Policy Debate Paradigm:

Overview:

The things you are probably looking for:

Speed: I’m fine with whatever you are comfortable with--no need to try to impress me.

Performance: I do not mind a performance but make sure the performance is tied directly to the case and purpose of the debate. I am NOT some old fart, but I am a bit old school with a blend of progressive ideology.

Pre-dispositions: Please do not make arguments that you do not understand/cannot explain in order to fill the time or to confuse the opponent—I will definitely take notice and probably will not vote for you. Keep things well researched and logical and everything should be fine.

Sportsmanship: Please always be respectful of your opponents. Mean-spiritedness is not a way to show me you’re winning. Even though I will always vote for the better arguments, if you display signs of cruelty towards your opponent, your speaker points will suffer.

****Make sure you have great links…nothing worse than sitting through a round where no one understands how any of the arguments relate to the topic*********

Specifics:

Disadvantages: Unless if your strategy is extremely sophisticated/well thought out/well-rehearsed (I have encountered quite a few when I competed), I think you should always run at least 1 DA.

· The Counterplan: If done well, and the strategy around them is logical and thought-out, these are generally winners. If done poorly and you just inserted one to fill the time, I will be sad and bored.

· Procedurals/Topicality: I love a good meta-debate, and I am open to these if you guys have a solid strategy around these arguments (for example: if your opponents are illogical/made mistakes, point that out to me). However, I usually see T’s used as generic fillers, and I will not vote for a generic filler.

· The Kritik: Love Ks if done well and showcases your knowledge of the topic and argument. However, if I can sense that you don’t know what you’re talking about, running a K might hurt you.

Overall, have fun ( I understand how stressful this event can be), show me you're prepared, and always try to learn something.

Lincoln-Douglas, Big Questions Debate, and Public Forum Debate Paradigm:

My job as a judge is to be a blank slate; your job as a debater is to tell me how and why to vote and decide what the resolution/debate means to you. This includes not just topic analysis but also types of arguments and the rules of debate if you would like. If you do not provide me with voters and impacts I will use my own reasoning. I'm open all arguments but they need to be well explained.

My preference is for debates with a warranted, clearly explained analysis. I do not think tagline extensions or simply reading a card is an argument that will win you the debate. In the last speech, make it easy for me to vote for you by giving and clearly weighing voting issues- these are summaries of the debate, not simply repeating your contentions! You will have the most impact with me if you discuss magnitude, scope, etc. and also tell me why I look to your voting issues before your opponents. In terms of case debate, please consider how your two cases interact with each other to create more class; I find turns especially effective. I do listen closely during cross (even if I don't flow), so that is a place to make attacks, but if you want them to be fully considered please include them during your speeches.

Email: dhbroussard1763@gmail.com

Experience in CX, LD and PF with preference for LD.  Regarding LD, prefer a more traditional style of debate focusing on value and philosophy.  Policy arguments are usually a nonstarter and unlikely to sway.

hi, its Shannon Ehrmann's debater writing this paradigm to make it easier for people to pref

Quick prefs:

1 - Larp

Strike/Pref Low - Everything else

understands larp, probably best if you go slow i.e. lay

can definitely understand if you go quicker i.e. spread, just slow down on the taglines, when switching flows, and pls pls add analytics on the email chain if you can

but overall just go slow - thats your best bet to get the ballot

make logical arguments, extend warrants clearly, truth ov tech,

email chain: shannon.ehrmann@apsb.org

Good luck!

I prefer no spreading, but I should be able to follow if absolutely necessary.

Overall, I am more traditional and look at Framework debates as well as how well cards are utilized.

My personal policy is I do not provide verbal feedback or announce the winner directly after the round. All notes, comments, and feedback are posted on my written ballots.

I do not prefer K cases.

NO SPREADING 

1. Articulate your argument

2. Listen to your opponent

3. think on your feet

4. attack the speech not the speaker

Returning to debate after years (ok, decades) absence. I come mainly from a professional theatre, then theatre teacher background. Communicating effectively is of utmost importance for me. Variation, eye contact, sign posts all indicate that you are in control of your material.

I want to hear your argument not read it. I am NOT a fan of spreading. If I cannot hear your argument, it i very difficult for me to vote for your argument. I also do not consider jargon an effective tool in argument; your argument should stand on its own merits

Be sharp of mind, precise of speech, kind of heart

I am a traditional judge. I place a high value on the framework debate, specifically on values and value criterion. All contentions should link back to the framework, and voters should as well. Weigh your arguments as well. At the end of your final speeches, I expect to hear clear voters. If possible, do not spread. If you are, send me the doc. I do not judge many circuit rounds.

I did policy debate in high school for 4 years, and now do APDA (and to a lesser extent British Parliamentary) at Boston University. I have been disconnected from policy debate for a few years, as I've been doing parli instead. Essentially, I will vote on anything. I am perfectly fine with kritikal arguments on both the aff and the neg, so feel free to run those. I am also fine with standard policy arguments. Regarding Topicality, in order for me to vote on T a clear violation needs to be proven with fair standards and limits. That being said, I have no qualms voting on T, if a lot of arguments are dropped.In a more general sense, I prioritize warrants and internal link chains more than the average policy judge, especially in terms of weighing this in impact calc at the end of the round. I try my best efforts to not be an interventionist judge in the slightest, as I think this is one of the most important factors of a judging philosophy. This means as a debater, the best way to win the round is to essentially write the RFD for me.

Sasha Kreinik Paradigm

Always include me in the email chain susanna.torrey@gmail.com

I am a pretty straightforward judge and was in forensics way back in the Stone Age when I was in high school. I am a teacher and speech and debate coach first, so I value education, good and creative cases, and expect professionalism and respectful behavior.

I am open to any arguments as long as burdens are being met and I value strong evidence ably applied. Over the past few years I have found myself needing to highlight the items I have listed below most often in rounds.

LD/CX:

Mad spreading skills need to come with mad pronunciation skills. I’m okay with speed, but am even more impressed by the debater who can do more with less. You are less likely to have an issue with my rulings if I have been able to easily flow your round. I am noticing a trend lately (fall 2022) of debaters that goes far beyond spreading to actually mumbling quietly and incoherently through most of the case, only enunciating specific phrases, tags, etc. If you are this type of debater, strike me. Yes, I can read your case, but that's not what debate is about. Your speaks will be the lowest possible. One more caveat about spreading--if you are using it in an open round merely to disadvantage a less experienced or novice opponent, it will annoy me. Have that conversation with your opponent at the start of the round.

LD:

Enough with the disclo theory. Run it and I will probably drop you.

All:

One of my pet peeves is a debater who is obviously seeing his/her evidence for the first time or, worse, sounds like it. Be sure to master the material you are using. If there is a piece of evidence or a theory you are presenting that you don’t understand, we won’t either, and it will show.

I abhor racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, and any other language of hate or any language that enables it. They have no place in the debate space and will cost you the round.

In the end, I want you to have fun, learn something, and bring forth truly creative and interesting cases. If all else in your round is perfectly equal, I am going to give the round to the debater who told a better story.

Feel free to email me if you have any more questions.

Policy Debate: I am more of a games player. To clarify, I see debate as an educational game that is being played. There are basic rules that are established (sides are set, time limits are set, a resolution has been established). I do reject moves that seek to create a completely unfair environment for either side (I can talk about what ever I want because resolutions don't matter attitude). I am good with almost any argument that is grounded in sound theory.

Specific Issues:

Kritiks- I like a good kritik that actually explores what the affirmative/negative is doing in a round, but the team running the kritik must understand what the kritik is actually doing. I do expect every K that is run to have a clear link to the K, implications for me to weigh and an alternative that goes beyond vote for us (in 99% of the K's). If it is an extremely complex concept, don't assume I already know what you are talking about. You will probably need to slow it down a step or two to make sure I am following the logic you are discussing.

Performance Debate: I am not a fan of these concepts. The reason is simple. You showed up for a debate round. You should debate the resolution. What performance debates do in my opinion is come to a Monopoly tournament and dance in the hallway and expect to win the Monopoly tournament. You can't not do the event and expect to win the event.

I am not a fan of the politics DA. The leap in logic of plan causes people to vote in a completely different way just has no theory behind it. I will listen to it, but the threshold for beating the argument is very low.

Concepts like topical counterplans and such are fine, if you can present a clear defense connected to theory that explains why they should be okay.

In the end, I look at the offense that is left on the flow. I prefer teams that go after more offensive style arguments then those playing defense on everything.

On speed, my expectations are that you must be clear enough for me to understand you and the evidence that you read (not just tags). If you are not, then I will not flow it and I will not yell "clear." It is your job to communicate.

Lincoln-Douglas: I am more of a traditionalist. I prefer more focus on the framework in the debate and connecting your observations back to the framework and the resolution. I am not a fan of disads/counterplans/and other traditional policy arguments being run in LD since it ignores the unique distinctions between the two events.

Running of K's- A recommend that you read what I said about it in the policy level and know that this can be a bigger problem because of a lack of time in presenting and defending the K.

Speed is fine, but you must be clear. I need to understand what you are saying. I am more forgiving on the line by line in LD than I am in policy, but you do need to address the main issues and just not ignore them.

Public Forum: Good debate that uses strong evidence throughout to prove your positions. I do not weigh the cross-fires heavily, but I do listen to them and will allow for answers to be used in the debate. You don't have to win every point on the flow, but you need to provide me with clear reasoning why you should win and less about why your opponent should not win. Weigh the round. When citing evidence, make sure that you are not relying on paraphrasing.

World School: Coaching it for the second year. Do not try to define people out of the round. Focus on the stated judging requirements of style (delivery) and content (logical reasoning and appropriate backing). The logical reasoning presented is not the same as strategy. The logical reasoning is content.

Updated February 2023

Caveat: This is my perception of what I think I do. Those who have had me in the back of the room may have different views.

The TL;DR version (applies to all forms of debate).

1. The resolution is pretty important. Advocate for or against it and you get a lot of leeway on method. Ignore it at your peril.

2. Default policymaker/CBA unless the resolution screams otherwise or you give me a well-reasoned argument for another approach.

3. “Roles of the ballot” or frameworks that are not reasonably accessible (doesn't have to be 50-50, but reasonable) to both sides in the debate run the risk of being summarily thrown out.

4. Share me to the speech doc (maierd@gosaints.org) but I’m only flowing what you intelligibly say in the debate. If I didn’t flow it, you didn’t say it.

5. Fairness and reciprocity are a good starting point for evaluating theory/topicality, etc. Agnostic on tech v. truth debate. These are defaults and can be overcome.

6. Rudeness, rules-lawyering, clipping, falsifying evidence and other forms of chicanery all make me unhappy. Making me unhappy reduces your speaker points. If I’m unhappy enough, you might be catching an L.

The longer version (for all forms of debate)

The Resolution: Full disclosure – I have been a delegate to the NFHS Debate Topic Selection Meeting since 2011 (all years for Mississippi except 2022 when I voted on behalf of NCFL) and was on the Wording Committee from 2018-2020, the last of those years as chair. There’s a lot of work that goes into crafting resolutions and since you’re coming here by choice, it should be respected. Advocate for or against the resolution and I’ll give you a pretty wide degree of latitude on method. If you’re just going to ignore the resolution, the bar is pretty low for your opponent to clear to get the W (though I have seen teams bungle this).

File Sharing and Speed – Yes please, but understand I’m only flowing that which comes out of your mouth that I can understand – I don’t flow as fast in my mid-50s as I did even in my 40s. I only go to the speech doc if a) I lost concentration during the speech through no fault of your own, b) I need to read evidence because there is a dispute about what the evidence says, or c) I want to steal the evidence for a future round. If you bust out ten blips in fifteen seconds, half of them aren’t making the flow. Getting it on my flow is your job and I have no problem saying “you didn’t say that in a way that was flowable”.

Arguments: Arguments grounded in history, political science, and economics are the ones I understand the best – that can cut both ways. So while I understand K’s like Cap, CRT, and Intersectionality, I have a harder time with those that are based on some Continental European whose name ends with four vowels in a row who says that not adopting their method risks all value to life. Your job is to put me in a position to be able to make the other team understand why they lost, even if they disagree with the decision. If you don’t do the work, I’m not doing it for you. Regarding “framework” or “role of the ballot” arguments – if what you’re advocating isn’t at least reasonably accessible to both teams, I reserve the right to ignore it.

Deciding Rounds – I try to decide the round in the least interventionist way possible – I’ll leave it to others to hash out whether I succeed at that. I’m willing to work slightly harder to adjudicate the round than you do to advocate in the round (basically, if neither debater does the work and the round’s a mess, I’m going to look for the first thing I can embrace to get out of the round). If you ask me to read evidence, especially your evidence, you’ve given me a tacit invitation to intervene.

Point Scale – Because I judge on a few different circuits that each have different scales, saying X equals a 28.5 isn’t helpful. I use the scale I’m asked to use to the best of my ability.

Things that will cost you speaker points/the round:

1. Rudeness – Definitely will hurt your speaks. If it’s bad enough, I’ll look for a reason to vote you down or just decide I like to make rude people mad and give you the L just so I can see you get hacked off.

2. Gratuitous profanity – Saying “damn” or “hell” or “the plan will piss off X” in a frantic 1AR is no biggie. Six f-bombs in a forty second span is a different story.

3. Racist/sexist/homophobic language or behavior – If I’m sure about what I saw or heard and it’s bad enough, I’ll act on it unilaterally.

4. Falsifying evidence/clipping cards/deliberate misrepresentation of evidence – Again, if I’m sure about this and that it’s deliberate, I’ll act on my own.

5. Rules-lawyering – Debate has very few rules, so unless it’s written down somewhere, rules-lawyering is likely to only make me mad. An impacted theory objection might be a different story.

Lincoln-Douglas Observations

1. Way too much time on framework debates without applying the framework to the resolution question. I’m not doing this work for you.

2. The event is generally in an identity crisis, with some adhering to the Value Premise/Criterion model and others treating it like 1 on 1 policy, some with really shallow arguments. I’m fine with either, but starting the NC with five off and then collapsing to one in the NR is going to make me give 2AR a lot of leeway (maybe even new argument leeway) against extrapolations not specifically in the NC.

3. Too many NR’s and 2AR’s are focused on not losing and not on winning. Plant your flag somewhere, tell me why you’re winning those arguments and why they’re the key to the round.

Public Forum Specific Observations

1. Why we ever thought paraphrasing was a good idea is absolutely beyond me. In a debate that isn’t a mismatch, I’m generally going to prefer those who read actual evidence over those who say “my 100 page report says X” and then challenge the other team to prove them wrong in less than a handful of minutes of prep time. Make of that what you will.

2. I’ve never seen a Grand Crossfire that actually advanced a debate.

3. Another frustration I have with PF is that issues are rarely discussed to the depth needed to resolve them fully. This is more due to the structure of the round than debaters themselves. To that end, if you have some really wonky argument, it’s on you to develop your argument to where it’s a viable reason to vote. I will lose no sleep over saying to you “You lost because you didn’t do enough to make me understand your argument.”

4. Right now, PF doesn’t seem sure of what it wants to be – some of this is due to the variety of resolutions, but also what seems like the migration of ex-debaters and coaches into the judging pool at the expense of lay judges, which was supposed to be the idea behind PF to begin with.

5. As with LD, too many Final Focuses are focused on not losing instead of articulating a rationale for why a team is winning the debate.

Current Debate Coach at Caddo Magnet HS

LHSSL Executive Secretary

email: Kasi.mccartney@gmail.com

Please show up on time. Have email chains, stands and other needs set up before the start time of the round.

I generally look to the fastest and easiest way to resolve the debate. In order to win you should make clear impact calculus throughout the debate and provide a specific path for round resolution in the 2NR/2AR. First tell me how you win the round, then tell me why even if I buy into some of the other team's arguments you should still win. This is how you win my ballot.

I default to a policy maker framework. I will vote for non-policy strategies but they MUST present a clean structure for their impacts. I prefer the affirmative to have a plan text. I do not consider myself an activist or that my role is to balance forces within the debate community.

Identity Politics - You should probably not pref me. You MUST have a link to the aff or specific in round actions for me to vote on this. I understand and sympathize with the issues in round, but this is not my preferred argument. It will take a lot of convincing to get me to vote on a strategy that is outside the resolutional bounds. I ultimately believe that traditional forms of debate have value.

Theory – I think theory is definitely a voting issue, but there needs to be some form of in round abuse for me to truly buy that it is a reason alone to reject one team or the other. I do not think that simply kicking a CP in block is a time skew that is truly worth voting against a neg team unless there are other circumstances. I don't like CP's with lots of planks. I think that it makes the debate too messy.

Case - I must say I have a hard time being persuaded that the negative has enough weight on their side to win with only case defense and a DA. What can I say, I'm a product of the late 90's. I much prefer to have a CP/K in there to give the flexibility, especially with a topic that allows for affirmatives to have heavy military impacts. Please be careful and make sure that if you takea case only route that you attack each advantage with offense and have a very very weighty DA on your side.

Kritiks- Not my bread and butter, although I do understand their strategic benefit, having come from an underfunded public school. It is my preference that K’s have a clear order and structure. I will vote on the K if you win that your impacts outweigh the impacts of the plan and that there is a true need for action, but I would not be the judge to introduce an extremely loose and unstructured argument to. I understand and buy into threat construction and realism claims, but in the end, I much prefer a well executed CP and politics debate to a poorly executed critical strategy. You will need to a have link specific to the plan. Links based off of the SQ will not be enough for me.

Framework - I default to the framework that the aff can weight the impacts of their plan versus the impacts of the neg.

Impacts – I believe that impact analysis is at the heart of a judging decision. You are an advocate for your arguments and as such you should provide insight and analysis as to why your specific impacts are the greatest in the round, how they should be evaluated by the judge and how they change the evaluation of the impacts to the other team’s case. Without this assessment I feel like you leave too much wiggle room for the judge to pick their personal preference of impact.

T - normally I like T. I default to competing interpretations. I think CX checks for ASPEC. I dont buy RVI's. I like for there to be a robust discussion of specific ground loss and the impact that it would have on debate as a whole.

Speaker points- Speed can be an advantage in the round and should be encouraged, but always with the intent of being clear first. My ability to clearly understand your arguments is crucial to getting them evaluated at the end of the round. The ability to provide analytics and analysis in the round will get you much further with me. As far as CX is concerned, I simply ask that the person who is supposed to be asking/answering the questions, gets the first shot at speaking. If they ask for help that’s perfectly fine, but don’t overwhelm your partner’s ability to conduct their own cx. Baseline speaks for me is 28.5 and you move up or down from there. I hardly ever give above a 29.5

I have experience with debate, competing with Lincoln-Douglas. I am open to any arguments as long as you can prove them successfully. I do not like aggressiveness during cross examination and I like all speech to be at conversational speed.

kplunkett@stmdhs.org for cases/cards

Traditional judge, I prefer no spreading or Ks. I won't take off for them, but I encourage you not to!

• The easiest way to earn speaks is to clarify the voting issues and prove how and why you outweigh. I'll weigh the round based on the criteria you give me, so be sure to give me a metaphorical rubric!
• I'm a tabula rasa, so I'll vote exactly how you tell me. Hit your framework/V/VCs early and often.
• I like to see claim-warrant-impact. I flow what you say, not what I think you mean.
• Spreading doesn't scare me and will not affect your speaks, but I prefer conversational speed and good delivery.
• Cards should be clearly cited and available for review should there be a conflict over source validity or context. Clipping will not be tolerated.
• Signpost - reference the contention # or subpoint in speeches and CX.
• CX is for questions, not rebuttals.

Hello! I am Jharick Shields. I am a speech and debate coach at St. Andrew's Episcopal School. I have been coaching for about 20 years and have coached debaters into late elimination rounds in a number of national circuit and NSDA/NCFL tournaments. I have also been fortunate to watch them win a few. Debate allows us the ability to critique the world and to substantively engage with those criticisms. It is a forum in which we communicate those ideas. How you communicate in front of me will directly correlate to the ballot I write. I am truth with tech. I think that you should be able to create a cohesive ballot story while also understanding the fundamentals of LD argumentation. You need to show me that you are reading the sources you are citing. You need to prove that you understand the context behind the arguments you run. You should engage with the arguments of your opponent. Is T engagement with an aff that is nontopical? I would say yes. However, the debater that will earn higher speaks from me will also critically think and engage the affirmative.

Speed is an part of the game of debate. Judge adaptation is also part of the game. I have no problem saying that I missed something on my flow. If the argument is super important, signpost and weigh it. Don't assume that an extension through ink is enough for me to pull the trigger. A lot of times in great debates, amazing weighing tends to win out on cold concessions. Great debaters explain why the argument was conceded. I think that the best debaters figure that out, and close the door on them. I prefer few, well developed arguments to many. However, its your world. I tend to get excited when I am asked to bring out a lot of paper. Just don't assume I got everything you said if you aren't utilizing good communication skills.

I am an old fashioned policy kid, who was fortunate enough to do LD as well. Policy arguments are my heart. I like great plan texts, plan flaws are a thing, CPs with net benefits, strong case debates, Ks(bonus for Ks with policy alts). If thats what you do, I am a really good judge in those rounds. You still have obligations to communicate...

If you are a traditional debater, I still have plenty of love to share. Some of the best rounds I have seen on the national circuit are kids reading a traditional aff. I watch as their opponent gets ready to run 5 off and case. The 1ar gets up, extends their conceded criterion/case evidence, no links the DAs/Ks, perms the CP/Alt and sits down. And maybe the debater doesn't use those terms, but if you make the argument clearly and labeled, I will bridge the educational gap in debate jargon. I am also a very good judge for you.

If you caught me during high school, maybe I could have gotten into tricks/skep stuff. Basically, I can evaluate it, and if both debaters are going down that road together, I won't be as upset going there. I think HEAVY weighing is the only way that I won't gut check for anything else in that debate. Maybe not the best for you, but maybe you just need a somewhat tech judge in a small pool then I am good.

Honestly, I just am really excited to see debates. Run what you want, be respectful, have fun! If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me prior to the round.

For MS Local Touraments:

Everything above applies. There are some things that students do in front of me that don't really help them win the ballot. Here are a few:

1.) Rules Lawyering: I get it, you want to show the judge that you know more about LD or at the very least have a lot of ethos. I must say, through my experience, these cases only end up with that debater losing some ethos. Telling me that something is an NSDA rule when we abide by MSHAA rules is sort of a bad argument. Telling me that a student must have a value, can't run a plan/CP, can't have a criterion, etc is just wrong. In theory, a student can run a case with just 1 contention and nothing else and it is fine. They don't lose the debate, they aren't disqualified, they live to debate another round. Win on the flow.

2.) New arguments: I don't flow these. If the new argument transcends the debate: a student has done something harmful in round, then its fine(but I will most likely intervene, since that is my duty). New evidence that supports arguments already made are fair game. A lot of debaters think that new evidence is the same as a new argument. It isn't.

3.) Mismanaging Drops: Debaters will tell me that an argument was dropped, but it wasn't. They will tell me that they have responded to an argument. They have not. Make sure that you are flowing. After the round, if you show me a quality flow of the debate(and if I have them on me). I will give you a candy/treat or something.

Okay, thanks!!

Please include me on the email chain at jstewartdebate@gmail.com. Feel free to ask questions always.

I competed for Barbe High School, McNeese State University and Western Kentucky University. I competed in IEs in both high school and college. I debated L-D and policy in high school on the local, Louisiana circuit. I also competed nationally in college in IE’s, Parli, NFA L-D policy and some CEDA/NDT. I have judged in Louisiana and around the region for the last 15 years.

TLDR: I was a policymaking type debater. Weighing net-benefits is what I am most familiar with. I try to be as “tab” as possible and will evaluate any argument. It needs to be well warranted, well impacted and well weighed against the rest of arguments in the round. You might need to do slightly more work fleshing out newer forms of argumentation with me, but I will vote on them if I feel like you are winning them.

I am self-professed “lazy” judge. I want to feel like I am doing the least intervening possible at the end of the round. I would love for you to tell me which arguments are important enough for me to vote on, what their comparative impacts are and why you are winning those arguments. I appreciate you telling me how I should sign my ballot.

I am still somewhat old school around paperless debating- it just wasn’t a thing yet when I was competing or judging the first go around. I use e-mailed/flashed evidence mostly for reading internal warrants. I will use this to follow along the speech, however I’m not a fan of reading speech docs/blocks in a vacuum. Signposting and clear organizational structure are important for me and I tend to award higher speaker points for them.

POLICY-

K/Kritikal Aff- I have a pretty good familiarity with critical theory/thought. I am probably less familiar with the intricacies of Kritik debate theory. You would probably be helping yourself out with me to spend a bit more time on setting up your framework and giving really clear impact stories. Explicit arguments about “how we win” or “the role of the ballot” would help me better understand how/why to vote for you on these types of positions. This is especially true if there are situations like perms put on the alternative. I want to know why the alternative alone solves best on its face, in addition to any theoretical objections to the perm. I also appreciate clear pre-fiat/post-fiat analysis. If the impact is post-fiat (“turns case”) and the alternative is pre-fiat (“discourse/radical space/etc”) I want you to tell me how to navigate the multiple levels of your advocacy.

T/Procedurals- I tend to have a slightly lower threshold on procedurals. I do not need an iron clad in-round abuse story necessarily. I will evaluate these more often than many.

LD-

I tend to vote on framework first. That is just how I was taught. But with more progressive styles I will evaluate framework in light of case advantages/disadvantages. As with the Kritik info above, you may need to do a little more hand holding with me around the alternative and/or role of the ballot. I tend to prefer crystallization at the end of the round with clear impact analysis and tend to give higher speaks to those that show good round vision and can ‘boil down’ the round effectively.

PF-

I’m comfortable with the newer trend of giving an explicit framework at the top of case. If you don’t give me one then I’ll default to something like policymaking/comparative advantages. I tend to appreciate probability over magnitude in PF because of the lack of depth of evidence. Things that are intuitive and make sense on their face seem like a more natural fit to this style of debate. I will evaluate anything that is argued in front of me, though. It needs to be well warranted, well extended (including extending the warrants), well impacted and well leveraged against the other argumentation in the round for it to be most persuasive. I like final focus speeches that crystallize the round for me and give me good impact analysis. Feel free to take the ballot out my hands by telling me what arguments are most important, how they function in the round and why you are winning on them.

IE’s-

I tend to think about most IEs in terms of argumentation. This is more obvious for events like Extemp, Impromptu and Original Oratory. But even interp events use a text to craft a narrative with a unique point of view for each competitor. I usually evaluate IE’s on the clarity of your thesis (argument) and then how well you do at expressing/supporting it (advocacy). The more you can distill down an idea into its clearest form and then use multiple rhetorical tools to express it, the better chance you will have of getting higher ranks and higher speaks from me. FYI I’m a big fan of variety as a rhetorical tool (fast and slow rate, loud and soft volume, high and low intonation, etc). These tend to keep me more engaged in the speech/performance and tend to make me trust you more as a speaker/performer.

I did debate policy debate for four years, primarily on the nat circuit. I was a 2A and pretty much solely a K debater. I don't have much experience with the criminal justice topic. Pronouns: she/her

TL;DR: Run whatever you want; I will evaluate any arguments you make, but I will not do the work for you. You should go with whatever strategy you think you can execute best. That being said, I am probably a better judge for K-oriented teams than teams that run 7 off every neg round and love getting super techy, especially since I've been a bit removed from the debate world for a minute, although I won't hesitate to vote up FW, a DA, or a policy aff if it's the most compelling arg in the round.

Here are my personal thoughts regarding specific arguments:

T: I hold T to a high standard. Generic T shells with no insight as to why the aff is uniquely bad will not convince me. You will also need to articulate and win impacts to the T as well as why it should be an a priori issue. A 2NR on T will need to be legitimately convincing. I've noticed that a lot of teams are now trying to combine T and FW into one argument, which is basically a huge headache to listen to; either make them two separate arguments or pick one. I default to competing interps.

CPs: I don't usually have a problem with multiple CPs as long as doesn't get too wild (7 conditional CPs is probably not legit). You need to have a clearly articulated net benefit as well as an explanation of whatever aff solvency there is. If you are aff, I need an explanation of why the perm functions as well as solvency deficits/net benefits to the perm. Super complex CP theory is annoying to me because I've never really done that type of debate, I can still follow it but make sure you slow down. PICs are usually fine as long as there's a clear reason they're distinct from the aff.

DAs: Sure. Having reasons why the DA turns the case is strongly suggested.

Theory: Being primarily a K debater, I'm biased against uber conservative theory (like Ks bad, etc). You need to prove in-round abuse, you're not likely to win the round on potential abuse with me as a judge. You are also probably not going to win the round on a minor theory arg. All theory args should have a clear structure; you can make a vagueness bad arg or whatever but if you don't impact it out I'm not voting on it. Your arguments should be specific to the round and the violation at hand.

Ks: I love Ks, and I'm familiar with all of the common authors used in debate rounds. That being said, don't assume I know your lit base. The link debate is very important to me as well as the framing of the kritik; do not assume I know how you want me to weigh certain arguments or that I know how you want me to view the aff. Also, if you're going to run a K, please know what you're talking about. There is nothing more frustrating than when someone reads a K with absolutely no knowledge of the subject or what the K does. Don't do it. That being said, I love judging K vs. policy or K vs. K debates and seeing teams do cool new things with critically based argumentation, provided that it's executed well.

K affs: I'm down with K affs, but you need to have clear reasons as to why your advocacy is uniquely important and can effectively resolve whatever harms you isolate. Again, don't assume I know your lit base. I was a 2A who almost exclusively ran K affs so I can def get behind this style of debate. If you have me as a judge, it's probably better if your aff does a thing, but I don't need a plan text/advocacy statement.

Framework: If you are running framework against a K aff, I will hold it to a high standard and you will need to be able to articulate impacts/reasons why their advocacy is uniquely bad for debate. Again, I was a 2A who ran K affs for all of high school, so I would appreciate hearing new and/or less generic framework args instead of the same shells your team has been reading for years. I love a good TVA.

Speaks: 28 is average. My speaks will almost always range between 27-29.5. If you are completely apathetic about the debate (e.g. hardly using your speech time or clearly not making an effort) I will go lower than that. If you say anything seriously offensive/problematic I will give you the lowest speaks possible.

Arguments I Really Hate: Obnoxious troll arguments and racism/sexism/ableism/etc good arguments. I'll flow the arguments, but know that it will kill your speaker points and I will have a conversation with you and your coach after the round. There will be a very low threshold for the other team with these arguments.

Other: Speed is great, but be clear on tags, and slow down on your theory blocks if you read them. If I can't understand you, I cannot evaluate the arguments you make, and I won't hesitate to shout out "clear" during your speech if it comes to that. Profanity doesn't bother me as long as you don't say anything that's actually problematic, but if you say a slur you can't reclaim during the round and it's brought to my attention I will automatically vote you down. Don't be disrespectful to your opponents, your partner, or me. Don't post-round me either. Open CX is fine as long as you don't overwhelm your partner. I don't take prep for flashing evidence. Yes, I want to be on the email chain, and you can email me if you have any questions: amandawatson1119@gmail.com