful not to link into their own Disadvantage with their Counterplan. Nothing is more awkward than when a Negative team goes all in on a CP that links to their own DA. Ultimately, with a CP, if you can convince me that the CP is more net beneficial than the AFF plan, I will vote on it without hesitating and give the round to the Negative.

If you're going to run Topicality, you need to give me reasons to prefer. You need to give me standards and voters, and tell my why the AFF is a violation/why I should prefer your interpretation of the resolution. Do not run T for the sake of running T and spreading the AFF as thin as possible. Only run T if you are genuinely convinced that the AFF is not Topical.

The last time I checked, Debate is a speaking event. Because of this, I expect you to speak clearly as opposed to reading so fast that you are only able to squeak out mere syllables of the text. Reading faster than normal conversation is fine, but if you speak so fast that I cannot understand the argument you are making--let alone process it--then it will count against you.

I don't agree with people that claim that the Negative has to be purely offensive debate in order to win the round; we might as well not have Stock Issues in that case. If the Negative can poke holes in the AFF with case-debate, then I say more power to them and am completely and totally willing to vote on a stock issue as opposed to a DA, T, or a CP. I'm fine with off-case as I mentioned, but the Neg won't lose a round purely because they chose to debate on-case evidence rather than going pure offense. Best case scenario is to combine the two. As mentioned, I put an incredibly heavy weight on Stock Issues and will look at arguments against them favorably in the round. So, AFF, don't try to tell me that the NEG should lose because they have no offense; if they attacked your Stock Issues and ran pure on-case in the round, that counts in my book and it's not an argument that will hold any merit in my book.

New evidence in the Rebuttals is fine; new arguments are not fine. You can bring up new cards to support pre-existing arguments, but don't try to bring up anything new to the round.

Stop reading 8 minutes of bad arguments in the 1NC hoping that the 2AC will undercover/forget one and you'll win that way. Spaghetti debate is bad Debate; the Neg shouldn't only touch the AFF in the 2NC and 1NR--the 1NC matters too. I look for clash in the round and expect each team to provide it.

Anything you say during Cross-X can and will be held against you in the court of Me. Cross-X is binding, so be careful what you say as I cannot tell you how many times I've had teams sink their argument due to poor responses in the Cross.

I am a Policy Maker judge through and through--though I put a large emphasis on Stock Issues. Impact Calc in the Rebuttals. Weigh your arguments and give me reasons to prefer. Again, I give you the advantage of telling you that I weigh Probability over Magnitude, so make sure you are clear when telling my why I should prefer your argument over the opposing team's. I go into each round knowing that I, as the judge, am either signing a plan into action or denying its existence. I need to be convinced that the AFF is either net beneficial to the Status Quo or that it is net detrimental, and it is your job to convince me of this.

Flow judge: Prefer stock issues, but only use Topicality if the Aff is truly untopical.  Generic disads had better have really great specific links.

acedwards00@ksu.edu

I default Policy Maker, but I’ll vote on whatever you tell me.

I'm also not the biggest fan of existential/nuke war/extinction impacts, largely because I don't believe they reflect reality. Focusing on more realistic impacts (war and economic decline for example) is how to win me over.

Also, if I can't tell exactly what your plan is mandating/doing by looking at your plan text and ONLY your plan text and the other team runs vagueness, the odds are not in your favor. That said, I don't really care about financial specification

Topicality: Only if the plan is obviously untopical under your definition and if it doesn't involve the word "substantial"

Generic DAs: Acceptable

Generic CPs: Acceptable, but if the CP is just "do the plan but add another different entity" it is wholly unacceptable

Speed Preference: No preference, but please speak clearly no matter what

Kritiks: Not Preferred, but acceptable with clear links

I did debate for one year in college, and competitive speech on the whole for 9 straight years. I did debate all throughout High School, state qualifying every year and nationally qualifying three times. In college, I was the district champion in impromptu speaking for District 3, and qualified for nationals every year I have done that as well. My final year of college forensics, I was a national semifinalist at AFA nationals in extemporaneous speech.

Background: Four years of high school policy debate in the mid-eighties. Active in local/state politics, particularly those policies pertaining to public education. Four years as assistant debate/forensics coach and 31 years teaching. I have been out of debate/forensics for two years.

Philosophy: Quality policy debate, please. Roadmaps and signposts should be provided and followed; line by lines are useful. Provide argumentation and clash. Use quality warrants that specifically link to opposing arguments; don't be afraid to use opponent's evidence against them. Re-reading the same evidence is redundant and may lose my vote. Back-up evidence is key-I don’t need to hear you repeat your thoughts or someone else’s-give me new information that proves your point! I will request plan text and evidence for clarification. Be respectful and civil to one another; failure to do so will guarantee lowest speaker rank. If you have any other questions, please feel free to ask me before the round begins.

Open CX? Tournament rules apply. That said, this is your debate round. Both teams must agree to open CX prior to round starting for it to occur.

Topicality: Must be specific and provable by neg. Any topicality argument should be well grounded and explained thoroughly. Trying to run topicality as a time suck is abusive to everyone sitting in the round. Please only do so if the aff plan is truly untopical or extra topical.

CPs: Your CP should be clearly exclusive of the aff plan. CPs need to be competitive and believable and provide clear net benefit. Aff: can perm and should!

DAs: Generic DAs are highly discouraged. Make sure you link specifically to the aff case and make your impact calc clear. Disadvantages should clearly link to the real world and to the case presented. Take the time to explain each DA that you present in your own words. Aff: need to turn the DA.

Power Tagging: This round is flowed. Warrants will be checked, so avoid this.

Analyticals: As long as the argument links to case and is articulate, then this is acceptable, however any analytical should follow presented evidence and be an extension thereof. Analyticals on their own, don’t stand with me.

Kritiks: This is a debate regarding policy; therefore there is no place for K’s.

Emotional Arguments/Impacts: Overused and unneeded. Stick with policy and likely impacts.

Speed: Fast conversational (AKA “moderate”) rate is preferred. You should speak at a rate and volume to be understood. When speaking, speak slowly, clearly and to me. If I can’t hear your argument, then I can’t understand it or vote for it. Remember to enunciate. If you read tags, but the warrants of the card are unintelligible or cut out due to time, then the information wasn’t presented and the argument doesn’t exist.

Hello

I am currently the assistant debate and forensics coach at Topeka Seaman School District. I have three years of High school experience in debate and over 9 years of judging/coaching experience. Generally speaking, I consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I vote on the arguments or framework presented in the round itself. Outside of tabula rasa, I tend to default towards a policy maker mindset. In terms of speed, clear communication and professionalism are important in determining who is the better speakers. In terms of speed, clear communication should be prioritize over how much information can be delivered in a speech. Counter plans are acceptable and should be non topical. When presented, they should be competitive to the affirmative case and mutually exclusive. Topicality is very important voting issue. To win topicality, negative team must present a compelling reason why their interpretation and violation meets the burden of the off being untypical. Generic disadvantages are okay as long as specific links are analyzed, but on case disadvantages are preferred. Kritics are acceptable in round if links are clearly analyzed. I prefer to hear case specific kritics rather than generics ones.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

I'm a lay judge. Don't just use debate lingo. I like arguments for/against realistic policy rather than meta debate. I care about overall benefit, and don't like things like extinction impacts. I don't like when people talk as fast as they possibly can so I cannot understand what is being said. I want to be able to follow your logical arguments.

I'm very unfamiliar with debate. But I've judged rounds before in previous years. I've also judged Speech events.

My son is a three year debater from Pittsburg. I can understand what some terms like "DA" or "CP" mean, but I might need a reminder. I prefer a much more Lay style and more traditional debate. Speak pretty and have good arguments. I don't vote just off of who won arguments, I also vote based off of how well you spoke.

Make sure to explain your arguments and go at a normal speed, and believe in what you say and you should be alright!

I did policy debate for all years of high school. I will vote for anything you tell me too. Only spread if you also give me the card.

Policy: 

I did four years of policy debate in high school and now am doing NFA-LD (basically one-person policy) at the collegiate level. So you can use all the lingo. I am primarily a policymaker and stock issues judge. 

I like DA's a lot. Especially if the impacts can be both realistic and terminal. Impact calc is important. I also value uniqueness it has towards aff directly. Generic DAs are fine if you are going to throw it or just need more on the flow. 

Love CPs and theory. I'm down for any theory debates as long as it does not take away from education in round or stray too far away from the topic/valid abuse claims. Any CP debates are fine with me. If aff claims abuse with certain CP conditions they really have to prove it. 

Not the biggest fan of K Affs but you can run them. Ks themselves I can vibe with as long as they have a solid link and alt. If the alt can still happen in an aff world and be permed, aff gets the vote just based on real-world impacts. 

I am good with speed but just make sure signposting is clear and send out your speech if your gonna do it. 

LD: 

I am a policy debater at heart but not all policy practices are acceptable for LD. It's important to break down your case, voters, frame, and criterion clearly, especially during rebuttals. Be respectful during round.

If it comes down to value vs value you need to give me voters on why yours should be preferred. 

I am a debate coach at a 6A school. I can judge at any rate, but I believe that real world persuasiveness is actually enhanced with a more moderate rate and using effective emphasis and inflection. Most important part of the debate round is clash and resolution, so logical arguments carried all the way through are what really matters. I am comfortable with topicality arguments if well-structured, generic disadvantages if there is a verifiable link to the affirmative plan, and counterplans if they are non-topical and competitive with the affirmative plan. I am NOT a fan of Kritiks.

I am old-school. I have been competing, coaching, and/or judging for about 30 years. I am looking for a series of good, persuasive speeches with a lot of clash. I can keep up with quality speed, but I am not interested in judging a speed-mumbling competition. If I cannot understand you (for whatever reason), I will NOT give you the benefit of the doubt.

I will consider everything said in CX as part of the round, so ask aggressively and answer carefully.

I will flow the round. If you do not signpost, I will not guess where your arguments go, and will consider them dropped. As for arguments, I want them brought-up in Constructives only. Rebuttals are for extra evidence and responses.

Analytical arguments are great, but I will judge their logic harshly.

If you're not speaking, you are using prep-time. The exception is if you're uploading your speech/evidence for the other team.

I will judge you on your speaking and professionalism.

CONGRESS:

I want to see actual debate. Clash with previous speakers, bring evidence and personality. I judge personality pretty heavily, so if you're just reading canned speeches with no humor, no pathos, no clash, your scores will be low. I expect good questions and evidence that you understand procedure.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS:

This is my favorite event. I want the arguments to be clear and everything needs to relate back to your values - contentions, attacks, CX, rebuttals, all of it.

Tell me why your value is superior; tell me why voting for you upholds your value; tell me why your opponent's side will diminish your superior value. Convince me of these things, and you will win the round.

I err to the practical, so if you use real-world examples and your opponent only debates in the theoretical, you'll be more likely to win.

This is the best, truest form of debate we have. Keep it that way.

POLICY DEBATE:

I abhor pre-made, canned speeches (except the 1AC).

I am not a fan of unnecessary abbreviations. "L-WOP," for example. I know it is more of a pet peeve than a paradigm, but if you say that, you'll annoy me.

I will judge on Stock Issues, and weigh Solvency heavier than the others. As such, if your Aff plan is weak (no enforcement, funding, details, etc.) and the Neg argues Solvency, I will consider Aff officially Up A Creek Without A Paddle.

I will also judge on the primary burdens of each team: Aff's Burden of Proof and Neg's Burden of Rejoinder. If you do not meet your burden, you will lose.

I do not like counter-plans or Kritiks. I want actual clash, I do not want you to dodge the Aff's arguments because you are not prepared.

Generic DAs are great, as we are voting on the resolution, not just the Aff plan.

I'll start with my history as that influences my preferences. 3 of my 4 high school debate years were at pittsburg high school, kinda old school debate though it has modernized as toc and college has modernized and spread information, file and speaking techniques over the web. The judge pool their is pretty mixed with college and community folks which forces a slower and sometime more "traditional" form of debate. I then debated at KSU for 2 years and broke at CEDA on an abolition imagination k aff with my partner 2n strategy of mostly wilderson k. I continued on to judge at a variety of high school debate tournaments across the state of kansas as well as intermittent forensics judging.

This collection of experiences gives me an appreciation for and an ability to follow a wide variety of debate styles and arguments and open to hearing and engaging wide variety of ideas. This means run what you will because thats how you want to debate.

That being said i think the most important thing is engagement with the other argument you are making and those made against you. How you engage is obviously up to you but be clear to me at least about what you are trying to argue for or accomplish and do you want me to vote for you on my ballot to help you accomplish it.

Click here for Keiv Spare's Lincoln-Douglas paradigm.

Quick Summary of my paradigm if you don't have time to read the entire thing:
The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot. Speed is okay. Classic policy maker / stock issues judge.

Debate Experience: 4 years at Parsons High School (Kansas). Debated at champ level (a.k.a. varsity or DCI division), won medals and trophies, won a lot more rounds than lost. Qualified to NFL nationals in forensics. Was member of numerous state champion teams in debate and forensics, and was quarterfinalist at nationals in expository. I attended camp at Emporia State University and Fort Hays State University and was coached by NFL hall of fame coaches and CEDA national champions.

Have helped with camps at Kansas State University and The University of Kansas, and have assistant coached and sponsored for high school teams for coaches that I am friends with, including coaching two cx teams at NSDA nationals in Kansas City in 2010, a cx team at NSDA nationals in Florida in 2018, and

2011 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Curt Lockwood & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2011 321A 2-Speaker 3rd Place (Bruce Williams & Caleb McIntosh - Caney Valley High School)
2012 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Jeremy Nave & Jessica Wells - Caney Valley High School)
2013 321A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Alexis Brey & Alex Vore - Caney Valley High School)
2016 4A 4-Speaker 1st Place (Seth Cross, Zach Humble, Joe Adams, Isabella Provence - Fort Scott High School)
2018 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2019 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia - Fort Scott High School)
2020 4A 2-Speaker 1st Place and 2nd Place (closeout) (Zoe Self, Elizabeth Ngatia, Madi Toth, Dalton Womeldorf - Fort Scott High School)
2021 4A 2-Speaker 2nd Place (Neil Gugnani, Shekhar Gugnani - Fort Scott High School)

Have judged at least one tournament in Kansas or Missouri every year since 1993, and have judged NFL nationals off and on since the late 90s whenever the tournament has been in the midwest, but recently have judged nationals almost every year including the most recent tournaments in Florida and Texas, and the online nationals in 2020 and 2021.

Pet peeves: Overuse of acronyms and abbreviations without defining them. Mispronouncing words. My skin crawls when students repeatedly use verbal hedges such as "like", "I mean", "you know"/"you know what I mean"/"you know what I'm sayin'", "kind of", "sort of", "and stuff", "or something" and "or whatever", "basically", "literally", "obviously", etc. Don't say "I can see nothing but a (neg/aff) ballot." (Don't be cliché.)

Pet peeves that shouldn't even need to be said, but they happen so much that I feel obliged to actually put this in writing: It's ok to shake my hand and introduce yourself or thank me at the end of the round, but do not try to peek at the ballot during or after the round. Do not take up time by asking each individual person in the room if they are ready at the beginning of your speech - if the judge doesn't look ready, ask, but nobody cares if your partner is ready. Neg team: do not noisily pack up your stuff during the 2AR. Do not talk loudly to your partner during your opponents' speeches. Do not steal prep time. Do not stand next to the person speaking and impatiently await the evidence they're reading. Don't stand behind the person speaking and read over their shoulder. No oral prompting during speeches please.

Arrive to the round on time. Do not dawdle getting ready for the round to begin. DO NOT MAKE THE TOURNAMENT RUN BEHIND. Be prepared: Bring a timer to the tournament. Have an extra PAPER copy of your case. Know how to correctly pronounce every word in your 1AC. Charge your laptop battery before the tournament. Bring flash drives. Bring extension cords. Use the restroom before the round. Be a responsible, respectful, and courteous professional.

Likes: Organized (signposting, numbering, line-by-line), real-world, smart, clever, unique, efficient, strategic arguments which showcase the debater's individual thought process. Strategic use of cross x. Partners working together on an effective strategy. Emotion, energy, personality, originality, humor. Overviews, weighing of arguments, concise and intelligent explanations. Intros, conclusions. Every speech in open division should have an intro and a conclusion. NO "with this I can see nothing but an affirmative/negative ballot" IS NOT AN ACCEPTABLE CONCLUSION. (the Intro/Conclusion requirement applies more to open division and less so to champ division). If you're going to run long complicated arguments, it's best to explain them at the beginning and throughout rather than at the end so the judges aren't confused the entire time - the team that spends the least amount of time confusing the judges usually wins.

Dislikes: Thoughtless, disorganized, generic babble. Monotonic regurgitation. Lack of strategy. Lots of cards with no supplemental explanations or logic/reasoning/applying by the debater. Partners not working together. Inefficiency. Debates about debate (i.e. fighting over whether debate rules allow or disallow a particular type of argument. Spend your time arguing the merits of the argument, not whether the rules allow it or not.)

Speed: Haven't heard anyone yet who is so fast I can't flow them. However, don't try to speed if you're not good at it. Some of the best debaters I've heard have a slower conversational delivery. Hint: You can win many a round by giving a conversational 2AR to a judge who has heard nothing but speed all day - it can be an oasis of relief.

Topicality: Don't run it if you plan on punting it (but don't be afraid to punt it if you're losing it). Don't run it for no reason. If you think you can win it, absolutely run it. Running topicality exponentially increases the chances of a neg ballot, because much of the time the aff loses, not because they wouldn't have been easily able to prove they were topical, but because they dismiss the topicality argument and don't give it the attention it deserves.

I may actually get ticked at you if you don't run it when the case is obviously non topical, or is quasi topical and could be easily beaten with a competent topicality argument. Topicality arguments must be structured with standards and warrants. Legal or contextual definitions are best for violations. I will accept regular dictionary definitions for counter interps.

Extratopicality: Know what this is and run it. I see far too many cases in which the bulk of the plan and case is extra topical. This is an excellent tool for the 1NC toolkit.

Effects Topicality: I rarely see cases that are blatantly effects topical, but it has happened. You have to really be in serious violation of taking too many steps for me to consider this argument. More often than not the negative runs this by inventing steps (first the house has to vote on it, then the senate, then the president has to sign it, then someone has to make a phone call, then they have to transfer the money, then they have to....etc etc) Every plan has these steps, this does not make it effects topical. Rarely is a plan in violation, but on the rare occasion that it is, the neg would be wise to run this (ask yourself, "Does the plan text in a vacuum achieve the advantages or are other steps required?").

New disads in the 2NC or having the 1N run disads and the 2N take case: All of this is fine, I grew up with case in the 1NC and disads in the 2NC, but the neg can do it however they see fit as long as the strategy is smart and makes sense. Presenting a disad shell in the 1N and expanding it in the 2N is fine too.

Disads that are created in the round and specifically tailored to the case are my favorite. Seems like no one does this anymore. Generic politics disads are discouraged, however a politics disad that is case-specific, unique and has good timely evidence can be great.

Backlash Disads: The only kinds of disads I don't like are backlash disads - the idea that we shouldn't pass the Aff plan because some people (usually terrorists, the KKK, or some other "bad guys") won't like it, and they'll riot or start a war or blow something up in retaliation. I've never been a fan of not doing a good thing because it would upset some bad people, so this by itself is not reason enough for me to not vote for an otherwise good plan. However a backlash disad can provide weight to the negative side when accompanied by other arguments such as a counter plan that solves the harms but avoids the disad. Before you run this kind of disad with me, be sure it's not simply an anti-progress position of backing down to terrorist demands and letting the bad guys win.

Conditionality: When I was a debater, I ran conditional arguments, so I'm open to hearing them. However they must be run well. Don't use conditionality as an excuse to run a bunch of random arguments that don't work at all together or make any sense (the throw a bunch of crap against the wall and see what sticks approach), and expect me to accept them because I'm saying here that I am open to conditionality. Be smart. Use conditionality as part of your toolkit to defeat an affirmative case, but don't abuse it. I'll give you leeway, but for instance if you run a critique that has a moral imperative voter on it, and you are emphatic about how this voter is the most important issue in the round, and then you (or your partner) turn around and run five disads which specifically contradict said voter - then I'm going to have trouble taking you seriously and I'm going to be very sympathetic to the aff when in their next speech they accuse you of being insincere about both your disads and your critique voter. Conditionality is acceptable to a point, but overall as a judge what I'd like to see a neg team do is present an intelligent consistent strategy against the case. Conditional arguments can be part of this strategy (i.e. to set up dilemmas), but don't run diametrically opposing arguments unless it makes sense to do so. Just because two arguments can theoretically link to a case doesn't mean you should run them both. Stop and think first if it makes sense. As far as conditionality in terms of the neg being able to kick out of any position at any time without being penalized - yes, I believe in this. However, I'm not too sympathetic to teams who run bad arguments as a time suck and then punt them. I'd rather see a team spend their time running good arguments. It is completely okay to go for the arguments you have the best chances of winning at the end and punt ones that are lost causes.

Counterplans, Plan Inclusive Counterplans, Critiques, Critical Aff's, Goals-Criteria & Plan-Meet-Need Cases, and other miscellany: I'm open to just about anything as long as it's run competently as part of a thoughtful strategy. Run a critique because the case calls for it. Do not run a critique as a way to avoid case debate. Don't run something if you don't understand it. Don't run something if your only motive is to confuse the other team - you'll probably end up confusing yourself and the judges as well. Critical aff's, counterplans, critiques, philosophical arguments and policy debates which end up sounding like LD rounds can make debate more fun and interesting.

If your counterplan is plan-inclusive, it's a good idea to run topicality against the aff, or run extratopicality against yourself so your counterplan remains non-topical. Counterplans must be nontopical - trying to get me to budge on that will be an uphill battle, but I could be persuaded if you are extremely convincing and the circumstances warrant. However, I will have a default sympathy with an aff who claims abuse against a topical counterplan. Multiple counterplans are okay, again as long as it makes sense.

Tag team cross X is okay unless the tournament rules forbid it, but don't abuse this.

I prefer the person who gives the 1AC give the 1AR, the 2AC the 2AR, the 1NC the 1NR and the 2NC the 2NR, mostly because this keeps speaker points simple. You should only really switch if you think it is absolutely necessary to do so to win the round. If you do switch, make sure you tell me before you do it.

Overall:

What is probably most enjoyable to me is watching the student's mind work - seeing a good 1NC rip a case to shreds with their own individual analysis is worth more to me than a spread of cards that the student didn't even research themselves.

I confess I probably put more emphasis on speaking skills than most flow judges (although I think most judges do, they just don't admit it or realize it). I've often found myself using skills as a speaker point tie breaker when the arguments were moot.

One good succinct original thought that tears through an opponent's argument can win a round or score a student a better speaker point.

The team with the smarter arguments and the smarter strategy is going to win my ballot.

p.s. After writing all this, I realize it may appear that I have a neg bias. I don't. I'm a progressive-minded person and generally like to see change to the status quo as long as the proposal is a good one. I want to see positive change, but I don't want to pass bad plans. Run a good case and argue it well and you have a good chance of winning.

Policy Maker - former high school debater 4 years. Current assistant coach.

I've judged a lot of rounds at various levels of competition. These stem from local tournaments to KDC to Nationals.

Your speed is your speed. If you go so fast no one can understand you then you should consider slowing down. I'll let you know if that's the case.

I'll listen to your generic D/A's but I won't give you the if you can't defend it. Get your impact calc out early, and use it throughout the debate.

T is not your best argument. However, it matters especially if the abuse is clearly defined.

K's are acceptable. Give me a realistic alternative that isn't "think different."

I'll default to the best policy every time. This means that either the SQUO, the CP, or the aff is where the vote will end up. Make that clear.

Please, PLEASE, don't make me place arguments for you.

I look for strong debating, good policy, and a good defense of that policy. Not a fan of counterplans. Topicality is important. I do not like ridiculous harms like nuclear war. Strong debating, good speaking skills are what I like to see.

Name: Jessica Trudell

Experience: (Competitor) Four years HS and four years college (parli, LD, speech, and policy). (Asst. Coach) Six years (Oklahoma and Kansas). (Mentor) Two years (Hawaii). I have judged off and on for 18 years.

I would like to be a part of the email chain please. Foreignpolicyjess82@yahoo.com *This allows a quicker decision at the end. I can follow along for clipping. I also can read along and quickly pull up a piece of evidence that comes into question or becomes a premium target in the round. It protects both sides and allows me to make the best decision possible.

I am pretty decent at the flow, but there is no speed debate on these islands, so I’m a bit rusty. Go full speed if you are crystal clear. Besides that, decent speed. If I don’t hear it, I don’t flow it. I know COVID has change the dynamics of debate. I’ll say “CLEAR” once to give you a heads up to slow down.

To be honest, I will listen to anything and everything. With this topic, I’ve been using the policy judge paradigm mentality. But, you set up the debate and let me know, I’m down. I love a good off case debate any day, but I thrive on that on case debate as well. You debate how you debate. Judge adaptation is important, but to me this is a learning experience, “you do you boo-boo”.

Off time road map is fine. Open crossx is fine as long as the tournament rules permit it and both teams agree.

Disclosure- do it right and before round. This is for fun and learning. Not trying to be sneaky.

Feel free to ask me any questions prior to the debate.

Have fun and enjoy yourselves!

Tab

Tabula Rasa