Logistics…

1) Let's use Speechdrop.net for evidence sharing. If you are the first person to the room, please set it up and put the code on the board so we can all get the evidence.

2) If, for some reason, we can't use speechdrop, let's use email. I want to be on the email chain. mrjared@gmail.com

3) If there is no email chain, I’m going to want to get the docs on a flash drive ahead of the speech.

4) Prep stops when you have a) uploaded the doc to speechdrop b) hit send on the email, or c) pulled the flash drive out. Putting your doc together, saving your doc, etc... are all prep. Also, when prep ends, STOP PREPPING. Don't tell me to stop prep and then tell me all you have to do is save the doc and then upload it. This may impact your speaker points.

5) Get your docs in order!! If I need to, I WILL call for a corrected speech doc at the end of your speech. I would prefer a doc that only includes the cards you read, in the order you read them. If you need to skip a couple of cards and you clearly indicate which ones, we should be fine. If you find yourself marking a lot of cards (cut the card there!), you definitely should be prepared to provide a doc that indicates where you marked the cards. I don’t want your overly ambitious version of the doc; that is no use to me.

** Evidence sharing should NOT be complicated. Figure it out before the round starts. Use Speechdrop.net, a flash drive, email, viewing computer, or paper, but figure it out ahead of time and don’t argue about it. **

I have been coaching and judging debate for many years now. I started competing in 1995. I've been coaching LD debate for the last 10 years, prior to that I was a CEDA/NDT coach and that is the event I competed in. My basic philosophy is that it is the burden of the debaters to compare their arguments and explain why they are winning. I will evaluate the debate based on your criteria as best I can. I can be persuaded to evaluate the debate in any number of ways, provided you support your arguments clearly. You can win my ballot with whatever. I don’t have to agree with your argument, I don’t have to be moved by your argument, I don’t even have to be interested in your argument, I can still vote for you if you win. I DO need to understand you. Certain arguments are very easy for me to understand, I’m familiar with them, I enjoy them, I will be able to provide you with nuanced and expert advice on how to improve those arguments…other arguments will confuse and frustrate me and require you to do more work if you want me to vote on them. It’s up to you. I’ll tell you more about the particulars below, but it is very important that you understand – I believe that debate is about making COMPARATIVE ARGUMENTS! It is YOUR job to do comparisons, not mine. You can make a bunch of arguments, all the arguments you want, if YOU do not apply them and make the comparisons to the other team, I will almost certainly not do this for you. If neither team does this work and you leave me to figure it out, that’s on you.

The rules have changed for LD, however, that does not change my paradigm. The important change to the rules says this - "judges are also encouraged to develop a decision-making paradigm for adjudicatingcompetitive debate and provide that paradigm to students prior to the debate."

The paradigm I'm providing here should not be understood to contradict "the official decision making
paradigm of NFA-LD" provided in the rules.

Topicality is a voting issue. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I will vote neg. My preference is to use the least punitive measure allowed by the rules to resolve any procedural/theory violations...in other words, my default is to reject the argument, not the team. In some instances that won't make sense, so I'll end up voting on it. Topicality is a voting issue. This is VERY clear. If the negative wins that the affirmative is not topical, I vote neg. I don’t need “abuse” proven or otherwise. Not all of the rules are this clearly spelled out, so you'll need to make arguments. Speed is subjective. I prefer a faster rate (I can flow all of you, for the most part, pretty easily) of delivery but will adjudicate debates about this.

Attempts to embarrass, humiliate, intimidate, shame, or otherwise treat your opponents or judges poorly will not be a winning strategy in front of me. If you can’t find it within yourself to listen while I explain my decision and deal with it like an adult (win or lose), then neither of us will benefit from having me in the room. I’m pretty comfortable with most critical arguments, but the literature base is not always in my wheelhouse, so you’ll need to explain. Particularly if you are reading anything to do with psychoanalysis (D&G is possibly my least favorite, but Agamben is up there too). Cheap shot RVI’s are not particularly persuasive either, but you shouldn't ignore them.

(They/Them)

Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.

Paradigm:
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.

In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.

I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.

I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.

As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.

(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)


SPEAKER POINTS:
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)

27.3 or less-Something offensive occurred or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)

Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:

25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional

If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)

About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)

Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.

Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.

Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.

Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.

TL;DR
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at keegandbosch@gmail.com

Experience: 2 years college policy, 5 years parli, 5 years NFA-LD, I've been coaching a combination of HS policy, CEDA/NDT, NFA-LD and Parli for 9 years.

Email for the chain: bowersd@moval.edu

Online Debate: A couple of things I think are important before starting. Please make sure that your computer is plugged in before starting, your mic is muted while the other person is speaking. Also, there will be tech problems throughout the year, please be cool about it. If there is a disconnect during a speech time will stop and the speaker will be responsible for picking up where they left off when they reconnect.

General: I very much believe that I am here for you, so whatever style of debate you enjoy doing you should do that. I think that I probably will hold the line on cheap shot arguments more often than not, typically one line arguments on a theory shell/solvency flow will not get my ballot. Generally the team that does the better link/impact analysis/comparison will win my ballot.

I'll talk about some things here to maybe clear some questions you may have but genuinely whatever you want to do. If you have questions please feel free to ask.

Impact framing: Sans an alternative I think that death is the worst impact in the debate, but I'm very willing and happy to listen to other impact framing arguments.

Theory: I think that absent another framing mechanism I would evaluate T via competing interps, that being said I'm open to whatever method you want in terms of evaluating the argument. I think that my threshold for voting on T is low IE it's just another argument that if you win I will vote on. I don't have a preference on whether or not condo is good or bad. Most if not all questions like that can be resolved in round. I do not need proven abuse to vote on Topicality.

CP: Awesome, fun, I don't think I've met a counterplan I wasn't in some way a fan of from a strategic standpoint. That being said I think that overly complicated texts need to be explained. If I don't know what the counterplan does or how it functionally solves the aff it is harder to win me.

K: I don't have a preference for any type of alternative, I will say that it would be easier for me to vote for a K if I understand what the alternative does. I won't vote against a K if I don't understand what the alt does it just definitely makes it an easier ballot for you.

Debated throughout high school and college. Qualified/Went to nationals seven of those eight years. I have been coaching for three years. The paradigm is a living document. I prefer to answer questions at the beginning of the round if there are any.

Update 12/2- I have voted on disclosure theory, but I do not enjoy it. Personally, I don't see disclosure as a voting issue. I debated before disclosure became the norm in NFA, and disclosure is impossible in NPDA. Since I've come back into the debate community in the past couple years, disclosure has become the norm and I missed that transition. My teams disclose and I'm personally in favor of disclosure, but there are solid arguments that disclosure isn't necessary for good debate. I am also highly annoyed by teams that run the same neg strat every round regardless of the aff while also running disclosure.

I do not think there is any reason for the neg to disclose, and I think expecting the neg to disclose is silly.

I am very open to RVIs on abusive or silly procedurals like "being in the same room is a voting issue," disclosure, or silly Ts.

I prefer round-specific clash. Teams that are too reliant on blocks miss key extensions or cross applications that would allow them to efficiently answer arguments. I give a ton of weight to dropped arguments--if you have a (for example) framing card in your 1AC that goes dropped, you can and should extend it to answer the neg's framing card. If I had a dollar for every time the aff doesn't extend a "aff is the necessary first step" card that answers a DA or K, I would be able to afford tournament-provided food at nationals.

Update 10/30- As the year goes on both in NFA and NSDA, I find myself viewing process arguments highly favorably. If the federal government doesn't have the power to enact the plan, or if the agent of the CP can't enact the CP, I am very open to solvency args or fiat abuse/workability procedurals. I believe part of (non-kritikal) policy debate should include a burden of proof for solvency, and part of that is workability. For example, I am very open to fiat abuse/extra T args against NSDA affs that rely on reforming local/county/state law enforcement for solvency or court cases that do not specify a test case.

Experience: Competed in NFA-LD and NPDA for Hillsdale College from 2011-2013. Competed in NCFCA policy from 2008-2009. Have coached for Hillsdale, Nebraska-Lincoln, and Marshall. Current policy and IE coach at Grace Academy of Georgetown. I judge for Grace Academy in NSDA/TFA/NCFL and Hillsdale in NFA/NPDA. This paradigm should apply to both.

General paradigm: My goal is to be the most generic flow judge possible. I am slightly old-school in my burden of proof. I'm by no means a stock-issues judge, but I will vote on terminal defense, "traditional" link or impact calc weighing case against a K, etc. Generally, I am open to any argument, but I will not do work for debaters on the flow. I slightly favor policy debate over K debate, but only because I think its much easier to have a good policy round than a good K round. I mostly ran policy when I competed, so I'm more familiar with that style, but I do think a good K debate is more fun than a good policy debate. I have no stats to back this up, but I feel like Ks have about a 50% winrate in front of me.

Don't be racist, homophobic, etc in front of me. Challenging critical theory is fine, exclusion is not.

Specific issues:

1. I will always default to policymaker unless I'm put in some alternative paradigm.

2. I always weigh biggest impacts first, with timeframe and probability as the "tiebreaker."

3. I do not evaluate probability arguments without specific warrants as to why a scenario is unlikely. I.e. saying "This won't happen" with no warrants is not an argument I flow.

4. I am comfortable voting on stock issues, so long as the burdens of the aff and neg are clearly articulated. If burdens are not clearly articulated, I will default to policymaking.

5. I am fine with kritiks, although in LD I think it is difficult to set up a clear framework within the time limits. If you do not do a good job of setting up an alternate world for the K framework, I am open to "aff impacts outweigh K" arguments. I am fine with counterplans, including conditional CPs. I am moderately familiar with K literature, but I have been out of the NFA circuit for a while so do not assume I have heard your K before.

6. I see T as jurisdictional and do not require proven abuse. I will not evaluate T/procedurals that does not specify violations or voters. I will also only evaluate the voters given in the round. For example, if you win that there is ground loss on the standard debate, but don't have a fairness voter, I won't vote on the ground loss. Similarly, if you win that T is a voter for fairness, but don't prove there has actually been abuse in-round, you don't win on T, even if you win the violation. I can't imagine a scenario in which I vote on potential abuse. All that to say: if you want to win T in front of me, proven abuse is great, but run a jurisdiction voter to be safe.

7. I think everything, including the governing league's rules, are up for debate. I mostly see procedurals such as vagueness/Aspec as a way to guarantee ground for DA links/CPs/Ks/etc; it is very rare for me to vote on them in a vacuum.

8. I am fine with speed so long as it is not exclusionary. It is unlikely any competitors will be able to spread me out so long as their organization is clear. In-round behavior can be a voter so long as it is 1) egregious and 2) made a voter by the opposing team. Absent in-round arguments, I use speaker points as a way to punish abusive behavior. Slurs are, of course, an instaloss.

9. Unless a card is called into dispute, I will always assume the reader's analysis/tag is accurate. I will only read cards if the opponent asks me to or if it is absolutely necessary for my decision. Please put me on any email chains or speechdrop.

10. Please be very clear with your organization. Tell me where specifically to put arguments. I do not do cross-application for debaters. If you don't tell me where specifically to put something on the flow, I will make my best guess and put it there. That can lead to you dropping something you didn't intend to, and at the very least will negatively affect speaker points. If both teams are unclear in organization, I'll do my best to reconstruct the round, but things can get weird. It's easier for everyone if you just take a second and say "On the Smith card..."

Please set up a SpeechDrop (https://speechdrop.net/) to share files. Or include me in the email chain (Bethanydavis@csus.edu). As a last resort share a USB, I will request to see all files on it at the end of the round.

I will be timing you through each portion of the round. I will not provide visual or audio clues to your prep time usage (i.e. 30 seconds used). Help me to help you, please signpost.

If you perm, give me analytics (better yet, evidence) on why the positions are not mutually exclusive.

Topicality - it is a voting issue. As long as you meet the definition and have a reasonable counterinterp I will vote aff. I will vote neg if a counterinterpretation is not provided, or is unreasonable.

K's - I am unfamiliar with this position, if the benefits do not outweigh the plan, I will vote aff. You can run this position, but be prepared for leg work to convince me. Be careful running K-affs, I have no idea how these function.

Counterplans- don't be a time suck. Prove preferability through evidence support. Prove mutual exclusivity if permed. Have evidence to back up your argument.

Advantages vs. Disadvantages - timeframe, magnitude, probability. Impact calculus will be your best friend if you run none of the other strategies above.

Happy debating!

Background: I debated for one year in college, and competed in speech events for all four years.

Delivery: My main delivery preference is for you to please speak at a conversational pace, or at most slightly faster than that. I
won’t understand if you speak too quickly.

I am skeptical of arguments that rely on terminal impacts like nuclear war or extinction, especially if the impact does not seem plausible outside the round. That doesn't necessarily mean I'll always reject them. But it does mean that you have higher threshold on fleshing out your impact analysis, timeframe, and probability.

I’m happy to answer any questions before the round starts.

Background:

I competed in HS policy for 3 years and NFA-LD for 4 years (graduating in 2010). For several years after my competitive career ended, I was very active in judging, coaching, etc. Since 2016, I've judge a few rounds a year, but on a sporadic basis.

I may or may not know the full text of the resolution by the time I judge you.

Overview:

I have no predispositions against any particular positions. I am probably more likely to vote on theory arguments then the average judge. I probably am more of a sucker for good framing arguments (of either the round or a position) than most judges. I probably am more likely than most judges to refrain from signing my ballot based on a single dropped argument in the line-by-line and consider it in the context of the round as a whole instead. I am willing to vote on almost any procedural, including but not limited to: Full Citations, Solvency Advocate, Vagueness, Specification args, Inherency Procedurals, etc. I won't vote for any of the above listed procedurals unless you win the in-round debate on the standards/voters. I am ok with most speeds. However, due to a lack of consistency in recording people talking very fast in my daily life, I can't promise with certainty I can flow every point at your top speed. It is safer for you to perhaps dial it back one notch, but I won't drop you out of spite if you go too fast for me, I just might miss something important! I am ok with whatever crazy nonsensical K you want to whip out (the sensible ones are also good!), but I am a judge who likes to read evidence so they better be well-evidenced claims and not just power tagged nonsense.

Topicality/ Procedurals:

If you are the Aff you probably are pretty worried right now based on that procedural-friendly overview. Well, perhaps you are right to be worried, but my judging of procedurals is pretty even-handed. I don't think a counter-interpretation is required to win a topicality argument as the Aff, you can defeat a procedural on its merits. If you do have a counter-interpretation, your theory arguments (in this context usually referred to as "standards") will be given equal consideration and you get to do comparative analysis twice instead of only once! A few other notes of relevance here:

a. I don't require proven in round abuse to vote on a position

b. The NFA-LD rules are a persuasive and valid support for a position being vote-worthy

c. Arguing the rules are wrong or dumb or should be ignored will be an uphill climb for you in front of me

d. I voted for an RVI only one time in my life (it was on a panel and I squirreled :) )

e. I am completely fine with your own interpretation of a word or any interp that is not a literal dictionary definition, as long as it makes sense and you can defend it

f. I don't know what the overall distribution or topic areas of most Affs are so if you point out some common Aff that to you sounds like an obvious counter-example to your opponents interp, I probably won't get it

Case/Disads:

My most preferred way to decide a round is on impact comparison and relative advantages / disadvantages. A straight up politics, global warming, or heg debate will be just dandy for me. I don't know if I have too many tips and tricks on my judging of these things. I probably am more likely to consider solvency defense arguments and weight them in my decision making than most judges. "That's just defense" is a valid answer to an argument, but it is not 100% of the time a winning answer if the defense is substantial. If you call out specific pieces of evidence or make an argument based on an interpretation of the card text, I will ask for the evidence and read it after the round. Even if I think it is unlikely to matter in the final decision - you took time out of your speech to call out a specific element of the submitted evidence, and I consider it a judicial obligation to take the time to consider it specifically (exception if you literally drop the argument later in the round).

I am ok with any and all non-body count impacts. I consider it an onus on both debaters to engage in the framing debate over how to compare body counts to non-body count considerations, but I have no predisposition towards one or the other.

I am ok with real-world impacts (i.e. the "people in this room" type impacts) however, I'd prefer they come attached with some-kind of framework for voting, otherwise they are unlikely to be very consequential in the hypothetical world of the affirmative/negative.

Counter-Plans:

Do what you want here, but a few warnings... When I debated topical CPs were not a thing that was done, so if you do one my initial reaction may be unfavorable, but I will do my best not to let that bias my adjudication. I kind of think given the time constraints and format of LD that conditional CPs are pretty BS. Also, they are a bad idea strategically in LD but that is a different discussion. Anyway, I won't drop you just for running a conditional CP, just know that my pre-disposition in LD specifically is in favor of the condo bad side of the theory debate.

The K:

I don't have any specific grievances against any particular popular K authors. My preference is to hear topic or aff-specific Ks. In my experience the K deployed as a case-specific strategy is far more effective then a generic backfile K that you pull out because that's the only strategy you've got in your bag, but hey, if that's your only strategy you gotta go with what you've got. The one thing I will say is, if you are reading a non-case relevant K, I really won't give much weight to the fact that your arguments are evidence-based vs. your opponent's analytics. So as the Neg I would advise you not to consider that a silver bullet response. You have to understand the philosophical argument and be able to APPLY it to the debate round at hand.

Ok I think that's it. Ask me questions before the round if I forgot something obvious!

Email- mmdoggett@gmail.com

Background:

My college career started back in the 90s when CEDA still had 2 resolutions a year. I have coached in CEDA, NFA, NPDA, IPDA, and a little public forum. I am now coaching mainly in NFA LD.

General:

First, you should not assume that I know anything. This includes your shorthand, theory, or K literature. If you do, given our age differences, you might be shocked at the conclusions I'm going to come to.

Second, if you don't offer an alternative framework I will be net benefits and prefer big impacts.

Third, I presume the aff is topical unless the negative proves otherwise. I don't necessarily need proven abuse either. What I need is a clean story from the final negative explaining why they win and why I'm voting there. T is a voter, and I'm not going to vote on a reverse voter (vote against a debater) unless it is dropped or the carded evidence is really good. I am more willing to ignore topicality and look elsewhere than I am to vote the negative down on it. In rare instances, a negative can win without going all in on it, but that is very, very unlikely.

Fourth, I tend to give the affirmative risk of solvency and the negative, a risk of their DA.

Fifth, I'm probably going to need some offense/risk of offense somewhere on the flow to vote for you.

Sixth, if your K links are non-unique (apply to the status quo as well), you are only going to win if you win your alternative.

Seventh, on conditionality (LD specific)- I will probably vote conditionality bad if you have more than one conditional position.

Eighth, I will vote on them, but I'm not a fan of tricks. Tricks are usually a good indication that you know that you have done something pretty shady but if the opponent let's you get away with it, I'll vote for it.

In closing, I think that pretty accurately describes who I am but just remember I try to vote on the flow, but I tend to only look at the parts of the flow the debaters tell me too. Good luck!

My name is Christopher Hachet, and I am an assistant debate coach and judge from Capital University in Columbus Ohio. I competed in debate during high school and was the novice state champion for Indiana in 1982. Then I judged high school debate when I was in college. Working part time with collegiate debate for about five years now and a bit of back story is in order.

I graduated from Taylor University with a bachelors degree in education in 1989 and decided that I did not want to teach. After a short career in commercial sales, I decided that my real passion was working with my hands and building things. Thus I became a master licensed journeyman electrician and refrigeration mechanic. This proved to be a fabulous career choice for me , and I moved up to become a foreman running all sorts of interesting projects from a neurosurgery clinic to a large middle school.

As the economy slowed and my later forties loomed large, I decided that I wanted a change of pace and took a job at Capital in the Facilities department. My father had worked in higher education for most of his adult life, and I felt a strong desire to give back to the field of higher education. Dr Koch was kind enough to also let me assist with the debate team, and I have had a blast driving all over the country with CEDA, IFA LD and NEDA debate as well as various speech events. Your fifties can really be the best decade of your life, and I still love debate 35 years after my last round of actual competition.

My judging philosophy can perhaps be best summed up by a very short analogy. Were you to be at my work bench struggling to make a strait cut in a piece of wood with a hand saw, I would look at the most simple and immediate items to help you be a better sawyer. Your posture, how you clamped the work piece to the bench, and how you held the saw would be much more important than an esoteric discussion about how to set rake and fleem while sharpening a hand saw. In a like manor, I look for debaters to focus on a strong basic ontological understanding of the concepts they are working with, careful argumentation and analysis, and keen cross examination skills.

Follow Ockham's Razor with Ockham's aftershave and we are all set!

In terms of what my actual voting criteria are, there are perhaps 5 different models of looking at a debate and I borrow from all five. They are;

The Stock issues Paradigm;

Topicality seems to be the defacto concern regarding stock issues. Will vote on topicality with a fairly high threshold because I believe in Affirmative presumption and the right of the aff to approach the topic in whichever route they find pertinent. If you are claiming abuse on the Neg side I will be much more sympathetic to your topicality claims if you attempt to clash with the Aff in good faith. Most topicality debates fall down on the neg side in my experience because of inadequate in round work on why I actually should prefer the neg interpretation. Multiple forms of T arguments in the same round are not abusive IMHO but I often find them counter productive.

The Policy making Paradigm;

This most closely resembles how the older hairy guy sitting in front of you as your judge is going to view the next rather intense hour or so of your life. My personal philosophical world view is based in existentialism and realism, and I tend to view the world and judge policy through that lens. Student analysis and reasoning is much more important to me than evidence. Convince me that you understand the policy issues at hand and have done some original critical thinking on the debate resolution. Debate is not a clash of evidence cards, it is a clash of ideas. Bring me yours. I just drove a few hundred miles to hear them.

The Hypothesis testing/Social science paradigm;

I do allow multiple negative positions to be run even if they are contradictory in order to test the resolution and the Aff's interpretation of the resolution. If I grant the Aff presumption in terms of interpretation I also have to grant the neg presumption on how they will answer the Aff. If you disagree with this, please see Tabla Rasa and Game Theory below.

Tabla Rasa;

The driven sands of the Sahara and the emptiness of a blizzard are my models of thought in terms of both link story for things like negative disadvantage claims and aff solvency claims. I am neither Greek nor Tabla Rasa but I think there is much to learn from both schools of thought. If in doubt, spell it out. It would be unethical for me as a judge to to sit in the back of the room and make assumptions about the actual impacts of implantation of Affirmative's policy proposal. Also unwilling to concede anything along the lines of giving agricultural subsides to Bolivian beet farmers causing nuclear winter and extinction without some sort of plausible explanation.

Your approach to how you wish to approach the round is completely up to you. I have no preferred style of presentation.

Game player theory of debate;

Keeping it fair regardless of school being represented or reputation of debater is a top priority for me as a judge. I have a bad habit of voting down good debaters when they get sloppy.

I expect you to be highly focused on the flow of the debate and make arguments that lead to a proper clash of ideas. Several previous debaters would describe me as shameless at dropping a team on a ballot if a key argument is dropped and the other side catches it. You probably don't want to be that person.

Final notes;

Speed is fine...I have only ever had to ask a debater once to slow down. If you are in round and your opponent is speaking too quickly please get my attention by saying "clear" loudly enough for me to hear. I will acknowledge your request and signal the other debater to slow down a bit. If it is obvious a debater is using speed in an abuse way I reserve the right to down vote this as a form of abuse.

I am open to different philosophical approaches in debate. Upvoting or down voting things like Kritiques based upon actual in round work and explanatory power of ideas presented keeps debaters working hard and tournaments interesting. Most of all I enjoy it when people think hard and challenge my own thinking. By no means am I Elijah sent from on high to be the prophet of debate.

"The best way to have a good idea is to have lots of ideas." - Linus Pauling-I prefer that you pull as much forward into the final rebuttal as reasonably possible. If you are winning an argument and do not bring it forward as a voter clearly I will not upvote you on that idea.

Do not be afraid to disagree with me, and I also am open to any questions before or after the round.

I did NFA-LD debate for 4 years, and since then have judged occasionally.

I try to keep a careful flow and will weigh arguments based on how you tell me to prioritize them. Impact calculus is very important. When there is clash between evidence making competing claims, tell me why I should prefer your evidence.

I'll listen to / vote for anything, but if I had to express a preference it would be for policy focused debate and DAs and CPs rather than Ks, however if you want to read a K, it's totally fine. You're probably better off reading what makes you comfortable and plays to your strengths rather than trying to prioritize my preferences. For DAs and Ks I want to see a clear link, more specific to the case is better, and you should explain how I am weighting your impacts (impact calc or framework). For CPs and K alts I want to understand what you are advocating - I'm not a fan of ambiguous CP text or vague alts.

A note for the affirmative, when you only have 3 minutes for the 2AR you should make them count. You don't need to spend 1:30 reading a pre-written overview reminding me what your advantages were. Effective 2AR time allocation is one of the most important skills that separates top competitors. I vote on the flow, make sure you're covering key points and not dropping half the NR.

My educational background is in math, physics, and engineering rather than anything related to political science or philosophy, which I am mostly exposed to through debate. As such I am unlikely to be familiar with the thesis of some more abstract K arguments based on block titles or authors last name, so if you are going for such a position it is important that what you reading is clearly explaining the key ideas in round. On the other hand, if the topic lends itself to scientific discussions, I may be more familiar than most with scientific / technical arguments and evidence.

I'm fine with conditional arguments in general, but not if they are being used abusively. I don't really care if you kick a CP with a bunch of defense read against it and go for the status quo, but I might care if you read some contradictory positions which you intend to kick out of when collapsing latter in the round.

Any procedurals are ok. If the procedural is a rules violation, then I don't think showing abuse is necessary. For other types of procedurals my default position is also that showing abuse is not necessary, but I'll consider arguments to the contrary. The standards debate is how I evaluate these arguments. I like competing interpretations. I much prefer a few well developed standards with impacts over a bunch of blip taglines.

Having said that, your procedurals still have to be logical and persuasive. My default position is condo is generally fine, your opponent running weak arguments isn't an RVI for some reason, and poor time allocation on your part is not a form of time skew.

Speed is fine, as long as you are clear, but would prefer if you went at a pace where your opponent is able to keep up. When reading analytics (such as standards for theory arguments) you should go at a pace where I can flow your warrants and impacts, which may involve slowing down compared to when you read evidence. I do tend to follow along with your speech doc, so you can probably go a bit faster if you give me a well organized doc and roadmap, and go a bit slower if you're jumping all over the place or making analytics not in the document.

Evidence quality is important to me. I want your cards to clearly support the taglines you give them, and the language should be comprehensible to a general college educated audience. I tend to be skeptical of cards where what you are reading is a few disjointed sentence fragments spread out over pages of minimized text - make sure you are not changing the essence of the original or creating new arguments. I will look at key cards after the round, but I expect you to actually read the important parts, I'm not going to go hunting for your warrants if they're hiding in the middle of the page in size 6 font. When cards clash in the round, I will be really happy if you compare evidence quality and warrants.

I have been involved in debate for about 15 years. I debated for 2 years and have been a coach/judge for about 13 years. When I judge a round, I try to be as tabula rasa as possible. I tend to view the round as a court, where I am an actual judge, and the affirmative and negative are presenting me with a case. It is my job to judge the evidence and arguments as they are presented in the round. I am to assume no outside opinions or evidence which is not presented in the round. Under this theory, any argument can win. I will listen to and vote for any argument in the round, provided that it is well-evidenced and argued. Also, I tend to be a very standard judge, your average judge will probably vote the same way I do. The only thing you need to win is good evidence and impact calculus.

I feel as though debate rules are more like guidelines than a list set in stone. Proper debaters should strive to meet the rules or guidelines in front of them. However, unless there is a clear argument in the debate that the other team is violating important rules, I will not vote a team down for it. I believe it is up to the debaters to point out those rules and explain their importance in the debate. I will vote on properly laid arguments for or against the rules based on how the debaters handle these issues.

I will vote for any argument that a debater places in the debate, if I’m given a good reason to do so. Also, although I do like Topicality, it is a harder argument to win. The negative must really go for it and prove their violations, standards, and the impact it has on the round. Also I don’t like it when someone makes a bunch of Topicality arguments and then drops them with no given reason. Try to use Topicality strategically, and if it needs dropped, explain why and what that means for the round.

In the rebuttals, I expect debaters to give me clear voters and tell me why I vote on these issues. When a person does not give me clear voters, it is up to me to interpret the round and I don’t like doing that. I prefer clear cut reasons to vote for each side. If one person has clear voters and the other does not; the person with the clear voters and impact stories will usually win.

Prepping outside of prep time and being disorganized is not okay.

Basic Overview:

I believe it's your burden to tell me how and WHY (very important part) I should vote. If you give me a reason to vote on an RVI, and it goes dropped (I have a very low threshold for beating an RVI), and you go for that warranted RVI in your last speech... I will vote for it, regardless of how icky it feels. If neither team does the work to tell me how and why I vote, and I have to do a lot of work for you, don't be mad if that vote doesn't swing your way.

On LD rules:

For the sake of consistency, you have to tell me if something is in the rules if you want me to vote on it. So if you're going for "that type of counterplan isn't allowed in LD," then you obviously (and inherently) tell me that it's in the rules. The same thing goes for T... I don't NEED other voters, but you do have to tell me it's the rules. Also, I guess you can tell me the rules are bad, but you have to warrant it well.

Speed is also addressed in the rules, but I think that "conversational rate" is an arbitrary term. I'm fine with speed but I prefer that you annunciate. If your speed costs you your clarity, then slow down.

On Theory:

Absent you telling me, I defer to competing interps and potential abuse. That's just how I see debate, and is how I find myself evaluating rounds where no one tells me how to vote but the round clearly comes down to theory.

On Stock Issues:

It's technically in the rules that you have to have these stock issues, so if you're going for "no inherency" or "no propensity to solve" all you really have to do is cite the rules. Refer to my take on the rules.

On the K:

I'm comfortable with critical arguments. I often find that the Alt isn't explained well, and it's a pretty important part of the K because absent the Alt, your K is a nonunique DA. I still think you can claim K turns case absent the Alt, but of course that can be refuted back and forth so it's better to try to win your alt.

On 1AR/1NR/ Theory:

I never see it debated well because of time constraints in LD but sure, I'm open to it. If you're going for it in the 2AR, I imagine you'd really have to go for it.

I'm autistic and strictly speaking have a lower audio processesing speed. This only ever really impacts me on theory arguments happening at speed and in especially background noise-ful online debates. Prioritize clarity please. Make it very clear where you're at and what you're doing. I've been doing just fine recently (I think I became accustomed to online debate) but it never hurts to disclose these sorts of things

An update on the above, I honestly have begun to beleive that the shift to speech docs has shifted students AWAY from emphasizing clarity.

I only vote on what I hear you say, not whats in the speech document. I also do not read cards for you unless there is debate on what a card says.

About Me and Debate: I have been doing competitive debate in some capacity since 2007. In terms of reading me: Generally if I look confused, I am. If I am holding my hands in the air and staring at you that means I think you're making a brand spanking new argument in the NR or 2AR that I have no idea what existing argument to put it on. So if that's happening, please make sure I understand why this isn't new (so why its an extension of an existing arg or in the NR's case a response to an Aff arg). Reading your judge is a good skill to have. Ultimately I think the debaters are in charge of their own destiny and I’ll vote wherever/however you tell me I should. I like offense. I am willing to vote on defense, but I will be unhappy about it.

Good line by line argumentation is always awesome. Good analysis will beat just reading a card (a good card PLUS good analysis is even better). I prefer not to read cards after a round unless there is contention on what that cards actually says.

Speed: I am fine with speed, but (especially in this activity) clarity is KEY, if both your opponent and myself can understand then we're all good. I have judged too many rounds where debaters will try to go quickly not because they can do it clearly/efficiently, but because I'm fine with it so why not. That is a terrible reason to spread and I will dock speaks accordingly. Additionally please slow down on your theoretical positions, no one can write that fast. If I don't get all those sick T arguments you're making then my ballot will probably reflect it. Most important thing is everyone in the round understanding you, but don't be that person who says 'clear' just so slow someone down then go that speed yourself. No one should be winning rounds strictly because one person was much quicker than the other or because one debater can't understand the words another is saying.

I will say clear once, and that it all.

Ethos: For the most part, your ethos will only effect your speaker points and not whether or not you win the debate. Just because I think you're a jerk doesn't mean you're not a jerk who won. Though keep in mind that often the things that ruin your ethos ALSO lose you rounds (like assuming arguments are stupid and not explaining why or not finishing your argument because the implications are clear enough to you). I will usually let you know if you have done something that damaged your ethos.

There is another surefire way of damaging your speaks with me in the back of the room: I can get a bit angry when debaters I know are smart make stupid decisions.

General Theory: The voting issue "The NFA-LD rules say X" holds exactly no weight with me. I do not follow/enforce rules simply because they are rules. You should at least explain why that particular rule is good. In fact, if you wish for me to judge based on what the rules say, then I can. Please disregard the entirety of this paradigm, I am now a stock issues judge. If you want me to the follow the rules I will.

There are SO MANY other reasons T is an a priori issue and I never hear most of them.

Topicality: Topicality is my jam. It is quite possibly one of my favorite arguments in debate. I have fairly low threshold for voting on reasonability on marginally topical affs. I think debaters are the ones who set the realm of the topic. Tell me why your aff deserves to be topical. Tell me why your definition is the best one for this topic. Tell me about it. If your aff deserves to be considered topical, TELL ME WHY. For my negatives, remember to tell me why the Aff is taking the topic in the wrong direction. Make sure you think through your position and all of its implications. Make sure you tell me why this aff hurts you. Try to force them into showing their true colors. Run that DA you claim they will No Link out of, worst case is they don't make that argument but now you have a DA with a conceded link. My brain breaks when you refer to things as limits DAs or education DA. Say links.

Kritiks: The Kritik is a special animal, in my opinion. If you run the K like the NDT/CEDA people do I think you’re doing it wrong. In fact, there is a good chance you will lose the debate if you just pull an NDT/CEDA K out of some backfile and read it. Keep your implications tied to policy action and try to avoid flowery and long tags on evidence.View the K as if you are a lobbyist for X cause and you want to convince congress (me) to vote against a policy currently on the floor (the aff) due to a negative assumption that policy is making. Explain to me what happens when we keep making policies that make this bad assumption. Reject the Aff is a fine alt, just keep the above in mind. If you start reading a K and look at me and I look extremely annoyed, its probably because you aren't adapting to me. Not an auto loss, just a rough go. DO NOT RUN LINKS OF OMISSION. I am extremely partial to the 'we can't talk about all the things all of the time' argument.

To my K Affs: Kritikal affs are my favorite thing. I think they're a lot of fun and are super educational. If your K aff doesn't have a plan text that is relevent to the rez you will never get my ballot, preferably it should be fiated but I have softened on that issue. However, I do not listen to Topicality Bad. Consider my position on the K in the paragraph above this one. There are plenty of excellent examples of this. Once I read a position that changed the definition of torture to include mental anguish as a form of torture as a staunch rejection of Cartesian Dualism. This both helped the people we're doing terrible things to in Gitmo and other places, but also began the break down of dualistic rhetoric in the government (and yes, my card did say that. It was a sick card). What I'm trying to stress here is that we are a policy making role play activity. To defend a position you do not believe in is to become more educated on that position. Debates about the political are important and I think the way we do them is especially important.

Please note all of my personal views on competitive equity and having topical and preferably fiated affs can be ignored if your opponent should not even be at the tournament. See: Is a predator.

Roles of the Ballot: The role of the ballot functions as a round framing and a focus. If you think that a particular minority group is underrepresented within the topic and you'd like the debate to be solely about their betterment, make THAT the role of the ballot. Use it as offense on that generic nonsense test the neg didn't bother to make more specific to your position. We can have the debate on whether or not that framework is a productive one. Hell, the neg can agree that you're right about that minority group and tailor their position to operate within it. And isn't that what we should all want, assuming we truly care for said minority group and the role of the ballot is not simply to box the neg out of all of their ground?

Speaker Point Assignment: My speaker point assignment system is mostly gut based to be perfectly honest with you, but there are a couple tips and tricks I can provide to get your 30. Ultimately the assignment is a combination of debate style, organization, ethos, and clarity of speech. A perfectly clear speaker with poor organization won't get a 30, but neither will an unclear speaker with perfect organization. In terms of priority, I suppose, it goes Clarity, Ethos, Organization, Style.

My Flow and You: I would describe myself as a good flow. If you have any experience that statement should ring a few alarm bells and I get that. I have trouble getting cites at times, especially if you're of the 'full citation' mentality where the author and the date are 20 seconds apart. To be honest I prefer people actually extending their positions instead of "Cross apply XY in ## " and it definitely helps with my flowing. If you're flying through things like theory or don't clearly enunciate your tags I will miss things and you may lose because of it. You have been warned.

Things I think are dumb/Pet Peeves: Disease extinction impacts, "The rules say so", State links, Kritiks without impact D, "99% of species that ever existed are now extinct" logical fallacies, the rest of the logical fallacies, Putting the burden of proof on the negating position, blatantly asking your opponent how they'd respond to a potential argument you may make in your next speech (like come on, have some nuance), caring about white nationalists and their feelings. "Just read my evidence" in cross ex.

You'd have thought living through a global pandemic would have put the kabosh on disease extinction impacts. It has not. :(

Other Thoughts: Debate is my favorite thing and happy rounds full of debaters who also love debate is my other favorite thing. Remember, THIS IS A GAME. As the great Abe Lincoln once said in a fictional movie "Be excellent to each other. And... PARTY ON, DUDES!"

Experience: 4 years of NFA-LD debate in college, 8 years of IE experience (Extemp/Impromptu, high school and college).

Big Picture: I'm receptive to just about every kind of argument. The most important thing is framing/impact calculus/telling me what is important in the round and why I should be voting for you. Making certain whichever argument you make is clear to me and compellingly stated is the best thing you can in the round. I greatly dislike messy flows, blipped analytics, and debates that are missing framing that expect me to understand what is important.

I try to come into the debate round with a clean slate. As a result, assume I know nothing--I will not fill in holes in arguments for you.

AFF: Again, tell a clear story. I like clearly structured AFFs with clear impacts. I'll vote for any kind of impact, but if you had to press me, I'd probably say I lean slightly toward high-probability impacts over high-magnitude impacts.

NEG: Collapse. Pick a story and tell me why it's a better story than your opponent's story. Otherwise, I am receptive to K's, counterplans, etc. I'm generally comfortable with any kind of K or CP, but there are a few caveats.

1) Condo good is an uphill battle for me. In general I tend to consider conditional advocacy as an unfair advantage. Still, feel free to try arguing it if you would like.

2) The K does not need to solve the AFF, but it does need to outweigh it. If you're providing me a K, then I presume that you are either presenting a costumed CP with K impacts or a genuine criticism of the AFFs assumptions (i.e., why an act in furtherance of those assumptions generates harm). The first I am very receptive to, and the second I am also receptive to, but make certain to do a good job explaining why doing JUST the AFF is enough to trigger impacts that outweigh the AFF. You can make slippery slope arguments, but it is also an uphill battle.

3) If you are running a K that is complex, uses lots of jargon, or is generally difficult to understand, PLEASE figure out a way to explain it clearly. If I or your opponent cannot understand your argument, then it is very tough for you to win the round for me. If I don't understand your argument, then I probably won't understand your framing of the round. If your opponent doesn't understand your argument, and you have not in good faith attempted to explain it clearly to them, then I regard that as a fairness issue and I will probably be biased against your position.

Procedurals: For either side, I'm comfortable with any procedural. In general, I prefer appeals to fairness and education as opposed to naked appeals to the rules. The rules exist to create a fair activity, so fairness/education are the more fundamental voters. If you make a rules/jurisdiction voter, tell me why the rules are the internal link to fairness/education. As with other arguments, give me a compelling narrative. On T specifically, I have a low threshold as long as you have a reasonable interpretation, a clearly demonstrated violation, and the more persuasive argument as to why your interpretation is the internal link to fairness/education in this round/the debate space.

Flowing/Speed: I am comfortable with speed. I am most comfortable with speed if I have the speech doc. HOWEVER, I have little patience for blipping analytics at speed. Please slow down on the analytics. I am an OK flower, so please tell me where I should be flowing when. Otherwise, things may end up in the wrong spots.

In general, make smart, important arguments and construct a narrative around them. Tell me what is important, and I'll vote for it.

History: This is my sixth year out from undergrad and my second year judging NFA-LD on the regular. 2 years of CEDA/NDT debating, 2 years of NFA-LD debating. High school; Congress and Mock Trial.

Dear Trans Debaters (and judges): Please feel free to approach me at any time over any medium for any reason. I am happy and honored to give any support you may need. Seriously, do not hesitate or think you are being a bother or a burden. You are important and deserve support.

NOW LETS TALK ABOUT DEBATE

New Thoughts: I feel in the last few years Ive gotten a better idea of where I lean on a few things.

In round: You should generally ignore faces I make, I make them a lot. The one thing you should not ignore is if I make a point to lean back in my chair, cross my arms, and frown at you. I am making it obvious that I am not flowing because you are either a)making a completely brand new argument when you shouldn't be b) repeating yourself or c)being offensive.

KRITIKS: Kritiks to me are about questioning and attacking the assumptions inherent in the 1AC and proving that those assumptions cause policy failure and/or significant harms. Note that this does not mean I think the K needs to solve for the case. In fact, most Kritiks that attempt to do so *usually* have terrible Alternatives. Your evidence probably turns case, takes out solvency, or outweighs on impact on its own. Your alternative should be well supported by your evidence. Reject Alts usually don't. I prefer Ks to be as focused on policy making as possible.I probably won't vote for Ks based on links of omission 99.99% of the time, they put an obscene burden on the aff.

COUNTERPLANS: Counterplans are great for education and fairness in debate. Topical counterplans are BEST for these things. If you run a counterplan, you should probably go for it because they take a lot of time to just not go for in an LD structured round. That said, if you somehow have another viable position, you should be able to kick the counterplan as long as you don't use the affs own answers to it against them ? Thats abusive and the one thing I will vote you down for regardless of how poorly the aff explains the abuse.

THE AFFIRMATIVE: I love both traditional policy affs and kritikal affs. K Affs should keep my K section in mind as it applies to them. You should be topical and you MUST specify an actor within the resolution. Technically its not impossible to get me to vote for an untopical aff, but you should be relevant enough to be able to pretend you're topical, and defending yourself as such, or at least that the educational importance of your aff justifies the deviation from the topic. But it needs to at least incorporate some core aspect of the topic, like bare minimum. If you aren't relevant enough to do that, you shouldn't be running this. If you're not heavily involved in the topic, and/or you are refusing to use the USFG, you are blocking your opponent out of the round. Switch side debate is vital for fairness and education and rejecting the USFG cuz its evil is firmly neg ground. This is a game. Without fair rules it devolves into madness and national tournaments where Affs win 90% of their rounds (lookin at you CEDA (yeah that actually happened)). Racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, there is always radical lit discussing these issues within the topic, and that radical lit does not preclude USFG usage/topicality as much as everyone thinks it does.

Ultimately running the same thing every round is only robbing yourself of the educational value of switch side debate and learning about the system we are stuck in right now (valuable knowledge for a radical as well). If your opponent does not want to go for the arguments Ive stated preference for here, or doesn't actually win that debate I will still vote for you. It is very easy though to get me to vote on switch side debate good, fairness k2 debate survival. The fairly low number of statism/reject usfg affs does not justify my intervention on this matter, but I will definitely re-evaluate that position if it starts to crowd out topical traditional affs.

ROLE OF THE BALLOT: Roles of the ballot can be used as a great way to open up debate about priorities and whats important. They can also be used to box the neg out of their fair share of ground. The neg should be able to critic it's productiveness and/or work within it. Forcing the neg to run a counterproposal probably means I hate your FW/Role of the Ballot

TOPICALITY: The best way to get my ballot on topicality is a really good brightline and a really good argument on the lost ground and why you should have it. You MUST talk about fairness and education and the topic as a whole. Refer back to General Theory below. If you are going to run it, you should probably mean it.

GENERAL THEORY/PROCEDURALS: In order to vote for a theory/procedural and treat it as a voter I need a clear description of what they did wrong, a brightline/what they should have done instead, and why it matters. It should detail exactly why it is abusive, and how it effects fair/equitable ground and education in this round and debate as a whole. I am not against voting on potential abuse and in fact, you should probably have some examples of it in your impacts. HOWEVER, it is more of an uphill battle.

If all you say is "its abusive and a voter" with no abuse story and no impact on debate as a whole I will not consider it a voter and you couldn't convince me to vote for it even if they drop it. If you can't make a full procedural for whatever reason, don't be afraid to use the word abusive though. It could still make me more likely to drop the arg if you do it right.

Don't rely on the Da Rules. It will eventually come back to haunt you because the rulebook does not distribute ground fairly and is outdated (#sorrynotsorry). Its also a lazy non argument that doesn't develop your critical thinking skills and will lose you speaks.

FLOWING: My flowing capability is decent. I will write everything you say down, and will *probably* put it in the place you want me to, but you should *definitely* be clear about where that is just to be sure. I do not always (or often) catch citations (ya'll mumble them...I did too tho) so you probably shouldn't use just the cite and assume I know exactly which card you are referring to. Tags/Parts of the argument are preferable.

SPEED: I will understand most of what you say no matter how fast you go, but don't push my mediocre flowing to the brink ESPECIALLY if I am flowing on paper. I can only type/write so fast. If I can not understand you its probably an issue of clarity not speed. If I say CLEAR you need to CLEAR. If that requires you to slow down so be it.
You have the right to ask your opponent to slow down, but do not abuse this. I expect you to be able to keep up with above average conversing speed at bare minimum. If you ask someone to slow down, do not dare go any faster than that.

SPEAKS: There is not a very consistent speaker points range in this community. I am probably a bit of a fairy in this regards. Good oration skills will get you higher speaks. Good clear fast talk will get you higher speaks. Making it easy to flow will get you VERY good speaks. Best way to get good speaks is debate well and show you read this paradigm (or at least skimmed it).

michels.browne@gmail.com

I competed in policy debate many years ago for Kansas and coached Lincoln Douglas debate for Penn State the past five years. This is my first year as a CEDA/NDT coach/judge. As an argumentation instructor, I value the quality of evidence and arguments. So, if challenged I will examine the evidence (all of it including the unhighlighted and minimized sections) in the round—best say what you claim it says. I also want to hear warranted arguments, not labels –i.e. just saying “education” on topicality is not sufficient. I, to the best of my ability, adopt the perspective of tabula rasa and will listen to any argument presented in the debate, EXCEPT I still retain common sense. If you tell me the sky is green with orange polka dots, I won’t buy it.

As mentioned, any types of arguments (Ks, counterplans, topicality, etc.) are accepted and can win you the debate, if you convince me why your position is best. I expect to hear an explanation for how you have won in your team’s final rebuttal. Plan-less affs are not my favorite, but I will listen. Not fond of PICs, but again I will listen.

I don’t view debate as a “game”. I perceive it to be an educational activity in which the participants demonstrate their acumen, analytical and argumentative abilities.

Be smart, be civil, have fun.

Affiliation: Lafayette College

Experience: 4 Years NFA-LD (judge 1-3 tournaments a year since graduating 5 years ago).

Happy to answer any questions pre-round, but below are my thoughts/answers on the common questions. If a debater and/or coach want to reach out to me to discuss an RFD or a round, I am all for that, and can be reached on facebook (Ryan Monahan; In NFA-LD community group) or by email monahanr435@gmail.com.

FAQs

Speed - I have been out of the activity for a bit now, so that certainly affects my ability to keep up in high wpm rounds - I'll yell speed if its real bad, but most often I will yell clear because that is commonly the real issue. Opponents (especially those who may have less experience in debate) are encouraged to also yell speed and clear if it is at a rate that is exclusionary to them.

Kritiks/Critical Affirmatives - I was a nonkritikal debater in my 4 years, which to a certain extent informs my willingness to vote for them. Ultimately, its an argument that I will view as any other in a round, but my two most common reasons for not voting for a kritik/ca are: (1) it fails to articulate why I should operate outside of Fiat (reading a framework card that says "we exist in this Framework now" is insufficient) and (2) assuming we are operating outside of fiat, the consequences of a W/L and why the ballot is relevant.

Proven Abuse: Not necessary on T, although helpful, a bit more necessary for a non-stock issue based procedural (Vagueness).

Dislikes: Card dumps; blocked out NR's that don't respond to the nuance of the round; aggression/rudeness; noncontextualized buzzwords (e.g., Biopower).

Likes: Case Specific CPs and DAs; Rebuttals that collapse; impact calc; Affs that actually solve; writing the ballot for me.

Final thoughts: The round is what you make of it; so don't take anything I say (except actively exclusionary strategies/bad arguments) to be an indication that you shouldn't debate in a way that is most likely to set you up to succeed.

My name is Callistina, but call me Callie, it's 2 syllables shorter :)

I debated parli 2 years for Valley Christian High School in San Jose, CA and then another 2 years LD for Ithaca College. Now I'm coaching LD at Ithaca College and occasionally judge for the Penn State Speech and Debate Society. My favorite kinds of tournament are those with a lot of food and those with civil, respectful and friendly debaters.

That being said, right off the bat, I don't tolerate any kind of disrespect and/or incivility towards your opponent and/or literally anybody else. I think it's important to maintain an educational environment with courtesy and respect to encourage debaters, especially novice debaters. If you're rude in round, make fun of your opponent under any circumstances, make racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/xenophobic/ableist, etc. statements, misgender anyone in the round intentionally (and/or keep doing so after knowing everybody's pronouns) or just generally make the round hostile and intimidating to your opponent, I will drop you, period. Courtesy is a voting issue, and I have a generally low threshold for it, because I think it's important to be courteous before being a good debater.

On that note, I'm ok with speed, but please signpost and be clear and slower with your tags and plan text. I will frown upon spreading if it 1. trades off with your clarity and 2. excludes your opponent, especially when they're international students and/or don't speak English as their first language (like myself).

About CX and prep time - Please don't cut off your opponent as they're legitimately answering, BUT feel free to do so when they start rambling on to waste your time or frustrate you. Don't use CX as a weapon to exclude your opponent. If I notice things like that in round, the least severe action I will take is docking your speaks significantly, and the most severe being possibly dropping you, especially if a legitimate argument for that is raised by and defended by your opponent in their next speech. Also, I frown upon people attempting to start CX time or prep time for their opponent - it's pretty rude actually, so please try not to do that. I will notice if you do.

Now about debate itself. Tell me how you want me to vote and explain clearly why you're winning the argument.

Before your speech: please please please (yes I'm begging you) never ever forget to give me an off-time roadmap/order (if it's IPDA, then 10-15s at the beginning of your speech time). I've had to ask for it quite a handful of times and I kinda not want to anymore, because it really isn't my job to have to keep asking for it. Roadmaps/orders are extremely helpful for me to follow you in your speech, since (believe it or not) I struggle with English in debate pretty often.

For LD

** PSA** Regarding tagging and highlighting/underlining evidence: Please make sure your tags accurately reflect the body of your evidence and your highlighting/underlining preserves the context of the evidence and respects the intention of the author. Powertagging and highlighting/underlining out of context and the author's intention are enough grounds for dropping the debater who commits these practices, especially when called out by the opponent. At best, this will lead to the entire evidence card being rejected, which also hurts the debater in the round.

I really don't want to have to penalize anyone for this, so please try to avoid this situation entirely.

Stock Issues:

You as the aff should present/explain the stock issues clearly, and be ready to defend them against the neg with everything you have. That's the easiest way to get my ballot there. On the other side, when you're neg, if you can show me that the aff doesn't meet any of the stock issues they're supposed to present, then I will vote for you there.

Topicality:

This is also another easy way to get my ballot because I've found myself starting to love T debates a lot more lately.

T is a priori, but depending on the wording of the resolution, my threshold for T fluctuates accordingly. If you as the neg wanna go for T, then you should clearly explain 1. why I should prefer your interpretation, 2. why your standards are better and how the aff hasn't met them and 3. what I should be voting on and why I must do so.

Kritiks:

I don't love them, but I'll listen to them. My threshold for Ks isn't as high as it used to be, but it's definitely still not low. In a nutshell, Ks are some sort of thought process concerning certain issues, and I find them perm-able most of the time, since it is possible to enact policy and embrace a thought process at the same time. I don't hate Ks though, but you gotta do some real work to show me why your K is not perm-able and explain to me which level your K is engaging in and why it matters more than the aff.

My threshold for any theory against condo Ks varies depending on the K, but usually it's pretty low.

If you read a K aff, you'd better have a plan text and a good reason why your aff is better than a policy aff. My threshold remains high for those also.

Counterplans:

I think CPs are really strategic if done right. I think unconditional CPs are best. Condo CPs can get abusive in my opinion, so my threshold for any condo theory will be pretty low. It doesn't mean I'll vote against a condo CP right away though - I'll listen to it and try to follow it to the best of my ability, and how I vote also depends on the neg strat you're reading. Other than that, you should explain why your CP is competitive and why you have the net benefit, as well as how your CP doesn't bite (a) disad(s) like the aff does. I don't care whether or not your CP is 100% topical, but it's best to have a CP that has some sort of relevance to the resolution in my opinion. It'll be helpful to, based on my experience. Also you should be able to defend why the aff can't perm your CP and be very sure that you can fight tooth and nail to defend your position.

Disads:

I think these are underrated; disads are pretty straightforward and more often than not they do force a choice. To win a disad you need to do some impact calculus and show me why your impact(s) outweigh(s) the aff advantage(s). You also need to clearly explain why your disad scenario is unique and establish a link to the aff. As the aff, you only need to beat either uniqueness, link/threshold or impact, whichever one you can beat, to beat the disad.

Theories:

I have a love affair with those. I actually have a reputation of having read full cites way more than I should've, and I wear it like a badge of honor :D

That being said though, since theories are interesting wildcards, my threshold for those varies depending on how you read them, though my threshold for voting on theories without proven abuse is pretty high. I find them entertaining and refreshing, but you really need to tell me why your theory argument matters and what implications it has regarding the round. Be careful when reading these though; they can sometimes toe the line of an ethical charge, and you'd better make it clear that you're reading a theory and not bringing any charge against your opponent.

However, I will never, ever, ever vote for disclosure theory on either sides, in any shape or form, so don't bother. You'll be wasting your time.

RVIs:

All is fair game. If an RVI is not answered to sufficiently, I will vote for it.

--

For Parli/NPDA and IPDA: TL;DR I'm pretty open-minded when it comes to parli or IPDA, so I will evaluate everything you say to me, as long as you can clearly explain it. I will not vote for something I don't/can't understand, because it's your job to help me understand where you're at in the debate. Be nice and courteous, because you can cross apply my whole paragraph on courtesy here too.

--

That's it for my rambling TED Talk. Thanks for reading! If there's still anything you need me to clarify before your round with me, just ask!

Final note: Debate can sometimes be overwhelming and intimidating, and sometimes you find yourself in a bad tournament for you. It's discouraging and exhausting. I know, I've been there before. Please please please know that even if you don't do as well as you'd like to, you are a great debater with a lot of potential, and that a few bad tournaments don't define you as a person or even a debater. I'm always available to support you even emotionally in a tournament, should you feel like you need someone rooting for you during a tough weekend. I've made many friends from other schools during my debate years who have supported me, and I'd like to do the same for you too.

Background: I competed in policy debate for four years in college at the University of Mary Washington. I coached policy debate for seven years, public forum for one year, and LD debate for five years.

Despite my policy background I am committed to the spirit of LD. This means that while you can speak quickly, you should be comprehensible and both debaters should be ok with going fast. I have seen too many debates where a varsity debater unnecessarily spreads out a novice debater.

Topicality is a voting issue. I am unlikely to vote on a reverse voting issue on topicality even if it is dropped. Arguments about why topicality is problematic may be reasons to include your affirmative, but are rarely reasons for you to win the debate. It is probably best in front of me to frame these as expanding the interpretation of what the topic can be, rather than rejecting a topic all together.

The citation rules are so widely disregarded that I would feel uncomfortable enforcing them, especially if there is no conversation between the debaters about reading them prior to the first speech.

Winning topicality or any other theory issue requires more work than winning on a substantive issue. This is to say, if both teams go for substance I have to pick a winner, but if one team goes for theory I can assess that they have not surpassed the burden required to reject the other team. This does not mean that T and theory are unwinnable arguments in front of me. In order to win you should clearly explain your interpretation, explain how the other team has violated it, explain why your interpretation makes for good debates, explain what the opponent does or justifies, and explain why that is bad for debate. This is not code for I do not vote on theory. I will vote on theory.

Negatives should narrow the debate in their second speech. Pick the arguments you are winning and go in-depth. I will give affirmative’s wide latitude in debate where the negative goes for everything in a messy way. Going for T and substance is usually a mistake, unless one or both are such a clear win that you have extra time (this happens rarely).

Presumption goes to the status quo, which means that ties go to the negative (in the world of a counterplan presumption is up for debate). A negative can sometimes make a persuasive case that the affirmative has to prove solvency, which is a separate issue from presumption.

Many debate arguments can be defeated without cards by making smart, warranted, analytical arguments. I wish I saw more of these types of arguments.

I don’t subscribe to an offense defense paradigm; good defense is in many cases enough, especially with theory debates.

I am increasingly willing to intervene in theory debates. Two speeches does not allow for proper theory development and gives both sides the ability to simply block out every speech. Counterplans like consultation and 50 state fiat require a very low threshold to defeat on theory. I am not a fan of conditional counterproposals in LD. Negative arguments like the affirmative doesn’t get permutations are generally nonstarters.

I will vote on kritiks but prefer them specific to the topic and with a hardy dose of explanation about why it relates to the specific claims of the 1AC. I am not a good judge for generic backfile checks with one card that is semi relevant to the topic area. Some additional clarification. Changes to how the round should be evaluated (moving from the question of the desirability of the policy) need to be made explicitly and early and should include substantive justification about why the change excludes or makes undesirable the aff.

Final speeches need to make choices and clearly identify their path to the ballot. One part of this is the order you present ideas in your speech.

Things that will get you lower speaker points/make it hard for you to win.

1. Be rude to the other team.
2. Not answer or be evasive when answering cross ex questions.
3. Be unclear in CX about the status of counter plans
4. Being unable or unwilling to explain your arguments in CX
5. Read unwarranted/unqualified evidence.

One way to get (perhaps unfairly) good speaker points from me is to be entertaining. Many debaters, who were not the best at debate, but nevertheless were pleasant to watch debate, (being funny, speaking passionately, being nice to their opponents) have received speaker points that would typically fall outside of their skill range.

General Information

Hey, everyone, my name is Joseph Rothschild. I was a varsity policy debater for Topeka High School in Kansas for 2 years and a 4-years LD debater for Lafayette College. I had a rewarding career that culminated in several deep runs at NFA and PKD national championship. I'm really excited to judge, and hope to have you in-round!

REGARDING KS: I was a product of a high school policy debate team that was traditionalist to a fault. My collegiate experience was radically different, but because new forms of argumentation haven't been as explored in LD and they have in Policy, stock issues are where I spent most of my time. Despite this, I was constantly challenging myself to engage with kritikal literature, and I implore you to help me continue my education into alternative styles of argumentation. I find performative argumentation incredibly compelling, but make sure you don't assume I've spent my whole life around it.

REGARDING THEORY: I have no problems voting for theory. If you're reading a position on its own sheet of paper (T, Specs, etc.) then I value clarity in the NC, potential abuse stories, and impacted-out voters. I do not need proven abuse to vote. I almost exclusively use the standards debate to determine theory flows, so make sure you're interacting with your opponent's standards, not just reading your own. For anything without its own sheet of paper (a condo bad block on top of a CP flow, a 15-second alt vagueness shell) I am not likely to vote unless it's completely conceded or there's massive proven abuse.

REGARDING PARADIGMS: I default to a stock issues paradigm, and I am willing to vote on terminal defense because I think there's an opportunity cost to passing the AC. However, I can be pretty easily convinced to change my paradigm as long as you explain why to me. If you think there's a reason I need to adopt a different perspective for the round, let me know in your speech.

REGARDING SPEAKER POINTS: Speaker points start at 27.5 for me, and will increase or decrease based on my perception of the round.

Specific Inquiries

1. How do you adjudicate speed? What do you feel your responsibilities are regarding speed?

I am fine with any speed, so long as it is reciprocal. I don't have any problems with competitors yelling “clear.” If you are deliberately spreading your opponent out, I will not drop you, but your speaker points will reflect it.

2. Are there any arguments you would prefer not to hear or any arguments that you don’t find yourself voting for very often?

I'm not particularly entertained by meme arguments. Things like Timecube or the WGLF file from 2005 or some position with “Harambe” in the header are fun to mess around with in cross-x, but please don't make me listen to an entire round about them. I don't care if you're a better debater and want to prove you can beat people with bad arguments.

3. Final Thoughts?

I like when debaters think of tricky ways to get out of positions. I like when people collapse to one position in their last speech. I like impact calculus. Most of all, I like when the debaters have fun. I think debate is at its best when it feels like a tight-knit community exchanging ideas, and I really appreciate when that happens in-round.

These will be my first rounds on this topic. Feel free to contact me at josephleerothschild@gmail.com if you have any questions.

Updated 9.25.2020

Hey y'all, I'm Claire (she/her/hers). I'm an assistant for NFA-LD debate at Lafayette College. I previously coached LD & CX for Ridge HS (NJ), and at Western Kentucky University. I competed successfully in NFA-LD (1-person policy) & limited preps @ WKU, and in a multitude of formats for Blaine HS (MN). I hold a B.A. in Communication Studies.

tl:dr/general -

I consider my self as tab as possible, and familiar with the conventions of all debate events beside PF. I spend nearly all of my time in the world of NFA-LD, though I still like to keep up with HS debate as much as is reasonable.

Treat others as you would want them to treat you. Stand up for yourself and others when others violate that expectation. I'll do the same. Forensics should be accessible and comfortable.

Performance skills matter and boost speaks/determine ranks, but of course it's different what that looks like in each event. Speed is fine, but be cognizant of your opponent, other judges, and which event you are actually competing in (Policy is policy, local LD is not circuit LD, and congress & extemp require public address skills). If you can't/don't want to stand, go for it.

Strategic execution (tech) always comes first, but any page can only be won with superior warrant analysis (truth) under an offense/defense paradigm. After that, weigh everything. Weigh dropped arguments, don't just extend them. While clearly dropped arguments can be devastating, if it's simply a poorly constructed argument then it probably won't factor heavily for me.

Don't advocate for fascist, racist, sexually violent, ableist, or otherwise bigoted arguments. I don't want to hear death good, skep, or religion. Other than that, you do you - Mearsheimer to Moten, I'll listen - but it's still your prerogative to properly articulate your argument. T/Theory is fine.

I read/went for the following most often (in order): big advantages & topic DAs, politics, impacts turns, T/Theory, advantage & agent CPs, post-structuralism, cap, a range of environment literature. I'm academically experienced (in order of depth) on semiotics, discourse theory, normative ethics, Marxist theory, post-structuralism, and existentialism. I pursue a personal reading interest in IR theory, criminal justice, environmental issues, and the milieu of national politics.

Event specific -

CX/NFA-LD --

Aff

Specificity of plan text and quality of solvency evidence matter to me. If the neg ultimately defends the status quo but doesn't have good case args, it's likely the neg will lose. It's surprising I have to say these things, but it happens more often than one might expect.

Kritikal and Performance affs are fine, topical or not. This does not imply I won't vote on framework if won by the neg. That, however, does not imply i automatically vote neg on framework every time. I hold the advocacy to the same scrutiny I would for a plan.

I enjoy framing & weighing out of the 1AC.

Disads

I most often see DA debate as a question of who controls the direction of the link offense. Obviously weighing is a must, but I put a lot of stock into this - that or impact turns. Solely defensive strategies, even with impact framing tend to be non-persuasive. Some terminal defense exists (like bill already passed, etc.) - definitely an exception.

I went for politics A LOT, and really enjoy these debates.

Counterplans

I'm open to most strategies.

It's pretty uncommon for me to vote on condo bad. I'm more open to positions like PICs or States bad.

Presumption doesn't necessarily flip to the aff - specifically if the 2NR has good case arguments with DA/Turns.

CP solvency/text should be at least as detailed than the 1AC's, if not more. That said, the CP doesn't necessarily need to solve 100% - whether on probability or scope, if CP has a high risk of solving the most of the aff that can be sufficient if the DA/Turns outweigh.

Kritiks

I enjoy good K debates the same as any other strategy. As a judge I end up seeing this debate a lot, and have no real preferences for or against any given strand of literature or in-round execution.

I'm most familiar with literature stemming from the continental branch of philosophy. Some of my personal favorite authors include Baudrillard, Bookchin, Butler, Deleuze, Debord, Foucault, Luxembourg, Marx, Morton, & Zizek. That said, the majority of K debates I judge tend to be questions of identity and security (respectively) - which I also enjoy. I feel comfortable evaluating most anything.

I don't think the neg must absolutely go for/win the alternative, so long as the neg has good framing. Really, though, the neg should always be winning framing.

I generally find pure theory to be unpersuasive as an aff response. Perms are usually the best route, so are researched defenses of contemporary policy-making.

I've been finding lately that really close K debates have come down to who better presents empirical examples of the link and alt to contextualize theoretical warrants.

T/Theory

I particularly enjoy good topicality debates. I default to competing interps & jurisdiction voters.

I like theory debate so long as it relates to a Plan/CP/Alt/RoB text, or another theory text (a good RVI is rare but persuasive). In other words, ASPEC is cool - bracket theory is meh. Strike me if you're going to complain about your opponent's attire.

I'm neutral when it comes to FW debates - I'll vote for performance/sans-plan K affs as much as I vote for Framework. I generally place a high value on arguments over the academic & personal value of one's scholarship. Fairness is important, but I see these debates as ultimately a question of who wins (in the context of the round) that their educational/pedagogical praxis is preferable.

Clear & specific wording of interpretations is critical. Same with contextualized violations. If you're going to go for it, make it clean.

Great 2NRs/2ARs go all-in, and put voting issues at the top of the speech.

I don't like abstract reasonability arguments - my likeliness to vote for reasonability is entirely based on either the strength of a legitimate I-meet or the counter-interp's ability to resolve a substantial portion of the neg standards.

Outside of framework, I generally think fairness comes first.

Misc.

Please use speechdrop. Prep stops when everything is put in your document. Don't steal prep.

Flex prep is fine.

CX is binding. I pay attention to CX. Excellent CX will boost your speaks.

Always weigh everything. Excellent weighing will boost your speaks.

Always collapse the debate. Excellent collapses will boost your speaks.

If the round is left unresolved, I will intervene and do my own comparison. I will be as fair as I can do each side and will let you know if this happens.

I'll always disclose unless told otherwise. More than happy to answer questions.

Bonus speaks for 'Good' Anarchism, DeDev, & Extraterrestrials arguments.

HS LD --

Progressive

You can really just check my CX paradigm for most of my substantive preferences. Here are some event specific thoughts:

Aff -

>Please justify your framework.

>I have a low threshold for 1AR/2AR extensions given the time, but warrants are still a must. I hate tag fights more than anything. 2AR impact weighing is fine.

>spending ~2:00 extending the aff card-by-card will likely lose you the round and tank your speaks. Part of the game is parsimony and efficiency. Have an overview for a page and do line-by-line.

>I will evaluate and occasionally vote on 1AR theory, but the stupider the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. Things like CP theory, and RVIs against super abusive T/Theory NCs are infinitely better than, say "pre- or post-fiat, but not both" or "my opponent is wearing a tie". Even when 1ar theory is good (rare), there's usually not enough time to develop and win.

Neg -

> The 1NC should have framework comparison - waiting until the NR rarely pays off. 2NR impact weighing is fine.

> Please collapse in the NR - don't go for everything. Winning/high speaks NRs usually go all in on T/Theory or the K, or go for case and/or CP with a DA. Leaving yourself multiple outs is smart, but this should be done in reference to whatever you go for ('case or CP' or 'turns or DA') - not wildly extending everything in the NC.

>80% of my rounds end up being Policy-making or K debates, and I don't have any event specific thoughts here. K framing work should be done in the NC, though this seems obvious.

>'Phil' debate: I think ethics debates are super fun, and really enjoy the literature. I will evaluate these debates, though I have two thoughts: (1) Just because it's LD doesn't mean I have to/will automatically default to ethical theory over policy-making or the K (2) extending 5-second blips you label 'a prioris' without warrants and spewing jargon without explanation is not a winning strategy - understand your ethic and interact it.

> Again, T/Theory is fine, but the dumber the argument, the less likely I am to vote on it. I enjoy actual T debates over words in the res, and theory debates over writing of the plan (ASPEC, Vagueness, etc.). I can't stand 'formal dress theory' or 'bracket theory' - do some prep and make real arguments.

> I'm slightly more likely to vote on condo bad in LD than CX. Same thing with reasonability - though this is all relative.

Traditional

Do your thing - I'm super tab, keep a good flow, and am fairly well read. I've invested a lot of time into this style of the event as a coach and really enjoy it. I don't have many thoughts here - I'd check my tl:dr section for general debate things.

> Please justify your framework - it's shocking the proportion of debaters who don't or do so poorly.

> Warrant and weigh - the earlier the better.

> Don't take excessive prep for early speeches (NC/1AR).

> If you want to kick framework and go for case, go for it. These debates are often the most fun.

I am open to evaluating alternative frameworks, but I default to stock issues. I have a low threshold for meeting the burden of proof and generally only vote on presumption if arguments are dropped or completely mishandled.

I am fine with speed as long as both debaters are comfortable with it.

I view Topicality as a jurisdictional issue and I don't need to see proven abuse. I do need to see abuse on other procedural arguments. I default to following the event rules, but I am open to arguments that they should be disregarded. I have a fairly high threshold for voting on RVIs but I will vote for them if they are dropped.

I am fine with kritiks as long as the framework and alternative are clear. I am not very familiar with critical literature so the burden is on the debater to explain their position.

On impact framing, unless there are arguments to the contrary, I look to magnitude first with timeframe and probability as mitigating factors.

I competed in debate in high school, and competed in speech in college. I've judged a couple high school and college speech and debate tournaments. I'm comfortable with moderate speed as long as the speaker is speaking clearly. I'm familiar with most procedurals and will vote on kritiks if they are appropriate for the round. I generally evaluate based on net benefits and what both teams have on the flow.

Experience: I competed primarily in Lincoln-Douglas debate, as well as extemp, with a few other speech events sprinkled in throughout high school and college. After college, I coached debate for a year before going to law school. Now I try to stay involved in the activity through judging and mentoring.

Overview: I greatly enjoyed my time in Speech & Debate thanks to the competition, the community and the educational benefits. I think all are equally important. Ultimately, you should show me your passion for the activity! This is supposed to be a fun activity that allows students to exercise their competitive drive while learning about advocacy and formulating informed positions. If you are persuasive and present well-articulated arguments, I will listen.

Preferences: The further I get away from competition, the less I seem to have preferences for or against particular arguments. Here are some of the basics - I will vote on presumption for the Neg in a world in which no offense exists and no CPs or Ks are offered; signposting is a must in your rebuttals; bonus points for impact and evidence comparison. Clash, clash, clash please! I hate to intervene. I want you to tell me how your arguments interact with your opponent's and I want you to tell me where you are winning and why that gets you the ballot.

For high school debate, I appreciate topic-based positions more than platforms about debate itself, though I am happy to hear those depending on the context and the creativity of those positions. Ethical frameworks should be understood by the debater. If everything is going to conflate in the end to the same consequential structure, do not waste time arguing semantics. I am a big fan of warrants! You should have them!

For college debate, please explain solvency clearly and Neg should engage with your opponent's arguments on the 1AC. Dumping a ton of barely responsive pieces of evidence is not super persuasive. Your rebuttals should reflect changes in the round and should tell me where to vote and why. Also I will vote on Topicality without proven abuse but that does not mean you should definitely go for it in front of me. Trust your own instincts.

Evidence: Evidence matters. Be honest and accurate in the way you cut cards. Also this is an educational activity and I think you should read full cites. Most of you won't and this will affect your speaker points. Sources can be compared to evaluate which evidence the judge should prefer.

Presentation: This is a persuasive activity so be persuasive. Speed does not bother me but diction matters. Speed is a skill like any other and clarity needs to be practiced. I will say clear if I do not understand you and I invite your opponent to do the same.

Most important you should all try your best and have fun!!

Years involved in collegiate debate: 35

Debated: NDT policy debate

Coached: NDT, NFA LD, Worlds style BP

I like NFA LD style debate because it relies on evidence and emphasizes the stock issues. I default to policy making but will adjust my paradigm if directed to do so by the debaters.

I will seriously consider nearly every argument - CP's are ok, procedural arguments (T, Vagueness, K's) need to be very clearly explained. I have voted for K's but don't find them super compelling - I think they are frequently vulnerable to perms.

Please be clear, number your arguments, explain why you are winning issues.

By far the most important thing is that I never debated. As such, I can’t keep up with speed as well as more experienced judges, and I haven’t judged any debate rounds so I don’t have any preferences on the general paradigms of debate. I'm okay with speed, and will try to be strict about maintaining rules. I will not be disclosing in room after the debate.