I have a PuFo background, but I have spent the year judging policy rounds so I’m familiar with the topic and many of the arguments. A few things to know about me:

1. Critiques are fine with me.

2. Spreading is fine, but slow down on your tags. If your are going too fast I will raise my hand to let you know to slow down.

3. I like clash during CX, but don’t be rude. If you are rude, it will count against you.

Thats it!

Cheers!

Todd

Updated 1/12/23 for Mt. Vernon

Background

I am a sophomore at Columbia University. I did policy debate at Interlake HS for 4 years as a 2A and went to the TOC. My argumentative style was heavily policy leaning until my senior year, which was much more “flex”.

Top Level

I have zero predispositions towards the vast majority of arguments in debate. Technical skill matters far more to me than the type of argument you are going for; all I ask is that you attempt to have good faith engagement with your opponents’ arguments and to stick to the flow as much as possible.

Otherwise, here are a few thoughts that frame how I view debate:

-- 2ARs/2NRs would benefit greatly from 15 second overviews explaining why you won. I think 2As/2Ns worry too much about answering every single argument on the line by line at the cost of not having a coherent explanation of what the ballot should look like. Having that kind of global strategic vision is much more important than answering the fifth subpoint on the perm debate!!

-- Clash please!! Explain how arguments interact, not just why your arguments are correct. Cross-apply and concede arguments with intent. Be willing to admit when you are wrong just as much as when you are right.

-- K teams should focus more on explanations of theories of power and link specificity. Hiding behind buzzwords does not make your argument more persuasive :’)

-- Policy teams should aim for quality over quantity. Rebuttals should isolate fewer pieces of main offense/defense on each page.

Pre-Round

Put both emails on the chain:

brianchen49@gmail.com

interlakescouting@googlegroups.com

Make the email subject something that makes sense (tournament, round, teams, etc).

PLEASE be aware of power dynamics within debate - this can take many forms:

-- White cishet men domineering over minority debaters

-- Being rude to each other and/or your partner

-- Being unnecessarily aggressive/overdoing it against debaters that you are substantially better than

I'll react negatively if any of these happen - please don't!

Misc.

Email me directly if you have questions about this paradigm, my RFDs, Columbia, my experience with debate, or anything else.

I care a lot about the debate community and want to see all of you succeed. Please do not hesitate to reach out!

Hey! I'm Kristen East, I debated Policy in high school, judged on-and-off while in college, and have been working as an assistant coach for Gig Harbor High School for the past 5 years. My email is eastkristen@gmail.com

I often use quiet fidgets during speeches and may color during crossfire; these are strategies that I've found help me to pay attention and keep my mind from wandering during rounds. If I'm distracting you at any point, then please politely ask and I'll switch to a different strategy.

Public Forum: I technically did public forum in middle school, so I guess that's relevant? I've also watched a lot of public forum rounds and judged it on and off over the years. I tend to be less formal than some public forum judges. I care more about competitors being considerate of others and having fun than I do about pleasantries and formalities. Please don't be "fake nice" to each other. That being said, I mean don't be offensive (i.e. making arguments based on racial or cultural stereotypes, or making personal ad hominem attacks).

-The biggest thing to know is that I am a "flow judge." I will be flowing/taking notes for each speech, will be writing down rebuttals next to the argument they are addressing, and will draw arrows for argument extensions. What this means for you is that you should be clear about which contention you are talking about, and also that I will be looking for consistency between partners' speeches. There should be continuity of arguments throughout the round. That does NOT mean your last speech needs to have the same arguments as your first speech, but all arguments in your last speech should have been introduced in one of your team's 4-minute speeches. I also will not consider brand-new arguments in any of the 2-minute speeches.

-I like rounds with clash, where each team explains how their arguments interact with the other team's arguments. If you're citing evidence, make sure to mention the warrant (the author's reasoning or statistics that support your claim). Please make it clear during your speeches when you are about to directly quote a source (i.e. saying "in 2019 Santa Claus wrote for the North Pole Times that...") and when you stop quoting them. You don't need evidence to make an argument, and well-reasoned analytics (arguments without an external source) can be just as powerful.

- I will decide the round based on impacts. Please compare your impacts to your opponent's (timeframe, probability, magnitude, etc.). If no one tells me otherwise, I'll probably default util when evaluating impacts. Be specific about how your impact is connected to the resolution, and who/what the impact will affect. Tell me the story of the impact (i.e. If we stop sanctions on Venezuela, then their economy will recover and then xyz people's lives will be saved because they won't die of starvation).

Parli: I've never judged or watched a parli round before. I've heard it has some similarities to policy, which I do have a background in, so feel free to read my policy paradigm to see if that's relevant. I'm excited to judge parli! From what I've heard, it should be fun!

Policy and LD paradigms are below.

Debate Style: I'm good with speed, just start out slow so I can get used to your voice. If you aren't clear, I'll yell at you to be clear. Start out a little slower on tags, especially for Ks and theory. Please don't mumble the text. If the text is completely unintelligible, I'll yell clear, and if you don't clear it up, then I'll count it as an analytic rather than a card. It's a pet peeve of mine when people cut cards repeatedly (i.e. cut the card here, cut the card here). PLEASE, please put theory arguments as a new off (i.e. Framework on a K, Condo bad, etc.). A tag should be a complete idea with a warrant. One word ("extinction" "Solves") does not count as a tag or an argument. I don't care about tag-teaming in CX, but it might influence speaker points (i.e. if one partner is being rude, or one never answers a question). Be nice to each other. I will vote you down if you're a complete jerk (threaten physical violence, harass someone, etc.). I am somewhat sensitive to how mental health, suicide, rape and disabilities are discussed and expect such sensitive topics to be approached with appropriate respect and care to wording and research.

Arguments: There are a few arguments I just dislike (for rational and irrational reasons) so just don't run them in front of me. If you don't know what these args are, you're probably fine. Basically, don't run anything offensive. No racism good, no death good (including Spark DA or Malthus/overpopulation arguments). I also hate Nietzsche, or nihilism in general. Also, arguments that seem stupid like time cube, or the gregorian time K, or reptiles are running the earth or some crap like that is prolly not gonna fly. I'm not gonna take nitpicky plan flaw arguments like "USfg not USFG" seriously. I will not vote for disclosure theory unless someone flat out lies about disclosure. Like they tell you they will run a case and then don't run it. Arguments I'll evaluate but don't love/am probably biased against but will evaluate include: PICs, Delay CPs, ASPEC Topicality, kritical-based RVIs on T, Performance Affs.

Defaults: I'm a default policymaker but am open to other frameworks. I do consider Framework to be theory, which means 1) put it on it's own flow and 2) arguments about like, fairness and ground and other standards are legit responses. I have a strong preference for frameworks that have a clear weighing mechanism for both sides. I default competing interpretations on T. I was a little bit of a T/theory hack as a debater, so I have a lower threshold on theory than a lot of judges. What that means is that I'll vote on potential abuse, or small/wanky theory (like severance perm theory) IF it's argued well. Theory needs real voters, standards and analysis and warrants just like any other argument. If you're going for theory, go all out in your last speech. It should be 4 minutes of your 2NR, or all of your 2AR.

Note on Performance Ks: I have a high threshold on performance arguments. If you're doing a performance, you have to actually be good at performing, keep up the performance throughout the round, and have a way for the other team to compete/participate in the performance. I prefer for performance Ks to be specific to the current resolution, or in some cases, based on language or something that happened in this round.

Constructive speeches: Clash is awesome. Signposting will help me flow better. Label args by topic not by author because I'm prolly not gonna catch every author.

Rebuttals: In my opinion, the point of rebuttals is to narrow the debate down to fewer arguments and add analysis to those arguments. This applies to aff and neg. Both sides should be choosing strategic arguments and focusing on "live" arguments (Don't waste your time on args the other team dropped in their last speech, unless it's like an RVI or something). Both sides should watch being "spread out" in the 2nr and 2ar.

Note about LD: Being a policy judge doesn’t mean I love policy arguments in debate. In LD, you don’t really have the time to develop a “plan” properly and I probably lean towards the “no plans” mindset. I expect a DA to have all the requisite parts (uniqueness, link, impact). I’m okay with Ks, and theory. To help me flow, please number and/or label arguments and contentions, and signal when you are done reading a piece of evidence (either with a change of voice tone or by saying “next” or a brief pause. That being said, speed is not a problem for me. If you follow the above suggestions, and maybe slow a little on theory and framework, you can go as fast as you’re comfortable with. If I’m having trouble flowing you I’ll say “clear.” No flex prep. Sitting during CX is fine. I love a good framework debate, but make sure you explain why framework wins you the round, or else, what's the point? If framework isn't going to win you the round or change how I evaluate impacts in the round, then don't put it in rebuttals.

I like judging. This is what I do for fun. You know, do a good job. Learn, live, laugh, love.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

     I start out as a Stock Issue Judge.  The Affirmative must maintain all of the stock issues to win the debate---Topicality , Significance Harms, Inherency Solvency.  If the Affirmative maintains  all of the Stock Issues I then become a comparative advantage judge.  I weigh the advantages of the Affirmative versus the disadvantages, kritiks and counterplans of the negative.   I won't intervene in a debate but I would be receptive of arguments  that 1.  the negative can only have one position in a debate and 2.   that the negative cannot kritik the status quo without offering a counterplan.

Kamiak 22'

---------UPDATE 2021--------------------------------------------------

My knowledge about this topic is not as deep as the past years so please unpack your arguments :)

----------INFO------------------------------------------------------------

Add me on the email chain :) ---> elina1025.ec@gmail.com

Pronouns: she/her or they/them

Currently a 2N but was a 2A freshman year.

tldr; whatever arg you like I'm prob fine with it.

Write the ballot for me in the 2ar/nr -->super important and will increase your speaks a lot. It is also because I feel bad to intervene and make my decision that way :(

-------------below are some of my general thoughts-----------------

Tech over truth 99.9999 percent

Drop args count and I will vote on the stupidest arg but you need to tell me why it matters. I would say I have a lower threshold on buying dropped theory arg. you really just have to make it a voter.

Tag team cx ok, cx is binding, flashing/sending doesn't count as prep

Mostly do what you want, I will try to adapt.

Fairness is a internal link to education unless you tell me otherwise.

policy-

cp, da, t-- no one will not be fine with it so... idk what to say. offense is important.

case debates are sooo important! recuttings and indicts makes me happy

kritiks-

k- Most familiar with security, imperialism, gender, abolition etc. Bad k debates are the worst debate. If you don't know the lit then prob don't run it, it will probably tank ur speaks. Contextualize links plzz--> super important. I am not voting for you unless you can explain to me why the aff SPECIFICALLY links to the k. Saying "because they reform they link" is not a link for me. FW+link -->ok , I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac.

k aff- unless you can run it well or else bad k aff debates makes me sad. I don't think I am qual to judge a k v k round so plss don't.

Public Forum / LD

I guess if for some reason I am forced to judge one of these rounds I will view the round solely on my flow and mostly on impact calc made in the last speeches

Speaks

I know speaks inflation gets kind of annoying sometimes but I still give relatively high speaks

cheating means auto loss and lowest speaks possible :(

-1 pt when you say "can I start prep?" or "Can I take a minute of prep" or "I'm speaking in 3, 2, 1.." or any variations. You are the one debating and you should be in charge of your own time and I don't need to know that.

Things that will increase your speaks:

1. look at me during cx

2. good case line by line/ good analysis

3. good impact calc in your last speeches

4. actively engage in the debate!

I usually give 28 or higher speaks

Hello my name is Hallie Jones, pronouns are she/her/hers. I did 1 year of high school LD and then 3 years of high school policy for Gig Harbor. Currently a freshman at the University of Washington.

Put me on the email chain pls: halliejj101@gmail.com

-I really am okay with anything you want to read, I am well read on a lot of feminist and settler colonialist literature so if you read that in front of me, go you, but don't read it if you don't really know what it's about. I also went for DA, CP and T for most of my high school debate times so whatever feels good to you is good with me. Just be smart.

-You can be sassy, witty, and petty all you want but I DO NOT tolerate laughing at or mocking other opponents/ any discriminatory behavior. Other than that, be as passionate as you want, I have no problem with it.

- speed is fine but keep in mind that I need to get used to your voice first so don't go 100% right away

- I literally have no knowledge of the topic so don't assume I know what you mean when you say topic-esc words

K Affs- I love a unique K aff because I don't think that the aff has to affirm the topic.

aff- for me you need to have some sort of way to interact with the debate or else the neg can easily win on clash. If that means some sort of advocacy statement or performance then go for it. The aff also probably has to do a lot more work on the impact calc against the neg FW as that's where I find I lean neg against a K aff most often. DO NOT LOSE YOUR AFF IN FW!!! Yes the framework matters but don't forget what you are really trying to say, use your aff to outweigh certain parts of fw, I buy that.

neg- you can run whatever you would like, fw is pretty important and as I tend to think that K affs circumvent a lot of the neg burden you can make the game just as hard for them. 4 topicality shells, 3 cps, all fine with me. I will also gladly vote for a well ran theory argument.

Topicality- I am a huge fan of T. If there is a good T debate I am all about judging it. That being said, T can get really annoying if it's a 10 second blipy argument only talked about for a few minutes in the round. I have a high threshold for T because I really want to see it done right, but I will vote on it. I think reasonability is a convincing argument, but it has to be extensively explained.

Kritiks- this is the fun part of debate

neg- pls have a very specific link to the aff, the only thing I hate more than a really bad alt is a really general link chain, go cut a card. If you can't explain your alt, you really shouldn't run it. Especially if you're going 1 off K, I need some overviews because the K can get really confusing throughout the long round if you don't, I also think it makes you prove to me you know the story of your K.

aff- I buy a well established perm argument, I think that in the case of a really bad link, the perm really solves. That being said you should be using theory against the alt along with other good arguments. Make the K team do more work than they want to.

Disads- I kind of hate generic disads, I think a lot of people do. Whatever, I will vote on them, if you are really good at telling the story and good on impact calc, go for it. That being said, I LOVE a super well researched ptx disads, if you do the work it will be worth it.

CP- honestly cps have become really abusive in debate, if the neg steals your aff, pls run theory, I will buy it. Regardless, if the neg proves to be any better than the aff, you have my ballot.

Theory- Debate is a game, so you can argue about the rules. Condo is legit for me, just have good in round abuse to point to. Most other theory is arguable, but do not use this as a last ditch effort to win, it should be established.

Case- I really don't like that the case debate has seemed to go away in favor of another off case position. The neg should really have on case arguments and the aff should be using their 8 minutes of 1AC offense to respond to off case positions.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

put me on the chain: rhys.debate@gmail.com

please keep your camera on (unless there's a good reason)

the rundown:

k affs are cool

framework vs k affs cool too

spreading is fine

will vote on technicalities or tricky args (theory, weird T shells, obscure framing args)

generally well versed in policy intricacies but less familiar with courts debates

i will reread your advocacy text to figure out what it does

i will take your advocacy text literally absent a consistent and reasonably extrapolated explanation

other stuff:

i debated policy at Garfield 2016-2020

consistently gave 1nr's on T (so run it)

cut and ran hard policy, soft left, and performative k affs

i will like it if you read a cool process cp (even vs k affs) and number arguments/use author names

generally understand common debate k lit but ask me about specific authors/fields

speaks are 25-30 but depend on tourney; 29.5 at washington locals is a 28 at nats

I have experience in debate (policy) in the past. Because I did policy debate, I heavily focus and emphasize impact weighing in deciding my ballot. I will make sure to pay attention to what happens within the round (if you are spreading, I won't be able to understand all arguments). In the occurrence that one of the debaters drops an argument, it will be noted and may impact my decision of the round depending on the importance of the argument. If the round is close between the two debaters (say both debaters didn't drop arguments, and most attacks (that were relevant to their cases) were refuted and/or disproven) then I may come to the conclusion of the round based off of who is a better speaker. While this is not likely to occur, I would just like to let you guys be aware of this.

I want to hear not only why you won the round, but also why your case leads a better world, outcome, or meets a value best (or rather, why the opponent's case does not).

I'm decent at keeping up with taglines for cards, but when referencing a card don't just state the tagline. For example:

If halfway through the round you say "our fox 2014 card trumps their cnn 2013 card" I might be slightly confused unless you say specifically what those 2 cards refer to.

I'm okay with some speed, just please don't spread too fast for me to understand you.

2024 update: I haven't judged in a while so just keep that in mind, most of the below isn't too relevant to pf but if you have any questions just let me know

Torrey Pines '19

Pronouns: he/him

Email: williamphong10@gmail.com

General

- I’ll vote for almost anything as long as it isn’t morally abhorrent

- go a bit slower bc of online debate, thanks :)

- Read whatever you want as long as you can explain it

- If you have any questions just ask before round or you can msg me on fb/email me

Defaults (can be changed if you make the args)

- Neg on presumption

- Drop the debater, competing interps, no rvi

CP - Should solve the case or part of it, have a solvency advocate, and be competitive with the aff. PIC’s are fine, 1-2 condo is fine, also open to aff theory against them.

DA – Disads are great, higher quality disads > higher quantity of disads.

Kritiks – My knowledge is mostly towards more basic k’s like cap, security, setcol, etc. It’s your job to articulate the k to make sure I understand - I'm not well read on a lot of lit bases and I might not know the jargon you use. Contextualize the k/links to the aff. High theory – really interesting but the extent of my knowledge is a 30 min lecture from Ronak and a bit of source reading so probably not a good idea.

K Affs – I like them and read them, but I don’t favor either side of the debate more than the other. Make sure you explain what the aff actually does.

Topicality – Convince me that your model/interp of debate is better than theirs.

T/FW - TVA arguments and case lists help me visualize the interpretation.

Theory – Good theory for me includes things like 50 state fiat bad, floating piks bad, disclosure, etc. Friv theory - I’ll still vote on it but the threshold for responding lowers the more friv it is.

Phil – I find philosophy interesting but I only have base level understanding of anything not util.

Tricks – 0 experience

I was a policy debateron the national circuit in the 1980's, before the internet and before Public Forum Debate. Four years of competitive policy debate has shaped my approach to the ballot, however I like the changes and variety that come with public forum. Evidence is like ammunition in a battle. You have to undertsand it and know how to use it, else it could backfire and create unintednded injury to yourself instead of your opponent. In the end, rhetorical flourish is not important as a demonstrated understanding of the topic, a solid ability to listen to your opponenet, undertand the premise of your case, and explain why your case and the supporting evidence justify a decsision in your favor.

Hey ✌????

My name is Justin Shaw (he/him/his). I did 4 years of high school policy at Gig Harbor. I am currently a student at the University of Washington (class of 2023). I also wrote the mobile debate app 'PrepTimer'. Thanks for reading my paradigm!

Ideally, I would enter each round tabula rasa (a 'blank slate') without bias or predispositions to certain things. But, alas, I am human and I do have biases and predispositions to certain things. I really don't like having to base my decision on things that were not said explicitly in the round but sometimes I have to. Therefore, I think it is only fair that I disclose what my personal 'defaults' are with respect to debate meta-theory. Everything you are about to read is up for debate.

Feel free to add me to the email chain: realjustinshaw@gmail.com

The Burden of Proof is on the affirmative to show why the plan should be adopted. To do that, they must prove (only if brought up by the negative) that their plan resolves all of the "Stock Issues":

1. Significance (Prove why the plan is important)

2. Harms (Prove there is a problem with the status quo)

3. Inherency (Prove that the plan is not happening now)

4. Topicality (Prove the plan is an example of the resolution)

5. Solvency (Prove that doing the plan will resolve at least some of the harms)

I think including all the stock issues in every 1AC is an antiquated way of structuring your first speech, especially when word counts and speech time is such a premium. But, if the negative contests these issues, I think the affirmative should be able to defend their S.H.I.T.S. If any of the above are proved false, and the neg does the necessary work in the rebuttals to turn this into a voter, that will almost always be sufficient reason for me to vote neg.

The Burden of Proof is still on the affirmative, but the standards have to change slightly. I think there are/will be times when defending the resolution may not be moral or provide tangible benefit to debaters. In these cases, I will borrow the rules of College Parliamentary Debate (where the praxis of debate changes from round to round). In this case, I believe that Kritical affirmatives still must prove (if brought up by the negative) that the affirmative is/has:

1. Significance (Prove why the plan is important)

2. Harms (Prove there is a problem with the status quo)

3. Kritical Inherency (Prove there is some societal barrier that prevents the harms from being solved)

4. Solvency (Prove that the aff will resolve at least some of the harms)

5. Not Tautological (Prove that the aff is NOT immediately and logically true by construction)

6. Not a Truism (Prove that the aff is not something that no moral person could possibly disagree with)

7. Not a Specific-Knowledge Case (Prove the aff is not something that would require the neg to know more about a topic than could reasonably be expected of them to know)

Negative teams may still argue topicality. If the negative proves that the world justified by the affirmative is net-worse than the world justified by the negative, then the negative will win. As before, if any of the above are proved true, that will always be sufficient reason for me to vote neg.

???? INTERPRETATION - I default to competing interpretations over reasonability but you can convince me otherwise (as always; it's debatable). Most teams who run reasonability as a standard never give substantive warrants as to what that amounts to. I find that really frustrating. So, to win reasonability in front of me you have to prove why competing interpretations is unreasonable AND why "good is good enough" is a better standard for debate.

VIOLATION - I value case-specific, carded evidence very highly here. I think of the violation a lot like the link of a disad/kritik, so those rules probably apply. Does this mean you can perm a violation? Yeah probably, but I don't know how that would work. Here are my thoughts on a few specific topicality arguments:

> I think 90% of SCOTUS affs are probably cheating, but I think there is a really interesting debate to be had about the educational benefits of fiat through different actors (ie. Is it better to analyze the outcomes of potential bills that pass through congress, or the outcomes of supreme court decisions in a world of increasing political gridlock? I would really enjoy that standards debate. )

> T-Substantial is probably the most interesting topicality debate when done right. The phrase "substantially reduce" is an adverb-verb collocation where the adverb 'substantially' modifies the verb 'reduce'. This is the same as the phrase "to reduce by a substantial amount" (ie. the amount by which you reduce (as a percent) has to be substantial - rather than the pre-fiat amount). But if you include just one more word, the tone of the phrase changes dramatically. In any case, you are reading a "must be X%" interpretation, I really think it should be from an author writing about policy related to the topic. But this is, as always, up for debate.

> I love topicality double binds. If you can structure a link to a disad or kritik such that the affirmative is either not-topical or they link to the other argument, that is almost always a silver bullet if prepared for well and articulated correctly.

> There is a distinct difference between topicality, framing and framework. Don't call them the same thing. They are all theory arguments about meta-debate, but that's like saying condo and T are the same thing. I think it can be very strategic for the negative team to run topicality arguments in addition to- or in the place of framework. This is especially true if you run it with standards that are not fairness and education (eg. participation, accessibility, etc.).

STANDARDS - If you can run a topicality shell that doesn't utilize fairness or education as standards, then I think that really gives you a leg up in the topicality debate because the vast majority of 2AC blocks are written to answer those two standards. Nobody really thinks about topicality as much as they should, and many of the larger programs just copy and paste their blocks from last year.

VOTERS - If you win that the model of debate your interpretation justifies is better than what your opponent justifies, then you will win topicality. I don't think you have to explicitly say the words "and thats a voter for x and y" unless your the opponent is making claims about why being un-topical is good or shouldn't be a reason to vote them down. So for me, topicality is a voter unless somebody tells me otherwise, at which point I will evaluate the voter debate before I evaluate topicality proper.

NEG - I really love topicality arguments. I think the warrants for the standards debate need to be fleshed out in the neg block. Theoretically, the structure of the block means that negative teams should always win on T. I think one of the main reasons they don't is because of inefficient extensions (repeating what you have already said, not grouping arguments, etc.). If you're going for T, the 2NR should be just T.

AFF - I think the key to beating topicality on the aff is having a good 2AC block and efficient 1AR extension. I find in-round examples (eg. "reading 8-off proves they have ground", "multiple topicality shells A and B are mutually exclusive" , etc.) to be very compelling. If you are a kritical team you should be weighing the educational benefits of the affirmative against their topicality violation arguments. If the 2NR is just T, I will allow the 2AR to drop case and just answer T.

COUNTERPLANS:

PERM - A permutation is a test of competition, if the affirmative wins the perm that is terminal defense to the counter-advocacy. It proves that the net-benefit is not an opportunity cost to doing the plan. It is not a way for the affirmative to claim to solve for the net-benefit as well.

COMPETITION - Severance is probably bad. Intrinsic is probably good.

NEG - The counter-plan has to be mutually exclusive with the affirmative such that the net benefit of the counter-plan is an opportunity cost of the plan. In many cases, this alone does not outweigh the 1AC. A good negative counter-plan strategy will make use of one or more "turns solvency" arguments to the affirmative which prevent me from weighing the affirmative against the counter-plan.

Kritiks- this is the fun part of debate

neg- pls have a very specific link to the aff, the only thing I hate more than a really bad alt is a really general link chain, go cut a card. If you can't explain your alt, you really shouldn't run it. Especially if you're going 1 off K, I need some overviews because the K can get really confusing throughout the long round if you don't, I also think it makes you prove to me you know the story of your K.

aff- I buy a well established perm argument, I think that in the case of a really bad link, the perm really solves. That being said you should be using theory against the alt along with other good arguments. Make the K team do more work than they want to.

Disads- I kind of hate generic disads, I think a lot of people do. Whatever, I will vote on them, if you are really good at telling the story and good on impact calc, go for it. That being said, I LOVE a super well researched ptx disads, if you do the work it will be worth it.

Theory- Debate is a game, so you can argue about the rules. Condo is legit for me, just have good in round abuse to point to. Most other theory is arguable, but do not use this as a last ditch effort to win, it should be established.

Case- I really don't like that the case debate has seemed to go away in favor of another off case position. The neg should really have on case arguments and the aff should be using their 8 minutes of 1AC offense to respond to off case positions.

I have coached policy at Garfield High School since 2014. I have yet to encounter an argument I'm not OK with in a round; it's really about you and how well you explain your arguments and why they should win you the round. I think it's important to be responsive to the specific arguments in the round - don't just read your prewritten overview and assume it works for every debate. I enjoy both policy and critical arguments and have some background knowledge in theory, but don't assume I know your literature. In my opinion, it's your job to tell me how to vote in the round and why. If you leave it up to me, I tend to buy the argument that moral thinking is a prereq to policy making (but I can be convinced otherwise).

I am generally ok with most speed, but make sure I'm flowing if you're blazing through a bunch of analytics you don't want me to miss.

I don't know what "judge kicking" means - are you asking me to decide your strategy for you? I won't do that. Either go for the argument, or don't.

Bottom line: I'm a tabula rasa judge. Run whatever you would like to run, and tell me how you would like me to evaluate the round.

Email: jasoncxdebate@gmail.com

Experience:

I debated CX on the national circuit for 4 years in high school, did not debate in college. I've been coaching CX at Garfield HS since 2014. I judge ~50 rounds a year, split between the local and national circuit. We took a team to the TOC in 2021. My day job is as a social science researcher who does a lot of applied research with Indigenous, Black, and BIPOC communities. This keeps me pretty engaged with philosophical and critical theoretical literature, and very attendant to questions of power and equity. I am a white, cis-gendered, heterosexual male who was educated and socialized within a Western context, which undoubtedly shapes my epistemic view of the world.

Feelings about specific things:

T/FW: Excellent. Specific and creative violations are more fun to judge than generic ones
DA: Great.
CP: Awesome. Highly specific CP strategies (such as PICs) tend to produce more interesting debates than generic CPs, but they certainly both have their place.
Ks: Excellent. Especially if you can articulate specific links to the aff

Policy affs: Great
K affs: Awesome. I find that K vs K debates are often more interesting than K vs FW debates, but that isn't always the case

Theory: Good. If you want to win on theory, make it more substantive than a few warrantless blips
Disclosure Theory: Not very convincing for me. I think that the open source/disclosure movement within debate has been somewhat uncritically embraced in a way that doesn't fully consider how the open sourcing of knowledge reproduces new forms of inequity (often along neoliberal/service economy lines, wherein better resourced teams are better able to take advantage of the open knowledge economy).
New arguments in the rebuttals: Generally not a good idea. Completely new arguments should not be made in the rebuttals. I will strongly protect the negative team from new arguments in the 2AR.
Judge Kicking: Nope. Don't expect me to judge kick things for you. Make a strategic choice for yourself.
Overviews and impact calculus: Yes, please. Clearly frame my choice for me at the end of the round, and you are much more likely to get my ballot. Also, 'even if' statements can be super persuasive in the final rebuttals.
Backing up Claims with Warrants: Super important.
Impact Calculus and Overviews: Also super important - I like being told how I should vote, and why you think I should vote that way.
Clipping: Don't do it, I will vote you down for cheating.
Speaking: Please be clear! If you're clear, then I am fine with speed. Clarity is especially important in the online debate format.
Dropped arguments: These flow through as 'true' for the team making them.
Voting: I will vote for one team over the other. Don't ask for a double win (or loss).

At the end of the day, I believe that debate should be about the debaters and not about me. My job is to create a safe and educational space, and to do my best to decide the round based on the arguments rather than on my own beliefs. If you clearly tell me how you think I should be judging, then there shouldn't be any big surprises.