General Stuff:

Experience: I debated for three years in Policy Debate for Neenah High School (WI) and I have been judging LD, PF, and Policy since I graduated.

Paradigm: Tabs, unless there's no F/W in which case I default to Util. I will vote for anything well run in a debate round. Tech/Truth.

Timing: I will be timing prep, cross and rounds, but I expect you to time yourself. I will let you know when you are going over.

Pacing: I am very comfortable with speed but speaking fast should not make you incomprehensible. Both myself and your opponent should be able to hear tags, warrants, and analytical arguments.

General:

- Make sure to stay organized — clear roadmaps and signposting is really helpful with making a clear and concise argument.

PF

Extensions: Please extend arguments, not just authors. Anything not extended in summary won't factor into my decision at end of round except defense extended from first rebuttal to first final focus

Rebuttal: Turns that aren't answered in second rebuttal are de facto dropped. Second rebuttal doesn't need to answer weighting that's in the first rebuttal, it can wait until second summary.

Weighing: Weighing is good, it is the first thing I will vote on. Scope means nothing without magnitude.

Cross: Statements made in cross are not inherently binding.

Policy/LD:

Non-Traditional Affirmatives: I will vote for anything well-run. You need a clear ROB so I know what I’m voting for at the end of the round. Come into the round prepared for T and arguments that the K is not compelling within the debate framework.

CPs: I have no problem with a CP, but they require a clear net benefit over the affirmative plan and there should be a good defense on a permutation if one is argued by the affirmative.

T: Topicality can be a voter, but it requires standards and voters as well as a clear violation of in round abuse.

Ks: Kritiks are good when they have a proper link chain, impact and alt. Make sure that if you choose to run a Kritik, you understand what the alt is and can explain how the alt solves.

Theory: I am comfortable with high level theory debates. If you choose to make theory arguments, make sure you focus on arguing how your interpretation is better than your opponent and argue comparative offense calculus.

If you have any questions about my paradigm, my ballot, or want to include me in email chains (please do), my email is willclark813@outlook.com

she/her

eyliterski22@gmail.com

i did policy debate for 4 years in high school; wisconsin and some nat circuit

1. i will not vote for any ontologically violent args (racism good, sexism good, homophobia good, ableism good, etc.); make these args or be any ist/phobic and you get an L and 0 speaks

2. tech>truth (but u still need to explain why what they dropped matters)

3. spreading is fine (slow down on tags, analytics, theory) being unclear is not - i will say clear x2, after that i’ll attempt to keep flowing but it will prob be bad

4. i’m a tabs judge so run what you want - don’t try to judge adapt too much

5. feel free to ask questions

6. have fun and be nice ! debate is cool so enjoy it

**i have not judged this year's topic

READ IF U WANT:

the following are thoughts i have ab dif args and background info; could help u to understand how i evaluate rounds or improve ur chances of getting my ballot. *good debating can change any of these thoughts

case:

-ran mostly soft left affs in high school but idc what aff you read

-no, teams don't need to defend the hypothetical implementation of a topical plan but u should have a reason why you aren't

-tell me how to frame the impacts of the 1ac otherwise i default to magnitude x probability

-your impact scenarios should probably be more than two, 5-sentence cards

-for neg - case turns r super cool and good

-plz don’t drop ur case :(

T:

-competing interps > reasonability

-definition quality matters !!

-potential abuse can be a voter but in-round abuse is more persuasive

-if u go for T it should be all 5 min of the 2NR

-T is not a reverse voter

theory:

-theory is cool; neutral on all theories except disclosure (DISCLOSE TO UR OPPONENT)

-generally think condo is fine *if your strat is to bombard the aff with 9 off and hope they drop something, pref me low

-almost all theory is a reason to reject the arg not the team

-i dislike when teams try to trick their opponents into dropping their 3 sentence theory that was shoved into a T shell - if u do this i’ll be very open to the other team getting new answers

-some theories are not cool, pls don’t read them or i will tank ur speaks (eg. formal clothes theory or shoes theory)

disads:

-DAs that turn case make me happy

-for aff - link turns to DAs make me happy

-plz have a coherent link chain

-good ptx DAs are rare but awesome

-yes, do impact calc

cps:

-should prob be functionally and textually competitive

-this should go without saying but i’ll say it anyways: u need to prove why the cp is better than the plan to win it

-i won’t judge kick unless u tell me to

-for aff - perms are good

ks:

-default to weighing the aff against the alt

-good for ks of reps/rhetoric, cap, set col, anthro, statism, security, etc.; anything beyond that you’ll need to explain a bit more

-no matter what k ur reading u need to clearly articulate the links, impacts, and alt (put the work in even if ur reading a generic k)

-for aff - just saying ‘extinction outweighs’ is less persuasive than actually engaging with the k

k affs v. FW:

for aff:

-i don’t think that FW is inherently violent

-turning their impacts is good, prob better than counter interps of their definitions

-prove to me why your model of debate is better

-i think the 1ac should defend something and a shift from the squo, what that something happens to be is up to you

for neg:

-if your model of debate completely prevents kritikal args from being ran i will have a hard time voting for it

-having a TVA is prob good but not necessary

-i’m pretty neutral between education/skills impacts and clash/fairness - both can be persuasive

SPEAKS (nat circuit only):

• a 28.5 = average, above that means good job and below that means practice more or be nicer

• anything below a 27 means you did something wrong (were super rude or left like 3 minutes left in a speech)

Email: Charles.p.russell@outlook.com

PF Paradigm – I come from a policy debate background and until recently have been almost exclusively a policy judge. Due to this, I know that I tend to view rounds under a somewhat policy framework. What is the plan, what are the problems, and how does the plan solve these problems? I also understand that not every PF topic is going to fit nicely into this mold. To help mitigate this tendency I am looking primarily to the quality of argumentation in the round.

What does this mean for you?

· I am looking for a round where the debaters are clear and understandable, willing and able to give good arguments.

· I much prefer a single quality argument over 5-10 short arguments with no substance and I ultimately want the debaters to tell me why the world is better under their plan or side of the topic than the opposing team.

· When presenting impacts please make sure that they are realistic. I don’t want Bob yelling at his dog to cause a nuclear war, but I am willing to listen to geopolitical tension leading to war.

· Give me a reason to vote for you. Tell me what is important in the round and why it is important. If you don’t, I default to a utilitarian evaluation of the round.

· I am perfectly willing to listen if you have evidence that says a source is bad, but you need to have evidence. I’m not going to drop a card just because you don’t personally like an author. In addition, saying that a source is biased can be a decent attack, but you need to give me evidence that disproves the source in addition to this.

Ultimately, if you focus on good argumentation, you should do just fine in front of me.

Policy - I, like my coach before me, have an old-school policy paradigm. What this means is that I look at the round and evaluate it based on what I feel is the best policy for the United States under the given resolution. In the round, you should argue everything under the assumption of that framework.

Speed – I am not a fan of speed. I understand that you are going to need to speak faster than a normal talking speed and that is fine given the time constraints in the round but there is no need to speak at the extreme speeds that are becoming more and more common. I am a great proponent of depth over breadth in debate. The more reasonable your speed the better you will likely find yourself doing in front of me.

Topicality – This is something that I feel can be put to great use and I have no problem seeing it in the round. That said, there are a couple of conditions. First, the voter in front of me is always jurisdiction, if you can reasonably prove that the Aff being presented is outside of the topic area I am likely to vote for T. Second, I am not a huge technical T judge. I much prefer that in round abuse or potential abuse is spelled out for me rather than someone trying to tell me that we should win T because the other team didn’t answer every small technical detail of a T argument.

Advantages and Disadvantages – This is the bread and butter of my judging paradigm. This is where I prefer to see most rounds debated and is the place where most rounds are won and lost in front of me. I want to see real-world impacts with realistic link chains. If your opponent is telling me that everything is going to lead to nuclear war or global extinction you just need to prove that this is not a realistic scenario and you will have won the impact for that advantage or DA. Politics is also perfectly allowable. The only politics DAs that I do not like are those saying that you spend political capital therefore these bad things happen. Those DAs tend to run roughshod over affirmative fiat so I don’t like seeing them and I don’t give them much if any in round weight.

CPs – Absolutely love to see a good CP. My only real requirements here are that the CP should be non-topical and competitive. CPs using other actors or consulting other countries are great and I am perfectly willing to entertain them so long as they meet the above requirements.

K – Kritiks are something that you need to be very selective with in front of me. You need to make sure that the alternative is a real-world policy alternative and not something that would never apply in reality. I absolutely agree that there may be questions of morality that are addressed by a kritik but without a policy alternative it isn’t going to go very far in front of me.

Last thoughts – First, be specific when you are telling me where your arguments are going. Don’t just tell me “on the Labor DA flow” and start spewing cards. Give me the specific points you are attacking and don’t expect me to do your work for you. I am more forgiving at the novice level because those debaters are still learning but I still expect you to tell me where you want your arguments to go. Second, if you feel an argument is going to be important in the round I had better hear more than 10 seconds about it in the constructives. Arguments that are presented as blips in the constructives and then expanded upon for 3-5 minutes in the rebuttal come across as something that you didn’t really care about that much until you realized that there may be a viable strategic option. If you want to go for something at the end of the round make sure that you have spent sufficient time on the argument in the constructives.

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

I did 4 years of policy debates in high school, what is now called "traditional debate".

I've judged mostly novice debate for a few years.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Usually I will say slow/slow down or clear

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

1. Debaters should start with a roadmap and include signposts during their speech.

2. Debaters should do a line by line refuting the opponents arguments

3. Debaters should include an impact calc in the final speeches

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

2. I do not like partners to talk to the speaker during their partners speech excessively

Arguments

List types of arguments you prefer to listen to/evaluate.

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. I do not understand kritiks very well, it will probably be hard to get me to vote on this for you. I come from the more traditional debate mindset.

2. I rarely vote neg on topicality, it would need to be the full shell with voters that make sense. And the neg must give this sufficient time in the round but I will be swayed aff by them being reasonably topical.

Other Notes

I love clash, I love line by line. I really want debaters to take apart each other’s arguments. This is best accomplished by listening to each other.

I want the last speeches to include an impact analysis that shows why their position leads to be a better world.