Tab judge so run anything you’d like as long as its nothing offensive ie impact turns to oppression. I don’t default to anything so all arguments must be communicated clearly in the round including the implications of those arguments. Spreading is fine but slow down and be extra clear on tag lines and author names. If you have any specific questions just ask me before the round.

Hey, I am Derek. I debated policy for four years at Truman High School in Missouri and formerly debated at Missouri State University.

Here are my random thoughts on debate

I am willing and ready to hear most arguments as long as they are not denigrating or discriminatory. These are prohibited!

Most of my debate career was spent going for policy arguments but the later end of my college career has been spent reading critical arguments. That being said I am experienced with hearing both and think there are educational benefits to both.

You should feel comfortable reading whatever argument gives you the best chance to win or the most personal satisfaction (the thing we forget most about debate is that it is supposed to be fun!). Although I may not be familiar with every acronym in your policy aff or buzz word in your kritik, I mostly base my decisions on the flow and how well things are explained. So please do a great job of explaining and contextualizing and you will like the outcome!

My decisions will revolve around the question of which team forwards a better version or understanding of the world. I am primarily tech over truth unless it is egregious (in most of these instances the argument is not worthy of response anyways).

Specific thoughts

Policy Affs: I like both large, heart of the topic affs, and smaller, left leaning affs. Internal links being specific as possible is good.

K Affs: Explain what it is about the topic you are critiquing and why that critique is good. Also heavily lean into the thesis level understanding of the kritik rather than smaller specific parts which is what I feel drives a good kritikal affirmative.

DAs: The more specific the better. Topic DAs are great too but contextualize it to the aff you are debating. I will be able to tell if you are reading the same generic link block you read your last four neg rounds. Impact calculus is where I will draw my conclusions if the link or uniqueness debates are a wash so turns case args are valued highly.

CPs: I am a fan of a great DA CP combo! Please have solvency advocate unless there is some specific reason you do not need one. Just win that it is theoretically justified, it solves the part of the aff it has to solve to win the debate, and a risk of a net benefit. If you solve all of the aff you do not need to go to case in the 2NR. Affs must win at least a solvency deficit that has an impact and some form of offense is great too! Your best bet is to minimize the risk of the net benefit and win a deficit (carded ones are great)

Ks: I love a great one off debate but a kritik also read with other off is cool too. The more you dive into the aff and their cards to prove your links, the better. Winning that your impact and impact framing outweighs is crucial. Above all else, give me judge instructions heavily. Tell me how to base my decision and how it should be different from how I normally frame decisions (this applies to all types of debates but specifically this style). You do not need to win an alternative but you should probably tell me if you are kicking it, if I should, under what conditions I should, etc.

T: You are probably more educated on how to win these debates than I am if you are going for it in the 2NR. I usually think teams that win these debates have long lists of cases that would be topical under the affirmative's interpretation that are not allowed under yours. This is good. You must win an impact above all else. Why is it important if a team is not reading a topical aff and how does it undermine your competitive incentive to debate.

FW: If you are going for FW you have to win the impact level more than anything else. Do not waste time reading definitions that get you no offense. You should also probably go to case to minimize impact turns that will most likely be there. To beat FW, make sure you have a solid counter-interp that is able to minimize all the limits and ground offense (or turn them) from FW teams. Win a large impact turn that outweighs the impacts of FW. Both teams should be telling me why their arg comes before their opponents (like "Theory before content" or "content informs theory")

Theory: Condo is usually good! I do not like contradicting condo positions but as long as they are multiple cohesive worlds I do not see a problem. PICs and PIKs are good so long as they are getting rid of a part of the affirmative. For whatever theory you are going for please have an interp!

Please be nice to everyone and have fun! I think I wasted away a lot of my debate career stressing and putting too much pressure on myself. Don't make the same mistake!

I wish to be viewing docs while I am judging so please add me to whatever evidence sharing mechanism you use! My email is derekallgood7@gmail.com

Good Debate!

Hello!

My name is Ava Autrey (they/them!) and I am a freshman at William Jewell College. I have done just about every event in the book. I am a 2x National Qualifier in HI and a national finalist in Poetry.

I also am a parli debater, but have had experience in all forms. i don’t know this years topic, 

Former GA at Missouri State in both NFA and NDT-CEDA

5 years of college debate

I have been out of debate for a while, but this is now current for Lafayette 2019.

I would prefer to be included on the Email thread so that I can rapidly check evidence AFTER the debate. I will not follow along during the debate. Please send the docs and emails to brenden.71@gmail.com

EDIT 2017: I have come to realize that my paradigm is extremely long and detailed(probably too much so) so I have inserted a TLDR version below:

you do you - Im most familiar with policy arguments, HOWEVER, I love watching a well done K debate. I have zero preference in terms of ideological "debate poles", but be warned that the more complex your argument (policy included) the greater the burden is on you to make sure that I am following you. I generally give strong facial cues (or at least so I'm told) when I do not understand the argument you are making. I also love smart T debates, and really enjoy a well developed limits debate. I do not enjoy shallow T debates or generic framework debates that are devoid of context/ boil down to "no k's in debate!". This extends to generic theory arguments. These debates should be about models of debate. In round abuse is not necessary, and the debaters should focus on articulating the advantages and disadvantages of the various interpretations of debate, even if that is mandatory disclosure or condo always bad.

For those of you looking for more detail on specific debate issues, I have endeavored to write out my views on those things below in an attempt to provide predictable judging and to help me understand my own positions on various aspects of debate.

Top level:

My main goal as a judge is to resolve arguments made by debaters to form a coherent decision about the issue that the debaters have decided to debate. I will attempt to do this, as much as possible, solely based on the arguments presented by the debaters in their speeches and transcribed onto my flow. I do not particularly enjoy having to read a lot of evidence because I feel that it can lead to too much intervention on my part. That said, I will most definitely read evidence that has been strongly contested, highlighted as being particularly important or accused of being "power-tagged". In this sense evidence comparison is very important to me. Remember, debate is a communicative activity and it is the debater’s job to make arguments that persuade me to vote for you. I will try to be vigilant about policing new arguments, though debaters are encouraged to assist in this task.

Now the issues:

Topicality

Topicality is a potentially relevant and important argument to every single affirmative. The length of time and number of teams reading an affirmative do not make an aff topical.

To me there has never really been a mutual exclusivity between competing interpretations and reasonability. Topicality is fundamentally about comparing interpretations, and naturally in a competitive format, those interpretations tend to have points of contention. Reasonability is kind of a "gut check" test of the impacts vis-a-vis the standards. A strong comparison between proposed models of debate and the impact of including various affs within those is essential to demonstrate the negs impact, and without that section of the debate I find reasonability to be more persuasive. That said, I have never found myself in a position where I voted based on reasonability. Rather, an aff will usually win my ballot with over-limits style arguments while the neg will usually win my ballot with a solid TVA and a limits DA.

Topicality debates are often very messy to flow. Extra speaker points to debaters who efficiently organize concepts in these debates rather than throwing debate catch phrases around willy nilly.

DA's

Debaters should recognize the strengths and weaknesses of different impacts in the traditional timeframe, magnitude, probability frames. Your warming impact is not fast so stop wasting your time trying to convince me of that and spend it instead arguing about why magnitude is more important. Feel free to use novel impact evaluation frames outside these golden oldies, just explain why your frame makes sense for the context of the decision at hand.

The link is usually very important to me in these debates. The strength of the link determines if uniqueness can overwhelm it. Rarely will a disad already be literally happening, i.e. totally non-unique, but previous examples of things that should have triggered the link raise the bar for proving the plan is enough to cause a negative impact, and thus raise the threshold for the link.

Remember, a good DA alone can (and should) outweigh and turn the case. Cards are good here but definitely not necessary. Affs should be saying the same thing but in reverse.

CP's

Debating CP competition forces debaters to think about essential economic concepts like opportunity costs and decision making at the core of policy debate. I will try to keep a very open mind in judging debates about questionably competitive CP's to foster some of these educational values. The affirmative still has a strong gripe about many of these CP's being wholly unfair debate creations, and I find myself aff leaning in instances of multiple layers of CP "cheating"

That said, PIC's are not cheating, they are awesome and should be utilized. The aff should be forced to defend the entirety of the plan as necessary and good.

My general feeling about presumption is that it remains with the team who makes less overall change from the status quo unless you tell me specifically why you think it flips to you.

My feels on conditionality have shifted towards an understanding that all condo is ok UNLESS there are explicit contradictions in the conditional worlds that force the aff to read solvency for one to answer the other IE free market CP and a cap k.

Case debate

Impact D is a minimum and those who invest time in at the uq, link and internal link levels of an advantage will find it beneficial.

2A's must actually make an attempt to be flowed while they are on the case in the 2AC. Preferably, this is done by responding to the arguments made by the 1NC in the order that they were read.

I love impact turn debates.

K’s

I am K literate (in that I read them and went for them on a semi-regular basis) but not K fluent (No I haven’t read every Nietzsche and Baudrillard book) – that means that you should really invest time in explaining

1. Your Link – I say link because going for too many will probably hurt you on the depth of explanation

2. Your impact – what does social death/ bio-power/ exhaustion mean in the context of both the debate and the world

3. Your alt and why it resolves the previous two things

You should also be wary of perms that go beyond “do both”

The K needs to be functionally competitive so writing “reject the aff” in the tag of the card does not mean that they are mutually exclusive. Also saying all the links are DA’s to the perm is probably not true. I tend to think that for most alts, including the alt action after a plan or advocacy is probably sufficient to solve any residual links to the aff OR that the alt is too weak to overcome the status quo (I mean I was a 2A) - the Neg needs specific theory or a well-crafted link story to deal with this.

Oddly, these are the debates I see turning on technical problems most often. I think this is related to both sides talking past each other in a lot of these debates. Aff teams should be sure to not drop the standard tricks

Framework arguments are often central to my decisions in these debates. These issues often implicate what impacts are relevant to my decision, what an alternative should have to accomplish, and what link arguments a perm can solve. I think that most compromise framework formulations make negative sense, but if debaters agree to them I will do my best to resolve the debate as they have told me to.

Role of the ballot is a vague buzz phrase used to frame impacts – it is an empty signifier unless you explain what it means and why it is good. “dropping” a role of the ballot is impossible unless the team doesn’t extend an impact or a reason why voting for them is good in which case there are bigger problems than line by line efficiency.

Critical Aff's

I think that these affs are generally really cool ESPECIALLY when they involve a criticism of/ related to the topic. That is not to say that USFG action is at all necessary for my decision but rather that the negative should be able to read DA's based in some predictable literature. Example - On the emission topic, K affs shouldn't have to answer politics or the reg-neg CP but should have to answer coal / warming good type arguments. That is to say, the aff should have some defense of an attitude for or against the resolution and should be willing to answer for the implications of that attitude.

This is not to say that USFG framework will not win in front of me but rather that I generally think that most indicts of the state are factually true making this a hard debate to win. in this world, a discussion of how a topical defense of the state operates in relation to those indicts is in order IE is the neg interpretation a call to defend the whole thing or just a subset etc. Generally I am more likely to be persuaded by violations other than USFG. In that world it should be treated more as T - see above T section

Framework is engagement with the aff over the meta-issue of how debate should function in relation to the evaluation of the aff – a topical version is important for this because it can function as a CP that captures all the aff offense and has your T impacts as a net benefit. Without a T version I will probably find it difficult to vote neg because the aff will probably win some risk of offense that is bigger than whatever framework stuff you have. That said, the aff should probably have a well developed counter interp - I find framework debates that are well developed in this direction to be very fascinating and fun to be a part of. I also think that it is foolish for a negative to not engage the substance of the aff as the majority of the offense against their framework argument will originate there.

Competition questions are very difficult to resolve in many of these debates for critiques and counterplans. The less clear it is to me what the aff will defend, the more likely I will be persuaded by negative arguments against permutations.

It is likely that I will think that arguments that link to methodologies and their application outside of debate are relevant considerations to 1AC's unless they are explicit that their criticism applies only to the debate community. This is especially true if the negative argument is something that is a core topic impact turn.

Speaker Points

Make debate an enjoyable experience. Seriously, these people are willing to fly across the country to argue with you on weekends. Debate has an awesome group of people that combine intelligence and competitiveness in a way that is unique and incredible. I will use any scale published by the tournament. Most of your speaker points will be determined by the quality of debating done (which includes both answering and asking cross-x questions).

Hostility hurts your ethos and makes the round less enjoyable to judge. For example, when CX becomes a shouting match or there is blatant rudeness that occurs while your opponent is speaking, I get frustrated. This extends to repeated mis-gendering after you have been corrected, explicitly bigoted language, generally being an ass-hole etc. I'm not saying we all have to be friends but debate is a better activity when you can feel comfortable grabbing a drink with each other when its all said and done.

Clipping is a fast way to make me angry, as is giving the other team an incorrect version of the speech doc / one filled with your entire neg file that you skip around through. They have a right to follow along and check your reading of evidence. You can do it too. I won't have the speech documents in front of me so challenges will have to come from the debaters. I will follow the NDT guidelines as related to determining intent and impact. My intent is to uphold academic honesty. Those caught clipping will lose and get zero speaker points. The same is true for those whose allegations are proven false. A recording is required as evidence of clipping so that I have something to evaluate. The debate panoptican has become ever present enough to where this technical hurdle isn't too large.

Analytics don't have to be in the doc but should be if there is a legit access issue that is presented before the round

Sending docs is not prep time unless it becomes

a. obvious you are prepping

b. a ludicrous amount of time / attempts to get the right doc

feel free to email me with any questions

Experience things:

Graduated from College Debate. 4 years NDT, 4 years NFA-LD, 4 years HS, coach HS CX too

He/Him

yes email chain, sirsam640@gmail.com

Please read an overview. Please. It will only help you and your speaks.

Speed is fine - please be clear

Tech over Truth always - the debaters make the argument, not what my preconceived notions of what is truthful/real arguments are.

1. I was frequently in policy v K rounds on both sides. At the 2022 NDT 8/8 rounds were K rounds for me, and 2023 2/8 were K rounds. I read a K aff with my partner one year, then an extinction aff the next year. I went for FW/cap the other half of the time. I am a clash judge and vote for K affs as much as I vote for FW versus them.

2. k affs justify why your model of debate is good impact turns to T are fine

3. 2nrs need a TVA (unless the aff just shouldn't exist under your model which is rare but can happen)

4. condo is good but fine voting that its bad

5. judge kick is probably bad, but if neg says its good and aff doesn't reply I'll judge kick

6. I went for impact turn 2NRs/1ARs a significant portion of my rounds

7. win that your reps are good affs

8. I think perms are a little bit underrated - they probably overcome the link and shield any residual risk.

9. Judging more and more I realize how awesome impact calc is in 2NR/2AR - I definitely think about debate in offense/defense paradigm and often vote for whoever's impact is bigger and accesses the other teams

Theory

CPs need a net benefit in order to win. The role of the neg is to disprove the aff, not just provide another alternative that also fixes the aff. "Solving better" isn't a net benefit. I have voted aff on CP solves 100% of the aff but 0% of net benefit.

PICs are good vs K affs. Pretty strong neg lean on this. It rewards good research.

Don't read death good in front of me.

T

I have come around a lot on T. I think that affs get away with too much in terms of being resolution-adjacent.

Competing interps > reasonability (as law school goes on, I am reverting back to reasonability. This is probably 55/45%ish)

Ground is probably the biggest impact in T debates IMO, I think specific links to affs is the largest internal link to good debates.

I think that community norms is very unpersuasive to me. I do not really care what the rest of the community thinks about T, I'm judging the round, not the community lol

PTIAV is silly but gotta have a decent answer to it.

Affs need to just have a large defense of "no ground loss" and "aff flex/innovation outweighs"

Likely the best way to win T in front of me regardless of side is to just impact out whatever you think is your strongest standard, and make it outweigh your opponents. I spend less time thinking about the specific definition of words and more time about what the models of debate look like (though if debaters tell me to evaluate interps in a specific way I will definitely spend time on it).

PF specific

You do you and I will evaluate to the best of my ability! Any questions feel free to ask pre-round!

You don't need to ask for x amount of prep, just take "running prep" unless you specifically want me to stop you when that time ends.

Last speech should start out with "you should vote aff in order to prevent structural violence which comes first in the round" or something like that. Write my ballot for me.

I find it very hard to vote on something that I don't understand, so while impacts matter a lot I need to understand the story of how we reach the impact

Add me to the email chain: cbcoger@gmail.com

Prior Questions

Feel free to ask questions to me before the round starts although most of your question will be addressed here. I tend to update my paradigm when a debtor or judge does something that warrants it.

This model of debate is specific to college policy debate, college LD debate, and high school policy CX debate. However, this model of debate will be applied to high school Public Forum and LD debate --- refer to the very bottom of this paradigm for more Information.

Ethos

My BS is in Political Science with a focus in international affairs and comparative politics with a research specificity in the People’s Republic of China and Authoritative regimes, respectively. You do not have to spend anytime dumbing down arguments for me as I study these topics for a living.

I am a policy debater with three years of college experience in NFA-LD in open varsity and NDT-CEDA in junior varsity. Debate jargon is second nature.

Model UN, Mock Trail, make up other speech actions

General Orientation (for those of you that are in a time crunch)

Policy debate is the way to go. Critiques (in all cases), PICs (in nearly all cases) and consult/delay counterplans do not belong in policy debate and are fundamentally cheating. Debate is not about winning, it is about real-world experience in evaluating policy. Bear this in mind when seeking my ballot.

Contrary to most NFA-LD and NDT-CEDA judges, not all arguments should be flowed simply because a debater is reading it. There is a particular way and method of how debate should conducted, although this interpretation has leeway it is fundamentally static.

The best model of debate is the one you see in this paradigm and I will both defend and enforce it at will. All arguments are outlined and organized within this paradigm so make searching simple. I am under no obligation to do anything outside of this paradigm --- if you post round me, I will enforce this paradigm.

Table of Contents (for those on time crunch and want specific sections)

These are listed in order of appearence

1. Inherency

2. Solvency

3. Adv/DAs

4. CPs/PICs

5. Plan Texts

6. T

7. Framing

8. Framework

9. Critiques

10. Theory

11. Everything else

12. High School Public Forum

13. High School LD

Inherency

It is a waste of time to challenge the inherency of the affirmative. Unless the argument is dropped or is otherwise removed from the round – I will never vote neg on presumption here. The only exceptions is when the aff is actually non-u/q but in most cases progress in the squo is never equal to that of what the aff is calling for.

If the aff does have inherency issues which can make part of the aff non-u/q, the aff ability to solve for impacts is reduce the closer to the Squo the aff is. This is easier to do on domestic topics than international one (For example --- NDT-CEDA alliance topic does not really have inherency issues but the NFA-LD immigration topic does have serious inherency issues.

Don't run Inherency theory - in many cases the aff inherency is built into the solvency and link evidence and I will strongly defer to the aff on Inherency.

Solvency

Untouched solvency in the constructive means the affirmative has 100% solvency. Solvency arguments from the negative are given weighted percentages. A single card and a single argument is never capable of achieving a solvency takeout. If the chance the affirmative can solve 51-49, I vote affirmative. Solvency is a prior question, if the aff can’t solve – nothing else matters and I vote here. Solvency is won at the warrant level.

If there are different aspects of the plan (plan does two different things), the solvency for both is weighed separately. An example is if the aff limits three different visa categories; solvency for each visa category is weighted separately.

Fait is good, exists, and is the only way debate functions --- funding, personal, congressional votes, etc. are all faited by the aff even if their plan text doesnt' say it. The aff only needs to say, fait solves the link - and you meet my burden. If you read a card that says fait is bad, I will judge kick that --- don't waste your time. If you think fait is bad, debate probably isn't for you --- that's how critical fait is to the function of the game.

Advantages and Disadvantages

Need u/q, links, and impacts to survive throughout the round to have access. Disadvantages are weighted against the case unless there is a wash. Wash Adv/DAs are washes, it is unlikely I’ll vote on them unless they are the only thing in the round then it becomes a matter of warrants and offensive.

On u/q --- I dont think you can take out the DA/Adv on u/q, you can reduce the chance the adv/DA. One warrent alone cannot take it out.

Extinction impacts are given higher priority to structural violence impacts and that is just how it is (calling me a racist is not going to change that). There will be a lot of work which will need to be done to overcome the extinction impacts.

Impact Defense and impact turns are your friend.

War good, climate change good, and or any other extinction/death good arguments will result in a judge kick. This does not include heg bad or DeDev so long as it is not spun as death good; rather articulated as necessary for the betterment of humanity --- on war good specific, this is a judge kick since the act of striking first would kill untold millions of people. I won't reject the team, but the argument and will lean heavily against it. However this is an exception to my theory perpective - I will reject the team if given sufficient reason to do so and internal debate space impacts as to why running extinction good arguments are bad.

Adv/DAs are won and loss at the link level, if the aff or neg does not have the links to arrive at extinction then it doesn’t matter. And in case you are wondering, expansion of EB-visas which causes Chinese brain drain does not have links to result in war. There need to be – and I cannot stress this enough – a clear causation link change about how we arrive from point A to war and death. Use the rebuttals for this purpose. Warrants are your friend here.

There is always a risk of the Adv/DA. Very rarely would I vote on presumption --- even a 1% risk of impact, 1% risk of link, and 1% risk of u/q means I still evaluate the DA/Adv; although a higher risk of whichever means I err toward that.

Technical matters outweigh truth and moralities --- Bostrum is correct; moral uncertainly means I move to protect future generations to figure it out.

Link turns and impact turns are a good friend. If you claim DAs outweighs the case/Adv outweighs the DAs, I need to know why this is true. I will not vote simply because you have a more specific link, you still need to extrabuate on why your link is better at the warrent level. If you link is not as specific comparatively, then tell me how it is. That being said, arguments spillover and cross apply. One does not need to have specific arguments in against that specific card to win at the link level --- you just have to put in the work and tell me why this argument answers their arguments.

Offensive tends to o/w defense.

I will mention this again since it is very important, most of my ballets are cast at the link level.

For politics DAs --- post dating u/q isn't enough, preferring warrants as to why the bill will or will not pass in the squo. For election DA, the closer to the election we are the less effective the DA will be - I don't think you should be running election DA when their is like two weeks before. However, I will not judge intervene here - these warrants must be made if I strike down a DA for being non-u/q.

Counterplans

CP must have two parts to vote on them 1. CPs must have a net-benefit, if there is no net benefit you have no CP and I will vote aff on presumption (assuming no other DAs present). 2. They must solve for the aff (or part of the aff in the case of a adv-CP) and no link to the net benefit.

Condo is good -- this is a hard position, you would need twenty minutes of speech time to win condo. Mutilplank CP are good for debate, learn to multitask and defend you aff from multiple attacks – real world experience – get over it. The same is true for reading two or more CPs. Tie skew arguments on CPs are pretty bad. I will not ever vote on condo args, if the neg drops condo bad --- DO NOT extend it in the 1AR, don't even suggest it in the 2AC --- I will judge intervene to protect the neg's right to offer alternative solutions and defend the Squo.

CPs need a solvency card, I will not vote for a floating CP, even with a net benefit. I won't evaluate it and if I am forced to I will review the CP as highly suspect when weighing it against the aff - I may even judge kick and just weight the DA against the aff.

Perms are overcome by argumentation and net-benefits All aspects of perm theory are cheating. Using perm theory is a cheap and pathetic way to escape good argumentation, it is extremely unlikely I would ever vote for it. However, I will reject the perm as an argument if it is severance by linking to the net benefit. Which would then trigger a aff v CP/Net Benefit evaluation.

Solvency deficiencies are the best (and often the only) way to remove a CP. Explain why the aff mechanism are uniquely required.

All CP's have the same fait rules as the aff which include: Fait covers funding, personal, and passage though congress (or otherwise approved by actor of the CP), and the implementation of policy.

Adv-CPs are good and I encourage them, still need a solvency card. They give me a way out, especially if you are winning on the link level.

Agent/Agency Counterplans

Aff as USFG and normal means includes all branches and agencies of the United States Federal Government. Perm solves and I will err aff. The exception is non-USFG American government institutions. The neg can run 50 states CP, local government CP, or otherwise. However, the smaller the government reduces the ability the ability for the CP for solve for global, country level impacts.

CP has fiat to prevent args like council members votes no, etc. Fait also grants 50 states say yes - debating that West Virginia says no is bad for 2nd level clash and education. --- best approach for the aff is to question wether the CP can solve for global impacts.

International agent/acter Counterplans

I defer that CP should operate as an operator of the United States which includes agency and actors of the United States. However, I can be persuaded to accept international fiat good or international actor CP good and you can see more of that in the theory section.

Refer to International fait section in theory

Consult/Delay Counterplans

Consult/Delay CPs are straight cheating, they steal aff ground. I will intervene and judge kick them. To be honestly, I will think long and hard about rejecting you if these CPs are in the 1NC.

Consult Chase Counterplan

If you read this, you better know my IR takes pretty well. In the end, consult CPs are still cheating but you'd get some speaker points because I'd find the fact you ran this CP to be hilarious.

Plan Inclusive Counterplans (PICs)

Refer to the CP section above, most everything applies.

I do not think you need a solvency advocate for a PIC specifically if the NB is a clear reason to endorse the PIC (ie. limiting plan scope to a region and having that region as a DA -- China PIC with China Brain DA). In addition, PIC tend to gain solvency of the aff cards anyways.

Solvency deficient to the PIC and/or straight turns to the DA are the bet means of winning against a PIC. Explain to me why the particular aspect the Neg is PICing out of is critical to the aff. Do just attempt to win the DA, since there is a chance that case arguments could produce a low risk impact evaluation.

Word PICs are probably good - we will have to see.

Refer to the theory section for PIC theory

Plan Texts

You aff does not reserve the right to clarify --- I should know with 100% certainty exactly what the aff does just by reading the plan text. If the topic resolution calls for certain words, then your plan text should include those certain words. You are just hurting yourself and the aff by not doing that. Right to clarify is a theory voter for T since it allows the aff to move the central point of clash.

Affs actor should be clarified in the 1AC plan text. --- if you want to run a congress aff (even though its not ever topical to do so) then you should be clearly stating that in your 1AC plan text.

If you forget to read a plan text in your 1AC for whatever reason, when asked about it in CX just read the plan text with during CX and if not, then read the plan text in the 2AC. The worst thing you can ever do is forget to include the plan text and then panic by declaring this a methods debate. I will vote you down so fast --- read a plan text.

Topicality

It is clear when a aff is topical and when it is not. Unless that is the case, I will almost always prefer the affs position on Topicality. The negative position is always over-limiting, topicality arguments do not have any affect in debate (unless maybe it’s elims). It is not reasonable to ever suggest that you lose topicality, and you are going to change your aff. Running topicality because you don’t have something to say is not an argument and I will not punish the aff because you cannot do research.

I have a pretty high threshold for topicality.

*****You can ask me before the round what I think about T towards a particular sub-set of the aff (this is critical on topics like criminal justice or immigration reform in which there are reasonably hundreds of different affs); although I will not comment on the aff specifical --- the aff can always find ways to spin their untopcial aff into why there are topical. Although, if the aff is actually untopical then the spin better be good.

With that being said --- I will vote on T for the neg if the following achieved.

1. Why I should prefer you intrep -- what makes your intep good in terms of limits, predictable, and fairness.

2. Why their intrep blows up the limits -- give me a concert example of affs that can be run if their def blows up limits.

3. If you are running T b/c the mechanism of the aff is untopical (For example: they remove visa restriction for a temporary class visa when the resolution calls for reform towards permanet visa class); you TVA will be significantly better if you provide a way for the aff to talk about the overall theme and their advantages under your TVA (using the above example: is their a visa category which can be reformed which meets your intrep and allows them to debate overall theme of their advantages).

4. Case lists are welcomed and advised, but not required -- and make your rebuttal T arguments significantly better.

5. Theory shells explaining why debth is better and cards supporting why your intrep creates better debate is critical in the rebuttals to reenforced the internal link to the voters.

6. impact out the voters -- why not voting on T makes debate harder.

Other things to note

- There is not such thing as RVI on T --- you are either topical or you are not. The neg reserved the right to test wether the aff is topical; the aff has the burden of proof.

- I default to competing interps, reasonability is arbitrary and there is no such thing as predictable --- the aff being on the wiki does not make your aff predictable. If the aff wants me use reasonability as the metric, then the aff will have some serious work on why not only reasonability in a vacuum is good but why you aff specifically is reasonable. The large the topic scope (ie. NFA's Immigration topic) the less convincing reasonability becomes.

- T occurs in a vacuum (as in the round itself); I don't expect the aff to change their aff simply because they lost on T; they will just fine better definitions. So, even a topical aff can be untopical if the neg has some pretty good cards.

- Proven abuse is extreme preferred and supercharges topicality --- I default to proven abuse, however can be persuaded to consider the potential abuse for future debates.

- I can be persuaded to allow a aff that is Topical in every sense expect the USFG --- more on that in the framework section.

- couching mechanisms in the plan text that are designed to no link is cheating and an voter for T --- a good example is when a debtor cites USFG in their 1AC but their mechanism clearly suggest the court are the acter. If you are going to cheat and adopt a specific mechanism in CX to move agency --- I will definitely vote on proven abuse.

- Performance and knowledge production on T ---- you are either topical or you are not, the neg reserved the right to test wether the aff is topical and the aff solely has the burden of proof. Challenging the topicality of the does not reenforce bad mindsets --- testing rules enforcement is a prior question to any possible prior questions. Their are not RVIs on T which includes DAs to T and if the neg decides not to carry T through, I will judge kick the aff's DAs to the T unless their are C/A to a flow outside of T. This also applies to T-turns or T-K turns. The aff does not get offensive on T only defense. I will not evaluate RVIs and offensive on the T and will judge kick the offensive if T is kicked or even if its extended.

- I will reject aff which are clearly not topical regardless of how good their definitions are. For example, under the 2020-2021 NDT-CEDA alliance topic; the Minnesota enlargement aff was vastly untopical and I will judge intervene and reject affs that violate the SPIRT of the resolution --- I really don't care how good your t definitions are - you are not cool; read a topical aff.

Framing (Extinction)

Extinction outweighs in most all cases and utilitarianism is often the only ethical framing. I have a very high threshold to any other intep. I have won many rounds during my career on framing alone v soft left affs and I will reward that. I honestly think soft left off are an attempt buy K teams to skirt FW and win rounds --- placing the game over the education benefits of policy. --- the kicker is that a DAs/Adv must survive as a NB to the framing.

If you go up against a soft left aff with structural violence impact --- then tell me not only why I extinction outweighs but you will be in the best position if you tell me why solving your impact makes things better for the other. A good example is a grid impact since improving the grid is not only a extinction level impact but can access the framing of your opponent.

There are DAs to the alternative framing which I will evaluate if dropped, most framing args are defensive so making offensive args on their framing puts you ahead pretty far especially if dropped.

If you are the one running structural violence impacts and framing --- you should be preempting args as the aff. As the neg --- you will have to do two to three times the amount of work to overcome extinction priorities. If your opponent accesses your framing, then you will have even more work to overcome. It is not enough to respond or simply state that I should prefer X group, but why I should reject: all values of life, consequences, and risk creating mass death in the name of saving X group.

Along with Untiliarisnism good; consequences are good, all life has value comparatively, scenario planning, and most of standards of policy debate are good. I can be persuaded to set those aside if the work is done, but the amount of work which must be done to achieve that makes the time tradeoff costly.

Framing (Lens of analysis)

Application of IR theory (ie. Realism, liberalism, Marxism, etc.) are the only means of evaluating debate. Although, in terms of international relations Realism and Liberalism best explain states behavior. I am not convinced when a debtor says that realism just empower violence --- given that as a theory its more of a observation of behavior compared to Marxism or Feminism which seeks to critique rather than explain observation.

Effective IR analysis will normally utilize a combination of realism, liberalism, and constructivism to explain state behavior.

Your Adv/DA/CPs are close to reflecting reality if and only if it uses realism, liberalism, or constructivism to explain state decision making. Any other lens of analysis is ineffective.

Since many of you have never really studied IR before, lens of analysis (ie. realism) serves to EXPLAIN state behavior in the hindsight, not in the foresight. Saying that realism is racist or justifies imperialism are not real arguments and they are poor attempts to discredit theories that actually explain the world. If you are running a critique, then you better be operating in the world of liberalism since it is the only way I don't reject immediately award the win to extinction outweighing. The only legitimate critique of the lens of IR analysis is its inability to effectively explain state behavior in the confines of the affirmative world. If you criticize realism and your author is not an IR scholar, I will just kick that card without hesitation. Too many scholars and debaters criticism arguments while knowing nothing about it.

Critiques (Top level and Proper)

Critiques (spelled correctly since we are not in Germany) is - put in the best way possible – C H E A T I N G. You have a better chance of winning Topicality than you do critiques. If you are running a critique and spelling "critique" incorrectly or refer to it as "the K" --- I will doc your speaks 0.2 for every time you do that rounded up to the nearest whole number.

Debate is about much more than just "forwarding rhetoric" and it is worrying that you have learned so little from participating in the academy.

The neg should not even engage with the aff --- it just needs to be framework debate (I'm not joking, don't even reward them one bit --- 9 minutes of framework in the 1NC and 15 minutes of framework in the block).

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism

Most importantly, the critique has the burden of proof on ALL MATTERS, not the other way around. The critique most prove that the aff u/q causes your impacts --- most of the time they don't.

War and violence turns the critique --- life can always be much worse compared to the Squo.

I have no issue rejecting the team on perfcon (ie. you link, you lose).

I reward debaters who bite the link and defend their reps effectively.

If you read the Consult Chase CP: I'll laugh, give you plus 1 speaking points, and then kick the CP because consult CPs are cheating.

Framework --- read real arguments

I will vote on framework almost 100% of the time --- A planless aff's model of debate is always terrible and self-serving. There is nothing worse than having a critical judge say they will vote on framework when they won't and vise versa. What you see in this paradigm is what you get. If you wish to strike judges who oppose your "perfect" worldview, it probably just means you are acknowledging your alternate will fail when it meets real opposition (because let's be honest with each other, critical judges are not going to provide you with any resistance).

Refer to the framing section for opinions on extinction.

I say the following with 100% seriousness: You must have a plan text and a clear actor --- the rise of soft left affs in recent history give you no excuse to no adopt a plan text with a clear actor.

I will weight the aff against the alt --- the critical team will have a lot of work to do in overcoming this interpretation since this is a hard position. Past attempts to explain why the critique comes before the aff have always been pointless and without merit.

There are no RVIs on framework for the same reason there are no RVIs on T --- refer to the T and theory section for more information. If you run DAs or turns on framework, I will judge kick them --- be topical; you are lucky I don't reject you right then and there. The team which choice to waste my time by running useless and pointless arguments have the sole burden of proof to justify why I should not punish you --- good luck.

You link, you lose is a voter, fairness is a voter, prior questions bad and infinite are a voter.

You education arguments will NEVER outweigh fairness --- you better fix your framework arguments because fairness to the resolutions is the only way clash happens --- which u/q produces education.

If the aff is cheating by being planless, the neg is completely justified in having a 20 minute 1NC and I WILL flow every single argument. If the cheating aff intervenes to enforce the time rules during the 1NC or the block, I will vote on framework; if the aff complains in any capacity during the 2AC or 1AR, I will vote on framework. If you follow every other rule in debate and you say rules bad, I will vote on framework. If the critical team attempts to enforce any rules, I will vote on framework right then and there. The exact same concept is true neg using 20 minutes of prep time or having a 5 minute CX. I will literally be the last judge to enter into tab just to prove a point, I do not care.

Debate is not theater nor is it philosophy class, all prior questions have been address at the start of the round. You better give me a comprehensive and extraordinary detailed reason why this is not true --- the BURDEN OF PROOF IS ON THE CRITICAL TEAM.

Critique proper (perms)

Aff has major access to perm arguments – perm theory is bad for debate. Don’t say that perms are bad when you are literally cheating by hiding behind prior questions. Instead, prove to me why the perm is not possible through the application of logical within the real world. In almost every case, the alt can be manifested in the world of the state.

The aff is allow to perm any combination of the alternative, ontology and/or epistemology. If the permutation resolves significantly pieces of critique's solution, the critique's alternative is most likely not enough to resolve their epistemology in the first place.

If you say, "group the perms" --- Not only is that bad for you since each perm does is a different solution, but it is a sloppy attempt to engage in argumentation and I will not reward it. Answer the perms separately or I will doc your speakers points by 1.

Saying "we reject the state therefore the perm is severance" is not an answer to the permutation --- you must answer the specific warrant of the permutation.

In critique v critique debate, I will reject any aff permutation - I will judge kick all of them. I really don't care, if the aff wants access to the permutation then read a topical aff. Just have the boring and pointless method debate already; at this point you both are lucky I don't issue a double L.

Critique proper (links)

You must clearly link to the aff. I will vote on no link more than I will anything else. Vague links are a voter, given that Critiques are cheating, I want to see extremely clear links to make up for this. Your internal link must also link to the aff.

When I say link to the aff I mean quite literally --- your critique must link to the mechanism of the aff, the rhetoric of the aff, the impacts of the aff, and the aff specifically. If you link card is, in any capacity, generic --- I will reject it; no link arguments should be made more.

Your link cards should not from ten years ago; do some research --- it isn't really that hard and you don't have any excuse.

Critique proper (alternative)

This is the most important section of the critique --- most people accept that the world is racist, sexist, and violent to the other. How are you going to resolve said violence is the only question that matters. You need to spend more than 60 seconds on your alternative and it is sad that critical teams dedicated so little time to how systems of violence actually gets resolved.

Critiques must have solvency, links to the aff (or links to the resolution in the case of planless which are more than USFG bad), and an alternative. I have no problem voiding for vagueness. Critiques have long gotten away with vague alts and hid behind think walls of theory. This is bad for debate and is nothing more than cowardly behavior. The critique must have a clear and defined alt, if I am at all confused about what the alt does or is in anyway vague, I err against the critique. Nothing about the critique matter if the alt fails, if the alt fails, I vote here.

Vague Alternative and social change --- those advocating for social movements or social resistance should be able to address these most basic questions: how does the movement manifest, what does it leadership structures look like; what are the long-term goals of the movement; and what is the overarching mechanism the movement uses to bring change. If you alternative cannot address these four questions --- the alternative will most likely fail. Remember: you are not just pushing rhetoric, you are also suggesting a possible path of resistance which means you better have a developed alternative otherwise state inevitable arguments thump the alternative.

The critiques does not get access to fait unless the critique is clearly operating as a CP to the aff --- which then might as well weigh the aff against the alt. If the critique isn't a government actor, I will not give you fait. If you totalized a group in your alternative, I will view your "calls for movement" with extreme skepticism.

Just as the aff has to affect real world change, the critique has to affect real world change. Claiming the agency is the debate team and the critique affects on this round will supercharge every possible alt fail cards on the flow. If you alternative is reject the aff, you WILL LOSE --- seeing as that is nowhere close to resolving your epistemology.

If the alternative cannot resolve the epistemology, I will reject the entirety of the critique. You raised the question, you prove it: there is nothing worse than someone complaining about a problem and failing to offer a coherent policy or solution to solve said problem.

Scenario planning is the only way any movement will actually manifest change - especially if you are planning on taking organized military/revolutionary action against the state. Scenario planning is critical for every job, so unless you plan on working as a McDonald’s burger flipper all your life - buckle up and embrace scenario planning.

FxT is bad for debate --- your alternative must resolve significant portions of your epistemology. If you alternative calls for a movement of resistance, you will lose on epistemology wayyyyyy overwhelms the alternative. If you say, "the critique is a first step to resolve violence" you will lose for the reasons aforementioned.

Capitalism Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

You must solve for GLOBAL capitalism and utopia is not, nor will it ever be, the answer. Socialism does not end capitalism. Capitalism, socialism, communism are not more or less moral comparatively. Communism has never actually manifested in the traditional sense, you better be able to explain which variant of communist you are.

If you alterative simply calls for a social movement to resolve capitalism without outlining how that social movement will resist attempt to by the state to reassert itself --- might I suggest the following: 1985 MOVE bombing - Wikipedia

As alternatives go: Joining the communist party does not solve capitalism (and it's sad that I have to say that).

Libertarian Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solutions for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Just why? Why would you ever endorse the worst economic philosophy in history. You better have a damn good answer to why I should embrace a return to the mass violence and suffering of the Guided Age.

Queer violence turns, Anti-black violence turns, fem violence turns, ableist violence turns, trans violence turns, and set-col violence turns are absolutely going to be evaluated against the critique - you might as well run a racism good critique given the relationship between Libertarianism and violence against any minorities group.

The state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature. There is a reason why libertarianism have never been implemented.

Security Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

In terms of made up arguments, this one is pretty far up there. While threats are often hyped, they are real. US-Russia war will probably kills untold billions, same for all other forms of war and violence. Threat construction in itself does not directly lead to war. If it is true that a single speech act caused war, we would all be dead. The aff as a form of scholarship is just one part of the thousands of articles in the security studies --- this critique is quite literally the definition of non-u/q.

Speciesism Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented (ie. not a human) in the critique.

Human beings are superior in all possible ways and that is just objectively true.

There is no impact to "anti-animal" language. This is quite literally the most made up argument in the debate space and that includes absurd critiques in that evaluation (see below for what I mean).

Feminist Critique

Read real arguments

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism.

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is sexist, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Anti-Black Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is racist, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Anti-black critical teams spend far too much time on explaining why everyone is racist that their alternatives to resolve the structures of violence have been poorly thought out and constructed as an afterthought.

If you read the "consult black people" CP, I will laugh and vote for the negative since, as a black person, anti-black authors fail to offer effective solutions to resolve their criticisms or use flawed IR thought.

Hortense Spiller (an English professor), Jared Sexton (an African American studies Professor), and Frank Wilderson (a drama and African American studies professor) are not IR scholars which explains why their attempts to explain IR as a tool of black suffering are often half-hazard, ineffective, and the product of disorganized black rage. If you want to offer a critique of IR (which there are many of a field of study) you should pull them from actual IR professors.

Saying the N-word in round doesn't provide you with any ethos --- that word will always mean what it originally meant and reverse co-opt efforts have long failed.

Queer Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique. If your alterative is "be gay do crime" and you explain the members of those doing crime can also be non-queer, I will vote you down on allyship.

It doesn't matter if the state is violent to queer people, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Calling for "queer rage" is a terrible and poorly thought out alterative. Disorganized resistance against the state which is pointless and senseless will always fail.

Trans Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Refer to the theory section on misgendering/in-round sexism.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is violent to trans people, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

Calling for "trans rage" is a terrible and poorly thought out alterative. Disorganized resistance against the state which is pointless and senseless will always fail.

Ablism Critique

Read real arguments

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

If you are engaging in allyship, I will reject you without hesitation. Both members of the critical teams must be a part of the identity group represented in the critique.

It doesn't matter if the state is violent to disabled bodies, the state is inevitable --- no matter what, the state will always be here --- Thomas Hobbes was wrong, there never was a state of nature.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

When answering this critical argument, do not behave or act in an ableist manner. The only thing that matters is the content of the argument for both debater. If you joke about how a debater physically conducts debate (ie. Hand movements, swaying, stuttering) are all links for your behavior and I will vote you down if called out. While I don’t necessarily expect you to change your aff, I do expect debater to adjust how they present their aff and laughing or calling out humans for how they physically present their arguments will earn you a sizable loss in position. It makes it easier to embrace the ableism alternative when the impact of voting you do will have action change - you’ll check your behavior in the interest of ballots but the USFG might now which is the entire social change section — policy debater need to stop justifying critical arguments and gross ableist behavior in debate all these absurd and cheating arguments continue.

Scholar Research Critique

Read real arguments

You cannot change or affect the debate space --- no matter what your ability to change overarching rhetoric used in the debate space is nonexistence. It leds to policy debaters doubling down. The origins of soft left aff is not the result of a change in policy debate but rather an acknowledgement that K affs fail.

Aff/Neg says no is a legitimate argument --- the critique in itself does not produce change, the change is the product of the opposition willingness to adopt the alternative; personal objections to the alternative are acceptable if contextualized.

Root cause and historical analysis is critical to evaluating potential solution for progress.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Scholarly research critiques do not belong in round – they are decided when the resolution was declared and you will not ever have any affect on change the scholarly research of a team. There are extremely few exemptions to this and if you ask me I will tell you.

If you cannot explain your alt you will lose. If you are running a research critique and are incapable of pointing out authors that the aff should run instead that fit inside the world of the alt, you will lose. The one phrase I never want to hear from the critique team is, "I don't know, that is your job to figure it out." You will lose.

High Theory Critiques (Top and Proper)

If you read a high theory critique, you are part of the problem. If you don't want to participate in the academy, then don't spend your weekends debating.

If the first question I hear in CX is "what is the aff meta-physical orientation towards the sun" --- not only will that result in an instant L, but I will doc your speaks by so much that any hope you had of being anywhere close to the top 90% of competitors will be gone.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Psychoanalytic Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Nihilism Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Baudrillard Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

You should not be reading authors which are so obviously racist and sexist.

Bataille Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Cybernetics Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Transhumanism Critique

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Death Critique

Death critiques will result in an instant L for the same reason as extinction good arguments result in a L. --- I honestly don't even care if you win the round, I will not endorse the open embrace of death since it empowers the same logic behind bullies advocating for self-harm. I literally will not flow a single word you say -- all your ethos is gone.

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

The pointless and the absurd Critiques

Read real arguments

The only thing that matters is the content of argument. I don’t evaluate pointless narrative statements.

Why are you here --- If you don't want to be here, if you don't want to do debate and benefit from what the academy has to offer; then why are you spending your weekend doing debate.

The following critiques will result in an instant L: Zoom critiques, ATLA critiques, do nothing critiques, ... (I will expand this list when I come across the arguments). If you think you fall into this category, you are part of the problem.

Any other Critique not included

Read real arguments

Theory

If its not in here then I haven't hit the theory enough to have a direct opinion on it --- but most of everything people run will be contained in there. There are two positions; Args that I think are good or bad for debate and I don't think I will every change my mind and args that I can be persuaded.

I have a pretty high threshold for theory arguments outside of my model of debate. The amount of work you would have to do is a massive tradeoff which is not worth it.

Condo is good --- the neg enjoys the right to test the aff from multiple angles. Aff still has access to perms and solvency deficiency. This is a hard position; if you are going for condo bad you will probably lose unless it was just straight dropped.

Muntiplank Cps are good --- the neg enjoys the right to test the aff from multiple angles. Aff still has perms and solvency deficiency. This is a hard position; if you are going for mutliplank bad, you will probably lose unless it was just straight dropped. There is no impact to kicking planks and it probably makes it easier to be aff if they do since it reduce one mechanism the neg has to solve the aff.

Multiple Condo is good --- the neg enjoys the right to test the aff from multiple angles. Aff still has perm and solvency deficiencies. The argument that multiple condo is bad is reduce if the CPs share the same NB. The neg can run an infinite number of Cps in the round --- although running like 20 off isn't really advisable. There is a bright line that can be established, running a CP for each advantage and a CP for the aff is reasonable. The more Cps the neg runs the more I can be persuaded to reject the argument. Rebuttals check --- if they run six Cps in the NC but then only carry though one or two, I will err neg on the theory.

New args in the rubbtal --- I do give a lot of leeway for debaters on both sides for new arguments; tangibly related is nominally enough. However, I can be persuaded to reject arguments but some additional sentence must be made as to why this particular argument skews your time. However, if you make this argument I will also reject new argument's made by you as well --- especially if you fail to contextual why that specific argument should be rejected over others.

Prefer ev over analytics --- Unlike most judges, I do not think debaters are idiots. I will weight analytics alongside carded evidence. While carded evidence is preferred, I will still not deprive a debate the chance to read it. You are experts on the matter, like the most of us. In all honestly, if a debater makes DAs entirely out of analytics, I will still evaluate it but will defer to carded ev. Debaters can analytically fill in the gaps for internal link issues. The farther away from common knowledge the analytic is the less weight I give it.

Fait theory is good --- it exists and is good, it is the only way debate functions. Fait covers funding, personal, and passage though congress, and the implementation of policy. "Fait solves the link is all one really need to say here" --- I defer to the aff on fait. Absent fait, the neg is extremely incentivized to just read ten cards about who these congressmen oppose. This is a hard position.

International fiat ---

International condo --- refer to international actors and condo theory section

International actors are good --- If the aff or the neg wishes to take a different government or state actor, then they may do so and I encourage it. Education in this regard outweighs fairness. I do think there is a bright line --- embracing a state is decently okay, especially if that state is a major actor on the world stage. That being said, you should have answers to framework and why we should be talking other states. Major actors on the international stage can include major global powers or international organizations like the UN (although, you would have solvency issues). Outside of talking about the state, I do think arguments of fairness start to become strong the farther away we move from the state. For example, taking a mutil-national corporation or small NGOs will probably lose you the framework debate --- in this case fairness does o/w education. If you want to adopt a different actor, you should justify your actions on the framework flow particularly how you don't blow up limits. Adopting middle power aff/CPs like Canada, Japan, or Sweden is also pushing the brightline.

It should be noted however, that I will gladly entertain a "framework" style debate as to why all CPs should be USFG. Much like against a critic, framework is a pre-fia question and if you can not justify why you get to run a non-USFG CP, I will reject the team on "framework".

Multiple International Actor Fiat --- refer to international actor and multiple condo section

Disclosure/New affs/New DAs and Cps --- There is no impact to disclose theory and in all honesty, disclose theory isn't really a thing. The aff enjoys all aspects of their infinite prep time including the ability to break new affs. That being said, disclose is good and is encouraged. Debaters should be posting rounds on the wiki. The neg also enjoys the ability to break without concern.

PICs --- I sit on the fence on PICs good or bad (leaning a bit more towards PICs bad). While they have a role in debate and can be good for argumentation; they do steal aff ground, moot the 1AC, and refocus the debate away from the 1AC to the 1NC which can kill 2nd level clash development. I can be convinced that PIC are good and that they can be bad --- when it comes to PICs I will be evaluating the context of the debate itself. It is pretty clear when the PIC deliberately refocus the debate (ie. you don't read any case cards) --- I'd probably punish you by kicking the PIC if its that bad. Most PICs exist in the middle somewhere, so depending on the arguments made in round and the context of said round determines if PICs are good or bad.

Floating PICs ---

Word PICs ---

Vague Alts ---

Using the rulebook is bad --- just why. Please don't be citing or enforcing the rules of the circuit or the tournament in round. You look like a fool and debate's outcomes are less about the top level rules and about judge interpretation of what the rules are of what they should be. This is a hard position. It doesn't really matter what the rules say, if a debate thinks something is bad than that judge will oppose you.

Inherency Theory is bad --- in many cases the aff inherency is built into the solvency and link evidence and I will strongly defer to the aff on Inherency. The rules only require that the aff identity barriers not that they have to be explicitly declared. In many cases, most issues do have inherency otherwise we would not be debating about them and people would not be writing articles about them.

Solvency Theory ---

RVI --- There are no RVIs for most arguments. RVI don't exist for T or framework (refer to the sections for more detail). RVI's do exist on framing but only in the capacity of offensive to the manifestation of ethical framing (refer to the framing section) and no on the ethical framing itself. If you make an RVI, even if dropped I will judge kick it.

Reasonability --- refer to the T section

Perm Theory (General) is bad --- Perms are overcome by argumentation and net-benefits All aspects of perm theory are cheating. Using perm theory is a cheap and pathetic way to escape good argumentation, it is extremely unlikely I would ever vote for it. However, I will reject the perm as an argument if it is severance by linking to the net benefit. Which would then trigger a aff v CP/Net Benefit evaluation.

Vague Perms ---

ASPEC ---

"As Per" ---

"Right to clearly" is bad --- refer to the plan text section

R-Spec ---

Sandbagging is good--- the 1NR is allowed to expand upon its arguments from the 1NC. Time skew arguments are unconvincing.

Judge Kick --- While you should properly kick out of argument, I do default to judge kick if debaters failed to kick properly. If you don't kick out properly, debaters are justified in using those args on other pages. Arguments which are dropped with only defense on the page and kicked. CP's that are dropped are also kicked. Although, if there is offensive on the page then I will not judge kick unless the opposition decides not to extend the offensive.

Multiple Worlds is Bad --- I don't think multiple worlds exist and are quite honestly bad for debate. It is better to have a coherent position than not. I will vote on a debater who double turns themselves.

Framework --- refer to the framework section

Pre-fia questions --- I default to evaluating framing, framework, and T as pre-fia questions to the 1AC itself --- those are hard positions. New sheets are pre-fia questions to your participation in the academy at large. I can be persuaded to evaluate other positions like theory as pre-fai. There are no other positions which are pre-fia.

Abuse standard --- I default to proven abuse on theory, but I can be persuaded to considered potential abuse. I default to potential abuse on framework. I default to potential abuse on topicality during the first few tournaments when the season norms are being established, proven abuse thereafter.

Links from outside the round --- I will not touching any inter-debate problems with a 400m pole. The only thing that matters is the confines of the round itself from the start of the 1AC until the 2AR.

Misgendering/Sexism ---We all must come to terms with out own perceptions of the world. For a while, I personally perceived limited impact here --- however, after witnessing the suffering that misgendering can have (both in real life with close friends and in the debate space); we do have an obligation to realign our internal perceptions away from identity destructions and attempts therein. I will rarely admit I was wrong, but I will here well because I was.

Misgendering does have an impact, the destruction of the personal identity of a debater. While, I can understand cultural and traditional internalizations die hard; you must make an effort to check your own perceptions and make an effort to develop strategies against your own internalized forms of violence. If it is made clear to you the identity of your opponent (either through the wiki, pre/during-round declaration, or next to their own names in the online debate form); you should integrate that identity into your debate. If you refuse to acknowledge and continue to behave in a manner which seeks to misgender and thus systematically destroy their identity without even attempting to acknowledge your mistake, I will vote you down.

Apology does solve, however there needs to be proven progress (ie. if you apology and then misgender, i will vote you down) --- I will probably judge intervene and vote you down. If the first line of the final rebuttal is "They apologize but continue to misgender" or some similar statement and you did continue to misgender, that's game and I will vote you down.

After witness several rounds between male representing teams and fem representing teams; there is a clear issues with how male representing debaters treat their male representing counterparts and their fem representing counterparts. If you talk over fem/otherized representing individuals during CX, not only will I not flow your CX - thereby rejecting any ground gained from that CX - and dock your speaks by a minimum of five points for the direct person responsible and three points for the teammate (this is increased to ten points for the direct person responsible and five points for the teammate if running a critique since it is reflective of the ethical framework the critique seeks to create) -- But I will reject the team if new sheeted in the rebuttals. I will judge intervene your speaks regardless if the argument is made or not. As someone who does mock trail/moot court/trial advocacy, there is a distinct and noticeable difference between controlling the conversation and violent aggression.

New sheets here are a prior question to your participation in debate, I evaluate it first and kick any attempts to use existing args in the debate space against the new sheet (ie. leveraging your critique to answer the new sheet); misgendering and in-round sexism comes well before the 1AC (ie. the 1AC/1NC does not exist in the world of the new sheet). Team who get new sheeted here will have a pretty high threshold to sustain their position and receive my ballet.

Might be wise to refer to authors as either they/them, "authors," or by their name, everything from above applies to misgendering of authors.

Language --- Calling one a racist, sexist, homophobic , etc. will not be tolerated and just looks bad on you for being incapable of maintain decorum in a formal event. Theory args indict debater behavior in round is acceptably acceptable to punish racist or sexist arguments. Depending on the level of racism, I may judge kick the argument. However, If extreme proven abuse in round (like use of the N-word as an expression of violence) I will judge intervene and reject the team without any new sheet.

Performance affs/negs are bad --- Performance does not belong in debate, you are not funny and I am not laughing. Debate is not theatre and there are always ways to make your point as an orator --- verbal communication is what you are being "evaluated" on. Narration is the single greatest waste of speech time.

Cross Examination

CX is a speech and I will flow you questions and answers. CX time also belongs to the teams themselves. If one team wants to use CX time to prep or ask judge questions then they may do so. However, if using CX time to prep then other team is kinda justified in just taking the three minutes for more speech time.

Your questions should be tailed to the overall picture of the debate, even before the debate starts most people have an idea of how the round will go --- the goal of CX should be to use it to its full potential and you will be rewarded both in speaker points and in positional advantage.

Prep Time

Do not steal prep time --- once prep is called, you should finish your thought/sentence and your hands should be away from your flow/computer. Stealing prep time hurts your speaking points.

Saving the doc and sending it does not fall under prep time. Tech issues and bathroom breaks do not fall under prep time.

I am keeping track of prep time but enforcing prep time is up to the debaters.

If you have to go to the bathroom, just go. Debate is stressful enough, we can wait.

Speed

Speed is fine and spreading is encouraged as a tactic. If this is NFA-LD or other forms of lay debate, especially if this is not open, you should really not be spreading. Does not apply to open and JV NDT-CEDA or other partner based policy debate at the open/varsity or JV level. If you opponent in any format request you to slow down for legitimate reasons (namely disabilities), you should do so - failure will harms speaks by 1 point. If they read ableism theory for your failure to adhere to a formal request, you will be in a pretty bad position. If you are spreading in novice in any capacity, I'll dock your speaks by five and note in your ballet that you do not belong in novice --- trophy hunting ruins the game.

Technology

Sending the doc is not included in prep time.

Online debate stuff --- if you are using terrible mics or AirPods, just stop and use your computer mic. I will not reward small drops if it is extremely likely it was missed by garbled audio. ALWAYS test your tech before using it. I know that online debate is hard, I give debater space to figure out tech issues --- tab is never on time anyways so it will be fine.

RFD

Speaks will start at 28.5 and go up or down from there based on performance - in many cases this system is arbitrary. As a result of that, unless something really bad occurs, expect to be within 0.5 points of each other. Clarity, name calling, effective argumentation, pre-speech prep, not stealing prep time, etc. could all reflect on possible changes in speech time.

I am a flow judge, my decision will be based on the flow - sign posting is key here. You do not want me to spend time trying to figure out where one arguments goes. The messy the debate, the more likely I will miss an argument - so bear that in mind. That being said, I will still review your evidence post round before making a decision, comparing the ev with the flow. However, you should expect my decision to still largely come from the flow. If its in your doc but not in my flow, I will not vote on it.

I will give RFDs and disclose even if its not the norm where you are, debate is a learning experience at its core and you cannot improve if you don't know what to do differently. If this is college debate --- then I will definitely disclose regardless of taproom or coach request. If this is debate involving minors (namely high school debate) I will disclose if asked by the one debaters; regardless of tabroom's rules. However, I will ask the opposing debater (if still present) if they want me to disclose. If both team say yes --- I will disclose. If only want team says yes, the other team is more than welcome to leave while I disclose to the team that wants to learn. This will be how I disclose at the high school/minor level regardless of tabroom, parents, or coaches desires --- the only one's who matter for RFDs are the debaters themselves.

High School Public Forum

High School LD

Refer to the solvency section above, everything applies.

Refer to the adv/DA section above, everything applies.

I will never vote on the moral issues and I think it is a waste of time to even extent the moral question. Focus more on your advs/DAs since that is where you will actually win the debate. After all, it doesn't matter what your moral framework is if you can't solve the issues you solve for.

Refer to the framing section above when deciding what I actually think about the ethical framing of the debate.

4 years HS debate

Missouri State '24

Assistant Coach- Springfield Catholic

Pronouns- She/They

Email Chain-

danicolvin2@gmail.com

I will be flowing, even if it doesn't seem like it.

Aff

I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. Be ready to tell me why the affirmative matters and have the proper evidence to back that up. Please don't wait till the 2AC to explain the plans actions.

Topicality

Not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates. Although if the affirmative is not topical you should prove it. That being said, please bring it up in a constructive and follow through with it. If you throw it in during a rebuttal I won't vote for it

Neg

I'm really okay with any strategy. Just give me evidence, I won't vote on arguments without solid evidence to back it up.

Pet Peeves

Be kind. There is a difference between debating and arguing, so please be respectful and make this educational. Being rude will not win you the round and I will take off speaker points.

Please give roadmaps, so I can flow your speech correctly.

Don't try and talk over each other during cross.

I don't care about speed- I don't love spreading, but if both teams are comfortable with it I'm good. Just make sure that you're at a pace that everyone can understand.

Don't go over time, there is no 15 second grace.

Bottom Line

I will leave comments on your ballots, I want to help you get better at debate. Don't read to much into what I say.

At the end of the day, debate is meant to be fun and educational. The more you put into it the more you'll get out of it.

pembroke 23' navy 27'

2a / 2n

email: tconnor23 @ pembrokehill.org

2023 toc qualifier

top:

tech > truth

i like impact turn debates (no matter how silly)

send your analytics

speaks:

default is 28.8

start cx w/ "riddle me this" +.1 speaks

making a clever joke +1 speaks

making an unclever joke -.2 speaks

policy section:

da's:

they're great

cp's:

lean aff on: consult, delay, word pics, cheaty things like that

lean neg on: condo and functional pics (everything else is neutral)

the more specific the better - generic cp's are usually stale debates

t:

read ev about the function of the aff and how it's untopical (rehighlights, etc...) - 2nc should not be straight analytics

case debate:

impact turns are a game-changer

if you have no evidence, analytics can be just as good

k section:

not my fav...

I am a license attorney, graduated from UMKC, and practicing employment law. also graduated in 2020 with a Bachelors of Science in Political Science from Missouri State University. I emphasized in International Relations, minored in Philosophy and graduated with distinction in Public Affairs.

I did Model United Nations throughout high school and college, and although I myself did not participate in debate in high school or college, I have judged tournaments around the country since early 2020, which would likely classify me as a lay judge. That being said, I likely have a stronger understanding of law, policy, and IR than most lay people.

When it comes to speech style, I strongly dislike spreading. (That's the lay judge in me). I understand its value in terms of debate strategy, but ultimately, it's unrealistic to communicate in that way, and makes it really hard for me to judge arguments I can barely understand. I value real, yet flawed, arguments much more than arguments made so fast that your opponent cannot follow.

I typically will not disclose unless I am required to by tab.

Overall, this is a learning experience for everyone, including me, and I hope all competitors can be respectful and understanding of their colleagues regardless of who they are, what their technology capabilities are, etc.

Quick Overall Summary: I was a high school debater, so I understand the need to get an easy dub or cut corners. Its not educational for you or me to do such, so save yourself some time and put in the work to do research. Don't be a jerk ok. It might be cool to run a K about how the government is fascist but I guarantee you that you will have lost educational ground on any other on-case argument even if your opponents can't quite answer it. Be polite to each other, its really not that hard. Speak clearly, and make eye contact (reasonably because we are on computers, but I don't want to see you reading EVERYTHING off your computer.) If you don't have time to read all of my paradigm, the key idea is to stay on-case (generally) and articulate your links. I feel one of the most overlooked transitions are the Links and internal links. It would also be great for you to provide some impact calc, and a roadmap for your speeches. Also have fun! Debate is cool activity and you should be proud to be a part of something so great!

Affiliation: Missouri State University and Missouri University of Science and Technology (concurrently), Greenwood Laboratory High School (former Competitor)

Experience: 4 years HS policy (Greenwood Lab. HS), NCFL Grand National Qualifier - Congressional Debate, NSDA national Qualifier - Policy Debate, All-District Lincoln Douglas Debate.

Education: (In Progress) B.S. in Architectural Engineering and a Minor in Political Science (MSU/MS&T)

Approach: ~Tabula Rasa (with the exception of the biases I describe below).

Communication and Presentation: Unless unclear communication inhibits my ability to accurately evaluate the round, communication and presentation only matter for speaker points (at the margins). Spreading: Its not my ideal form of evaluating a debate round. I'm not saying you can't, but if I can't understand you then neither can your opponents. At that point you just shot yourself in the foot so to speak.

General Principles: My ideal debate is a debate over the topic. The affirmative reads a plan text implemented by a policymaking body via fiat with two advantages stemming from the implementation of that policy in a fiated world. The negative would read a counterplan, disadvantages, and case arguments. If it gets more kritik-oriented, that's fine, it's just not my ideal debate to evaluate.

While I will generally try not to enforce my ideology through the ballot, I find that the following significantly harm my ability to do so:
* Making people feel unwelcome in debate, either through violent rhetoric, actions, or general rude behavior. This includes, but is not limited to, “Vote against X-school because they're facist”, name calling, profanity, yelling, or asinine impact turns (genocide good, patriarchy good). This does not include De-Dev, Rights Malthus, or Wipeout. I just think those are stupid arguments to begin with.

* Clearly lying or misrepresenting facts (i.e. WW2 didn’t happen, Napoleon was a lizard, etc).

* Going for “blippy” arguments with the expectation of winning on a “cheap-shot”. For me an argument includes a claim and data.

* Making causal assumptions that are not clear.

* See impacts portion.

Don’t be afraid to ask! For the sake of transparency and open communication, I am willing to do the following before the round for you: (1) If you ask, I will give you my frank opinion of how you should rank/pref me. I may or may not know your “style”, but upon a ~2-3 minute conversation I can accurately answer this question for you to the best of my ability. (2) Answer any impromptu questions before the round while at least one representative from the other team is also included.

***Back to the details***

Pedagogical Moment: None of us our policymakers – we are not actors of the USFG and like such I do not believe we role play as them as automatic. This isn't drama/theater production. The key is to emulate the structure.

I say that as a way to have you consider how I view framework, affirmatives, and the criticism. I consider the language of the affirmative’s (fiat/role play based framework) v. some critical-theory based approach of the criticism – framework is a weighing of the best way to solve those implications in the real world.

If that doesn’t make sense, let me know.

Impacts: I think one poverty of modern debate, and I know it’s one that I certainly participated in, is using heuristic shortcuts to efficiently produce impacts at the cost of clearly articulated impacts that would perhaps be more specific to the topic. I think there are a couple of examples of these shortcuts, and even if I have some biases, I can be convinced otherwise:
* “This group is dehumanized, which outweighs nuclear conflict”. I think dehumanization is a heuristic stand-in for something that may be better described in the context of the advantage and the topic. For example, saying “poverty is dehumanization” is not saying that people’s sense of humanity is stripped from them through conditions of economic inequality. Instead, what this argument is describing, is that poverty undermines life expectancy and health care, the ability to be well-nourished, and produce the luxuries that make life more enjoyable. With that being said, life expectancy and starvation are impacts that can be quantified and are exceedingly probable. While it may be harder to make these arguments, I generally find them more convincing than individuals who are often in positions of privilege waxing poetic about the suffering of individuals that they can never truly empathize with.

* “Economic decline causes nuclear conflict and extinction.” This argument is often made with the assumption that judges will fill in the gaps, and I think absent any clear articulation of a particular scenario that makes conflict likely (i.e. a power-keg exists, and economic decline is the spark), it’s really easy to lose these impacts to terminal defense. Additionally, I think even if war occurs, the escalation to nuclear conflict is exceptionally unlikely given some unique feature to that conflict.

I say all of this to say something simple: “I generally prefer impacts that are falsifiable (and as a result measurable), quantifiable (death is usually me heuristic for evaluating impacts, given a good enough reason I could be convinced otherwise), and will maximize the utility associated with those impacts.” That last part may require clarification: The risk of 1,000 people dying with a probability of 0.01 (expected death of 10), versus the risk of 12 people dying with a probability of 1 (expected death of 12) means I’d act to save those 12 people. This is cold and calculative, but I’m not entirely comfortable wading into the waters of comparing quality of life as I have no objective measure with which to make my decision.

If you are to read a criticism, you can clearly make impacts that operate within this metric. It is to say that I prefer impacts like “Borders are the root of conflict” than “Borders and nationalism create a distancing from our own sense of self”.

It is also worth mentioning that if you are a team that would read critiques of impacts, I rarely think these are more convincing than well thought out impact defense. I am more likely to vote for your aff that saves 12 lives if you have put terminal defense on their big-stick impact than if you said “save 12 lives and ignore the threat of nuclear conflict”.

Topicality/Theory/Procedurals: Generally I find limits to be the essential standard for evaluating T. I find "predictability" and "grounded in the literature" to be important as well. I also don't feel like there has to be articulated abuse to win. Other than that, spec, and condo I don't know why winning a theory argument means you win the round. Conditionality is generally good, but the more advocacies there are, the lower my threshold becomes for voting on condo is bad. If you go for it in the 2AR, make sure the 2AC was large enough on it.

Critiques: They’re fine, but anyone who knows me knows that I do not prefer to evaluate this debate. The only problems I could possibly have with a criticism are a result of a lack of clarity. A clearly articulated framework and an explanation of the alternative following it would be awesome. I will evaluate the criticism is a world absent fiat – but that may mean you don’t get links to your criticism and may mean alternative solvency is rough. if you are thinking of running a K, you might want to see if there is a counterplan and/or case negatives to use. It saves just as much of my sanity as will save you (trust me).

Competition and the Permutation: A theoretically legitimate permutation is all of the plan and all or parts of the counterplan/alternative implemented simultaneously. If you go for the perm (which I think is generally a good strategy), I think it usually needs to be the cornerstone of the 2AR strategy and an articulation of why it makes the alternative or CP uncompetitive.

Remember – winning a permutation does not mean you win the debate, it just means that the alternative or the CP is uncompetitive. This means that it is the disad v. the aff – make arguments assuming that difference.

PICS: Not my ideal form to evaluate. However, a well thought out and well researched PIC is damning. I think theory can be convincing if they pic out of a non-mandate of the plan. An example: If the plan was to go to space, and the counterplan was to go to space but to use the Windows 7 OS as opposed to the Mac OSX, I think that the aff will probably win that the perm is justifiable. Just please do your research well before you decide to run a PIC, or else you'll be floundering and that's kinda awkward to watch and judge.

Language and Word pics: Eh. They're alright, but you have to be able to win that language or reps matter, this is an all-or-nothing thing to me unless you convince me otherwise. I also think these should be contextual, generic pics are unconvincing (that doesn't mean I won't vote on them). Also, I don't think you should be able to pic out of things not in the plan text. Severance only happens from the plan, not the rest of the speech.

Case debate: Fantastic, I love a good case debate. Really do. You'll get brownie (speaker) points if you're good on your case, or good on someone else's. I feel like most the time people undervalue this.

Defense: "This is just defense" isn't a response. Diversify your defense.

Politics: They’re fine, but know, if the debate comes down to whether or not some obscure piece of legislation is on the top of the docket or not, and I haven’t heard of it, the decision will not be favorable for you. I also think people go way too fast through politics – uniqueness in particular.

Counterplans: Do whatever you want here, just make sure it's competitive. I say whatever, but again let it be within reason. If the plan is to increase education spending, please don't run a counterplan that allocates funding to "re-education camps" for X group of people. That's wrong on so many levels, and you will most likely not receive quality marks on your ballot.

Perms: They're checks of competition. If you think you're tricky, and it come out in the 2AR that you're advocating the perm, I will be sad. If it is, articulate that in the 2AC. If this is done, and the negative doesn't read theory against this in the block, I may slam my head on the table. A theoretically legitimate permutation in my book is all of the plan and all or parts of the alternative.

Framework & Performance: I generally think that you should defend a plan text enacted by the government via fiat. However that doesn't mean that I'm not open to performance debate or any alternative frameworks. I'll vote for your movement, but with that being said, I find that many of these debates frankly go over my head and beyond my limited knowledge of the lingo and tricks that are associated with these forms of debate. If your primary strategy is performance, I may not be the judge for you. Framework is a way to evaluate impacts. Give me Impact calc.

And above all else ARTICULATE and have FUN!!!!

Stanford 24' is my first tournament on the HS topic

I debated at Missouri State for three years and had moderate success. I am now out of the debate community but judge every so often.

Email: engelbyclayton@gmail.com

TL;DR

I slightly prefer policy arguments more than critical ones. I want to refrain from intervening in the debate as much as possible. Extinction is probably bad. I think debate is good and has had a positive impact on my life. Both teams worked hard and deserve to be respected.

My beliefs

-Aff needs a clear internal link to the impact. Teams often focus too much time on impacts and not enough on the link story, this is where you should start.

-I like impact turns that don't deviate from norms of morality.

-Condo is good.

-Fairness is not an impact within itself but could be an internal link to something.

-Kritiks are interesting. Explain your stuff.

-Weighing impacts, evidence comparison, strategic decisions, and judge instruction can go a long way.

My philosophy is to cover, work and win the flow. Argumentation wins, whether debating topicality or DA you want to win the argument and be more advantageous is the general argumentative space than your opponent. This is an educational event, and ultimately the purpose of the very real discourse had between teams, should be to challenge both teams intellectually and embolden the value of debate.

Rather than judging purely off of the number of arguments an affirmative or negative team can proffer, I will base my judging decisions on the merits of those arguments. Therefore, I value the quality of evidence over the quantity.

I want you to effectively communicate what you are attacking and link your attacks. Give me clear voters in the end. Speed- I can handle a 10 of 10 but prefer a rate of 6-8 of 10. Clarity is most important.

Give the performance you think is the best.  That’s all I ask for! 

PF: I still think Public Forum should hold to the intended purpose when it was first introduced. Persuasion is key. Speaking fast with lots of arguments and debate jargon is not persuasive and will probably cost you the round. Sound reasoning and logic should be a significant part of the round. Evidence should be used as support but not the only the thing to vote on. Referring to the “Smith 16 card" will not tell me anything. Refer to the argument or contention and the evidence used there.

I have been a junior high or high school English Language Arts teacher for 24 years.

I prefer debaters not to use spreading. If I can't understand you, it will make it difficult for me to understand your position during the debate.

Please include me in the email thread:

brettgillysja@gmail.com

I believe that debate is a game. I will not shift from that position. This does not mean that any form of debate is better than another. But it does mean that making individuals feel bad about themselves, and intimidating individuals is not necessary. The debate round is one among many and is NOT a matter of life and death. It should be a fun but competitive game.

I believe the most important part of debate is impacts. If left with no argumentation about impacts or how to evaluate them I will generally default to look for the biggest impact presented. I appreciate debate that engages in what the biggest impact means, and/or if probability and timeframe are more important. This does not simply mean “policy impacts”, it means any argument that has a link and impact. You could easily win that the language used in the round has an impact, and matters more than the impacts of plan passage. All framing questions concerning what comes first have impacts to them, and therefore need to be justified. The point is, whether you are running a Kritik, or are more policy based, there are impacts to the assumptions held, and the way you engage in politics (plan passage governmental politics, or personal politics). Those impacts need to be evaluated. I can't not make this clear enough the framing of which impacts matter is extremely important if you win the framing question then I will easily default on your impacts if you have them.

Role of the ballot- this to me is just framing for the impacts. So it's really really really hard for me to vote on this even if it's dropped but that's doesn't mean don't answer it.

I also prefer that teams explain their arguments so that a macro level of the argument is explained (Meaning a cohesive story about the uniqueness, link, or link and alternative are also necessary). This means piecing together arguments across flows and explaining how they interact with one another. My threshold for the possibility for me to vote on your argument is determined by whether or not I can explain why the other team lost.

I'm good with policy arguments. I've started to learn I lean more on smart analytical arguments to beat stuff but if they have evidence that says other wise I will default to the evidence. This is where spin becomes extremely important. It is possible to beat the majority of a da without a card but evidence helps a lot.

With links I think it's pretty hard to win 0 risk of the link and as I said above impact is where I judge most of my debates on.

A dropped argument is a dropped argument but you still need to extend it in a way that I understand it for me to vote on it. You don't need to spend much time on it but more than "they dropped smith 03 that takes out the uniqueness." Explain why it does and why it matters to me in my judging of the round.

Quirks with Counterplans- I think conditionality can get out of hand. When conditionality does get out of hand it should be capitalized by the affirmative as justification to do equally shady/cheating things and/or be a justification to vote against a team, again up for debate.

My preset ideas on condo is 2 world's is generally acceptable usually a k and cp. T is not a world and nor are Das. This doesn't mean I will vote against you on condo if you have 3 world's by any means this goes back to debate is a game. Win condo if you have to and your game.

Kritiks- I enjoy Kritiks. Be aware of my threshold for being able to explain to the other team why they lost. This means it is always safer to assume I’ve never read your literature base and have no idea what you are talking about. The best way to ensure that I’m understanding your argument is to explain them with a situations that will exemplify your theory AND to apply those situations and theories to the affirmative.

Framework- I will evaluate framework in an offense defense paradigm. Solely impacting or impact turning framework will rarely win you the debate. You will need offense & defense to win framework debates in front of me. Its an issue that I believe should be debated out and the impact calculus on the framework debate should determine who I vote for.

Framework on the negative for me is also can have and act like a counter advocacy that the problems isolated by the affirmative can be helped by engaging the state. Topical version help prove how engaging the state can create better and meaningful changes in the world. There should also be historical and/or carded explanations as to why engaging the state can help with the problems of the 1ac.

I believe analytic arguments that prove no I/L's are pretty persuasive especially when using the other teams evidence as the basis. (That doesn't mean I will vote on just defense)

If you are worried I lean one way or the other on the clash of civs, I have ran every type of argument in debate (from preformance and narrative to big stick and terminal impacts turns to any mixture of them, such as policy with narratives) and I think all styles of debate are important and have their purpose.

Clash of Civilization Debates- I seem to almost exclusively judge these debates, which means I have seen a lot of them and here is what I am looking for. 1) Warranted arguments. 2) Good clash, don't just read your blocks answer the specifics to their arguments. 3) (which is basically an emphasis of 2) In-depth debates on why your style is good and why theirs is bad. I feel like without those things it's to easy for teams to win on "cheap shots" which just makes the round frustrating for me as a judge and for the team that loses, if you produce good clash, in most rounds, chances are I will vote for you.

Theory- I find it difficult to vote on theory unless it's clearly abusive and is a bad frame for debate. But as I said before go for it if you want just win it.

Cross Examinations- I do not flow these, but I do pay attention, while I don't necessary they are binding, I do believe that if you say something you will generally be held to what you said in cross x especially when it effects the other teams strategy. This is you're time to get links and find holes in their arguments/evidence, use it well because cross x is a huge part of how I determine speaker points. That being said, being unnecessary hostile in cross x will generally mean lower speaker points, If you are straight up rude you're rude (especially when you are factually incorrect about something but try to bolster that you know more than they do).

I won't read evidence during speeches but will follow during cross x and might look at them after round. (Yes I will check when you say a card is terrible or really good)

*Plz pardon the typos I can't spell/ Grammar

HISTORY

I debated for 2.5 years in High School doing policy debate in Southwest Missouri- mostly a lay district. I currently debate for Missouri State University in NDT primarily. Not to flex but I got 2nd in extempt debate at NSDA that one time

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab School

General Stuff

Feel free to ask questions after the round I should have to defend my decision as much if not more then you defend your arguments.

My utopian form of debate is lay debate (that does not mean slow) with politics and K's with no alt lol

Be nice but dont be too nice

Please know who the secretary of defense is @EC

"Cold Conceded" is a real term

CX is my favorite part of debate plz use it and plz make a fool of ur opponent

Extinction is maybe possible????

+.2 speaker point if u want to make fun of Rupaul fracking applicable to the debate, -.2 if it seems forced and I don't laugh :(

DAs

Specific links r cool.

Like PTX alot.

Turns Case args are hot and underused imo PLEASE MAKE THEM

CPs

Perms are underutilized imo

Default to Condo good all the time

PICS are good

Agency CPs are good if u have a good solvency advocate

Consult CPs r Bad

I do not like judge kick: If the NEG looses a perm and that shields the link somehow or the CP links to the NB and it makes its way into the 2NR u should be scared

Speaking of which CP links to the NB is fun arg u should make

Ks

Ill be honest I am probably not the judge you want- I have limited experience on K literature so if you do get me as a judge it will help both of us if you describe early what your K is criticising as well as what the alt does. I am rather inclined to weigh the AFF, but that DOES NOT MEAN EXTINCTION OUTWEIGHS. I generally believe that the AFF should choose what they want to talk about and, controversial opinion, prefer K affs over generic Ks on the NEG. I think K AFFs that are in the direction of the topic are super cool 2.

Specific links here 2 plz

I love watching K rounds but doesnt mean I am ur ideal judge fs

Ks I know a little bit about: Puar and Virillio that's it, that's the list

T

Im VERY AFF biased with T so make sure u r winning it before u make it the 2nr. Default to AFF is topical on reaonability but wont vote for it if the NEG wins reasonability is bad or the AFF shouldnt be reasonable/ your offense outweighs. In round abuse is good but not necessary. I think complaining about how you couldn't read your favorite DA or CP against this one aff is not persuasive to me.

AFF/Case

I debated soft left senior year on the arms topic and loves it.

Specific case card> Impact D any day of the week

Should be able to defend every word in your plan text

I cant think of a single round I have watched where I even considered a presumption ballot

For K affs plz be very explicit in either the 1ac or very latest cx what the u advocate for.

idk what else to put here just know your AFF and what it does/ Advocates for.

about me: Boston University student studying International Relations w history minor. did 4 years hs policy/USX. conference/district champs in either, NSDA nats quarterfinalist USX.

email for chain/questionsa.elizagraham@gmail.com

conduct: would prefer to be on email chain IF competitors are comfortable with that, if not i will ask to look at something if there's a huge dispute. don't card clip. don't yell, interrupt, or be generally rude.

speed: talk fast, don't spread. you need to actually hit all the syllables in your words. if i can't understand what you're saying without reading along, i'm not flowing it.

policy:tech tech tech. my specific prefs mean nothing if competitors can't identify them as contentious issues to begin with! even if i lean [X]-bad, if you don't sufficientlyargue [X]-good, ihaveto vote [X]-good, no matter how much it hurts.

theory/T:yes to both.

will admit that im very easily swayed towards disclosure-bad (if you can't anticipate the aff to some extent, is it truly topical? just a thought). that being said, idc whether or not you disclosed until it's an in round issue. back in my day (2 years ago), neg and judge typically get the aff once the 1A stands up; your choice.

real and significant abuse can be the ultimate voter.

disads: use that generic DA if it's all you got. just tryto link it somehow.

CPs:yeah. make it a condo good/bad round if you want. i'll listen. but imo more than two CPs and dying on the condo good hill is really not your best strat. impartial on fiat args.

Ks:Neg - yes. dumb it down though. Aff - yes but include plan. and also dumb it down. don't assume i'm already well versed.

framework: excellent idea

general/case:yes you should call into question the legitimacy/bias of that card; you can slash that card w analysis.yes you do need inherency in the 1AC. no please don't try to convince me that death = good.noyou should notneglect debating the actual case.

speaks: i love (tasteful) humor. keep things alive. pretend like you're friends. have fun with it! low speaks can win if tournament lets me.

*paradigm is never an automatic voter. you do have to actually discuss all the issues :)

Mathew Grossman

Pronouns: He/They

Please put me on the chain and email if you have questions – mathewgrossman@gmail

Good jokes will get you extra speaker points.

Top Level for CJR

I have no experience on this topic and not a very in-depth understanding of the lit base, though I’d like to think I have some basic knowledge. Basically, I don’t know the topic-specific acronyms, so please say the actual phrase at least once so I understand.

Wheeee fun sliders

Team Adapts----------------x----Judge adapts

Condo bad----------------x-------condo’s cash money

Policy----------x------------K

CPs cheating-------------------x—Obscure Process CPs are fine

Reasonability---------x---------Competing Interps

Competition doesn’t exist-------------------x—Summers 94

Death good/Pomo is fine -x------------------------ I don’t like to have fun

Politics -x------------------------ Politics isn’t Intrinsic to the aff

Tl;dr

Speed: yes

Ks/K affs: yes

Policy: yes

Debate is a fun safe space to gain in-depth knowledge about a topic and honing rhetorical skills. Any actions that make debate unsafe for individuals will not be tolerated.

(Thanks for the paragraph Mika) There's no such thing as "tabula rasa," because all judges have certain preferences/biases/thresholds and they're different for pretty much any set of judges. That being said, I try to remove myself from debates as much as possible (sometimes I wish physically). I will always judge the round in the way I'm told to by the debaters in the round.

An Argument must have a claim, warrant, and impact. I’ve noticed most debaters’ complaints come by not properly developing out their arguments, leading to judge intervention. On the other hand, I feel this is where the most speaker points are earned. Properly impacting an argument with a strong warrant goes a long way to winning a debate.

There is not an argument I’m opposed to hearing. My partner and I’s favorite argument was Spark for what it’s worth. Death good, PoMo, the most obscure k on the Market™. The only exception to this is “x oppression good” i.e. racism good. You will immediately lose with 0 speaks if you make these arguments.

Debate Experience

I debated all four years in high school at Eisenhower (‘16-’20). I was primarily a 2A while in college. My last two years were spent on the TOC circuit, and my partner and I broke at several of these tournaments before unforeseen circumstances cut my senior year quite short. I wasn’t the best debater, but I’d like to think I was quite good at conceptualizing rounds.

Online Debate

I have no experience with debating online whatsoever. I’m in university, but the WiFi has had some brief periods of instability. I will try my absolute best to follow along and will stay with you on the speech doc.

Ethics Framing:

I would say I default to a utilitarian/consequentialist perspective and find myself struggling to understand non-utilitarian framings. This is not to say you can’t win these and if your main strategy is soft-left with heavy impact framing or something similar, don’t change your strategy. I don’t think I hold either side to a higher threshold in these debates, but I have a higher level of comfort with the arguments for util.

Impact Framing is a must here; if you don’t tell me how I should be evaluating impacts with respect to one another, I will default to risk assessment (magnitude x probability).

Ks (neg)

I like K’s, though I never ran them. The worst part of k debates is the dreaded 2nc roadmap “you’ll probably want another sheet for the overview.” This is almost always followed with the 2NC lbl being “that was the overview” over and over. The arguments are much easier to follow if they’re incorporated in your lbl.

Bad K debate is reading high theory cards at max speed without any explanation using generic links and no impact framing. K’s are a critique of the aff and should be contextualized to the aff. This generally takes the from of links generated from the affs phrasing/arguments/plan text/wherever else you find one. These links are way more persuasive than your 2:30 link card from sci-hub.

Although I haven’t read a k, I have read some literature on a variety of k’s (and you should too if you’re debating a k). That being said, I will treat every debate as if I know nothing about your argument. This means I will need an explanation of your theory in the debate, and an explanation of how the links relate to said theory. How does the alt solve this? If you aren’t going for the alt, how does your theory/links turn case?

Framework – This is generally where the bulk of your theory explanation will take place. Generally, the aff can weigh the plan if it still exists. I feel as though aff’s tend to be way too predictable and passive here and could benefit with some more creative answers. Get more specific and contextual against the k here; the neg’s definition will almost always be “lol you can’t have a plan neg wins L” but in fancy words. Point that out and be more aggressive and demanding with your framework interpretation. Cards are useful here if contextualized; just reading Barma doesn’t mean it’s game over, you still have to do the work on the k.

Links have to be unique and affs should not let the neg get away with as much as they do with their links. That being said, if the affs only answer to “state is bad” is no state bad links, the aff is probably losing the debate. Affs should engage with the theory; reading a plan text is a choice in modern debate, so defend that choice.

K affs/Fwk

Everything above applies, except topic generics are obviously understandable as you are critiquing the topic.

Framework – I think this debate is where the most biases come out in judges outside of death good. I default to debate being a game with a set of “rules” determined before the round. These rules change with debate, however, and I am willing to listen to any argument. If you’re reading a k aff I think it’s easier to win framework when it’s in the direction of the rez, but this is not a set rule at all. K affs should probably do something, but I have heard very convincing arguments otherwise (thanks Maddie Peterpan).

If you’re reading framework, I think t-usfg/must read a plan probably puts you in the best position to win with the most offense. Half-concessions like “must be in the direction of the rez” loses you most of your best offense. TVAs are a great tool; they don’t need to solve the whole aff, but their scholarship/rhetoric should be included under the TVA. Some affs may not have a TVA for them, but throwing it out there doesn’t hurt.

If you’re answering framework, breadth >> depth when it comes to DAs. I won’t understand your convoluted, analytical critique of state action read at 400 wpm without analytics in the speech doc and I won’t feel bad that I didn’t understand. Also, make sure your interp doesn’t link to your DA; I’ve seen it more than once.

DAs

I love DA debates. The more layers of turns case the better.

I find “DA/Case turns the Case/DA”, when done right, to be the most engaging debates. Comparison is the key in these debates.

I don’t think “UQ controls the direction of the link/Link controls UQ” are very convincing arguments and you’re better suited to mitigate their arguments another way. UQ is generally a prerequisite to the rest of the DA; if it’s non-uq, I probably won’t vote for it, though there are exceptions (link turns case).

Impact Framing is important to the DA debate, so don’t ignore it. Timeframe is usually a tiebreaker in my experience.

T

As a 2A, I really don’t go either way on reasonability. It’s quite an arbitrary argument but very useful at the same time.

We meets are terminal defense

T is a procedural. If you aren’t T, the rest of the debate doesn’t matter. I generally treat it like a DA; this means impact calculus/framing is vital to winning a T debate. As a 2A, I can be sympathetic to technical T arguments like subsets, but tech over truth; they’re not hard to beat if you just answer them correctly.

Precision and grammar are very important in these debates. A robust explanation of the grammatical inaccuracies or impreciseness of the opponent's interp are the most persuasive arguments on the T flow and go a long ways towards winning the argument i.e. if they define criminal as a person rather than as a modifier on justice.

I feel like cards in the block are heavily underutilized. The best T debates almost always have cards in the block, and you should too if they’re good.

CPs –

Are good and fun. If you have a common-sense counterplan but no card for it, you can say it analytically. Literature checks abuse in these debates (Literature does not mean the conspiracy theorist you found on the 45th page of Google results).

The aff's best answers to the counterplan are links to NB, perms, and DAs. Affs are so boring when it comes to perms; creativity goes a long way in these debates. DAs on CPs don’t need cards generally.

Theory/Procedurals

Theory spamming in the 2AC is a legitimate strategy and a personal favorite of mine. That being said, I rarely found myself going for theory and I think it’s usually an uphill battle. Theory follows the same rules as T most of the time. These debates tend to get messy, so keeping a clean flow and using clean lbl is vital. If you’re reading this part, good for you! If you send me a cute picture of your animals and I’ll give you +0.3 speaker points. If you don’t have one, one off the internet will do.

CX

Be nice please. There is a fine line between being assertive and being rude, and please don’t cross it. Ad homs/refusing to answer a question are massive pet peeves of mine in CX.

Speaker Points

Everyone’s “scale” is pointless and not indicative of their actual aggregate points.

Good things for speaker points – good impact calc, clarity, clean lbl, politeness, humor, pre-empting arguments, good clash.

Bad – not going straight down flow, “it’ll be a new sheet for the overview”, if I have to say clear, speeding straight through analytics, bad memes.

Experience: 4 years of NDT-CEDA/2 years of NFA-LD at Missouri State, mostly reading policy arguments. 2 years of coaching NDT-CEDA/NFA-LD at Missouri State.

Currently: 2nd year law student @ University of Minnesota Law School

Contact: joehamaker [at] gmail.com. Put me on the chain. If you have questions about an RFD or my judging philosophy, feel free to reach out.

My goal is to resolve arguments made by debaters to form a coherent decision about the issue that the debaters have decided upon. I have predispositions but I will try hard to evaluate the debate outside of those because debate is for debaters. I list preferences below, but nearly all of them are contingent.

NFALD debaters read this

Frivolous theory. I do not want to vote on your spec arguments, RVIs, disclosure theory, solvency advocate theory, or similar gobbledygook.* I do not think these arguments have educational merit. This is an exception to my general inclination to be open to all arguments. Be warned: I might not vote on it even these arguments even if they are dropped by the other team, unless you make a serious time commitment and explain to me why your argument is different.

*This does not include: topicality, condo, reasons why specific types of CPs/alts are bad (e.g. conditions CPs, floating PIKs).

Other NFA stuff. Speed is generally fine but don't exclude the opponent. Arguing based on the rules is unpersuasive. NR should collapse and make strategic decisions.

Process

When I evaluate debates, I first identify nexus questions which the debaters have decided upon in the 2NR/2AR. Then, I determine arguments both sides have made on each nexus point and check my flow to assess whether they are sufficiently represented in previous speeches. Next, I evaluate the strength of the arguments of both sides. Often at this step, I will think through the implications of voting for both sides and the complications involved. Sometimes, this will cause me to reevaluate who I think is winning the debate. Finally, I determine who I think won the debate and write a paragraph (or more) of explanation.

It is difficult for me to decide debates which do not clearly identify nexus questions. When I have to determine them, it might work in or against your favor. This is a recipe for frustration for all involved; clear identification and engagement with the nexus questions is the best way to resolve that problem. I should also be able to explain, using language similar to that which is present in the 2NR/2AR, why I should vote for you and vote against the other team. If I cannot make that explanation, it will be more difficult for me to vote for you.

Incomplete list of advice/preferences/thoughts

- I (usually) flow cross-ex because it is binding

- Slow down on overviews and theory

- Tech > truth, but truth is important and doesn't always require a card

- "No perm in method v method debates" requires more explanation than most offer

- Zero risk of an impact is very rare but not impossible

- Stop taking prep outside of speech/prep time

- Make the implications of arguments and cross-applications clear, especially when they span multiple sheets. I should not have to do that work for you.

- Be swift with paperless

- Be caring of your partner and the other team

Pronouns: she/her Email: kathrynjhammock@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain, or whatever method of sharing evidence)

I have lots of high school policy experience and a bit of experience in NFA-LD.

General preferences:

• I do not enjoy K debate, but will definitely listen to it if that's your thing. Just please explain thoroughly, you should be able to explain every aspect of the K before you're debating it.
• I do not like long grace periods, or 'off the clock' road maps. Give me a short order before your speech, but leave your arguments for when the clock is running.
• I'm okay with speed as long as everyone in the round is
• I'm okay with open cross as long as one person is not dominating

Overall, I'm not picky. Just please be kind to one another, show respect, and speak well.

Email chain: donghee.han53@gmail.com

While I judged a few high school tournaments during the pandemic,

It's been a while since I've been in the debate community as a whole.

I usually stare at spreadsheets during the day.

That being said, general notes:

• I'll stress clarity, sign-posting, and strong overviews

• I would recommend cutting down on jargon heaviness by your second rebuttal (No need to overcompensate, just be mindful)
• I do not have strong opinions as pertains to the on-goings of the debate community for aforementioned reason.
• ^ I rely on tabula rasa methods. I'm probably drawing lines and circles on the flow at the end of the debate. (we're all better off if you leave less open to intervention/interpretation. You have a job, I have a job)

• Please be respectful - whatever that means to you.

Other notes

• I look for macro-level framing work as it tells me what I need to know.
• Line-by-line is the way
• Let's keep things simple, uq, link, IL, Impact, DA, CP, K,...
• If you feel the need to stray from this template, keep it clean and organized.
• I am reading up on other judge's paradigms and will not be deviating from community norms.

Tyler Han

Hopkins 26’

He/They

2N/1A

Email Chain; than19@jhu.edu

I vote for the team that does the better job debating. Clear warranted explanation in the 2nr/2ar wins ballots. I don’t care what you read just do it well and explain it to me. Also +.2 to speaks if you bring me a coke or MSU debate pen. Don’t be stupid.

Please put me on the email chain-chasity.hance@mjays.us

Note- Some of the things written here are for our local circuit and may not apply.

These are just my thoughts on how a debate looks/is won. However, just because I don't think about debate the same way you do does not mean you won't win my ballot. Just tell me why I should be voting there.

I have a diversity of experience as a debater, judge and coach. If you have questions, just ask.

Affirmatives
I prefer for the affirmative to have a dependable topical plan of action. I understand the need to read a non-plan based affirmative (I read a project and have coached a team who read one), however I can be easily swayed by theory/topicality debates in such a situation. Be ready to explain why your project/movement/ etc is important or apriori.

Affirmatives shouldn't wait until the 2AC to explain the plan's actions.

Topicality
I am not a fan of unnecessary topicality debates, with that being said if the affirmative is not topical then it is smart to prove such.

However I will vote on topicality if the negative is winning the position, even if I think the affirmative is topical.

If you are going for topicality you need to actually go for it, not just throw it in the 2NR on hopes that I will vote on it. If you aren't focusing the 2NR on T, then it is really just a waste of your limited time.

Being Negative
I am pretty okay with just about any strategy. If a debater is going for a kritikal position, they need to be ready to explain the literature. You should be more well read on the literature than I am, and ready to discuss how they operate. If you can't explain the K to me or still debate on the line by line, there is a high chance you won't win my ballot.

I prefer a thought out strategy compared to a bunch of positions, when most of them are not viable 2NR choices. I don't see the value in reading positions that can't be winnable, why waste your time?

Pet Peeves
Don't be rude or hateful to one another. Whether this be in prep time, in speech, and especially during cross examination. Being rude is not the appropriate way to show that you win the round, in all reality it makes you look like you are losing. Being offensive is a good way to lose a ballot.

If you are paperless, you need to be providing evidence (whether through email, flashdrive, etc) in a timely and efficient manner. If you are taking forever to do such, you probably need to take more prep time. You should be providing organized speech docs. As the receiver of doc you should still be flowing not just reading ahead.

In a virtual world everyone needs to be efficient at sharing the evidence, remember that comes out of YOUR prep time. I suggest dropping speeches before you begin your speech if not you will have to use your prep if the other team asks for it. There is a difference between prep time and tech time, don't try to steal prep during tech time.

Respect the norms and customs of the circuit you are debating within. Lots of types of debate are good, but if you have the opportunity to debate in a community/circuit that you are not typically part of it is your responsibility to understand the way that circuit works. Creating the debate space as an opportunity for others to not participate is completely unacceptable. This could be within your own circuit or not. This all goes back to being kind and respectful.

Bottom Line

I will always evaluate the debate on offense and defense and impact comparisons that are drawn by YOU THE DEBATER. Don't make me do that work for you, it might not turn out in your favor.

Have impacts. Weigh those impacts.

Debate is good. Debate is educational. Debate is fun. Make sure everyone is able to achieve these things in the round.

Frequently Asked Questions

Q- Can I spread?

A- Go for it. Just be understandable. If you aren't clear, slow down a tad.

Q- Open Cross?

A- Go for it, but I don't like when one partner controls every cross x. Your speaks will probably suffer because of it

Q- How do I boost my speaks?

A- Being clear, making smart strategy positions, being kind, being actually funny/witty

**LD Paradigm**

I am fine without whatever approach you choose to take to Lincoln Douglas debate. I have taught traditional value style debate, and have been around college NFA LD.

As you can see from my above paradigm, I have more experience with policy debate. That may help guide your decisions in a progressive Lincoln Douglas Round.

I have judged both progressive and tradition LD.

I am a pretty open book and will judge however I am told to. I default to weighing impacts.

put me on the email chain: ahart2241@gmail.com

Experience: 3 years of high school policy debate, 5 years of NDT/CEDA debate at Miami University and Missouri State University. High School coach for 4 years at Parkview (Missouri) High School, Graduate Assistant at Missouri State University.

Most of my experience in debate was very much on the policy side of thing. That doesn't make me uncomfortable with kritiks, but I also wouldn't say I'm familiar with much of the critical literature base. Even more so than in policy rounds, solid evidence analysis and application is very important for me to vote on a critical issue on either the affirmative or the negative. For critical affirmatives, I do think it's important to answer any topicality or framework arguments presented by the negative. For kritiks against these types of affirmatives, I think it's important to contextualize the philosophies and arguments in each in relation to the other side. Maybe even more than in policy v policy debates clash here is very important to me.

On the policy side of things, I love to see a good case debate, and think that evidence analysis(of both your own and your opponent's evidence) is of the utmost importance in these debates. I love a good discussion and comparison of impacts.

In terms of CP theory, I will probably default to rejecting the argument rather than the team in most instances if the affirmative wins the theory debate. On conditionality specifically, the affirmative must have a pretty specific scenario on the negative's abuse in the round for me to vote on it. I much prefer the specificity of that distinction over the nebulous "bad for debate" generality. That ship has probably sailed. One other thing to note is that I will not kick the counterplan for you automatically. The negative will need to make a judge-kick argument (preferably starting in the block) to allow the affirmative opportunities to answer it. I think this is a debate to be had, and shouldn't just be something that is granted to the negative at the outset of the round. That being said, I am definitely willing to do it, if said conditions are met and you win the reason why it's good.

Speed is fine, but I think clarity is far more important that showing me that you can read a bunch of cards. I will say that I am a little rusty, having judged at college/higher level high school tournaments sparingly in the last few years. On evidence I will likely be fine, but would appreciate going slightly below full speed when reading a block of analytic arguments/overviews.

Mika Hartter (She/Her) mikadebate@gmail.com

Debate Experience---

2016-2020 at Eisenhower High School (KS). Local and Natcir.

2020-2022 at Missouri State University (MO). NDT-CEDA.

I debated the following topics: China engagement, Education, Immigration, Arms sales, Alliance commitments, and Antitrust.

Political Compass---

Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Anti-consequentialism------------------------------X-Consequentialism

Reasonability------------------------------X-Competing interpretations

Disclosure----X---------------------------Non- or false- disclosure

Death good bad------------------------------X-Read what you can win

Important Stuff---

There's no such thing as tabula rasa, because all judges have certain biases; that being said, I try to remove my opinions from debates as much as possible. I will always judge the round in the way I'm told to by the debaters in the round.

I tend to evaluate debates from an offense-defense perspective. Every argument needs a claim, warrant, and impact. Incomplete arguments do not survive germane contest. I am willing to vote on zero risk, but this generally only happens due to missing internal links or expired uniqueness.

Please read whatever you find fun and interesting to read: really obscure k's, theory, death good, spark, first strike, etc. I would rather watch good debating on an argument I don't like than bad debating on an argument I do (that's not to say I don't like any of the above).

It will be harder to convince me to abandon consequentialist ethics than perhaps anything else. To me, consequentialism is as fundamental as "cogito, ergo sum." That being said, I'm no util hack. There are many kinds of consequentialism, deontology, and more nuanced frameworks. I like my moral frameworks as clear as I like my topicality interpretations—this applies whether your ethic is: as simple as "privilege probability," or as complex as "risk is probability times magnitude;" or as nuanced as "a is a variable of moral calculus but b is not, because c," as self-serving as "x is immoral and should come first because y," or as devious as "we are only responsible for intrinsic consequences." Both teams will be far happier with framework decisions when they invest the time to make complete arguments including impact comparison.

Addressing emails and disclosure last, please make the email chain subject line reasonable and distinguishable. Something like "[Tournament name] Round [n] - AFF [team code] NEG [team code]" (e.g., "CEDA Round 1 - AFF Liberty CR NEG Missouri State HW") would be fine. Try to have the 1AC sent no later than 5 minutes before the rounds posted start time, so we can actually start at that point. Lastly, I have a very strong preference for prompt and thorough disclosure. Debates are better when both teams are well-prepared. While I'm not going to excessively interfere for it—i.e., I won't vote on it if the 2NR doesn't go for and win it—my floor for winning "disclosure good" is far lower than my barrier to deontology is high. If your schtick is non- or false- disclosure, you should not pref me.

K---

Please don't read an overview so long I need a new page or even better just don't have an overview.

I'm ideologically apathetic about t usfg. Go for it if you must, but I'd prefer to see clash rather than an allusion to hypothetical clash. Speaking of which: stop saying "clash" in the 1NC without justifying why policy-focused debates are good. What kind of education does the aff prohibit and why is that education worth preserving in debate? Fairness is an impact, but a weak one absent explanation thereof. For the affirmative: I prefer smaller numbers of DA's which are explained in depth to a superfluous amount of indistinguishable ones. "I am sometimes frustrated by uniqueness arguments about kind used to elide obvious differences in scale ... that debate is unfair now ... does not mean that there is no impact to additional unfairness" - David Sposito.

I enjoy DAs and impact turns against planless affs, but I'd appreciate solidification of the link. A consistent and intuitive no link argument beats sloppy neg characterization. The best way to guarantee these links is probably by getting CX commitments, but even without such I'm willing to hear various justifications for the turn; though, if the aff is only defending "thinking in x way is good," you should probably go for topicality instead.

For k v. policy framework, I think the aff could generally benefit from more creativity and the neg from using the word "epistemology" less. I think both teams should try to structure their offense like they would on other theory/framework pages; e.g. frontload each da, each should have an impact and turns args, and you should probably have at least two (though that's more advice than a requirement). For the aff, make sure you're arguing for more than "weighing the aff," or I could end up doing that by favoring the neg's interpretation of what that means. Perhaps the debate should be "about the desirability of the plan" or something idk. For the neg, you probably hear this a lot, but please make sure I understand what debates look like under your framework. I'm a philosophy student, so I know what epistemology is and I don't need to hear it 15 times a speech. What I don't know is 1. what the resolution and fiat are and why they matter, 2. what the plan is and how it should be read, 3. the scope of my decision-making capability in terms of the influence it has on the world, debaters, the community, and debate as a whole, and 4. how I should evaluate impacts. Not every framework spin needs to have explicit answers to all of those questions, but without an answer to at least one I'll probably default to weighing the implementation of the plan via fiat.

Ask any questions necessary about specific literature, but I'm generally knowledgeable enough on common k's like cap, security, afropess, and setcol, as well as Agamben, Foucault, Baudrillard, Deleuze, and Nietzsche. In any case, you should not assume I nor your opponents instantly recognize highly academic terms or understand non-obvious examples. In general, I'm looking for the explanation of your thesis-level claims to include: claims about the world, exemplifying if not deductive proof of your claims, a connection between those examples and the 1AC/resolution, and an impact. If you must put those in an overview because of the sophistication of your particular K, fine, but keep it concise.

Theory---

Any and all theory can be a reason to reject the team. Any other take is cringe.

"We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. That said, I'm not one who believes an interpretation being arbitrary necessarily excludes it from consideration: two condo and twelve condo are meaningfully different in their effects and neither have any basis in the resolution.

In terms of my thoughts on specific theory arguments: PICs and process counterplans are generally valid, but delay, consult, and other plan-contingent counterplans are generally not. Condo is almost always good, but object and attitudinal fiat are almost always bad. I won't judge kick your CP unless you tell me I can and I expect to be told so before the 2NR. I think fiat and intrinsicness debates on politics are interesting and winnable.

Regarding the states counterplan, I have a strong negative reaction to uniform 50-state fiat, but I'm not going to reject it on face.

Topicality---

Topicality shells are a no risk argument for the negative. "We meet" is binary and flow winning if won. T debates are my favorite debates.

I'd really prefer to judge via competing interpretations; this is downstream of my feelings about consequentialism, but I also have no idea how to judge the "reasonability" of an interp, or how to compare different interpretations' "reasonableness."

I'd appreciate more impact comparison in these debates, particularly with precision and education. Regarding precision as an internal link to predictability, I feel it is far, far weaker than many suggest. Why should I sacrifice a good topic to some particular interpretation of a word chosen by the high school topic committee? "Interpretations that are the best for mutual debatability become predictable because they're good," - David Sposito. Precision for precision's sake is less than incoherent: debate rounds do not take place in a courtroom nor a legislative subcommittee, as such I only care about the precision of an interpretation insofar as it begets good outcomes. Education is far more complicated than "more ideas = better" or "deeper ideas = better." If you're going for an education impact, I expect you to analyze what kinds of education in debate are worth preserving (analytical skills, topic knowledge, advocacy skills, etc.) and what are the internal links to those are (pre-round research, third-level clash, etc.).

In general I prefer smaller topics with narrow, defined areas for innovation. A lot of resolution texts would not pass a Writing I standard for clarity, which will shape the way research is done about the topic. Thus, I want to hear more than "other words check" or "functional limits check" - a warrant would be nice.

Speaker Points---

Things that gain them: clarity, ethos, early argument development, "biting the bullet," and general niceness.

Things that lose them: unclarity, evading clash, long overviews, and being mean.

Pet peeves: calling me judge, perm walls, not being able to answer basic cx questions without your partner, and taking over your partners cx when they're doing fine.

Overall: I think that debate is a game, the greatest game ever in fact, and room for clash is very important. I put more emphasis on arguments that are better explained, and will not automatically vote on a cheap shot unless they are fully explained. If you win on a cheap shot I will probably dock your speaker points. Comparisons of specificity of evidence, probability, timeframe or magnitude are always good, even in critical debates. I will read evidence if it is contested and the quality of evidence may play a role in my decision because I believe the research aspect of debate is very important and should be rewarded. That said, I do also appreciate teams that are able to be creative with evidence and control how it is interpreted through CX and their speeches. If you have really good evidence that you want me to read after the round, use its name in your last rebuttals so I can easily call for it.

DAs: If your evidence is terrible, it probably undercuts the probability of the DA so spend more time explaining it, perhaps with historical and other examples. Even if the evidence is terrible, I think Affs need to find a way to generate offense or mitigate and outweigh.

CPs: I really like CPs and tend to reject the argument, not the team on theory debates. That said, I think that CPs in general are becoming increasingly abusive so a significant time investment by the Aff on theory could be persuasive.

Kritiks: I ran a lot of generic K’s so may not be as familiar with the literature for topic specific ones. Specific links are important and I think permutations (just tests of the competition) spun right can be very powerful. Floating pics are questionable and other alterantive theory arguments are useful. I happily listen to framework although please explain the implications of these versus the K. Please, please, please do not attempt to be as vague as possible with the alternative and hope to win. A critical Aff relating to the topic will always be better off than one that does not. 

Topicality: Affs should generally be topical. I don’t particularly enjoy topicality debates because they get blippy but am pretty sure that any case can be proven untopical. Case/argument examples on both sides really help add depth to the argument. 

Spec Args: I don’t  mind them but plan to invest a lot of time in these arguments if you want to win my ballot unless the other team drops something important.

Background

I am a speech and debate coach at Kickapoo High School. I have been doing speech and debate in some capacity for 11 years. I am versed in Lincoln Douglas and Public Forum mostly, but can keep up in a policy round.

Lincoln-Douglas

You must win the value-value criterion debate in order to win the round. I am a stickler for time management, so make sure you divide your time wisely in each speech to attack each argument with an emphasis on weighing values and value-criterion. I would like Key Voter Issues from both Aff and Neg in their last speeches. I will vote against spreading in an LD round due to auditory processing issues.

Public Forum

I prefer the 1st rebuttal to be fully spent attacking your opponents' case instead of using it to circle back around and re-build. It makes it less confusing. I like clear, offensive voting issues in the final focus.

Policy

I can follow a quick policy round, but warn me beforehand. I prefer analytics over cards and/or explaining why one card is better than another with logic or analytics. No "Refer to author B to cross apply to author C and D." I won't follow that because I don't have a photographic memory for evidence. If you're spreading, make sure to say your taglines very clearly or slow down so I can catch them. Provide a clear roadmap before and during each speech. If you do not tell me where to flow something, I will absolutely NOT flow it or vote on it. I prefer a full document for each speech with each argument typed out. I know that's annoying, but it ensures that I can follow your arguments even if they're fast or confusing because I have trouble with auditory processing. I like out of the box arguments if you have constructed them fully. I'd rather listen to something crazy and mentally engaging than the same old thing. I understand 90% of policy terms, but it is more convincing to me if you can explain them in your own words and explain how they play into the debate. It helps your ethos if I know you know what you're talking about.

Debater at Missouri State University (4th-Year)

Pronouns: he/him/his

Email (if a chain happens, include me): zguylols@gmail.com

I do NDT debate in college, did policy in high school (and HI if you'd believe).

I've decided to radically alter my paradigm to use less words. You do you. I will flow what you say and will make my decision based off that.

My college wiki page is an absolute nightmare. I've been both a 2A and a 2N going for both policy arguments and critical arguments, though my later years leaned more towards the latter (particularly trying to bring faithful adaptions of Bataille to debate). I like discussions on ethics. I like discussions on wide disadvantages.

Active homophobia, transphobia, racism, ableism, etc. are all very not okay. I am perfectly alright with handing out zeroes on speaks and auto-losses for discrimination at my discretion. The debate space is one for discussion - if you are intentionally making it hostile and dangerous, I will call you out for it.

That being said, I have seen way too many people take debate way too seriously. Don't be a jerk (even if you are good at debate). I've noticed a very sharp trend towards the community being toxic, especially in "high level" debate (whatever the heck that means). I've had opponents put "Be mean" in their 2AC document notes. I'll just copy/paste what fellow MoState debater and friend Gabe Morrison has written: "Intentional cheating, overt and persistent hostility, and discriminatory behavior will result in automatic losses. These are all pretty vague and dependent on my judgement, so to clarify: I think narcissism, self-righteousness, and downright juvenile cruelty are big problems in college debate and I will not hesitate to call people out on it. There is a qualitative difference between indignation, competitiveness, and malice, and if you are not sure which your intended action falls under, then you need to chill out."

Yes, email chain or speechdrop are fine. brayden.king99@gmail.com. Also, if you have any questions, feel free to email them to me and I will try to respond as promptly as possible.

If there are questions you have before round that aren’t answered in this paradigm, then feel free to ask!

Background information:

Lee’s Summit High School (MO) 2017

Missouri State University 2021 (NDT/CEDA and NFA LD)

I did debate all throughout high school and college with nearly all that experience in policy debate. I competed in NDT/CEDA tournaments for my first two years and NFA LD throughout.

I want to be able to be lazy in judging, so give me clear impact calculus and overviews, and be sure to follow the flows.

General opinions on debate:

truth over/equal to tech

It’s a game, and there are some rules to that, particularly in H.S., but that doesn’t inherently mean you need to follow them. You can make arguments and give reasons as to why some of the rules may be bad and shouldn’t be followed. E.g. Planless affs- there are many reasons why not upholding U.S.F.G. action is bad (and many why it is). These are debates that can be had. Clash and standards are key here, but don't just spout "fairness and education", especially if it's in a rebuttal. I will hold to you explaining why those are good and the impacts to them.

I probably won't have any problems with speed, but if you’re too fast or unclear, then I’ll let you know.

Policy things:

I lean on the side of extinction outweighs on impact magnitude, but good impact calculation can sway me otherwise. Especially if there was significant work done on reducing the link and/or internal links to extinction. I weigh magnitude, time frame, and probability evenly. If one side explains why extinction-level scenarios are impossible or almost impossible and the other side just says, but extinction outweighs, then the ballot will go to the former.

Impact calc is super important, so please do some!

Please explain how your CP/DA/case turns interact with the affirmative’s case and vice versa. Having a clear link and internal link chain is paramount to effectively weighing your arguments in the rebuttals.

CPs don’t necessarily have to solve all of case if the net benefit outweighs, but you should still tell me why that’s important, and make that argument yourself.

PICs are probably good, but can be abusive (especially with multiple) and, in the round, I will try to have a blank slate on the theory debate.

K things:

Clash is key. Link and perm debates are a mess if you don't know what the alternatives are or how they interact with each other.

Impacts matter! Be sure to explain how to view and weigh them.

PIKs can be legit, but there better be great explanation on how and why.

Form and Presentation:

Generally, I evaluate speaker points on how well the arguments were presented, explained, etc and less on just sounding pretty. While sounding good is still important, I would prefer a more in-depth explanation of your arguments - find a balance between speed and eloquence.

Be respectful! Debates that get excessively aggressive towards a team or specific individuals in round are not fun and are not things I want to see. Win the round by out-debating the other team, not by trying to make them look bad. I WILL dock your speaks if you act indecently and will not tolerate disrespectfulness.

I am an informed lay judge who is very aware of debate as an activity. I am able to flow, but not well, and certainly not at speed.

I appreciate all forms of debate, and I don't mind kritical or performance debates, but I am not well-read in philosophy. I also don't mind if things get a little meta, I don't like it when debate lingo starts getting thrown around without explanation to the judge. Debate should be inclusionary, and when parties are using unknown terminology, the activity becomes elitist. I also end up confused, which harms your ability to win my ballot.

I am a firm believer that public forum debate should be done at a normal speaking pace. If you want to speak quickly, do policy. Even with policy, I prefer when participants speak slower and are more efficient than just trying to get more cards in. I understand the reasoning behind speed and spread debate, but it makes the upper echelons of the activity elitist and inaccessible to lay judges and competitors who may be competing in a second language.

Brenden Lucas

He/Him

Senior @ MoState

Yes email chain: brendentlucas@gmail.com

This is by no means comprehensive, it's just a few highlights to look at when the pairings get blasted.

I did 4 years of CX at Raymore-Peculiar High School, and now do NDT-CEDA at Missouri State

2X NDT Qualifier

My preference is fast, technical policy throwdowns. But, don't let that sway you from doing what you prefer. Do you and I'll adjudicate it.

If you need to use the restroom or step out of the room you don't have to ask.

Disclaimer for HS Topic: I'm not as active in high school coaching as I was last season, I don't really research or think about the topic all that much so watch your use of jargon.

CPs & DAs

I'm a big fan of CP disad debate, most of my HS 2NRs were CP disad.

The way I evaluate a disad doesn't deviate from the norm. Have all four parts and do impact weighing.

Turns case args are very nice

I'm down with most counter plans, especially agent and process. However, "cheating" counterplans like delay will not jive with me so keep that in mind.

I default to judge kick

T

Competiting interps is better than reasonability

Plan text in a vacuum is cool for me

Theory

Deep in my heart, I think condo is good. But, I'm open for a good condo debate. Tbh I prefer affs that limit the neg to 1 or none as opposed to like 1 and dispo or infinite dispo.

Most theory args are reasons to reject the argument, not the team.

K's

I think the topic is generally good and that debates about the topic are also good.

I'm not opposed to K debates, but my limited lit knowledge and liking for framework could make it an uphill battle for you.

I have voted for K affs before, FW is not an auto dub, debate well and you shall be rewarded.

Fairness on framework is a good impact imo.

TVAs are legit

"You link you lose" is nonsense. Teams can win by bitting the link and winning independent offense on the alt, so keep that in mind.

Other

If you read death good, I'm auto-voting against you and giving you the lowest speaks possible.

LD & PFD

I don't have a lot of detailed thoughts for these types of debates. I think they are valuable for students but my judging is policy-focused; so just do what you do best and I will judge accordingly.

I value stock issues, communication (speed is okay, but not preferred...unintelligible spreading is strongly discouraged). I value clear clashing on stock issues.

Email for potential chains: miscavishja@parkhill.k12.mo.us

I'm a long-time coach. I'll be flowing the round and also typing feedback on my computer.

Please take turns asking questions in CX so one team doesn't dominate. I think a follow up is appropriate but after that you NEED to let your opponent have a question on your case.

Please find clash as quickly as possible and please DON'T clash on definitions. It's super boring to watch teams argue about what 'comprehensive' means.

If both teams have similar impacts (nuclear warfare, for example), please determine how I should weigh that. I can't flow the exact same impact to both sides of this debate, so give me a reason to flow it to your side.

Please speak slow enough to flow and understand.

FWIW, it is my first time judging world schools, but not my first time seeing it or prepping it. Please crystallize or provide voters as you've seen the round so I can see what you think is most important. Stay civil and have a great round!

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab, Kickapoo HS, Poly Prep Country Day School

Greenwood Lab (China, Education, Immigration, Arms Sales)

Minnesota NDT (Alliances, Antitrust, Legal Personhood, Nukes)

3x NDT Qualifier

Octas of CEDA '24

Add me to the email chain: ask for it pre-round.

TL;DR: I care a great deal about debate and I will put all of my effort in adjudicating the next two hours. It frustrates me when I see paradigms that say "[x] is prohibited," but I feel the need to clarify some biases that might impact my judging. I generally am more persuaded by arguments that say AFFs should have plans, that the AFF will be weighed against the Kritik, and that the practice of conditionality is usually good. That said, I have voted for all types of arguments and am always amazed at the ways in which y'all continue to instruct and educate me as a judge.

I flow on paper.

Blake '23 PF Update: Evidence exchanges in this format are hoogely boogely to me. You should send a speech doc containing all the evidence you read prior to the speech, and it should be sent to both me and your opponents. I want your opponents to have the evidence so they can look at it rather than asking for individual cards. If you don't do this you get a 25.

---

Policy things:

Conditionality is generally good. I will judge kick unless told otherwise (starting in the 2AR is too late). This is usually the only argument that rises to the level of rejecting the team aside from an ethics violation.

T: Counter-interps > reasonability. I have yet to hear a debater persuade me to care about grammar as a standard. Having evidence with the intent to define and exclude is ideal. I am not great for T versus Policy AFFs unless the AFF is an egregious subset of a subset or some other nonsense that everyone should wag their finger at.

CPs: I lean NEG 51/49 on competition; but, "should" as meaning "immediate" has always seemed a bit silly to me. If your CP requires a robust theoretical defense for its legitimacy (Process CPs / PICs) and you win that defense, then more power to you. The same also applies to the theoretical defense of intrinsic permutations.

Bring back the lost art of case debate! Presumption pushes in the 2NR are underutilized; conversely, sometimes there is a huge risk of the AFF versus a small DA.

I am partial to AFFs that defend topical action the resolution dictates and read a plan. I have yet to be convinced that framework is violent and I find myself nodding along to a 2NR going for fairness. Clever TVAs are usually potent. I will be frank: if you have the shoddy luck of having me in the back while reading a planless AFF, the way to my ballot is going for an impact turn.

Ks? I am most familiar with Nietzsche, Psychoanalysis, Critical Disability Studies, and Berlant. Floating PIKs are seem suspect and the 2AC should make a theory argument. I think link arguments have gotten increasingly interesting and should be answered more even when teams go for impact turns to the alt. I am inclined to weigh the AFF.

I very much care about the research aspect of debate, although debates will not be decided just on cards. At that point, why don't we exclusively send speech docs rather than speak? Yes, card doc.

I flow CX. There's a reason why it exists.

Ethics violations stop the round and will be decided based on tournament rules. If the accusing team is correct, they will receive a 29 / 29.1 W and the accused will receive a 25 / 25.1 L. If the accusing team is incorrect, those points and the win will be reversed. I think maybe our lives would be a bit easier if you give the team a courtesy email when you find a miscut / improperly cited card during pre-tournament prep while writing your Case NEGS / 2AC blocks instead of dropping an accusation mid-round.

Claws out, however you wish to debate.

If you use suicide as a form of "rhetorical advancement," read Pinker or Death Good, strike me. Goodness gracious!

I have a soft spot for local lay debate. I come from lay debate and I will defend lay debate until the day that I die. Only in this instance am I sympathetic to AFFs that indict the practice of conditionality, although my threshold for voting AFF versus a 1NC with 1 CP is incredibly high. For Minnesota debaters: DCH has been one of the largest influences on the way that I think about debate. Take that as you will. Show me your flows and I'll give you +.1 speaks.

---

"And he to me, as one experienced:

'Here all suspicions must be abandoned,

all cowardice must here be extinct.

We to the place have come, where I have told thee/

Thou shalt behold the people dolorous

Who have foregone the good of intellect.'"

4 years at BVSW

Current Sophomore debating at Missouri State

add me to chains: elidebate35[at]gmail[dot]com

Top Level:

Tech>Truth

Not the best judge to have a planless debate in front of

Have done 0 research on the HS topic so keep that in mind

Competing Interps> reasonability in a T debate

Condo is good but its a debate to be had

K Aff/Framework:

I think that if you are reading a planless aff an advocacy statement should be part of the aff, I think it needs to be in the area of the topic and if it's not, I'm going to be very persuaded by framework. I think procedural fairness is an impact in the round and will be persuaded by it. I may be persuaded by structural fairness outweighs, but more then likely not unless very well done. The best chance a K aff has is to win a DA or a broader impact turn. If you do end up reading a k aff in front of me, I may not have a great evaluation. K v K has a decent chance of being completely lost on me unless it's a k i've gone for.

K's:

If the answer to the K is Framework and a perm, please go for it (Change due to KCKCC

I'm not deep in the lit so don't expect me to know the nuances of Baudrillard or arguments like that. I think that specific links to the aff are good and the more specific the better. I don't think links of omission are good and am very unlikely to vote on them. If you are a K team don't be deterred to go for what you feel comfortable going for but if it's really high theory explanations go a long way.

CP:

Cps should be textually and functionally competitive with the aff. This is what I have gone for in college and am very comfortable voting on them. you should make a sufficiency framing arg. I default judge kick if nothing is said in the round.

DA:

Great. I am ok with generic links but at some point in the debate you should make an arg as to why it applies to this aff specifically not just the topic as a whole. you should have impact calc in every block and in the 2nr as well.

T:

T's a voting issue and comes before most aff theory, RVI's are not

Jeff City 16-20

UWyo 20-24

Niles West 23-

rebound23sp@gmail.com

Firmly committed to tech over truth. The exception being arguments that say the suffering of a group of people or animals is good.

I will not vote on out of round issues. If this happens in a round I am judging, I will defer to tab and most likely contact coaches.

Clipping/evidence ethics challenges need to be called out and backed up with evidence. The debate will stop and the team that has lost the challenge will receive an L. However, teams calling out the reading of an author and make it an in-round voting isssue (e.g. Pinker) is totally fair game.

I cannot read blue highlighting. Yellow/Green works best for me. (standardize feature in verbatim should help with this)

Prefer debates where the AFF proposes a change to the status quo and the NEG says that the AFF is bad. What this means is open to interpretation.

I am not ideologically tied to any style of argumentation, I enjoy judging debaters doing their best at what they know best.

Judge instruction is really important to me, teams that are able to guide me to a ballot often end up winning more often than not.

I am willing to vote on condo bad.

Hidden aspec is one of the worst trends ive seen in debate. I will allow new 1AR answers and you don’t even need to particularly answer it that well. Any team hiding aspec will have a speaker point implosion.

I prefer to be called E.C. than judge or any other version. (my name is initials if that helps with pronunciation.

I will clap when the round ends, debate is a very draining activity and I am impressed with anything you do even if it is round 4 at a local or the finals of a major.

simplify your arguments: please don't force me to think.

speak slow: i'm alright with speed, but I'll stop flowing when it sounds like you're wheezing and maybe call for help if you actually are. in other words, speak slowly and clearly if you want to be certain that i'm flowing what you're saying.

make it make sense: one of the most notable traits of mastery is the ability to teach your subject in various (and effective) ways. make sure to explain the logic or coherency of your argument in different ways just in case it doesn't translate well the first time. not only will you avoid sounding like a broken rambling record, but you can also use it to reinforce and emphasize your arg.

weigh: love to see it. don't just tell me that your argument or impact outweighs your opponents. explain how through different mechanisms (scope, time-frame, reversibility, probability, magnitude, etc) and if do it well, you'll incorporate more than one.

I was a high school NSDA competitor for four years. I competed in informative speaking, duo interpretation, program oral interpretation, poetry, prose, and expository speaking. I was a two-time national competitor, and in 2022, I was a NSDA national finalist in expository speaking.

Speech Docs: MoStateDebate@gmail.com
Asst Coach at MoState.
2x NDT Qualifier for MoState, Graduated in 23'.
3rd at NFA Nationals 2021, 4x NFA Nationals Qualifier

Random Thoughts:
- "I'm going to flow your speech. There is nothing you can possibly do to stop this short of concede. What's worse, I'm even going to decide the debate based on said flow and said flow alone."

- I do not care what you do, Everything is up for debate (besides objectively wrong things).

- Please keep track of your time, I want to keep track of your speech and the docs, not the time.

- You will often do better if you debate how you feel rather than adjusting to this paradigm.

- Pen time is GREAT, make it easy to flow your speech and you will be rewarded.

- I'll probably take a long time to decide as I try to be respectful of the time and energy that we put into this game. I really try to invest in debate as much as everyone else does, and love to reward bold strategic choices (no, not spark).

- My decisions are going to be what's exactly on my paper, and speaker points will be how well you articulated the thing from the flow to being understood + clarity.

- Evidence Quality is under rated. I'll 1000% read your evidence during, and after the round. You should probably tell me HOW to read it. If it does not say the thing that you think it does, things will not go well for you.

Specific ?'s:

Policy v. K ideological divide (the stuff that matters for prefs).

- I tend to like both for different reasons. I think that being strategic is the best thing that you can do in front of me, be bold and embrace your decisions whole-heartedly. My first 2 years of college debate, I debated exclusively the K (pomo, cybernetics, queerness, etc.), and the last 2 1/2 years, I debated mainly policy. With that in mind, that means I don't have ideological underpinnings that assist either side.

- I think that the strongest part of the K is the Link, and weakest part is the Alt. Policy AFF's tend to have more warrants for how they solve things, than why they actually do. I think that it behoves both teams to play to the others weakness. K's are better at why, and Policy stuff is better at how, explain to me which is better.

Policy:

- I tend to think that offense is where I always start, and the place that teams should always spend the most time on. Impacts tend to be the things that decide debates, and make everything else important as they leak out of that.

- Case debating is a lost and dead art, please bring it back. Hyper specific case negs or good impact D debating is the best stuff to watch.

CP's:

- CP Texts for Perms >>>>

- Fine with Judge Kick, if it makes sense. Should be more than a 10 second blurb.

- PICs are cool, and often strategic.

DA:

- Turns Case is ESSENTIAL, and is usually the difference between a Win that can be easily sought out, and a Win that I scratch my head for a while at.

Topicality:

- T should have a case list, of what is and isn't T.

- Reasonability is probably bad, unless you have a good argument about why your AFF is essential to the topic thus -> Competing Interps !

- Quals are better than no Quals

Theory:

- I think there is a sharp divide between the neg being strategic, and just trying to make the 2AC's life hard by not really debating stuff. I think hard debate should be rewarded, and cowards shouldn't. The best strategies that we always remember were never the 12 off with the 9 plank CP, but the 4-5 off with the impact turns etc. With that said, I think 3 condo is probably my limit (each plank counts as 1 unless stated otherwise by the neg), and contradictions are fine until the block.

K's:

- Telling me why your links mean that I should weigh the AFF and how that implicates their research is probably much better than just stating why your model of debate is better. Vice Versa for AFF, telling me why your research praxis is good, and should be debated is better than telling me why it's a pain you can't weigh the AFF. I think that fairness is an impact, but we have been on the fairness spiel for like 20+ years.

- More impact analysis > no impact analysis.

K AFF's/FW:

- I think that teams should probably read a plan text, and talk about the resolution. But if you want to read a AFF without a plan text, go for it as long as you do it well. Usually, negative teams going for framework do so poorly.

- I usually prefer fairness as an externalization of education, and how it impacts the game of debate in terms of making us better people and/or better educators.

- Definitions are under-used, and I think that the best AFF's make us really ponder how we should collectively view the topic.

Hi there,

I am very familiar with this policy topic, therefore I will be able to follow along just fine and already understand the background of the topic.

If there is an email chain please include me in it:

iskate1516@gmail.com

Speed

(Virtual) - I am okay with some speed, but due to the nature of video chatting the audio is horrible. I'd rather have quality over quantity.

- If I can't understand you due to your speed, I won't stop you. I just won't flow it. Meaning at the end of the round if it's not on my flow then I'm not going to consider it.

- Do not feel the need to spread or talk faster if you are not comfortable with it.

Stock Issues

- I'm not a fan of when people run inherency as an argument unless there is a major dispute

- In solvency, if you have a weak solvency argument I will most likely give that to the neg, but only if they catch it

- Solvency turns are a thing and they're fun if ran correctly.

- Make sure you have a strong link card, have noticed with this topic, the link cards are weak

DA's

- Turns are fun for impacts, but you can't us say that you're turning it. Read me a card, and give me and under view of why that's possible.

- I don't like extinction arguments for impact, if you're going to run that then you need a strong internal link

- DA's are important in my voting decision

- Long link chains are weaker DA'S

- At the end of the round you should be going for the DA that you believe has the most value to the round, do not run the entire neg case.

Topicality

- I do not like T on substantial

- T is fun, but don't run it if you don't plan on going for that in the neg rebuttal

- If you don't bring it up in all of your speech, then I will flow it as a dropped

- T isn't a voter for me, in most cases

- There is on T that I will 95% of the time vote on, but not a lot of people run it. Or if they do run it, it is not used in the correct context.

CP's

- A lot of people don't have all the components for a CP which discourages me from voting on the CP the aff also has to catch the improper set up. The aff has to bring that up though.

- CP must solve better, give me your interpretation of why you solve better

- I like cp's but it must be ran correctly

Abusive arg

- I don't like abusive arguments, they're very whiny.

- They're a time waster, spend your time on better args

- You don't need to bring it to my attention that they brought up a new arg in the rebuttals. I flow speeches. I will write on their ballot that I didn't flow that argument.

- I was once a novice debater too, and novice 2A's are very notorious for bringing up new args in the 2AR

Other policy related notes

- K's do not belong on the novice circuit especially in Missouri

- Impact calc should be ran

- If there are tech issues on my end I will stop you and pause the time, as it is fair to judge everyone the same - if the other team can't hear you I would like for them to say something

- Don't steal prep, I time everyone and everything.

- I read evidence , if your card says something completely different than what the other wrote, that will be on the ballot

- Dates are relevant but at the same time it's not the biggest thing in the world to me. However if your entire case is from '14 then I'll probably mention it. But don't spend your time arguing dates.

- The purpose of cx if for clash and clarification - if you run vagueness on their plan or whatever it may be - I will probably not swing that argument your way.

PuF and LD

- I am more familiar with LD than PuF

- In LD hold up your criterion and value

- At the end of the round I don't want to have to go back and go through all my flow to see which side should win it should be obvious by the last 2 speeches

PLEASE READ THIS

If you're being rude in any shape way or form, you will get last in the round. In cx I'm okay with interrupting but don't be rude. Don't say anything offensive. If I feel that you're being sexist, racist, or disrespectful, I will write it on your ballot for your coach to see.

BACKGROUND:

Please include the following emails in email chains: ccroberds@spsmail.org and khsemailchain@gmail.com - sometimes my spsmail account is really slow in receiving emails. I honestly prefer speechdrop, but email is ok if that's your norm or what your coach prefers. My least favorite option is the file share.

I am the debate coach at Kickapoo High School in Missouri. I have been involved in policy debate since 1994 as a student and/ or coach. The 2022-23 topic marks my 27th. I have coached in very critical circuits (one round with a plan read by any team in an entire year), very community judge oriented circuits (that don't allow CPs or Ks), TOC qualifying circuit, ELL circuits, and combinations of all circuits. If you have questions, please email ccroberds@spsmail.org

Update - 1/20 - a note about prepping your speech before you speak

My expectation is that you send out a doc BEFORE you speak that includes the evidence AND analytics that you intend to read in the speech if they are typed up. They should also be in the order that you are going to speak them. It is an accessibility issue. If you type them up in the round, that's one thing - but if they are your blocks (or your team blocks) they should be sent. This includes AT A MINIMUM the text of perms, the texts of counterplans, the text of interpretations of why you reject a team, etc. Also, if you choose to just randomly jump around in a document please know that it will dramatically impact your speaks. Nobody is as good at flowing in online debates as we are in person, having the doc and reading it in order helps improve the activity.

Important norms to keep tournaments running on time

Please show up to the room to establish email chains/ speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, do tech checks, etc. AS SOON AS POSSIBLE after pairings have been released (read at least 20 minutes prior assuming pairings come out 30 minutes prior to round). The 1ac should start when the pairing says unless there is a tournament related reason. Once you get to the room and do tech check, feel free to use the rest of the time to prep, etc. If it's an in person tournament, please show up when the pairings get released, set up an email chain or speechdrop, disclose the 1ac/ past 2nrs, and then go prep - just come back to the room before the round is supposed to start. If you can't get to the room for some reason, it is your responsibility to email me and the other team to let us know.

Please know that if you don't do this, it will negatively effect your speaker points by .5. Choosing to show up late makes tournaments run behind and gives unfair advantages to teams with multiple coaches (I have to be here to judge and coach my team - if you choose to be late, I assume it's because you're getting extra coaching which gives you an unfair advantage over teams whose coaches are judging).

Cliff's Notes Version (things to do in the 10 minutes before the round):

- As long as we are online, please make sure you are adding intentional breaks between arguments. These can be verbal or non-verbal but they are necessary to make sure flowing is happening from the oral arguments instead of just from the speech doc. As an example, clearly say the word "next" or "and" after each card/ subpoint/ etc. or slow down for the tags to where there is a noticeable difference between the card or warrants and the next tag. This is one of those things that the technology just isn't as good as being face-to-face, but it may make debate better down the line.

- Disclose on the wiki pre-round unless you are breaking a new case. I can be persuaded, relatively easily, that this is a voting issue (this is not about small details in the case, but overall picture). Once a case is broken, please put it up as soon as possible. If you read it at last tournament and haven't found time to put it up, that's a problem. Also, at a minimum, the negative should be posting their main off case positions. Before the round, the aff and neg should both know what the opponent is reading as a case and what positions they have gone for at the end of debates on the negative. Having coached at a small and economically disprivileged school most of my life, the arguments against disclosure literally make no sense to me.

- I like politics a lot more than Ks - My perfect generic 2NR is politics and an agent CP. The best way to win a K in front of me is to argue that it turns case and makes case impossible to solve.
- I don't like cheap shots - I think plan flaws are a reason to ask questions in the CX or pre-round. Make debate better.
- K Framework - I prefer to do policy making. However, you need to answer the project if they run it.
- Cheating CPs - I don't like backfile check type CPs (veto cheato) or "I wrote this for fun" CPs (consult Harry Potter/ Jesus). I do like topic agent CPs (like have China do the plan, have the private sector do the plan).

- Link vs Uniqueness - Uniqueness determines the direction of the link - if it is not gonna pass now, there is no way the link can make it pass less.

- Cross-ex is always open unless another judge objects.
- Be Nice and FLOW!

High School Policy Specifics:

- I know that the last couple of topics don't have core stable offense for the neg. This definitely makes the neg more intuitively persuasive to me on questions of topicality and on the threshold that I need for the negative to win some kind of a link. I don't like CPs that aren't tied to topic specific literature. This includes, but is not limited to, contrived fiat tricks designed to garner net-benefits. This includes NGA, ConCon, etc. It doesn't mean I won't vote for it, it just means my threshold for aff theory, etc. is really low. If you are choosing between a CP that I have listed above and a disad with a less than ideal link (not no link, just less than ideal), it would be more persuasive to me to read the disad.

Here is a crystalized version of this stolen from Will Katz but it explains what I think about contrived CPs - "I am over contrived process cp's. If you don't have aff/topic specific evidence for your cp, I probably won't care if the aff's perm is intrinsic. If you don't have evidence about the plan, why does the aff's perm only have to be about the plan?"

I am a high school coach who tends to be at TOC tournaments about 3/4 of the time and local tournaments (with community judges) the other 1/4. However, I do cut a lot of cards, coach at camps, and think about the topic a lot which means that I have a pretty good grip on the topic. This means I may not know the intricacies of how your particular argument may functions in the high school environment you are competing in right now.

High School LD Specifics:

My default is that I don't need a value and value crit. in order to vote for you. However, I can be persuaded that it is needed. If the affirmative reads a particular interpretation of the topic (i.e. they read a plan) then, absent theory arguments about why that's bad, that becomes the focus of the debate. If the affirmative does not read a plan then the negative can still read disadvantages and PICs against the entirety of the topic. I don't terribly love NRs and 2ARs that end with a series of voting issues. Most of the time you are better off using that time to explain why the impacts to your case outweigh your opponent's case as opposed to describing them as voting issues. If you are going to make an argument in the NC that there is a different framework for the debate than what the affirmative explains in the AC, you need to make sure you fully develop that position. Framework functions very differently in LD compared to policy so make sure your blocks are written out for that reason.

I'm not a big fan of a big theory pre-empt at the end of the 1ac. I think the aff case is the time when you should be making most of your offensive arguments and most of the time theory is set up to be defensive. This is particularly silly to me when the aff has more time in rebuttals than the neg does anyway.

NFA LD Specifics:

I am relatively new to this format of debate but I like it a lot. I think debate should be viewed through a policy framework in this style of debate, but I can be persuaded out of this belief. However, if your main strategy is to say that the rules of NFA are problematic or that you shouldn't have to weigh the case and the DA, then I think you fighting an uphill battle.

Also, given the limited number of speeches, I tend to err on the side of starting aff framework as early as possible (probably the AC). This is mostly to protect the aff since if it's not brought up until the 2ac/ 1ar it is possible for the NR to straight turn it and leave the 2ar in an unwinnable position.

In Depth Stuff:

GENERAL-
I tend to prefer policy oriented discussions over kritikal debates but I will be happy to evaluate whatever you want to run. My favorite debates come down to a clash between specific arguments on the flow of the advantages and disadvantages. On theory you should number or slow down your tags so that I get the clash. I can flow your speed if it is clear, but if you want me to get the 19 reasons why conditionality is a bad practice you should slow down to a speed I can flow the blips. That said, I tend to prefer fast debate to slow debates that ultimately don't point to the resolution of the topic.
Read warrants in your evidence. Full sentences are how people speak. They have things like nouns, verbs, and prepositions. Please make sure that your evidence would make sense if you were reading it slowly.
If the round is close, I tend to read a decent amount of evidence after the round if there is a reason to do so. If you want me to call for a specific card please remind me in the 2nr/ 2ar.
Also please give reasons why your offense turns their offense besides "war causes x."

SPECIFICS-

Disclosure theory note:

I have a VERY low threshold on this argument. Having schools disclose their arguments pre-round is important if the activity is going to grow / sustain itself. Having coached almost exclusively at small, underfunded, new, or international schools, I can say that disclosure (specifically disclosure on the wiki if you are a paperless debater) is a game changer. It allows small schools to compete and makes the activity more inclusive. There are three specific ways that this influences how ballots will be given from me:

1) I will err negative on the impact level of "disclosure theory" arguments in the debate. If you're reading an aff that was broken at a previous tournament or on a previous day and is not on the wiki (assuming you have access to a laptop and the tournament provides wifi), you will likely lose if this theory is read. There are two ways for the aff to "we meet" this in the 2ac - either disclose on the wiki ahead of time or post the full copy of the 1ac in the wiki as a part of your speech. Obviously, some grace will be extended when wifi isn't available or due to other extenuating circumstances. However, arguments like "it's just too much work," "I don't like disclosure," etc. won't get you a ballot.

2) The neg still needs to engage in the rest of the debate. Read other off case positions and use their "no link" argument as a reason that disclosure is important. Read case cards and when they say they don't apply or they aren't specific enough, use that as a reason for me to see in round problems. This is not a "cheap shot" win. You are not going to "out-tech" your opponent on disclosure theory. To me, this is a question of truth. Along that line, I probably won't vote on this argument in novice, especially if the aff is reading something that a varsity debater also reads.

3) If you realize your opponent's aff is not on the wiki, you should make every possible attempt before the round to ask them about the aff, see if they will put it on the wiki, etc. I understand that, sometimes, one teammate puts all the cases for a squad on the wiki and they may have just put it under a different name. To me, that's a sufficient example of transparency (at least the first time it happens). If the aff says it's a new aff, that means (to me) that the plan text and/ or advantages are different enough that a previous strategy cut against the aff would be irrelevant. This would mean that if you completely change the agent of the plan text or have them do a different action it is new; adding a word like "substantially" or "enforcement through normal means" is not. Likewise, adding a new "econ collapse causes war" card is not different enough; changing from a Russia advantage to a China, kritikal, climate change, etc. type of advantage is. Even if it is new, if you are still reading some of the same solvency cards, I think it is better to disclose your previous versions of the aff at a minimum.

4) At tournaments that don't have wifi, this should be handled by the affirmative handing over a copy of their plan text before the round.

5) If you or your opponent honestly comes from a circuit that does not use the wiki (e.g. some UDLs, some local circuits, etc.), I will likely give some leeway. However, a great use of post-round time while I am making a decision is to talk to the opponent about how to upload on the wiki. If the argument is in the round due to a lack of disclosure and the teams make honest efforts to get things on the wiki while I'm finishing up my decision, I'm likely to bump speaks for all 4 speakers by .2 or .5 depending on how the tournament speaks go.

Topicality- I believe the affirmative should affirm the topic and the negative should negate the plan. It is fairly difficult to convince me that this is not the appropriate paradigm for the affirmative to operate under. The best way to think about topicality in front of me is to think about it as drawing lines or a fence. What does debate look like for a season when the negative wins the topicality argument vs. what does it look like when the affirmative wins. Affirmatives that push the bounds of the topic tend to be run more as the season progresses so the negative should be thinking through what the affirmative justifies if their interpretation because the standard for the community. This also means that there is no real need to prove real or potential *problems in the debate.

If the affirmative wants to win reasonability then they should be articulating how I determine what is reasonable. Is it that they meet at least one of the standards of the neg's T shell? Is it that there is a qualified source with an intent to define that thinks they are reasonable? Is it that there is a key part of the topic literature that won't get talked about for the season unless they are a topical affirmative?

If you want me to vote on Topicality the 2nr (or NR in LD) should be that. Spending less than the entire 2nr on a theoretical issue and expecting me to vote on it is absurd. I would only vote neg in that world if the affirmative is also badly handling it.

Counterplans- I love counterplans. I typically believe the negative should be able to have conditional, non-contradicting advocacies but I can be persuaded as to why this is bad. Typically this will need to be proven through some type of specific in round problem besides time skew. I think that the permutations should be more than "perm: do both, perm: do the plan, perm: do the CP."

Kritiks- I am not as deep on some of this literature as you are. You should take the time in CX or a block overview to explain the story of the K. Performance style debate is interesting to me but you will have to explain your framework from the beginning. I probably tend to be more easily swayed by the framework arguments about clash compared to exclusion. I will tend to default to preferring traditional types of debate.

Politics- I like good politics debates better than probably any other argument. I like interesting stories about specific senators, specific demographics for elections d/as, etc. With this being said, I would rather see a fully developed debate about the issue. I tend to evaluate this debate as a debate about uniqueness. Teams that do the work tend to get rewarded.

My perfect debate- Without a doubt the perfect round is a 2nr that goes for a pic (or advantage cp with case neg) and a politics d/a as a net benefit.

*Questions of "abuse" - This is a soapbox issue for me. In a world of significant actual abuse (domestic abuse, child abuse, elder abuse, bullying, etc.), the use of the word to describe something as trivial as reading a topical counterplan, going over cross-x time by 3 seconds, or even not disclosing seems incredibly problematic. There are alternative words like problematic, anti-educational, etc. that can adequately describe what you perceive to be the issue with the argument. Part of this frustration is also due to the number of times I have heard debaters frustrate community judges by saying they were abused when the other team read an argument they didn't like. Please don't use this phrase. You can help make debate better.

Paperless and speaker point stuff-
I used to debate in a world where most people had their evidence on paper and the one thing that I believe has been lost through that is that people tend to look more at the speech doc than listening to the debate. I love paperless debate, just make sure that you are focusing on the speech itself and not relying exclusively on the document that the other team has sent you. Flowing well will often result in improved speaker points.

If you are using an online format to share evidence (e.g. speechdrop or an email chain), please include me in the loop. If you are using a flashdrive, I don't need to see it.

I don't expect teams to have analytics on the speech document (but if you are asked by your opponent for equity or accessibility reasons to have them there, please do so). I do expect teams to have every card, in order, on the speech document. If you need to add an additional card (because you've been doing speed drills), that's fine - just do it at the end of the speech.

If you let me know that your wiki is up to date including this round (both aff and neg) and send me the link, I'll also bump speaker points by .2.

Masks stuff for in person (last updated 4/7/23)

COVID and other diseases are still real. If I'm feeling at all under the weather, I will wear a mask. I ask you to do the same. All other things being equal, you are free to debate with or without a mask. However, if you are asked to wear a mask by an opponent or judge who is also wearing a mask, and you choose not to, it is an auto-loss with the lowest speaker points that I am allowed to give. This is a safety issue.

Along those lines, with the experiences that many have gone through in the last year, please don't make arguments like "death good," "disease good," etc. While there may be cards on those things, they very violent for many people right now. Please help make debate a safe space for people who are coming out of a very difficult time.

Chris Rothgeb

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Head Coach

I currently coach the following events: Policy, LD, Public Forum, Congress, Interp (HI, DI, Duo, POI, Storytelling, Prose, Poetry, Duet Acting), USX, IX, OO, Info, Radio Speaking.

Former Assistant and Head Coach at Jefferson City High School, Jefferson City, MO

I debated Policy, LD, and PF in High School. I debated Policy for 2 semesters in college at Missouri State University. I have also judged NFA LD and College Policy/CEDA/NDT.

Policy Debate (below)

In high school and in college, I almost always gave the 1AR.

Role as the judge - I tend to not define what judge I am in a single term. Basically, whatever you present, I will listen to and evaluate that.

Flash Time - When someone is flashing evidence, NO ONE IS PREPPING!! I will count off your own prep time if you are prepping while someone is flashing.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life a little easier and I can be a better judge for you.

If you are unclear, I will yell for you to be clearer. If you continue to be unclear, I will dock speaker points.

I will read evidence if I believe that it is important. Sometimes I do, and sometimes I do not. I will only read the un-underlined portion of evidence if it is brought up in the round and I believe it to be important to decide the outcome of the round. I don't usually do this though.

Topicality - I have voted on T in the past, but that does not mean I like it. If the aff is being blatantly untopical, then T is clearly going to matter. If there is no offense from either side, I will discard T. Make it count.

Theory - Theory debates are so tricky. I was never really exposed to theory until college and it still confuses me today. If you decide to go this route, make it count and explain it well. You do not have to dumb it down, but you need to explain it.

Kritiks - Again, I never debated K in high school. It just wasn't a thing in my circuit. I only did K debates in college because my partners wanted to. I never understood them which made it difficult to convey to the judge. This is important to know. If you do not fully understand your K position, then you cannot explain it that well to me. This presents a problem when it comes down to me making an evaluation of the round. The other thing I find with most K debates is that no one ever tells me the "why" component - or the Impacts. The theory behind the K may be super interesting, but what is the actual application to the round? If you cannot explain this, odds are I will have a hard time making the K matter in my decision.

AFF duties - You must read a plan in the 1AC. This is non-negotiable to me. Waiting until after the 1AC to read a plan is abusive and we just wasted 16 minutes of good speaking time.

Performance debates - I have only ever seen 1 performance debate in my entire career. I didn't vote for it. Not because it wasn't effective, but because they couldn't defend it. Keep that in mind.

Speed - I am "okay" with speed. Most people seem to think that if they read it fast enough, that counts. This is incorrect. If I cannot perceive your words, then I cannot digest the information that you are presenting. BE CLEAR!! Just because you can speak fast, does not mean that I can digest it that fast. I need to be able to understand what is going on in the round in order to make the most accurate decision after the round. On the standard 1-to-9 scale from the NSDA (with 1 being slow and conversational and 9 being rapid and fast), I would go with a 5. If you are speaking and I am not flowing, you are going too fast. I will tell you to be clear, but I will NOT tell you to slow down.

In-round K - I put Language K and Speed K here. Unless the other team is ACTUALLY being abusive, then this should NOT happen. Again, I need impacts.

Abuse - Potential abuse is not a reason to vote someone down. If you feel you were actually at a disadvantage in the round caused by the other team cheating, or what-not, then show that to me.

TL;DR - Impact your arguments.

Have fun with the debate! This is supposed to be fun! So enjoy it! A bad attitude is so easy to see for a judge and it makes me not have fun either. Then we are all sitting there with bad attitudes for an hour and a half. No one wants that.

I really enjoy case and DA debates the best. Impact analysis is always fun to judge. I will listen to all of your arguments - that I can promise you. But you need to make it count.

World Schools (below)

Summer 2022 is my first time judging WSD. All I ask is to be respectful towards each other with POI. Turning down too many points will lose some speaker points. Be sure to carry your arguments from the first speech all the way through (unless you are strategically kicking out of arguments). Make sure you are keeping the big picture in mind. This is a holistic debate -be holistic. 

(Copied from Heather Walters)

In my ideal debate world, the affirmative would read a topical plan and defend the implementation of that plan. The negative would read disadvantages, counterplans, and case turns/defense. Topical research is probably my most favorite part of debate, so I would assume that I would have a tendency to reward teams that I see as participating in the same way I view the game.

I get that my ideal debate world isn't everyone's ideal debate world. I also vote for teams that prefer to run Topicality, Kritiks, or other arguments as their "go to" strategies. Good critical debaters explain specific links to the affirmative case and spend some time discussing how their argument relates to the impacts that are being claimed by the affirmative team. I also think it helps a lot to have specific analogies or empirical examples to prove how your argument is true/has been true throughout history.

I expect that paperless teams will be professional and efficient about flashing evidence to the other team. It annoys me when teams flash large amounts of evidence they don't intend to read or couldn't possibly read in a speech to the other team and expect them to wade through it. It should go without saying that I expect that you won't "steal" prep time in the process of flashing, or any other time really. It also annoys me when teams don't flow just because they are "viewing" the evidence in real time.

I expect that teams will post their cites to the wiki as soon as the debate is over, and ideally before I give my decision and otherwise participate in information sharing efforts.

I like to have a copy of speeches flashed to me as well so I can follow along with what everyone else sees in the debate and because I think it makes the decision making process go faster.

The best way to get high speaker points from me is to be clear, be polite, participate fully in your cross-examinations and use them to your advantage to point out flaws in your opponents’ arguments, try hard, and use appropriate humor.

Ask me questions if this doesnt cover what you need to know or you can't find the answer from someone else that I have judged/coached. Obviously there will be tons of other things I think about debates that I haven't posted here. Have fun.

Colton Smith 

5 Years of High School Debate @ Tulsa Union HS 

Freshman NDT debater @ Missouri State University (Mo State SW)

Version 1.0 - Last edited 10-16-17

The closest thing that you can pin me to is tabula rasa. I have experience going for a cheating CP's with small net benefit to reading various K's sometimes all in the same 1NC. I was a 2N in high school if this helps at all. My favorite kinds of debates are ones where there is a small truthful policy aff with either the 2NR being a super specific DA (with or without a CP - doesn't matter to me) or a K with spec link lit. CAUTION - I like some K's but have a really high threshold for others. For example, I have read and debated Identity/structural K's frequently, but I do not have any experience with Baudrillard, Bataille, or whatever pomo person you have in mind. This can all be resolved with sufficient explanation so PLEASE TELL ME WHAT THE HECK YOUR JARGON MEANS. That being said, I don't want the way I view debate to constrain what your strat is. If you think this is your A strat, then rep it and I'll be there to decide :). 

TLDR: I am good with about anything that you want to read in front of me, but you have to justify it words that I will be able to understand. Truth v Tech is a false dichotomy - a good argument should be able to have both. Speed is fine as long as you place clarity above speed. Prep ends when you say it does - do NOT abuse this privilege as it get annoying to wait three minutes to flash a speech doc. DO NOT STEAL PREP FOR THE LOVE OF gOD. The easiest way to my ballot is to sum up the debate for me. If you do an email chain, then you should put me on it at mc2turnt@gmail.com

Just a few random things that you might want to look into when debating with me in the back 

- evidence comparison - Debates frequently get out of hand and both sides win their own argument and it starts to look like two ships passing in the night. If you are doing comparative analysis with your evidence - PROPS! This makes for better debates and you might get a smile out of me if you do so. 

- Cross Ex - It is okay to be assertive, but rude it should never be. I think that people underestimate the value of CX in policy debate, and if you can use it effectively with me in the back it may result in better speaks. Sometimes the best thing that you can do is to be really nice in cross ex

- Marking Cards - I know that sometimes in a debate you have really long cards, but if I hear you marking every card in your 1NC, then there is a massive problem. One of the things that really can get under my skin is when you mark a lot of cards and try to extend them without reading that warrant. It's usually just a good idea to read the beautiful ev you have presented me. 

Onto the more specific things in life...

T/FW - I do not have many predispositions to this in any way. I am down for you to go 1 off fw if that's your planless aff strat. I will default to comp interps in a FW debate, but could be persuaded to default to reasonability if you warrant it well enough. I think for the negative to win these debates in regards to FW, you need to find a way to hedge back against their impact turns. This is possible and if I am in the back with this debate I could go either way, but I do appreciate teams that try to hold the line effectively. If the aff is policy and you want to go for T, then I think it might be the smartest to have a nuanced T violation. I didn't go for T very many times in my high school career, but I like to see them happen. For me to pick you up as the negative, you need to win why your interp/violation specifically generates abuse, and yes I can be persuaded that potential abuse is abuse. Also remember impacts are pretty important here too :) Do Not think that this is an invitation to only read FW in front of me. I like FW but I am not a hack for it. I like other nuanced and comprehensive strategies too and probably even more so.  

K - the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

Do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible - I am not the person that you want to read a 6 minute overview in the back of the room. You could be the best debater at the tournament, but if you drop long overviews - it will be hard to win the debate and your speaks will reflect that. 

you must find a way to weigh the aff and must have some defense to your method so that you have some justification for the 1AC. Think of the 1AC as a research project and you have to defend that research process. A good defense of your process specifically can be pretty devastating.

 I can be persuaded by extinction 1st and weigh the aff or just alt offense that is contextual to their research base, but the most important thing that the aff can do against K's is create 1 win condition and win it in the 2AR. A lot of teams get shook up trying to learn what the K means instead of creating a coherent strategy for the 2AR. 

I am an OK judge to do your K tricks with in the back, but you will need to explain their implications to the round itself. 

I am good with some K's but not all - if I look confused in the back, take a step back and explain what the argument means in my world. 

All in all K debates r fun ! 

CP - 

I like a good CP debate against an aff - I am the judge that will be down to hear topic generic CP's or super nuanced ones. Just win that the CP is theoretically justified, solves the entirety of the aff, and has a risk of a NB. 

I am okay with most CP's but you have to have a justification for the CP. 

I am a fan of most CP's. There are cheating CP's out there and a lot of them, but if you don't tell me why the CP is illegit then Ill let them run with it. 

The more spec the research is the better. 

YOU BEST HAVE A SOLVENCY ADVOCATE FOR THE CP TOO - unless its an adv cp and you tell me why there is not one that's needed VERY WELL. 

DA's - 

Yes Please

If you have a super unique DA that is spec to the topic and people haven't done their UQ updates then you as the neg have the right to exploit this. 
NEW DA's will be rewarded on level of prep 

I REALLY REALLY LIKE A GOOD DA DEBATE - but Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. 

PLEASE justify your internal links very well - I think this is typically one of the weaker points of da's in general. 

I also like generic topic DA's that have a unique flavor to them.

if you go for a DA in the 2NR please do a lot of COMPARATIVE IMPACT CALCULUS. This is something that I think is fun to watch and can be a wonderful point for clash. Also, your DA turns case analysis should turn the im pacts of the 1AC as well as the solvency mechanism of the aff - these args if developed well enough will make me want to vote for you. 

Theory - Cool with it - gotta have an interp that generates offense for you though.

Case - I am a sucker for good case arguments and impact turns. I like to see a good impact turn debate, but I also like a strat where you decimate the case page. I feel like case debate is extremely underutilized and needs to be revitalized. 

If you have any questions or are just confused about what I have just told you, then you can drop me an email at mc2turnt@gmail.com 

Hi! My name is Skylar Spell, and I am a senior at Missouri State University. I like all arguments. Please time yourselves so I can focus on what you are saying and making a decision. I also have a learning disability, so I would appreciate it if you do not speak fast when giving analytical arguments in rebuttal speeches. Also, please add me to the email chain: skylarlspell@gmail.com. Good luck in your round!

I do flow, but only what I hear.

I do time, but that's addressed later in the paradigm.

I am ready before each speech so just debate like I'm not there.

I WILL VOTE ON THE FRAMEWORK MOST OF THE TIME.

My LD paradigm is super simple. I'm okay with all types of arguments as long you can prove a strong value/criterion link. I'm a traditional LD Judge, I won't knock progressive but I do ask that you are clear in your argumentation. I flow and I expect arguments to not be dropped and extended throughout the round. Besides that, I enjoy a fun round so don't be rude but don't be passive. Again I'm open to whatever just make sure that your arguments are clear, logical, and have a strong Value/Criterion Link. Please don't say your card names, say the argument. I do not flow card names if you say "refer to my john 3:16 card" I will have no clue what you're talking about, but if you say "refer to x argument" I'll be on board. As a traditional judge, I like hearing some philosophy. I am not a philosophy expert but I do know the major points of the more used arguments and I wont count it as part of the RFD unless your opponent calls it out. If they don't then run with it I guess.

PF is very similar, hit me with your creative arguments. I generally vote for winners based on which team can either give me the bigger impacts or who can give me a good amount of strong arguments. IF YOU SPREAD IN PUBLIC FORUM I WILL NOT FLOW. I AM A PF PURIST. DO NOT SPREAD I WILL TRULY LOOK AT YOU AND MAYBE WRITE ONE THING. IF YOU ARE A PFER AND SAY USE A PHILOSOPHY FRAMEWORK I WILL NOT APPRECIATE IT. PF IS FOR THE LAY JUDGE. TREAT ME LIKE A LAY JUDGE.

Also if you are reading this, just an FYI please TIME yourselves so I don't have to interrupt you. Again I'm super laid back so just make sure that arguments are very clear and logical.

CX is not my favorite so I have no real paradigm for it. Just tell me why your arguments are good. I like Ks but I hate nukes(extinction).

As you can tell by this paradigm that I'm somewhat lazy. So if you have any specific questions feel free to ask before the round AND do not be afraid to ask me what you can improve AFTER (LIKE IN THE HALLWAYS) the round or for advice.

If you try to post-round or debate me because of the results of the ballot, I will shut it down immediately but feel free to ask for critiques.

email chain/contact info: stoutmalicia@gmail.com

truman state university recruiting: ams1387@truman.edu

about me: I did policy, congressional debate, and extemp in HS. I am currently a senior NFA-LD debater at Truman State and coach for Pembroke. Debate is a game that I am very passionate about! Have fun! I flow on my laptop so don't fear.

housekeeping: doc should be sent within 30 seconds of ending prep barring unusual circumstances. if you dont signpost well and it doesnt end up on my flow thats not my problem (VERY CLEARLY, "NEXT OFF"). you should send analytics. card dumps and expecting me to cross apply the cards for you to the LBL uniquely irritates me. "clean docs" that are sent that are not actually "clean" are slimy. lack of distinction between your card reading voice and your tag/analytic voice is also quite frustrating. all of the above will result in low spx.

Debated: Immigration(CX), Arms Sales (CX), Immigration (NFA), Counterterrorism (NFA), Elections (NFA), Nukes (NFA)

Coached: Criminal Justice Reform (CX), Water (CX), Fiscal Redistribution (CX)

TLDR: Speed is cool. Signposting is necessary. Ks on the aff and neg are a vibe and procedural debates are fun.

ETHICS ISSUES: Don't scream. Be kind. Don't cheat! Don't card clip. Repeated Interrupting and yelling in CX is a voter.

Policy:

Tech > Truth: I am anti-judge intervention, I default to tech as reasonably as I can. Dropped args are generally true so long as there is some extension of a warrant. I will read cards - so at the very minimum at least make sure your evi. is somewhat coming to the conclusion you say it does. If the card is completely dropped, my threshold for this is pretty low but don't misconstrue evidence -> that's probably not good for debate.

Speed: Speed is my preference as a competitor. Will vote on the Speed K if pertinent. Slow down on analytics that aren't in the doc.

T/Theory: Big fan if you do it well. The 2NR/2AR should collapse solely to the theory page. There should be an interp, vio, standards and voters in the shell. I'll vote on potential abuse if there is a clear warrant for why I should. Love a good TVA. I default to competing interps but can be swayed.

Disclosure: Neg and aff should disclose full-text new positions on the wiki. Hard debate is good debate. I'm from a smaller school, and have fully disclosed all of my debate rounds. I highly encourage debaters to disclose, it makes you better. Don't false disclose.

Disads: I pref aff-specific links. If you collapse to DA/Case, give me an overview on top and do lots of impact comparison. Tix aren’t my favorite but like I said tech over truth.

New in the 2: Not a fan, unless it's justified - i.e. a new theory sheet because of in-round abuse. New impact scenarios are fine, but I'll give a lot of mercy to the 1ar.

Counterplans/Conditional Advocacies (General): One condo CP/K is fine. The more conditional CPs/Ks you run, the lower my threshold gets. In most cases a CP/K combo is perfcon -- which I absolutely will vote on. I default to judge kick, but can be persuaded on why judge kicks are bad - or why I shouldn't. I won't vote solely on a solvency lens - you need to win the net benefit.

Kritiks (Neg): Please operate under the assumption that I'm completely unfamiliar with the literature you're reading -- that's the best way to avoid any specific K biases I might have. I enjoy it if you can clearly explain what the K does & what the alt looks like. Well versed on cap, militarism, security and fem. Specific K links will always be more compelling than generic ones I like alts that do something. FW is important. (IF YOU CANNOT EXPLAIN WHAT THE K DOES I HAVE A VERY LOW THRESHOLD FOR K SOLVENCY!!!)

Kritiks (Aff): My philosophy has evolved over time but I used to be pretty against K affs without a plan text/advocacy statement. With that being said I find some framework arguments particularly persuasive -- tell me why the debate space solves, and how that outweighs fairness claims and such. Kritikal advantages are fun and cool. What does my ballot do? What am I voting for? Am I a policymaker? Is fiat real? If I am left not knowing the answers to all of those questions I probably won't vote on the K aff.

Case: I LOVE turns and I will vote on them if they are impacted out properly. Do not expect me to vote on a dropped turn if you do not weigh it in the round. Case debate is a lost art for the negative, I award high speaks to debaters who do quality evidentiary analysis.

Fun Speaks: clever tasteful APPROPRIATE humor in round is rewarded w/ speaker points :)

My email (If there's an email chain, please be sure to add me): selinatahirkheli@gmail.com

Experience and Overview:

I'm currently a freshman in college at the University of Missouri-Kansas City. I did speech and debate all four years of high school but no longer do it in college. In high school, my main three events were Policy, Original Oratory, and POI, but I also have experience in Congress and Prose. I don't have too much experience with LD (apart from competing in it at one tournament) or PFD. I've judged novice rounds and gotten some baseline knowledge from those, but nothing too crazy. So if I'm judging you in a PFD or LD round please ask me clarification questions before the round starts. As for policy, I debated on a generally lay circuit throughout most of my whole school experience, but I attended NSDA Nationals for policy sophomore year, and Northwestern's 4-week debate camp going into my junior year, so I have some flow debate experience. But don't expect too much from me as I did do mainly lay debate the rest of my junior year and senior year. I will be able to follow most arguments, but some things will have to be explained in order for me to have a better understanding (I'll explain more below).

Although this isn't as relevant, I also have a lot of speech experience if you were wondering, or if I'm judging you in IEs. I went to nationals my junior year in Original Oratory, and I did fairly well locally from my sophomore through senior year in it. The same goes for POI. I started competing in it sophomore year, but started advancing regularly my senior year, and placed 5th at districts. If I'm judging you in speech or forensics know that I will be taking lots of notes. Don't mistake it for me not paying attention. Facial expressions, tone, and blocking are things I will definitely be looking at.

General:

The most important thing to me in policy debate is that I have a clear understanding of your argument from the beginning. If I can't see the logic and the details on the flow, I will not vote for it. If you go for a certain argument in the 2NR/2AR, make sure you've made that argument very very clear so there's no confusion. Clarity is very key here.

I'm not too picky with what arguments I want to see. Have fun and enjoy yourself in the round. Make sure you aren't just shoving arguments down my and your opponent's throat for the sake of it, make it clear what the goal is. I do have some suggestions and preferences about certain arguments that I'll get into more down below.

*SPEED: Going to nationals and attending a high-flow debate camp has given me experience in speed, but that DOES NOT mean I will be able to understand everything you say if you choose to go fast. You also have to consider that I'm a little rusty in the speed department, so it's going to take me longer to adjust. Honestly, for me, it was easier spreading and hearing other people spread when I was the one debating. As a judge, it's different since I want to be able to understand almost everything since I will be deciding who wins the round. That being said, if you are absolutely desperate you can spread, but only if you are VERY CLEAR. But if you can help yourself, I'd prefer that you don't spread. Feel free to still read faster than your average person (please do), just don't overdo it with me or else I will start saying "clear". If I say "clear", slow down or I will drop my pen and stop flowing until you slow down for me. Last thing here, please don't spread anything that's not on the speech doc(s). Cards I can follow, but once you start spreading all your analytics (if they aren't on the speech doc), I'm not going to be able to understand them and remember that clarity is important to me.

Arguments:

T: I love T when it's done well. It was one of my favorite arguments in high school because it can be used in so many different cases. if you have a fair interpretation and a good violation, then I'll absolutely consider the T argument. BUT, make sure that it's not just being used as a time waster. If you want to run T in front of me, be prepared to spend a lot of time on it since I consider it to be very important. If you can convince me that there is a 75%-80% the Aff isn't topical, I will vote for you in the round. So if the Neg is doing a good job, be prepared to spend some time here if you're Aff. Your standards and voters should be clearly linked to the Aff. I don't want to hear generics. Please don't spend time explaining generic standards and voters to me like ground, clash, reasonability, fairness, education, etc. I know what these mean, just tell me why they apply. If you want to talk about a unique standard or voter though, please do explain it. Lastly, if you choose to go for T in the 2NR, at least spend a good 3-4 minutes on it, unless they fumble hard on it in the 1AR.

Theory: I honestly don't like theory very much, it feels like a waste of time just to avoid real argumentation on the topic. But if you're good at running it and there's a reason to (and you give me those reasons) I'll still vote on it. You should have an interpretation, violation, standards, and voters. You don't have to go too crazy with the interpretation and violation but they should be there and be clearly connected to the debate. Standards and voters should be a little more specific. Don't just tell me something is a standard and voter for the sake of it being on the flow, explain how each one does/doesn't apply to the debate. Please clash here. I don't want to just hear the same thing in every speech - that's incredibly boring.

Ks: I've run Ks before and I actually really enjoyed arguing on them when I have, but if the K is super complex, I don't want to hear it unless you explain the link and alt very well. The link has to be connected to the case or I won't vote on it. If you use a generic link, please explain why the Aff still applies using analytics - I'll vote on that if it's done well. The alt better not be too ridiculous to the point where the K is just wasting our time. If you want to run a fun K, fine by me, but then you better explain the alt beautifully. Other than that, just have fun with the K, and make sure the picture is clear from the beginning or I won't be able to follow your arguments for the whole debate and you won't win on the K.

DAs: Read anything you want, I'll consider it if the link chain is clear. I will say that I don't understand politics DAs super well, but don't be hesitant to read them if you're actually good at explaining the link chain. You should have a specific link to the aff. PLEASE don't read a generic link without explaining why the Aff actually links into it. You're wasting your time if you don't do that. Lastly, please do impact calculus in your 2NC/1NR and 2NR. And spend time on it. I love impact calculus, so spend time there and really get into terminal impact and the specifics. Teams who spend time on impact calculus and do it will, will certainly get a vote from me if the link chain is also clear at the end of the debate.

CPs: I also love CPs. You can run anything you want here, as well. If you have a fun CP that actually is mutually exclusive, read it! But please run a CP that allows you to clash on the perm debate. I don't want to your perm answers to just be generic, they have to actually make sense. Same goes for the Aff. Please make your permutations clear. Don't just tell me "Perm do aff then do CP" and go down the list, tell me WHY. I will literally stop flowing your list of perms if you don't explain them.

Other:

Please have fun! Remember that this activity is supposed to make you think on your feet and let you clash on arguments, don't make the debate boring by reading generics that have no true meaning to them! If you have any other questions for me before the round, please don't be hesitant to ask them, I would love to answer. If I drop my pen and stare at you, I'm probably not appreciating something you're doing (whether it's speaking too fast once I've said "clear" or being blatantly discriminatory, sexist, biased, etc). Be kind to everyone in the room. I don't want to hear you trash-talking your opponents after the round. That is extremely disrespectful. Other than that, I'm pretty open to most arguments so don't be afraid to try something in front of me as long as you make the argument clear. I'll vote on whatever you tell me to vote on.

In policy, I will judge primarily on the stock issues. These should be clear within the context of the debate. On topicality, I will specifically be looking at debatability and reasonability. However, if an argument is missed due to spreading, it will be considered a dropped argument.

In Public Forum, I judge heavily on impacts and argumentation, but will weigh uniqueness if it is brought up.

In LD, I am a proponent of the value debate.

I am a forensics coach. I have judged all debates for over 10 years now. I competed in PFD when I was in high school in 2010. I will not be taking a rigorous flow. I will take notes and focus on the big arguments of the round and keep track of who is winning the largest points of clash in the round. I do value public speaking and persuasion, but do not judge based solely on that. I am OK with speed, but you must have clear diction and articulation.

Open to any specific questions.

I have been a coach for fourteen years. I like debaters to talk slow enough so that I can understand what they are saying and for them to articulate clearly. I also like debates about the topic and not about the rules of debate. I would prefer debaters to "suggest" what I should do if something happens in a round instead of telling me what I now "have" to do. Finally, I want debaters to use excellent public speaking skills such as good eye contact, few vocalized pauses, and no distracting movements.

jtroutdebate@gmail.com for all Speech and Debate related things, including email chains --updated for Stay At Home Classic

Competition History:

Bolivar High School: Policy Debate for 3 years, various IEs (Congress, Informative, Domestic Extemp), also did Big Questions one time. never again. Competed in the Ozark (MO) circuit my entire HS career.

Missouri State University: Currently a Sophomore who has competed in NFA-LD mainly so far, and a couple of NDT-CEDA tournaments as well.

I have judged every NSDA/MSHSAA sanctioned High School speech, debate, and interp event at least once. I generally judge policy-style debates, however I have judged numerous (traditional) Public Forum and (traditional) Lincoln-Douglas rounds at high school tournaments.

General Judging Things:

Don't be a jerk to your competitors. If you were extremely rude to your competitors, I will vote you down, regardless of whether you did better than them or not.

Feel free to time yourself. I'm not a huge stickler on time. I allow a bare minimum 30 second grace period. However, that doesn't mean that I'm going to let you give a 12 minute extemp speech or something like that. I generally use a timer that's pretty loud, so when it goes off you better start wrapping things up.

Policy-style Debate Events:

You can run whatever argument you want. That, however, doesn't mean that I'm going to let you get up there and say something that is blatantly offensive. I even welcome meme-y args as long as they don't violate above rule.

Affirmative:

I really, really, really would prefer that you run a Topical aff with plan text. If you choose to run a nontopical and/or planless aff, you better have really good reason as to why you should be able to read said aff. I actually really enjoy framework debates so if you have good framework answers then you should be fine running a planless aff.

With all that being said, you have about a .0001% of winning the round if you run something that is barely related to the topic. Please run something at least semi-topical and you will have no problems.

Negative:

DAs: I prefer non-generic DAs if possible but I understand why generic DAs exist and I have no issue with them. Politics DAs are cool. Make sure DAs have a good link story otherwise it's gonna be really hard to convince that the aff actually causes the impacts.

CPs: Whatever is fine here, you just need to prove that either the CP is mutually exclusive or that it's not possible to perm in order to win on it.

Ks: Kritiks of any kinds are fine. However, I'm not super experienced so you will have to explain it if it's not cap or an identity-based kritik.

Ts: Fine. I think T debates are generally overblown. Prove they are untopical, don't just say "they're abusive" and move on.

Framework: Framework debates are good. Give me a good reason why your framework is better.

Other Things: Condo is generally good, but a reasonable amount. I think kicking planks of CPs when you have multiple CPs is bad. However, I could be convinced otherwise.

Non-Policy Debate Events (Public Forum, Lincoln-Douglas, Congress, etc.)

Progressive debate is a-ok. I come from a policy background and progressive debate is basically policy in most circumstances. See the policy section for specific argument things.

I did congress for a couple years in high school so I have a pretty good idea of how things are supposed to go. If you are going to run for PO, make sure you know what you're doing. Otherwise I'm going to have to keep track of things and I really don't wanna have to do that.

Speech Events (Extemp, Inform, Oratory/Persuasive, ADS, etc.):

Being a good speaker is the main thing that I care about for these events. Also, humor is great. Some people take these speeches too seriously. Have fun.

Interp/Acting Events (HI, DI, POI, DUO, Duet Acting, Prose/Poetry, etc.):

I never have competed in any of these events, but I have seen/judged enough rounds to know what's going on. Make sure different characters have distinct voices and/or postures. Make sure said voice/posture is appropriate for that character as well.

I really enjoy humor in all of these events, especially in scripts that are really depressing (most DIs and POIs that I've seen). I don't want to be sad during your entire performance. Even if you are dealing with a serious topic, I want there to be a least a couple lighthearted moments throughout the performance. Dramatic does not just mean serious and depressing, it means an array of emotions, including humor.

alexvandyke32@gmail.com

***

CPs

My general presumption for CP solvency is sufficiency, but I can be persuaded otherwise

I'll will default to not kicking the CP if the 2NR goes for it

If you have evidence that compares your CP to the plan, it's probably legitimate

No solvency advocate – if its an intuitive advantage CP, particularly when based on the aff evidence, that seems reasonable

2NC CPs – they're good and strategic. do them more

Ks

I like any critique that makes calls into question some core aspect of the aff. This can be their primary justifications, representations, mechanism, etc.

Good case debating is important. Solvency/internal link presses that aid your link arguments are extremely powerful.

Epistemology or justifications are important but I find myself weighing those as links against the aff instead of as prior questions

T

I'm probably better for T than most if done well

Limits only matter to the extent they are predictable. Quality evidence should dictate topicality. Community norms shouldn’t be relevant and are subject to group-think and path dependency. T is an important strategic weapon, particularly on large topics and you should go for it when necessary. I’d suggest slowing down in the 2NR/2AR and isolating the debate to a narrow set of relevant questions.

Theory

Conditionality is fine within reason. When it seems absurd it probably is, and its not impossible to persuade me to reject the team, but it is an uphill battle. Its hard to imagine voting aff unless there are 4 or more conditional advocacies introduced.

Framework/K affs

TVAs don’t have to include the affs precise method or the totality of the 1ac, but create access to the affs literature base

The aff needs a strong defense of why reading this particular aff is key (its methodology, theory, performance, etc), why reading this argument on the aff as opposed to the neg is key, and why debate in general is key.

I will not adjudicate anything that occurs outside of the debate.

Updated 1-29-2022

I did NDT debate at MoState

Email chains: michael.n.waggoner at gmail.com

I read policy arguments for the most part, but read the K plenty as well.

I think debate is a fun game that provides unique and useful education. Although, I am open to different interpretations of how I should view debate.

Please be nice to people, even if they do not deserve it.

Things I will not vote on: racism good, extinction/death good, personal/external to this debate round actions as links/reasons to reject the team, and I'm sure much more.

Affirmatives with a plan

I like these. I tend to prefer larger center of the topic affirmatives with good angles against core negative arguments, but do what you do best.

Affirmatives without a plan

I also like these, but I don't understand what they do most of the time. You have to explain how you depart from the status quo, but if you do that right, I find these affs fun to judge. I am not a T-usfg/framework hack, but I do think T is a good argument against these affirmatives.

Theory/T

I default to competing interps and would prefer if you explain what their version of the topic justifies and how that hurts you.

I will vote on almost any theory argument, but you should realize when your theory arguments are bad.

Conditionality is usually fine

PICs are a little less fine, but still fine

Perf cons are fine if they are conditional advocacies, otherwise they're not good for you

Object fiat is like always bad

The disadvantage

This is always a good option for the negative. Teams that explain why their impact outweighs and turns the case tend to win. Timeframe is a big issue for me because most teams win a large impact. There's always a risk of the link, but that can often be very small. I think people should not be afraid to go for a DA without a counterplan, these rounds are fun and competitive.

Counterplans

Also, very useful. I understand how sufficiency framing works, and it is my default way of understanding CPs. I can't really fathom another way of viewing CPs anyway, please do not re-explain this to me. I am persuaded by aff answers that identify key issues in 1AC evidence as solvency deficits. Permutations are convincing when they are very well explained.

Kritik

Happens to be my favorite and least favorite thing ever. When they are good, they are amazing. When they are bad, they make me angry.

I am somewhat familiar with the following literature: capitalism, security, most identity critiques, Nietzsche(although not 100%), Baudrillard(Kinda), and Bataille. If you're kritik did not land on this short list, please still read it, just know that you should make your explanations kinda simple for me. I would like for the alternative to very clearly advocate for doing something. Too many kritiks have useless alternatives.

Final thoughts

I like debate, please do not give me reasons to change my mind about this.

email chain - AiriyannahWashington1@gmail.com

I debated in policy for 3 years at Truman high school, along with doing oratory and ld.

*IF VIRTUAL*

you should turn on cameras when it is your turn to speak unless your device can't do that for whatever reason.

quality > speed. we are online so being able to clearly hear arguments matters over speed.

I give feedback, but give me time to finish my rfd and comments.

When it comes to this years policy topic, I have little knowledge on it, so please be clear on your tag lines and what you're referencing to.

Things You shouldn't do

Being sexist, homophobic, transphobic, or any of the ists. If I find you to be doing ANY of these things, I am giving you the lowest ranks possible, you lose the round and I will stop listening.

Giving me a 100-page doc as your evidence. that isn't a speech doc and I shouldn't have to search for what you're saying.

Be weird about giving your evidence to your opponents.

Policy -

I vote on flow not speaking ability.

I will more likely than not vote on solvency.

Disads

do not care for extinction impacts since the likelihood of one plan being able to cause that is unlikely, but have a good internal link and it's valid.

Cps

I think cps are pretty cool if ran correctly. unfortunately, that is a rarity. if you do run one please have a net benefit. no net benefit = no case

Topicality

I do not see a point in running topicality unless you really feel bringing it up is vital in the round. technicality and impact calc is key in topicality. I would like to see it.

kritiks

(novice running k's? okay)

I like policy args more but on K's, I go as far fem, abolition, and anti-blackness. If you go outside of that I can probably follow and flow. on neg, you need to explain to me extensively on your links, and more on why I should vote on this. weigh the k against the aff. on Aff, I feel kritiks should still be somewhat in the resolution. I will more often than not lean more on the topicality argument if you don't explain to me your case well. Essentially, explain and overextend.

I don't care for abusive args but if you feel something in the round is abusive, run it I guess.

Lastly, HAVE FUN. nothing is worse than being in a round where it is hostile and everyone doesn't want to be there. Trust me I've been in those rounds and I don't want to judge one.

Aubrey Webster

Parkview High School, Springfield, MO

Assistant Coach

I did not debate in High School but performed Storytelling for individual speech tournaments. This is my second year as the assistant speech and debate coach at Parkview High School in Springfield, Missouri.

Please provide me with the documents that you flash/email over. This makes my life easier in case there are tech issue or if I need to look things over again.

When judging, I look at the following details:

How well you were able to explain and provide evidence.

How well you were able to ask questions and answer questions during cross examination.

How well you were able to attack your opponent's case.

How well your speaking skills were during your speech.

I truly believe speech and debate provides so many life skills for students and it is an honor to be apart of this amazing activity!

I'm a Senior at Missouri State University and have done a bit of everything. Be nice, have fun, I'll adapt to you!

Add me to the chain, linnzoppolin@gmail.com

I don't know a lot about the highschool topic outside of the camp files I helped cut, do with that what you will.

I take pride in being thorough, and feel that it is my duty as the judge to have thought through my decision to do my best to make the right one, and to be able to tell everyone involved why I decided it how I did.

Top level: If you make me start figuring things out at the end of the round you are going to be upset because I almost certainly think differently about debate than you do. The easiest solution to this is to spend time doing impact calc (be it for an extinction scenario, some form of structural violence, theoretical debate standards, etc) and to write your ballot for yourself in the 2nr/2ar. I really do mean that you should probably say, "You vote aff/neg BECAUSE _____."

Disclosure is a norm not a requirement, but it is also a reflexive responsibility we have to each other so you should probably do it. I am noticing it less in person now, but I am not a perfect flowing computer who will write every word you say, having things in the doc means that I don't have to just shrug and say, "I missed it" if I end up seeing something out the window and lose focus for a second while you're spreading a T block. If you don't send analytics or disclose before the round I to a certain degree implicitly assume that you aren't convinced that it can really stand up to rigorous testing which won't affect my decision, but will make me sad. I haven't had a lot of time/experience to figure out how I really feel that disclosure affects the round from a theory perspective, but if you think its strategic to read I'll listen and figure it out based on the round.

tech over truth usually, tell me if I should decide things differently. Warming good is almost certainly not true, but I'll listen and flow accordingly.

"AND!" (+.1 speaks if you do it [at least almost] every time)

Policy affs - cool, you should solve something.

In "Policy" debates writ large I'd suggest slowing down a touch, with boatloads of cards being tossed this way and that I tend to get a little bit lost. Same goes for flagging where you are, "Answer to ___x___ ---" will go such a long way to helping me give you credit for what you've said.

K affs - cool, I like these either as much or a teeny bit more than policy affs. You should be tied to the rez and should solve something be it in round, in debate, or in the world.

K V Policy - I am a bit of cap hack if I'm being honest with myself... That said, don't adapt to me and do something you aren't confident in, I've been apart of enough K rounds and read enough of the lit base on lots of stuff to say that I can come up with a coherent decision so long as you make sure to tell me what the alt is, what it does, and how that solves a thing. My FW for the K thoughts are pretty generic, if you lose the fw debate as the aff you probably lose absent some really good offense that doesn't require me to weigh the aff, which also means that I am very willing to not consider the 1ac if you're behind there. I have been told lots of times what an intrinsic perm is, still not really sure how its all that different from severance. A lot of perms are severance. Same as everything else, if you think its a winner to extend it, go for it.

K V K - I really like these rounds. Same as the other K section, I've read enough stuff to be reasonably confident rendering a decision on anything from Baudrillard type high theory, to identity arguments. More explanation is almost always good especially as we enter the rebuttals, "how does the aff/alt solve? what does that mean and look like?" are questions I find myself asking and if I have to end up answering for you, prepare to be disappointed. I don't really understand, "no perms in a methods debate."

T - I like T debates. You should have an impact that voting negative solves (IE education, fairness, something else) Limits over ground is my lean on T. See FW for more thoughts.

FW - Debate is a game that has a lot of real life effects and consequences that often reach the level of being more than "just a game." Having gamified portions of our activity isn't always a bad thing, but I can be convinced to that it is for the purpose of the RFD. Oftentimes people treat fw as if it was ONLY T which isn't (or doesn't have to be) the case. Usually these rounds come down to two different visions or models of debate that I have to compare based on what the 2nr/2ar tells me. I do think that predictable limits are good, and that fairness and education are important, but also that there should be room for affs that aren't just, "USFG should." Interps that bracket out K debate from the activity are going to be harder to win than an interp that tries to level the playing field and allow people to do what they want within a reasonable topic. Reasonability is a thing, but I am not really sure how "reasonability solves" means that I shouldn't evaluate your interps versus each other. It does modify how I see those interps.

CP- I know what the words mean, please tell me why they matter. CP to solve the aff and avoid a disad is a winner. They can solve/be the whole aff, or just an adv, do impact work, tell me why the thing solves, and why I pref it over the aff (usually a net benefit)

Disad - politics, cool; other things, cooler. It should outweigh the aff, and tell a solid warranted story of what happens post aff.

Case debate - do it, do it more, it's great. I LOVE impact turns, not sure about how ethical wipeout style args are but I will evaluate it like basically everything else absent a good warranted reason to reject it

Theory - I'm not very experienced in these rounds, a lot of condo is probably bad. (3+ advocacies modified by perf con or other warrants you think should change how I feel) I will accept the challenge of figuring out the round if you think it's strategically right to go for it.

The rest - I will stop the round if you do something really horrible (incredibly offensive, physically violent, etc) I will probably not stop the round for much less than that but will make a decision around something that meets those general guidelines but doesn't rise to the level of my needing to immediately intervene. (IE reject the team args are things I will evaluate, but they should have an impact and be warranted out for me to vote on them.)

I am probably a bit better of a judge for K, by that I mean that the way I just don't have the intuitive knowledge of "policy" jargon which makes some spells less dangerous sounding when cast by a 2nc. Spend time explaining your impact framing, and I especially mean that in DA rounds, try or die is not enough to explain what I should consider when evaluating the round.

If speed reading please make sure you are understandable while doing so.

Twilliams@cassville.k12.mo.us

Going fast in a debate doesn't make you a better debater, and yelling doesn't make you more powerful. In a debate you should speak clearly and articulate what you are trying to persuade me, as your audience, to vote on.

Off the clock roadmaps should be used for Policy debate and Policy debate only. I understand what you do in each speech.

I follow the rules and appreciate the students who do as well. Stand for speeches, have an appropriate attitude, and play fair.

About Me

she/they

Broken Arrow HS ‘19 (LD 4 years)

Mo State '23 (NDT/CEDA + NFA LD 3 years)

GTA @ Wichita State

Conflicts: Broken Arrow, Tulsa Union, Pembroke Hill, Maize South, Missouri State

yes email chain: lilwood010@gmail.com

Overview

These are just my random thoughts about debate collected into one place. If you do what you do well, you will be fine. I am down for almost anything.

Policy first, NFA LD next, then HS LD at the bottom -- if there is no specific section for either LD format assume it’s the same as policy or ask me questions pre round! :)

yes open cx - yes you can sit during cx - yes flex prep

!!:) please send out analytics :)!!

Please provide trigger warnings if there is graphic descriptions of violence against fem ppl included in your arguments

K Affs/Ks

I prefer K affs that are related to the topic OR the debate space. I enjoy watching performance K affs that incorporate parts of the topic.

I believe fairness (procedurally or structurally) is not an impact. I believe it is an internal link.

I love a good TVA - but I would prefer it be creative to the aff and carded to demonstrate that it could solve the aff's offense.

I believe perf con is bad.

I'm starting to believe I prefer movements / material alternatives over reject / thought project alternatives. I find myself easily persuaded by arguments that alternatives lack the means to resolve the links and impacts. I like when alternatives are specific in what they accomplish in the block.

I LOVE perm debates. I am a sucker for creative perms that are specific to the alternative. If you execute this strategy correctly, you will be rewarded.

CP

I think condo is good to an extent. The extent is up for debate.

I default to judge kick.

T

I LOVE T!

In round abuse should be present, but I also believe that setting a precedent for the community might be more important.

I think grounds and limits are both good arguments, but I find I am more persuaded by limits. Going for either is fine.

Misc.

I LOVE ptx.

Impact turn debates are super fun.

NFA LD

NFA LD has some norms that are different than policy so I will try to establish my thoughts on some of those in here.

yes spreading - yes disclose - yes email chain - (sigh) yes speech drop

Disclosure

Will vote on disclosure theory IF it's egregious. I think empty wikis are probably bad after attending 2 tournaments. I think if every aff they've ever read is uploaded, even if not every round is, zeroes the impact. I think not disclosing an aff 15 minutes prior to the round is probably bad if no wiki entries or multiple affs on the wiki. TLDR: nondisclosure has to actually inhibit your pre round prep.

Theory/Procedurals

I think mandating an inherency contention is silly, UQ from the advantages can answer this.

Solvency advocate theory is cowardice. If the aff doesn't have a solvency advocate, then... you should... be able to beat it...

Will vote on speed bad due to accessibility concerns.

For condo, my thoughts differ from policy and HS LD. With a 6 minute 1ar, that allows the affirmative more time to answer NC arguments. Therefore, unlike in HS LD, 2 CPs are probably my max. However, if the 2 CPs are polar opposite worlds (ex - US should engage in bilat relations with China vs US should first strike China) I would be willing to err affirmative. Kicking planks is probably bad. Judge kick is probably bad. Basically, make sure your CPs aren't abusive, and I'm good.

Other Thoughts

Stop being scared to put offense across the pages in the 1ar.

Bad DAs can be beat with analytics and impact D.

Update your ptx UQ cards.

Call out people's crappy case cards.

Cut better case cards.

I hate underviews.

HS LD

I prefer 1/2 off in depth debates to shallow 3/4 off debates in LD - I find that by the end of the round if there is more than 2 off I am left doing a lot of work for teams simply because there was not enough time to cover every necessary component in an argument.

T

RVIs aren’t real and I will never vote on them unless there is literally 0 (and I mean 0, not a single word said) arguments on it. even then, I will be extremely sad. please don't go for it.

CP

1 CP is fine - 2 is too many (hint hint: i am very aff leaning on condo)

Theory

Theory in LD is wild to me. I am not the best judge for silly theory tricks. The theory I am most willing to vote on is condo and perf con. Second most willing is any other policy theory arg. If you're wondering about a specific theory arg feel free to ask me pre round.

yes email chain:armaanyarlagadda@gmail.com

Experience:

Pembroke Hill School '23 (TOC '23)

University of Pennsylvania '27 (NDT '24)

TLDR:

1. Tech > Truth
2. Slow down 15%, not a great flow and won't follow along in speech docs
3. Over-explain even if obvious to you
4. Best for policy arguments, significantly worse for K's
5. Fairness is an impact, and T is often the most strategic choice against K Aff's
6. Not good at evaluating competition debates; believe that CP's must be textually and functionally competitive
7. Great for impact turns, politics DAs, topic-specific DAs
8. Competing Interps > Reasonability

General Info:

Decorum: Be rude and lose speaks. Be racist/homophobic/ableist/etc. and lose the round.

People who have influenced the way I evaluate debates: Parker Hopkins, Ethan Harris, Justin Smith, Truman Connor, Bobby Phillips.

When I debated, the 2NR was usually the impact turn, the DA, or the DA + CP. Because of this, these are the debates I feel most comfortable judging. Don't assume I know what is going on. Please over-explain. I'm not someone who understands things on the fly.

Policy:

I used to care a lot about whether you read a plan or not, but I have since deviated from truth and justice and defended a couple K AFFs, so I'll say this, I am less likely to understand the K and more likely to understand calls for procedural fairness and clash. I am still policy leaning, albeit less than I used to be.

Case: Case debates are the most "real world" part of debate rounds. I feel like negative strategies that do not engage parts of the case miss out. A 2NR just about case seems to be something of the past, but it is definitely still an awesome way to win. The AFF must-win solvency, not a 100% but just some. Otherwise, it is a presumption ballot. Also, framing. I could make framing its own section, but it is the best way for teams to start on a winning foot in impact comparison. Please give me reasons to prefer framing.

DA's: Generic DA's are fine. But, DA's that have impact scenarios that are very specific to the AFF are the best. Please give me reasons why the DA outweighs and turns the AFF. Impact Calculus is necessary.

CP: If it is a one-off CP, you have to win the Net Benefit of solving for more than the AFF and win that the AFF does not get access to a perm or that perm links into negative impacts. In my opinion, perm debates are where negative teams get lost because they cannot explain why it does not solve. Solvency Deficits, Offense, and Theory are also fine against a CP.

T-USFG: Great for T against K AFFs. Fairness is an impact and what I went for when I debated this argument, but I'm fine with clash/skills.

Topicality: Ok for T against Policy AFFs. Impacting out standards and voters is cool to listen to. Your interpretation is a measure of good debate. Remember and defend that. Negative teams that don't run T and try to go for DA's and random solvency deficits against blatantly non-topical AFFs are missing out. The T-Substantial interpretation being a number makes me a little hesitant from the beginning.

Theory: Conditionality is good in most instances, Process CP's are stale and can be beat with theory in most instances, everything else is a debate to be had.

PFD/LD:

I really do not know anything about these events. I know that plans are outlawed in PFD and also that LD is a value/value criterion debate. Besides that, please try to be persuasive. I'll flow it like I do policy, do with that what you will.