I have been coaching debate since 2008, and debated 4 years in high school. I did not debate in college.

General things that grind my gears:

Don't be a jerk. Assertive is fine, but there is no need to mock or belittle anyone, or make things personal.

I cannot stand any kind of game playing around sharing evidence. I don't care if you disclose or not before the debate, but once you've read it, I can't think of a reason (that is flattering to you) why your opponent should not have access to it for the entire debate round. I will vote a team down for this practice if their opponent makes an argument about why it is a bad with an interp, violation, standards, and voters.

"New in the Two": to my mind, this argument makes the most sense when it is with regards to new OFF CASE. But, in any event, it's not a "rule", so run it as an arg with an interp, violation, standards, and voters, and debate it out, don't just cry foul.

POLICY DEBATE

Framework: I default to policy, but I am happy to adopt a different framework, as long as I am told how and why I should do that. I like framework debates.

I am evaluating the round based on impacts. You need offense to win. I will vote aff on the risk of solvency if there are no impacts on the negative. In a round where neither team has any impacts, I'm voting negative.

Flowing vs. Reading Evidence: Put me on the speech drop, but I keep a flow, and that's what I want to evaluate the round off of. I want you to read your evidence to me and tell me what it says and why it matters. Pull warrants rather than tell me to read the card for myself.

Speed - I don't prefer a very rapid rate of delivery, but in the context of an open, policy centered debate, I can keep up with a *fairly* rapid rate. If you are not familiar with your K literature well enough to teach it to someone within the time constraints of the round, don't run that arg. When it comes to something like your politics disad, or your topicality standards, speed away.

Theory - I love theory debates. Topicality and other theory debates are fun when they are centered on the standards part of the flow.

Any other questions, ask away.

LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I believe that LD is a value debate, and I consider the value and value criterion to be paramount. I want you to tell me that you win the debate because the contentions prove that your side of the rez leads to your value, as measured by your criterion. In fact, if you wanted to give that analysis on the bottom of every contention flow, that would be pretty great.

I will evaluate the round based on the arguments made in the round, so if your idea of what LD is differs greatly from mine, you can still win the debate as long as you do a better job of justifying your framework. This doesn't seem like the easiest path to my ballot, but I don't aim to intervene.

Any other questions, ask away.

WORLD SCHOOLS DEBATE

Background: I have judged and coached this event over the last 6 years, however I only participate in 1 WSD tournament every year, at NSDA. I love this event, and I do not want you to make it a different event!  That said...

I do my best to adapt to the norms of the event, and I hope you do as well. WSD is scored holistically, so while my flow is important to the "Content" portion of the holistic rubric, it is not the be-all, end-all of the round. 

Consistency Down the Bench - The factors below are all to each speech, but also it is important that the side should have a consistent approach, telling the same "story" across the debate - this includes things like identifying key clash points, and may also include things like team lines and intros/conclusions, both within and across speeches. I love a good rhetorical device spread out across each speech. I should see consistency in terms of prioritization of key arguments.

Style (40%) - Speeches should be presented in a clear and engaging manner. Consultation of notes/prepared speeches are fine in my book, but care should be taken to look up and engage with the judge. Speech should have a natural flow. Rate of speaking may be somewhat faster (though this is certainly not an expectation) but should be clear. It should NOT sound like a fast policy round. Spreading is not the strategy for this event. Speeches should begin with an attention grabber and a roadmap. More on that under content.

Content (40%) - I do keep a flow, and I expect clear signposting of arguments, and an intro that gives me what I would call a "roadmap", but, see above. I am fine with debaters grouping arguments and not necessarily having a highly detailed line by line, but I do appreciate debaters who start at the top of the flow and work their way down. When you jump around, it makes it harder for me to see connections between arguments, and that is important to determining key points of clash. The organization of your speech should be clear and consistent. In third speeches, I generally expect there to be some line by line, but I also think this is where teams can begin to identify clash points/key questions. Reply speeches should narrow the debate down to key arguments - I really expect you to get away from a line by line here and crystallize the debate.

Strategy (20%) - Third substantive points should come out in the second speech, at the bottom of the order. They should be strategic, taking the debate into a somewhat different direction - the best third substantives throw a curve ball at it the other team. The handling of POIs is very important to the strategy score - when taking POIs, you are the boss of your speech! The default should be to ignore the POI until you get to the end of a sentence and refuse the POI. You should say no thank you more often than you say you'll take a POI (generally, you take 2). When offering POIs, be careful not to barrack (asking a POI EVERY 20 seconds), but I am all for offering at a time that is going to throw your opponent off. I like it when teams offer a lot of POIs, and they don't need to be questions.

I debated for four years at Shawnee Heights High School in Kansas from 2007-2011. I have since judged for a few years during college at the Shawnee Heights tournament, Topeka High (KS) tournament, Flint Hills District (KS) tournament, and the West Lafayette High School (IN).

My default paradigm is to be a policymaker, but I can be persuaded to vote otherwise. Both on-case and off-case arguments are important to my decision making process. I am okay with generic DA's, but I always prefer specific links and impact calculus in the rebuttals is always welcome. My theory knowledge is rusty, so I would need additional explanation if you want me to vote on theory.

Regarding speed, I am not as fast I once was. I will try to let you know if you are speaking too quickly and I am unable to flow your arguments. Additionally, because this is meant to be a learning event, I would much rather see clash in the round and have a debate where both teams are able to put ink on the flow rather than a round where one team runs an overwhelming amount of arguments with the hope that the opposing team will be unable to respond to everything.

I've coached for 10 years, I currently serve as the Executive Director of Portland Urban Debate League, I coach at Franklin HS and Centennial HS, and I have judged very few rounds on this topic as I typically am tabbing tournaments.

Put me on the email chain mallory@portlanddebate.org

*Everyone should be respectful. If y'all are rude/racist/homophobic/ableist/sexist etc. I consider that a reason to drastically reduce your speaker points. You can be nice and still win debates. If y'all aren't reading a content warning and describe trauma/violence/etc that need a content warning, I will seriously consider giving you an auto loss.

Overall: Tabula rasa, default policymaker. I prefer you go at a moderate speed and slow for tags. I'm probably not your ideal K or counterplan theory judge. I understand the basics of Ks and some of ideologies, but I tend to get lost without robust, slow explanations at every level of the flow. I flow CXes of K debates to help with my understanding of what is going on. On T- I default to competing interpretations. If you’re not rejecting the topic, you should be topical.

Framework vs non-traditional affs: If you think the aff should be topical, tell me why your model of debate is better than theirs. I prefer external impacts, but will still evaluate fairness as an impact if you go for it.

Specific Arguments

Aff: Need to have a method through which you solve your impacts, if you’re topical, that means you’re using the USfg and have a plan. If you’re reading a K, I want a clear articulation of how your advocacy is adopted/changes the debate space/matters in terms of impacts.

Case Debate: You don’t need carded evidence to point out solvency deficits of the aff. Analytics are generally smarter and more true than the arguments that take you 20 seconds to read the card.

Clarity>Speed: I’ll say clear once, but if you don't slow down you run the risk of me missing arguments that are key to you winning the debate. Please don’t assume you can go as fast as you want just because I’m on the email chain. SLOW on theory/T/analytics. Embedded clash in the overview is nice, but don’t put all your answers to the line by line there.

Cross-x: I flow cross-ex, and I think you should have a strategy for cross ex that helps you set up or further your arguments. If there is truly a part of the aff that is confusing, go ahead and ask for clarification, but your CX shouldn’t give the other team an opportunity to re-explain entire arguments.

Topicality: Describe to me what type of debate your interp justifies, and what type of debate theirs justifies. Whose interpretation of the resolution is better? Impact T out, for example limits in a vacuum don’t mean anything, I want you to explain how limits are key to your education and fairness. I could be persuaded to vote on reasonability, but for the most part think that competing interps is the best paradigm.

Disadvantages: Link controls the direction of the disad. Specificity over generics.

Counterplans: Presumption flips aff if the 2NR goes for the CP. I would judge kick the CP even if not explicitly told by the 2NR, unless the 2AR tells me a super cool reason why judge kick is bad that I haven't heard yet.

Kritiks: Run what you want, articulate what the alt is and how it solves for the impacts you’re claiming. Not enough teams explain HOW the alt works, which I think is devastating when compared to an aff’s clear mechanisms for solving their harms. A conceded root cause explanation or a PIK (“alt solves the aff”) would be a way to win my ballot if explained well. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made early on for me to evaluate it. I’m most familiar with fem, anthro, and neolib, but would listen to other K’s.

Theory: I rarely, if ever vote on theory. Mostly because most teams don’t spend more than 1 minute on it in the final speeches. If the aff thinks the neg reading 7 off was abusive, then the 2AR should be case + condo bad. Dedication to explaining and going for the argument validates it as a reason to consider it. If you spend 30 seconds on extending a dropped ASPEC argument, I’m definitely not voting on it.

+0.5 speaks if you tell me your zodiac sign

My Philosophy on Judging High School Debate

“If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be.” (1:149)

I have been judging high school debate since 1974 because of my strong belief that debate, when properly done, is one of the best ways to expel the ignorance that Thomas Jefferson warns is an anathema to freedom. High school debate is one of the best ways of achieving the goals of public education as outlined by Mortimer J. Adler in the Paideia Program (2:282). It must be judged by a criteria that upholds those principles, which is why I judge rounds on the paradigm of Civic Discourse, as explained in part by Dr. Wende Vyborney. (3)

The Civic Discourse model of judging helps to bring high school debate back to a real world scenario, rather than the disconnect that has taken place since college debate camps have become prevalent training ground for high school debaters. It builds upon the very principles that ought to be the foundation of all public high school education, especially that of preparing all young people to be able to function well as full citizens in a democratic society. Those who have been trained in this manner will be able to debate well the issues that they will face at home, at work, and in the political and social arenas. The Civic Discourse paradigm returns debate back to a persuasive, civil, rational, and logical manner of speaking and arguing issues, rather than the extreme style that has developed and serves no real purpose other than preparation for the equally obscure college level debate.

What does this mean in terms of the style of debate, and the questions that are asked of judges who will judge the NFL tournament?

First, in delivery, it means low speed, consistent with public addresses, not the vomiting of words that has become predominant in many rounds today. The students must always remember that they are in communication with their audience, even if it is a single judge. The audience seldom knows the case as well as the debaters, and so it must be clearly presented (4:15). The arguments and information need to be understood and comprehended by the audience. Speed does not achieve this. Rather, it obfuscates the information, as emphasis on the important words is lost in the rush to present, diminishing any clear expression of the ideas that may be present. I often quote from I, Claudius, AAs for speaking, again, it is true, I have an impediment. But isn=t what a man says more important than how long he takes to say it?@

Second, the argumentation and ideas are more important than the evidence. Today, many students rely on presenting long quotes to support their position, and then leaving the rest to the audience to decide. The argument being made is what matters, as it shows the ability to think and reach conclusions. The evidence is used to support the conclusion. It is not meant to be the argument. This is why the use of the word “card” is inappropriate; it is a quote from an expert or information about the argument. Sources can be indicted when it is appropriate. This is more easily realized when debater use the correct words for the quote. It is the argument that needs to be at the center of the round, not the quotes. Evidence supports, it does not stand alone.

Which brings us to the third point: the impacts of the arguments and quotes need to be made clear to the audience (judge). Too often we have the spewing of information at the expense of explanation. “When even the slightest chance exists that the meaning or pertinence of a fact or reference may not be grasped, debaters should clarify it.” (5:68). It is the responsibility of the debaters to make clear what the effect of their arguments are on the opposition’s case and on their own issues, rather than for the judge to reach the epiphany of the argument that many students now expect. I was taught, “Tell them what you are going to say, say it, and tell them what you said and why.”

Further, debate jargon does not make an argument. Use of the phrases such as “We turn,” is not a response to an argument unless a clear explanation has been presented demonstrating why the response to the argument makes a turn. Without that, then we descend into the chaos of specialization that Jose Garcia Ortega warns about in The Revolt of the Masses. Too many debaters rely on these catch phrases, and the audience’s perceived ability to see the results, rather than the actual demonstration of their own ability to clearly communicate the complete argument and its impacts to the audience. Debaters must make clear that they understand and know what they are arguing, and to make it clear to those listening. It is not the responsibility of the audience to complete the argument.

There is an aspect of tabula rasa in the round, in that the issues that are raised within the round are the issues on which I will decide; not whether or not certain issues have been presented, and failure to do so means a loss. If topicality is raised as an issue in the round, only then will it be considered and the argumentation evaluated. If a plan is non-topical and the issue is not raised by the Negative, then a comment may be made on the ballot, but it will not be a basis for a decision. It means that common sense rules, and when an argument fails that test, more supporting evidence is required to help me accept the position. Bizarre arguments do not need to be met point for point, only the flaw in logic needs to be exposed for the collapse of the scenario.

This is why it is not a matter of responding to every point with a counter point. Realize what are the most important issues and arguments in the round, clarifying them for the audience, tell why you are winning on those issues, and finally explain what it means to the decision. This demonstrates an ability to analyze the arguments, prioritize them and reach logical conclusions.

As for counter plans, and kritiks, those may be argued, but they must be consistent with all the other issues that Negative is presenting. However, because the resolution is what we really ought to be arguing, and the plan presented by the Affirmative as a solution to the resolution, I would prefer that one argues that rather than trying to create a diversion. There is usually plenty of ground for Negative to argue the Affirmative plan without reason for bizarre off-case arguments that usually waste time and diminish the value of debate.

Because this is so late in the season, and habits have been formed, I am still capable of making fair decisions in rounds that violate every one of these ideas. I will not be happy with what I witness, as it not what we need to be emphasizing at this level of education. If debate is to be reduced to a game, then it needs to be removed from the school curriculum and made an extra curriculum activity. As long as it is part of education, then it must be judged by standards that advance the purpose of education, which is why my ballots on those rounds will be so critical of the gamesmanship at the expense of education.

Debate, as practice for civic argument can be defined, in large part, through common sense. If an intelligent, informed community member can follow what’s going on, then we’re on the right track. If arguments are sufficiently well-formed to classify the speaker as “informed citizen” rather than “dangerous extremist,” then we’re on the right track. If arguments and evidence would pass muster in a term paper, then we’re on the right track (3)

And if those are accomplished, then we are on the right track for educating the youth through debate, and making sure that democracy is capable of surviving another generation.

Bibliography

1. Thomas Jefferson on Democracy edited by Saul K. Padover, Mentor Book, The New American Library, New York, New York, 1939.

2. Reforming Education: The Opening of the American Mind by Mortimer J. Adler, MacMillan Publishing Company, New York, New York, 1988.

3. A New Day for Policy Debate by Dr. Wende Vyborney from the internet, 1997.

4. Mastering Competitive Debate by Dana Hensley and Diana Carlin, Clark Publishing, Inc, Topeka, Kansas, 1994.

5. Decision by Debate, Second Edition by Douglas Ehninger and Wayne Brockriede, Harper and Row Publishers, New York, New York, 1978.

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Updated July 23
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net, fiscalrizztribution@googlegroups.com

Introduction: Hello, debaters and fellow educators. I am Tim Ellis, and I am honored to be here as a judge at this high school policy debate tournament. My background includes [briefly mention your educational and professional background relevant to the debate topic or communication skills]. My role as a judge is to evaluate your arguments, critical thinking, and communication abilities, while maintaining a fair and unbiased approach to the debate.

Debate Philosophy: I believe in fostering an environment where students can express their ideas passionately, engage in respectful discourse, and develop their critical thinking skills. I encourage debaters to focus on clear and logical arguments, evidence-based analysis, and effective communication. Substance will always take precedence over style, but effective delivery can enhance your message.

Argumentation: I value well-structured arguments that are supported by credible evidence. When presenting your case, it's important to clearly define your position, provide relevant evidence, and logically connect your arguments. The use of real-world examples and expert opinions can significantly bolster your points. Remember, the quality of your evidence matters more than the quantity.

Clash and Refutation: Debates thrive on clash – the direct engagement with your opponents' arguments. I expect debaters to engage with opposing viewpoints by directly addressing their arguments, demonstrating the weaknesses in their logic, and offering counterarguments supported by evidence. Effective refutation requires a deep understanding of your opponents' case, so take the time to dissect their position and refute it cogently.

Communication: Clear communication is key to conveying your ideas persuasively. Speak confidently, enunciate your words, and maintain a steady pace. Avoid jargon or excessive use of technical terms that might alienate those unfamiliar with the topic. Remember, effective communication isn't just about what you say, but how you say it – engaging with your audience is crucial.

Etiquette and Sportsmanship: Respect for your opponents, your partner, and the judge is non-negotiable. Keep your focus on the arguments and ideas, rather than personal attacks. Maintain a professional demeanor throughout the debate, and remember that good sportsmanship is an integral part of the debate community.

Time Management: Time management is essential. Respect the allocated time limits for your speeches, cross-examinations, and rebuttals. Effective time allocation allows for a balanced and comprehensive discussion of the issues at hand.

Final Thoughts: Debating is a valuable skill that extends beyond the walls of this tournament. Regardless of the outcome, embrace the learning experience. Constructive feedback is intended to help you grow as debaters and thinkers. I am here to provide a fair assessment of your performance, and my decisions will be based on the quality of your arguments, your ability to engage in meaningful clash, and your overall communication skills.

I am looking forward to witnessing your insightful arguments and thoughtful engagement. Let's engage in a spirited and enlightening debate that enriches all of us. Best of luck to each team, and may the discourse be both rigorous and rewarding.

Hello

I am currently the assistant debate and forensics coach at Topeka Seaman School District. I have three years of High school experience in debate and over 9 years of judging/coaching experience. Generally speaking, I consider myself a tabula rasa judge. I vote on the arguments or framework presented in the round itself. Outside of tabula rasa, I tend to default towards a policy maker mindset. In terms of speed, clear communication and professionalism are important in determining who is the better speakers. In terms of speed, clear communication should be prioritize over how much information can be delivered in a speech. Counter plans are acceptable and should be non topical. When presented, they should be competitive to the affirmative case and mutually exclusive. Topicality is very important voting issue. To win topicality, negative team must present a compelling reason why their interpretation and violation meets the burden of the off being untypical. Generic disadvantages are okay as long as specific links are analyzed, but on case disadvantages are preferred. Kritics are acceptable in round if links are clearly analyzed. I prefer to hear case specific kritics rather than generics ones.

If you have any questions, please let me know.

I debated 4 years of policy in high school and 4 years in NPDA parli debate for Washburn.

I can go in lots of different directions but I’m most comfortable being a policymaker. I lie more on the “politician/lawyer” side of debate roleplaying than “academic/activist”. I like hearing substantive debates about ideas and policy consequences more than hearing debate after debate about the same critical/theoretical topics. Not that you can’t run those, this is just my preference.

My only other real preference is that I think debate’s core value should be education. If you run theory arguments or critical arguments, make your standards/voters center education and explain to me how your position is better for education, especially topic-specific education. When I look back on my time in debate, the topic education and research skills are the thing I found indispensable in the long run. We should aim to make this space as enriching as we can.

If you run critical stuff the links are extremely important. Please explain to me why this topic or this aff case in particular is so important to run this exact K against. I’m pretty partial to the perm otherwise. I’m also pretty partial to links being independent disads against the aff, if argued well. I love hearing the topic/aff being very specifically deconstructed on critical grounds.

I’m ok with speed but I think debate should be an activity where we try to enhance and enrich our communication skills, and not end up a mealymouthed double-clutching race to the bottom. If you’re too fast or difficult to understand it has a good chance of significantly costing you.

I try my best to not look at your evidence unless 1) there is a dispute over something with the evidence, like claims of powertagging or false tagging or something, or 2) I miss something and it wasn't your fault, sometimes it happens and if I know you said it and just need to grab it I will. Otherwise I really try to stay out of looking at your docs because this is a communication activity and I want you to make the conscious choice to spend time on your winners and use your own analysis to communicate why your evidence and arguments should win the round!

Updated pre-woodward 2024

Yes email chain-- willkatzemailchain@gmail.com

I am currently a coach at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I debated in high school at Washburn Rural and in college at the University of Kansas.

I have a large amount of topic knowledge for the hs fiscal redistribution topic. I am actively involved in research and have judged at a lot of tournaments.

As a judge, these are the things that I care about (in order of importance):

1. That you treat all participants in the debate with respect and that your speeches are something that I, a high school teacher, could enthusiastically show my administration

2. That you flow the debate and use that flow to make and respond to arguments. I find that debaters are almost universally better at flowing if they try to flow and line arguments up on paper, not their computer.

3. That you are advancing logical, well-evidenced, warranted claims that demonstrate topic knowledge and research. I am not a good judge for you if your arguments are generally 1 sentence assertions, uncarded, or wholly irrelevant to the topic.

4. That you make good, bold strategic choices. I will give absurdly high speaker points to students that take good risks to collapse the debate to a small number of arguments that create favorable win conditions for them.

5. That you make comparisons between your arguments/evidence and your opponents. If your final rebuttals consist of more comparisons than summary and description, I am a great judge for you.

Note that "subject" isn't really on this list outside of it being relevant to the topic. I don't care if you read a soft left aff, go for topic-relevant critiques, read 90 plank advantage counterplans, or go for politics.

Everything below offers clarification on how this set of arguments plays out in practice

_________________________________________________

I love debate. I really, really like seeing students demonstrate that they are having fun, working hard, thinking about debate, researching the topic, and engaging in debates that reflect the topic's literature base. In many ways, debate is better now than it has ever been.

I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate. If I am told about or personally observe behavior that I would consider in need of an intervention, I am going to approach the tournament administration about it rather than use my ballot as a punishment/reward system. If your speech explains how you are discriminated against, oppressed, bullied, or otherwise unsafe in debate, I am going to talk to the tournament administration instead of letting that be a matter of debate. Ad hom attacks against the other team are a sua sponte reverse voting issue. If you launch one against the other team, I will vote against you (whether your opponents tell me to or not). If your debate strategy relies on ad hom attacks against your opponents, I am not the judge for you. If your opponent is so horrendous of a person that you must levy ad hom attacks, please direct your complaints to the tabroom

Debaters should flow and use that flow to make arguments in a line-by-line fashion that responds directly to what the other team said. Debaters should not just read into a speech document for the entire speech.

Have fun! I more often vote for and give higher points to teams that have fun and are nice. If you are mean or look like you are here against your will, voting for you will be a challenge.

I am trying to adjust to modern speaker points. I still find it hard to believe that if you got a 29 in every debate, you would not have been particularly close to a top 25 speaker at Greenhill or St. Marks. That is the reality we live in, but it is a difficult pill to swallow.

Here are my biases.

-I prefer debates about the topic. That means aff with a plan and negative strategies that use arguments germane to the topic to say the plan is bad. That also means that I do not prefer super generic impact turns like spark/wipeout or arguments like "x author is bad so they should lose for introducing that author"

- I prefer specificity over vagueness. That's true with plans, cp's, da links, alternatives, etc. With me as a judge, vagueness is not as strategic as specificity.

-I care about cards. I want you to read good cards and a lot of cards. Good is more important than a lot, but if you end the debate and your card doc is 4 cards long, something has gone wrong.

- Plans have texts and functions. Unless the debating is very lopsided, I will probably not view the plan's text "in a vacuum" because I will also care about the action that the plan does. If that changes in every speech or multiple times a speech, I will be grumpy (see my point about vagueness)

-Bring theory back! Not in an annoying way where you always go for conditionality when you're losing. But in a way that punishes negative teams for relying on strategies that aren't germane to the aff.

-I feel reasonably strongly that "Social Security" refers to Old Age, Survivor, and Disability Insurance and I think that affirmative teams that read an ssi/medicare/tanf/etc aff probably need to treat topicality as a very threatening 2nr choice. I haven't really seen debates over any other t argument yet.

-I think if evenly debated, I would agree with an aff team that said "cp's must have published solvency advocates." While others interpret this standard as necessarily arbitrary (what is a solvency advocate? Why can't the debaters be solvency advocates?), it seems like it would create a massive increase in the quality of debates for a relatively low amount of arbitrariness.

A note on kritiks

I often find myself frustrated in kritik debates, not because of some ideological objection, but because there is not a lot of internal consistency with most kritik debates that I judge.

In a typical kritik extension follows this format: 1. Framework- evaluate aff as object of research. 2. Link- plan doesn't do enough and/or reps k link. 3. Impact- extinction. 4. Alt- maybe movements, maybe just framework.

This does not make sense to me. The links do not prove the aff is a bad object of research, and the impacts do not stem from having a bad object of research. Alternatively (pun intended), the links and impacts are not offense because they are not unique or causal (they don't say "plan causes extinction", they say aff takes part in something that already exists and will cause extinction). And the alt is almost always useless or loses to the perm.

So if you do want to go for a kritik in front of me, it would help to extend a coherent, well thought out position where every component works together. Below are 2 examples:

1. Framework- treat the aff as an object of research. 2. Link- aff's research is flawed and capitalist (bought out by think tanks, buys into a flawed ideology of competition, etc). 3. Impact- capitalism is unethical because it relies on exploitation, and research that relies on capitalist methodologies furthers that exploitation. 4. Alt- insert better form of research

1. Link- increasing pharma patents in the US causes more exploitation of countries in the global south 2. Impact- exploitation of global south is unethical, linearly causes structural violence, and turns case because gutting public health infrastructure means more disease spread. 3. Alt- policy approach to public health that is opposed to patents. 4. framing/framework- k of extinction focus

Both of these examples are beatable by the aff, but at least give me as a judge a coherent "here is why the aff is bad" decision.

I debated for four years at Washburn Rural High School and a year at KU. Previously an assistant coach.

Generally I evaluate in an offense-defense paradigm, but in rare circumstances I do believe that 100% defense is possible. I would generally prefer to see a team run arguments that they are good at rather than try to adapt to my specific paradigm and run arguments that they are less familiar with. With that being said, I do have some preferences.

If your speech contains content that may be disturbing, a trigger warning for judges and other competitors is appreciated. This warning should occur before your speech. You should also have a non-triggering version of your speech available. It is not okay to force another team to be triggered.

Generally I believe an affirmative should read a topical plan text. However, if you cannot articulate specific ground loss and education loss as a result of your violation, I find it hard to evaluate T. A strong discussion of why topicality should or should not be a voting issue is helpful, especially in the final rebuttals.

I also have trouble believing that one or two conditional positions are a reason to reject the team.

Thoughts on counterplans - Delay counterplans are almost always cheating unless timeframe is explicitly in the aff plan text. Consult counterplans seem to problematically assume that the plan that comes out of consultation resembles the original plan, though a specific solvency advocate or specific say yes evidence would be helpful with that. 50 state fiat seems questionable. At the very least, state flexibility arguments are wholly unpersuasive if your counterplan text requires uniform state action. PICs usually don't bother me. That is not to say I won't listen to or vote on a counterplan that seems like a cheating counterplan. It just means my threshold for theory arguments to reject it will likely be lower.

If the negative team goes for a counterplan, I generally believe that presumption flips aff. Judge kicking a counterplan seems extremely interventionary unless I have been told it is an option, and if the affirmative team tells me a good reason why I shouldn't I might not even be okay with judge kicking then.

Kritiks are usually okay, but they should be paired with arguments as to why the aff cannot or should not get to access their impacts. They are rarely an excuse to ignore the aff case.

Please let me know if you have any questions.

Please do not speed debate. If I cannot understand what you say, there is little chance that I will vote in favor of your side. :-)

Make sure that your arguments are clearly stated and backed up with evidence. My favorite debates to listen to are the ones that have good direct evidence on both sides.

Topicality and DAs should clearly link to the case.

I rarely, if ever, will vote based on a K.

Hello, this is my email: thebomiller.k@gmail.com – If you are using email chain/speech drop or other file sharing tools, please add me to it. If you any follow up questions on RFD or other items of discussion, feel free to email me and I can explain more.

Pronouns: He/Him/His

Paradigm:

Experiences: I have done speech and debate all four years of high school at Shawnee Heights High School (5A) in Tecumseh, KS (2017-2021). I was able to compete at the National Speech and Debate Tournament twice in World Schools Debate (2018 & 2019), once in Congressional Debate (2020), and once in United States Extemp (2021). I have competed at State for policy debate twice. I won the State runner-up title in the 2020-2021 season for 5A Kansas 2 speak Policy Debate. I also placed 6th at State in United States Extemp in the 2021 season. I have also competed at state for forensics in Info 10 and United States Extemp.

SUMMARY

Intro:

For starters, I am a Tabula Rasa judge.

I was primarily a policy debater but did experiment with running in the critical world my senior year. I only did high flow debate my senior year, so I am not as highly experienced with it. I enjoy flow rounds but view quality over quantity.

Content warnings are a must for disturbing/triggering topics

I will also vote against any personal attacks in the round. Let’s all be human beings and treat each other as such

Evidence is only good if you can explain it

Abbreviations are helpful to clarify because I don’t judge a lot annually

Theory is always fun to see

Dropped arguments can be important but will not always be a factor of winning, just depends on how substantial the argument was

Won't flow CX

Also will likely not vote on credentials/dates arguments

Don't abuse the power of fiat (i.e. fiat doesn't solve for off case answers unless hyper focused on)

I believe that most topics (at least present in a debate rounds) are partisan in some fashion or another

Impact calc and/or Impact Framing are both items that should be ran in every round

Run whatever you planned on running; I’ll keep bias out of the way.

Topicality:

The better the abuse is laid out, the more cohesive T is

Prove in-round abuse

Aff should provide the reason to vote aff, Counter interps and competing interps with C/V&S

If going for this in the 2nr, this speech must be only T

T is sufficient to run against case if you don't have any evidence.

Counterplans:

CPs are always fun but i'll only vote for competitive (untopical) CPs

I will presume the CP is conditional at the start of the round unless told otherwise

I don’t enjoy delay or process CPs

Always include a net benefit, preferably links to DAs

Provide specific solvency links to the aff

Disadvantages:

I always enjoy politics DAs but I’ll need the most up-to-date evidence

Provide specific impact evidence that the DA will occur, make it flow like a story

Case specific links > Generic links

Non-Generic DAs are cool also – I like seeing new arguments that differ each season

Kritiks:

I am not as experienced with Ks as I didn’t start reading them until my senior year – be a little slower and explain more on this arg

I enjoy most Ks but tend to not vote on generic ones (Neolib, cap, etc.)

Case specific links are a must

I enjoy philosophy debates in round at times

I believe that one of the block speeches needs to focus on this arg if it’ll be present in the 2nr

I love topic specific Ks (Ex. CJR – Abolition K, Arm Sales – Militarism K)

Case:

I always love seeing framing debates

Neg should spend more time on case instead of off case that will be kicked, Topicality does change this

Any topic works with me for the aff as long as its relevant

Solvency is a must for the neg to argue

Non-unique is cool to see if proven correctly

Currently Head Coach at Campbell Hall (CA)

Formerly Head Coach of Fairmont Prep (CA), Ransom Everglades (FL) & Pembroke Hill (MO), and Assistant Coach for Washburn Rural (KS), and Lake Highland (FL).

Coached for 20+ years – Have coached all events. Have coached both national circuit Policy & PF, along with local LD and a bit of Parli and World Schools. Also I have a J.D., so if you are going to try to play junior Supreme Court Justice, please be reasonably accurate in your legal interpretations.

Address for the email chain: millerdo@campbellhall.org

Scroll down for Policy or Parli Paradigm

_____________________

Public Forum Paradigm

_____________________

SHORT VERSION

1. If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in every speech, beginning with the 2nd Rebuttal. That includes defensive case attacks, as well as unanswered link chains and impacts that you want to extend from your own case. Just frontlining without extending the link and impact stories from constructives means you have dropped those links and impacts.
2. Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm.
3. Send speech docs WITH CUT CARDS BEFORE you give any speech in which you introduce new evidence. If you don't, A) I will be sad, B) any time you take finding ev will be free prep for your opponents, and C) the max speaks you will be able to earn from me will be 28. If you do send card docs I will be happy and the lowest speaks you will earn will be 28. This only applies to varsity teams.
4. Don't paraphrase. Like w/ speech docs, paraphrasing will cap your speaks at 28. Reading full texts of cards means 28 will be your floor.
5. Narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key answers on your opponents’ case. This should start in the 2nd Rebuttal.
6. No new cards in 2nd Summary. No new cards in 1st Summary unless directly in response to new 2nd Rebuttal arguments.
7. I'm OK w/ Theory & Ks - IF THEY ARE DONE WELL. Read below for specific types of arguments.

DETAILED VERSION

(This is more an exercise for me to refine my own thoughts, but if you want more detail than above on any particular issue, here you are)

1. Summary extension

If you want me to evaluate anything in the final focus you MUST extend it in the summary. Yes, that includes defense & turns from the rebuttal. Yes, that includes unanswered link chains and impacts. And that doesn't just mean "extend my links and impacts." That doesn't do it. You need to explicitly extend each of the cards/args you will need to make a cohesive narrative at the end of the round. If you want to go for it in the FF, make sure your partner knows to extend it. Even if it is the best argument I’ve ever heard, failure to at least mention it in the summary will result in me giving the argument zero weight in my decision. Basically, too many 2nd speakers just ignore their partner’s summary speech. Attempting to extend things that were clearly dropped in the Summary will result in a lowering of speaker points for the 2nd speaker. This is # 1 on my list for a reason. It plays a major factor in more than half of my decisions. Ignore this advice at your own peril.

1A. 2nd Rebuttal Rebuild

Everything I just said about Summary also goes for 2nd Rebuttal. Anything you want me to evaluate at any later point in the round needs to be mentioned/extended in 2nd Rebuttal. That includes extending / rebuilding the portions of your case you want me to weigh at the end, even those that were not addressed by your opponents in the first Rebuttal. For example: 1st Rebuttal just answers your links on C1. You not only need to rebuild whatever C1 links you want me to evaluate at the end of the round, but you also need to explicitly extend your impacts you are claiming those links link to in at least a minimum of detail. Just saying" extend my impacts" will be unlikely to cut it. At least try to reference both the argument and the card you want me to extend. And, yes, I know this means you won't be able to cover as much in 2nd Rebuttal. Make choices. That's what this event is all about.

2. Offense defense

Absent any other well-warranted framing arguments, I will default to a utilitarian offense/defense paradigm. Just going for defensive response to the the opposing case in FF won’t be persuasive in front of me. I am open to non-traditional framing arguments (e.g. rights, ontology, etc), but you will need to have some pretty clear warrants as to why I should disregard a traditional net offensive advantage for the other team when making my decision. You need warrants as to WHY I should prefer your framing over the default net benefits. For example, just saying "Vote for the side that best prevents structural violence" without giving reasons why your SV framing should be used instead of util is insufficient.

3. Send Speech Docs with the cut cards your are about to read before your speech

This is the expected norm in both Policy and LD, and it is time for PF to grow up as well. I am tired of wasting 15+ min per round while kids look for cards that they should have ready as part of their blocks and/or cases to share, and just paraphrasing stuff without the cut card readily available. To combat these bad practices, I choose to adopt two incentives in varsity rounds to have debaters use speech docs like every other legitimate form of debate.

First, if you do not send a speech doc w/ all the cards you are about to read in that next speech to the email chain in a timely fashion (less than a minute or two) before you begin any speech in which you read cards, I will cap your speaker points at 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 27. If you do send a speech doc with the cut cards you are about to read in order, I will guarantee that the lowest speaks you receive will be a 28, with a starting point for average speaks at 29. If you don't have this ready before the round, or can't get it ready in a minute or so before each speech, don't waste time trying. It defeats the part of the purpose aimed to speed up rounds and prevent tournaments from running behind because kids can't find their evidence. Just accept that your speaks will be capped, learn from it, and put together your cases and blocks more ethically for next time. Three caveats to this general rule: 1) the obvious allowance for accidentally missing the occasional card due to honest error, 2) if you engage in offensive behavior/language/etc that would otherwise justify something lower than a 25, providing a speech doc will not exempt you from such a score, 3) I won't penalize debaters in novice or MS rounds who don't send card docs. We all have enough to learn in those debates without also having to send docs. But if you are a novice team competing in an open/varsity division, the expectation is that you send cards.

Second, I will utilize the approach that has been used in the past at the TOC, where teams are free to prep while the other team is searching for the evidence that they have been requested to share and should already have available, and that time will NOT count against the requesting team's 3:00 of prep. If you read this and can figure out how to use it to your advantage, more power to you.

Basically, I won't require you to provide speech docs, but I will use these two measures to incentivize their use in the strongest possible way I feel I reasonably can. This hopefully will both speed up rounds and simultaneously encourage more transparency and better overall evidence quality. If you don't like this, strike me.

4. Don't Paraphrase

It's really bad. Don't do it. In CX & LD, it is called clipping cards, and getting caught doing it is an automatic loss. PF hasn't gotten there yet, but eventually we should, and will. I won't automatically vote you down for the practice (see my thoughts on theory below), but I do want to disincentive you to engage in the practice. Thus, I will apply the same speaker point ranges I use for Speech Docs to paraphrasing. Paraphrase, and the max speaks you will get from me are a 28. Read texts of cut cards, and 28 is your floor.

5. Narrow the round

It would be in your best interest to narrow the 2nd half of the round down to one key contention-level impact story and 1-2 key turns on your opponents’ case, and then spend most of your time doing impact comparisons on those issues. Going for all 3 contentions and every turn you read in rebuttal is a great way to lose my ballot. If you just extend everything, you leave it up to me to evaluate the relative important of each of your arguments. This opens the door for judge intervention, and you may not like how I evaluate those impacts. I would much rather you do that thought process for me. I routinely find myself voting for the team that goes all in on EFFECTIVE impact framing on the issue or two they are winning over the team that tries to extend all of their offensive arguments (even if they are winning most of them) at the expense of doing effective impact framing. Strategic choices matter. Not making any choices is a choice in itself, and is usually a bad one.

6. No new cards in Summary, unless they are in direct response to a new argument brought up in the immediately prior speech.

1st Summary: If you need to read cards to answer arguments first introduced in opponents case, those needed to be read in 1st Rebuttal, not 1st Summary. Only if 2nd Rebuttal introduces new arguments—for example a new impact turn on your case—will I evaluate new cards in the 1st Sum, and only to specifically answer that new 2nd Rebuttal turn. Just please flag that your are reading a new card, and ID exactly what new 2nd Rebuttal argument you are using it to answer.

2nd Summary: Very rarely, 2nd summary will need to address something that was brought up new in 1st summary. For example, as mentioned above, 2nd Rebuttal puts offense on case. 1st Summary might choose to address that 2nd Rebuttal offense with a new carded link turn. Only in a case like that will I evaluate new evidence introduced into 2nd Summary. If you need to take this route, as above in 1st Summary, please flag exactly what argument you say was new in the 1st Summary you are attempting to answer before reading the new card.

In either case, unless the prior speech opened the door for you, I will treat any new cards in Summary just like extending things straight into FF & ignoring the summary—I won’t evaluate them and your speaker points will take a hit. However, new cross-applications of cards previously introduced into the round ARE still OK at this point.

6A. No new cross-applications or big-picture weighing in Final Focus.

Put the pieces together before GCF - at least a little bit. This includes weighing analysis. The additional time allotted to teams in Summary makes it easier to make these connections and big-picture comparisons earlier in the round. Basically, the other team should at least have the opportunity to ask you about it in a CF of some type. You don't have to do the most complete job of cross-applying or weighing before FF, but I should at least be able to trace its seed back to some earlier point in the round.

7. Theory

I will, and am often eager to, vote on debate theory arguments. But proceed with caution. Debaters in PF rarely, if ever, know how to debate theory well enough to justify voting on it. But I have seen one or two rounds recently that give me some hope for the future.

Regarding practices, there is a strategic utility for reading theory even if you are not going for it. I get that part of the game of debate, and am here for it. But if you think you want me to actually vote on it, and it isn't just a time suck, I would strongly encourage that you collapse down to just theory in the 2nd Rebuttal/1st Summary in a similar fashion that I would think advisable in choosing which of your substance-based impact scenarios to go for. Theory isn't the most intuitive argument, and is done poorly when it is blippy. If it is a bad practice that truly justifies my disregarding substantive arguments, then treat it like one. Pick a standard and an impact story and really develop it in both speeches AND IN GCF in the similar way you should develop a link story and impact from your substantive contention. Failing to collapse down will more than likely leave you without sufficient time to explain your abuse story and voter analysis in such a way that it is compelling enough for me to pull the trigger. If you are going to do it (and I'm good with it if you do), do it well. Otherwise, just stick to the substance.

My leanings on specific types of theory arguments:

Fiat – For policy resolutions, until the “no plans” rule is changed, PF is essentially a whole-resolution debate, no matter how much teams would like for it to be policy. That means the resolution is is the plan text. Thus, if teams want to exclusively advocate a specific subset(s) of the resolution, they need to provide some warrants as to why their specific subset(s) of the resolution is the MOST LIKELY form the resolution would take if it were adopted. Trying to specify and only defend a hyper-specific example(s) of the resolution that is unlikely to occur without your fiat is ridiculously abusive without reading a plan text, and makes you a moving target – especially when you clarify your position later in the round to spike out of answers. Plan texts are necessary to fiat something that is unlikely to happen in the status quo in order to create a stable advocacy. Basically, in my mind, “no plans” = “no fiat of subsets of the resolution.” Also, please don't try to fiat things in a fact-based resolution (hint, it's probably not a policy resolution if it doesn't look like "Actor X should do Thing Y"). Also, Neg DOESN'T get to counterplan. Again, you can't specify anything, so neg doesn't even have the resolution to fiat. So, no actionable K alts and no CP texts (even if you call them a "generalized, practical solution." You are stuck defending the status quo, absent a good role of the ballot framing arg for critical negs.

Multiple conditional advocacies – Improbable fiated advocacies are bad enough, but when teams read multiple such advocacies and then decide “we’re not going for that one” when the opposing team puts offense on it is the zenith of in-round abuse. Teams debating in front of me should continue to go for their unanswered offensive turns against these “kicked” arguments – I will weigh them in the round, and am somewhat inclined to view such practices as a voter if substantial abuse is demonstrated by the offended team. If you start out with a 3-prong fiated advocacy, then you darn well better end with it. Severance is bad. If teams are going to choose to kick out of part of their advocacy mid-round, they need to effectively answer any offense on the "to-be-kicked" parts first.

Paraphrasing - Don't paraphrase. I come down strongly on the side of having cut cards available. This doesn't mean I will automatically vote for paraphrasing theory, as I think there is minimal room for a conceivably viable counter-interp of having the cards attached to blocks/cases or something similar. But blatant, unethical, and lazy paraphrasing has, at times, really threatened the integrity of this activity, and it needs to stop. This theory arg is the way to do that. If your opponents paraphrase and you don't, If you read a complete paraphrasing arg and extend it in all of the necessary speeches, it is going to take a whole lot of amazing tap dancing on the part of the guilty party for me not to vote for it.

Trigger Warning - I am not your guy for this. I'm not saying I won't vote on it, but it would be an uphill battle.

Disclosure - Disclosure is good. My teams do it, and I think you should too. It makes for better debates, and the Wiki is an invaluable tool for small squads with limited resources and coaching. I speak from experience, having coached those types of small squads in policy against many of the juggernaut programs with armies of assistants cutting cards. Arguments about how it is somehow unfair to small teams make little sense to me. That being said, I don't think the lack of disclosure is as serious of a threat to the integrity of PF as the bad paraphrasing that at one point was rampant in the activity. Disclosure is more of a strongly suggested improvement, as opposed to an ethical necessity. But if the theory arg is run WELL, I will certainly vote on it.

Where to First Introduce - I don't yet have a strong opinion on this, as I haven't had enough decent theory rounds to adjudicate for it to really matter. If you force me to have an opinion, I would probably suggest that theory be read in the first available speech after the infraction occurs. So, disclosure should probably be read in the Constructives, while paraphrasing shells should likely be in either the 2nd Constructive or 1st Rebuttal, once the other team has had a chance to actually introduce some evidence into the round.

Frivolous Args - I am totally here for paraphrasing and disclosure, as those practices have substantial impact on the quality of debate writ large. I am less likely to be receptive to silly cheap shot args that don't have the major benefit of improving the activity. Hence, leave your "no date of access" or "reading evidence is bad" theory args for someone else. You are just likely to annoy me by reading those types of args than to win my ballot with them. Reading them means I will give the opposing side TONS of leeway in making responses, and I will likely look for any remotely viable reason I can to justify not voting on them.

Reverse Voting Issues - Theory is a perfectly acceptable strategic weapon for any team to utilize to win a round. I am unlikely to be very receptive to RVIs about how running theory on mainstream args like disclosure or paraphrasing is abusive. If a team properly narrows the last half of the debate by kicking substance and going for theory, that pretty much acts as a RVI, as long as the offending team still at least perfunctorily extends case. Now, once we stray more into the frivolous theory territory as referenced above, I will be much more likely to entertain a RVI, even if the team reading theory doesn't kick substance first.

8. Critical Arguments

In general, I would advise against reading Ks in PF, both because I think the event is not as structurally conducive to them, and because I've only ever seen one team in one round actually use them correctly (and in that round, they lost on a 2-1, because the other two judges just didn't understand what they were doing - ironically emblematic of the risk of reading those args in this event). However, since they are likely only going to increase in frequency, I do have thoughts. If you are a K team, I would suggest reading the Topicality and Criticisms portions of my policy paradigm below. Many of the thoughts on argument preference are similarly applicable here. A couple of PF-specific updates, though:

A) Alternatives - Because PF Negs don't get fiat (e.g. no power to CP), I don't buy that Neg gets the power to fiat any type of action-based alternative. You can reject or maybe do nothing, and, of course, you can garner offense off of all of the traditional ontology and/or epistemology first in decision-making framework args you want. But trying to fiat any action as an alternative (e.g. engaging in active resistance, or anything similar) isn't likely to fly with me, unless you can make a really solid ROTB arg to change what my vote means. This severely limits what you can do from the Neg in front of me. Be warned.

B) Role of the Ballot args - "Our role of the ballot is to vote for the team that best reduces structural violence" isn't a role of the ballot. It is a bad impact framing argument without any warrants. Proper ROTB args change what the judge's vote actually represents. Normally, the ballot puts the judge in the position of the USFG and then they pretend to take or not take a particular policy action. Changing the ROTB means instead of playing that particular game of make believe, you want the judge to act from the position of someone else - maybe an academic intellectual, or all future policy makers, and not the USFG - or else to have their ballot do something totally different than pretend enacting a policy - e.g. acting as an endorsement of a particular mode of decision-making or philosophical understanding of the world, with the policy in question being secondary or irrelevant to why they should choose to affirm or negate. Not understanding this difference means I am likely to treat your incorrectly articulated ROTB arg as unwarranted impact framing, which means I will probably ignore it and continue to default to my standard util offense/defense weighing.

9. Crossfire

If you want me to evaluate an argument or card, it needs to be in a speech. Just mentioning it in CF is not sufficient. You can refer to what was said in CF in the next speech, and that will be far more efficient, but it doesn’t exist in my mind until I hear it in a speech. Honestly, I'm probably writing comments during CF anyway, and am only halfway listening. That being said, I am NOT here for just not doing cross (usually GCF) and instead taking prep. Until the powers that be get rid of it, we are still doing GCF. Instead of just not wanting to do it, get better at it. Make it something that I should listen to.

10. Speaker points

See my policy on Speech Docs. If I were not making the choice to institute that policy, the following reflects my normal approach to speaks, and will still apply to how I evaluate within the 25-28 non-speech doc range, and within the 28-30 speech doc range. My normal reference point for “average” is 27.5. That’s where most everyone starts. My default is to evaluate on a scale with steps of 0.1, as opposed to steps of 0.5. Below a 25 means you did something offensive. A true 30.0 in HS debate (on a 0.1 scale) doesn’t exist. It is literally perfect. I can only think of 3 times I have ever given out a 29.6 or higher, and each of them were because of this next thing. My points are almost exclusively based on what you say, not how you say it. I strongly value making good, strategic choices, and those few exceptional scores I’ve given were all because of knowing what was important and going for it / impact framing it, and dumping the unnecessary stuff in the last half of the round.

11. Ask for additional thoughts on the topic

Even if you’ve read this whole thing, still ask me beforehand. I may have some specific thoughts relating to the topic at hand that could be useful.

12. Speed

Notice how I didn't say anything about that above, even though it's the first questions like half of kids ask? Basically, yes, I can handle your blazing speed. But it would still probably be a good idea to slow it down a little, Speed Racer. Quality > quantity. However, if you try to go fast and don't give a speech doc with cut cards before you start speaking, I will be very, VERY unhappy. The reason why policy teams can go as fast as they do is that they read a tag, (not just "Smith continues..." or "Indeed...")which we as the audience can mentally process and flow, and then while they are reading the cite/text of the card, we have time to finish flowing the tag and listen for key warrants. The body of the card gives us a beat or two to collect ourself before we have to figure out what to write next. Just blitzing through blippily paraphrased cards without a tag (e.g. "Smith '22 warrants...") doesn't give us that tag to process first, and thus we have to actively search for what to flow. By the time we get it down, we have likely already missed your next "card." So, if you are going to try to go faster than a broadly acceptable PF pace, please have tags, non-paraphrased cards, and speech docs. And if you try to speed through a bunch of blippy paraphrased "cards" without a doc, don't be surprised when we miss several of your turns. Basically, there is a way to do it right. Please do it that way, if you are going to try to go fast.

________________________

Policy Paradigm

________________________

I debated for 4 years in high school (super old-school, talk-pretty policy), didn't debate in college, and have coached at the HS level for 20+ years. I am currently the Head Coach at Campbell Hall in Los Angeles, and previously was an Assistant Coach at Washburn Rural in KS, and head coach at Fairmont Prep in Anaheim, CA, Ransom Everglades School, in Miami, and The Pembroke Hill School in KCMO. However, I don't judge too many policy rounds these days, so take that into account.

Overview:

Generally, do what you do, as long as you do it well, and I'll be happy. I prefer big-picture impact framing where you do the comparative work for me. In general, I will tend to default to such analysis, because I want you to do the thinking in the round, not me. My better policy teams in the past where I was Head Coach read a great deal of ontology-based Ks (cap, Heidegger, etc), and they often make some level of sense to me, but I'm far from steeped in the literature. I'm happy to evaluate most of the normal disads & cps, but the three general classes of arguments that I usually find less persuasive are identity-based strategies that eschew the topic, politics disads, and to a lesser degree, performance-based arguments. But if any of those are your thing, I would in general prefer you do your thing well than try and do something else that you just aren't comfortable with. I'll go with the quality argument, even if it isn't my personal favorite. I'm not a fan of over-reliance on embedded clash, especially in overviews. I'd rather you put it on the line-by-line. I'm more likely to get it down on my flow and know how to apply it that way, and that's the type of debating I'll reward with higher speaks. Please be sure to be clear on your tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks. Hard numbering/”And’s” are appreciated, and if you need to, go a little slower on those tags, cites, and theory/analytic blocks to be sure they are clear, distinct, and I get them. Again, effort to do so will be rewarded with higher speaks.

Topicality:

I generally think affs should have to defend the topic, and actually have some sort of plan text / identifiable statement of advocacy. There are very few "rules" of debate, thus allowing tons of leeway for debaters to choose arguments. But debating the topic is usually a pretty good idea in my mind, as most issues, even those relating to the practices and nature of our activity and inclusion therein, can usually still be discussed in the context of the topic. I rather strongly default to competing interpretations. I like to see T debates come down to specific abuse stories, how expanding or contracting limits functionally impacts competitive equity, and exactly what types of ground/args are lost/gained by competing interps (case lists are good for this in front of me). I usually buy the most important impact to T as fairness. T is an a priori issue for me, and K-ing T is a less than ideal strategy with me as your judge.

Theory:

If you are going to go for it, go for it. I am unlikely to vote either way on theory via a blippy cheap-shot, unless the entire argument was conceded. But sometimes, for example, condo bad is the right strategic move for the 2AR. If it's done well, I won't hesitate to decide a round on it. Not a fan of multiple conditional worlds. With the notable exception of usually giving epistemology / ontology-based affs some flexibility on framework needing to come before particulars of implementation, I will vote Neg on reasonable SPEC arguments against policy affs. Affs should be able to articulate what their plan does, and how it works. (Read that you probably ought to have a plan into that prior statement, even if you are a K team.) For that reason, I also give Neg a fair amount of theoretical ground when it comes to process CPs against those affs. Severance is generally bad in my mind. Intrinsicness, less so.

CPs:

Personally, I think a lot of the standard CPs are, in any type of real world sense, ridiculous. The 50 states have never worked together in the way envisioned by the CP. A constitutional convention to increase funding for whatever is laughable. An XO to create a major policy change is just silly (although over the last two administrations, that has become less so). All that being said, these are all legit arguments in the debate world, and I evaluate and vote on them all the time. I guess I just wish Affs were smart enough to realize how dumb and unlikely these args actually are, and would make more legit arguments based on pointing that out. However, I do like PICs, and enjoy a well thought out and deployed advantage CP.

Disads:

Most topic-related disads are fine with me. Pretty standard on that. Just be sure to not leave gaping holes / assumptions in your link chains, and I'm OK. However, I generally don't like the politics disad. I would much rather hear a good senator specific politics scenario instead of the standard “President needs pol cap, plan’s unpopular” stuff, but even then, I'm not a fan. I'll still vote for it if that's what is winning the round, but I may not enjoy doing so. Just as a hint, it would be very easy to convince me that fiat solves for most politics link stories (and, yes, I understand this places me in the very small minority of judges), and I don't see nearly as much quality ground lost from the intrinsic perm against politics as most. Elections disads, though, don't have those same fiat-related issues, and are totally OK by me.

Criticisms:

I don’t read the lit much, but in spite of that, I really kind of like most of the more "traditional" ontological Ks (cap, security, Heidegger, etc). To me, Ks are about the idea behind the argument, as opposed to pure technical proficiency & card dumping. Thus, the big picture explanation of why the K is "true," even if that is at the expense of reading a few more cards, would be valuable. Bringing through traditional line-by-line case attacks in the 2NR to directly mitigate some of the Aff advantages is probably pretty smart. I think Negs set an artificially high burden for themselves when they completely drop case and only go for the K in the 2NR, as this means that they have to win 100% access to their “Alt solves the case” or framework args in order for the K to outweigh some super-sketchy and ridiculous, but functionally conceded, extinction scenario from the 1AC. K's based in a framework strategy (e.g. ontology first) tend to be more compelling in front of me than K's that rely on the alt to actually solve something (because, let's be honest here - alts rarely do). Identity-related arguments are usually not the most compelling in front of me, and I tend to buy strategic attacks against them from the left as more persuasive than attacks from the right.

Random:

I understand that some teams are unbalanced in terms of skill/experience, and that's just the way it goes sometimes. I've coached many teams like that. But I do like to see if both debaters actually know what they are talking about. Thus, your speaks will probably go down if your partner is answering all of your cross-ex questions for you. It won’t impact my decision (I just want to know the answers), but it will impact speaks. Same goes for oral prompting. That being said, I am inclined to give a moderate boost to the person doing the heavy lifting in those cases, as long as they do it respectfully.

________________________

Parli Paradigm

________________________

Parli is not my primary debate background, so I likely have an atypical paradigm for a parli judge that is influenced by my experiences coaching policy and circuit PF. Please adapt accordingly if you want to win my ballot.

First, I honestly don't care how you sound. I care about the arguments you make. Please, don't read that as an immediate excuse to engage in policy-style spreading (that level of speed doesn't translate super well to an event that is entirely analytics and doesn't have cards), but I will likely be more accustomed to and be able to handle debates that are faster than most of the HS parli rounds I have seen to date.

Two general things that I find annoying and unnecessary: 1) Introducing yourself at the top of each speech. I know who you are. Your name is on the ballot. That's all I need. This just seems to be an unnecessary practice designed to turn an 8 minute speech into a 7:30 speech. Forget the formalities, and just give me the content, please. 2) I don't need a countdown for when you start. We aren't launching a rocket into space or playing Mario Kart. Just start. I am a sentient enough of a being to figure out to hit the button on my timer when you begin talking.

I'll go speech by speech.

1st Gov: Spending the first minute or so explaining the background of the topic might be time well spent, just to ensure that everyone is on the same page. Please, if you have a contention-level argument, make sure it has some kind of terminal impact. If it isn't something that I can weigh at the end of the round, then why are you making the argument?

1st Opp: Same as above re: terminal impacts in case. Any refutations to the Aff case you would like me to evaluate at the end of the round need to be in this speech, or at least be able to be traced back to something in this speech. That means you probably shouldn't get to the Aff case with only a minute or two left in the speech. If your partner attempts to make new refutations to the Aff case in the 2nd Opp, I won't evaluate them.

2nd Gov: Similar to the 1st Opp, any parts of your case that you want me to consider when making my decisions need to be explicitly extended in this speech. That includes all essential parts of an argument - link, internal link, and impact. Just saying "extend my Contention 2" is insufficient to accomplish this task. You will actually need to spend at least a modicum of time on each, in order for me to flow it through, in addition to answering any refutations that Opp has made on it in the prior speech. Considering that you will also need to spend some time refuting the Neg's newly introduced case, this means that you will likely NOT have time to extend all of your contentions. That's fine. Make a choice. Not all contentions are equally good. If you try to go for everything, you will likely not do anything well enough to make a compelling argument. Instead, pick your best one (or maybe two) and extend, rebuild, and impact it. Prioritizing arguments and making choices is an essential analytical skill this activity should teach. Making decisions in this fashion will be rewarded in both my decision-making at the end of the round, as well as in speaker points.

Opp Block: If you want me to evaluate any arguments in the these speeches, I need to be able to trace the responses/arguments back to the 1st Opp, except if they are new answers to case responses that could only have been made in the the 2nd Gov. For example, 2nd Gov makes refutations to the Opp's case. New responses to these arguments will be evaluated, but they need to be made in the 2nd Opp, not the 3rd. However, to reiterate, I will absolutely NOT evaluate new refutations to Gov case in these speeches. Just as with the 2nd Gov, I also strongly advocate collapsing down to one contention-level impact story from your case and making it the crux of your narrative about how the debate should be decided. Trying to go for all three contentions you read in the 1st Gov is a great way to not develop any of those arguments well, and to leave me to pick whatever I happen to like best. I don't like judge intervention, which is why I want you to make those decisions for me by identifying the most important impact/argument on your side and focusing your time at the end of the round on it. Do my thinking for me. If you let me think, you may not like my decision.

Both Rebuttals: Listing a bunch of voters is a terrible way to debate. You are literally just giving me a menu of things I could vote on and hoping that I pick the one you want. You would be much better served in these speeches to focus in on one key impact story, and do extensive weighing analysis - either how it outweighs any/all of the other side's impacts, or if it is a value round, how it best meets the value framing of the debate. As I stated in the Opp Block section, please, do my thinking for me. Show that you can evaluate the relative worth of different arguments and make a decision based upon that evaluation. Refusing to do so tells me you have no idea which of your arguments is superior to the others, and thus you do not have a firm grasp on what is really happening in the round. Be brave. Make a choice. You will likely be rewarded for it. Also, there is very little reason to POO in these speeches. I keep a good enough flow to know when someone is introducing new arguments. If it is new, I won't evaluate it. I don't need you to call it out. I largely find it annoying.

She/her/hers

How do I win your ballot?: I will vote on what you tell me to vote for, if that doesn't happen I default to stock issues (unless there is a framework debate which I address later). Policy Debate is about communication and so that weighs on my RFD. I only really debated in Open so I am not very strong when it comes to understanding spreading. I can follow a well structured kritik but it comes down to your explanation of it. That being said, I am not caught up at all on K theory so don't expect me to know all about your obscure K theories. Yes your DA has to link and yes I do care about recency of your cards, but I have difficulties flowing a DA over to one team or the other based in timeframe alone. I love wacky squirrely affs but if the Neg team gets you on Topicality and your response isn't good enough to prove that you found a niche corner of the resolution then I will vote against you. Topicality is important but as a former debater I dislike it because it is tedious. Still, I will listen to your T debate. I love framework and it makes my job easier if it's in your aff. If you tell me that we are evaluating the round based off of who kills the least amount of people then my ballot will be focused on picking the side that saves more lives.

Those are all preferences. Remember that this activity is about you. If you want to run an obscure K and spread it, go for it. I will try my best to follow. Just remember that there are natural consequences to your actions (such as me potentially missing your alt). Anyway, paradigms are wack and I spent way too much time on this. Education was the best topic.

Please be kind to each other because policy debate is already full of chaos and we don't need to add to that by being rude or insulting.

Stuff no one really cares about:

I am a sophomore at KU (Rock chalk!) studying political science and global international studies. I find the current topic interesting and love hearing the arguments about SCOTUS because this really is a tough situation. I debated at Seaman Highschool and I really do love Debate. This activity, to me, is solely about learning and improving your presentation skills. Enjoy it while you can!

I did POI.

I debated for four years at Topeka Seaman HS (2010-2014). I'm a leftist hippie that has spent the last 5 years in the Navy, and am now an Interdisciplinary Computing major at KU, with a focus on physics. I am not debating in college.

I would like to be on an email chain if there is one: moserrj@ku.edu. I've also used a SpeechDrop in the past. I will not flow off of the document, but will read the evidence in case I miss something.

When I debated, I debated on what was considered a lay circuit, and never traveled out of the state. While I generally know how to flow and understand debate concepts, the combination of the large timeframe since I actively competed and the circuit in which I competed means you would be more successful if you slow down and explain your arguments more than usual, as it's been a bit since I have really thought about debate.

I spend a decent amount of my time around a person who is active in both coaching high school debate and debating in college, which means despite not always wanting to hear about debate, I hear a lot about debate and arguments nonetheless, and therefore am not as out of it as the above may make it seem.

I would rate myself a 6/10 on the speed scale and prefer emphasis and inflection vice a cold monotone speed read. Just reading cards at me, with no discernable purpose, explanation, or intonation is not a pathway to my ballot. While I can probably read the card to understand its purpose, I would rather you explain that purpose either in a tagline or underview, and extend the evidence with a claim, warrant, and impact throughout your later speeches. I am of the opinion that debate should be about constructing well-founded arguments and disassembling lesser ones, not simply attempting to allegedly spew most of the words to a higher volume of "cards" than the opposing team and asking the judge to read all of them and perform the analysis for you.

I think that the affirmative team should defend hypothetical government action that beneficially shifts from the status quo. I think the negative team must prove that the affirmative plan is a bad idea.

I am not a good judge for the K, or hyper-technical debates like counterplan competition. These are something I have very little, to no experience with. I have very little experience with international relations, with the exception of the topics I debated on, so I would prefer if your arguments relied less on debate jargon/shorthand/abbreviations that are not commonly used in the real world because I am unlikely to understand it. I did meet NATO once in the navy though.

I would prefer impacts that are more real world. While I understand the need to have endless extinction scenarios, I prefer debate when we talk about the real world implications of policies. However, I understand that this topic probably prevents those types of discussions. I will not vote on arguments that argue that death is good, that going to war would be good, or that dropping nuclear bombs would be good. If you run a K or weird theory argument, that is fine, you just need to make sure that you have shown that you leave ground for Aff teams to exist and YOU MUST PROVE A NET BENEFIT TO THE PLAN be it solving their advantages, turning them, or whatever. A K without it's own solvency dies at the feat of a mitigated Aff. Prove it solves for something and I'll vote for it. e.g. if your cap K just says capitalism is bad and we should reject the Aff for a global worker revolt, you need to convince me that workers both can and will revolt globally to beat/steal the Aff's impacts, just like the Aff has to prove solvency for their impacts.

Just make it make sense and tell me why your arguments matter at the end of the round.

Email Chain: qmnguyen1229@gmail.com

Please include relevant information (tournament name, round, team codes, ect.) in the subject line and speech doc names.

I debated at Wichita East (2015-2019). I then coached + regularly judged (2019-2022). Since then, I have not coached and only judge once or twice a year. I likely know absolutely nothing about the topic or newer debate trends/norms.

When I debated, I was a stereotypical policy 2N – I usually went for a counterplan + disad, never read kritiks, and always went for T-USFG vs K affs. I have very little experience reading kritiks but plenty answering them.

Thus, I am most comfortable and competent judging policy vs policy rounds. I am okay for policy vs K rounds. I will be a very bad judge for K vs K rounds. I do not have an ideological opposition to kritiks but due to my lack of experience going for them you should err on the side of over explanation.

That being said, please debate using whatever speed and arguments you are most comfortable with, and I will do my best to adapt to you. If you provide clear and warranted analysis, explanation, impact comparison, and judge instruction you are likely to win my ballot regardless of your argument style.

First and foremost I consider this a speech event, so clarity and good pacing is important.

I like debates about stock issues and on case arguments. I do not like K. at all. Counterplans are okay as long as you make sure to address the aff completely and know that I will expect a very logical reason I why I should vote for the CP. I like a clearly laid-out A1 with a road map that is easy for me to flow. CX is extremely important and I don’t like questions that are time fillers or simply ask to repeat plans unless the aff is unclear.

A good DA is great but be sure it goes beyond the generic. And PLEASE don't go apocalyptic!

Stay topical or prove the Aff isn’t beyond just saying that it isn’t. Make me believe.But aff needs to address T if it is brought up.

Be sure not to drop arguments in your rebuttals and don’t bring in new evidence.

If you can be logical, clear and concise, and respond to all arguments you stand a good chance of winning.

I appreciate respectful behavior and disapprove of rudeness or directly dressing down your opponent.

I am the head debate coach at Lyndon High School in Kansas. I was an assistant coach at Washburn Rural High School for 23 years. However, I didn’t coach the varsity teams. I mainly worked with the open teams. I have not listened to a round at speed for over four years. So I would not decide to pick it up any more than just a moderate competition speed. I don’t listen to K’s. Mainly because I am not current on the literature. So I wouldn’t suggest taking that risk. I will vote on a good T argument. However, if it is frivolous I can be convinced to vote against you. Generic DA’s are ok with specific link analysis. Finally, I default to a Policymaker paradigm. Good luck and have fun.

I prefer speech drop - in my experience it is less buggy. I will defer to the debating teams what works best for them. Please add me to the email chain: amandalpierson@gmail.com

Debate Experience / About Me

I did CX debate in Kansas in 2009-2013 and I'm currently the head coach for Thomas Jefferson High School of Science and Technology. You should assume I have engaged with the literature you're reading. My academic experience is rooted in modern sociological theory. I work in government. My ballots are usually very detailed re: the RFD, how to tighten up your arguments, and strategic choices through the round. Feel free to ask any questions prior to the round.

Judging Philosophy

--I'm tab ras but default offense/defense. My default layering is framework, then T, theory, and unanswered technical args prior to looking to policy impacts unless I'm given a reason to deviate.

--Speed is encouraged. I do not like to flow off the speech doc. I'll call for clarity if I can't understand you.

--Run whatever you believe will create the best debate. Regardless of the argument, I like lots of clash and being told how to vote and why in the rebuttals. I also like strategic/clever CXs, as well as using your time efficiently (i.e. cutting the cleanest line through an argument). These are elements that will bump your speaks up, but are not necessarily key to winning the round.

--Obviously harmful language will hurt your speaks. This includes misgendering, adding an "-s" to "Black," and adding "-ed" to "Color." These are the only transgressions that I've had to ding people on in the past year, but I'm embarrassed for the community that I had to do this at all (and often enough that it is now in my paradigm). Just remember that impact is more important than intent and how we represent folks through language matters. If you have additional questions on this, I'm happy to email you some resources on this.

--Feel free to ask more specific questions prior to the round.

You Should Strike Me If

--You have a performance aff. K affs are groovy but if you come up and read Grapes of Wrath I'm gonna vote neg before the 1st CX. K affs, if well-structured, can make great and important debates. I've yet to see a performance aff enhance anyone's education or worldview.

--Your past 2NRs are K-heavy but you don't understand the actual argumentation. In other words, if you're running biopower but can't tell me what it is absent the link to the aff, it probably shouldn't be in your 2NR. To be clear, I love the K and it has a place in policy debate. But you have to be able to articulate the argument.

--You rely on "gotcha" strategies or your assistant coach just pushed you into the round with random cards from Violence hoping that the other team will be confused. Again, nothing worse than a bad critical debate.

I’ve judged 8 debate rounds in the last 4 months. Before that, I had no debate background. I try to be unbiased while I’m listening to the debate and the scores will reflect this.

Put me on the email chain: dustinrimmey@gmail.com

I think you should have content warnings if your arguments may push this debate into uncomfortable territory.

Quick Background:

I debated for four years in High School (Lansing HS, KS) from 1998-2002, I debated for four years in college (Emporia State University, KS) from 2002-2006, Coached one year at Emporia State from 2006-2007, and from 2007 to present I have been a coach at Topeka High School (KS) where I have been the director of Speech and Debate since 2014. In terms of my argument preference while I was actively debating, I dabbled in a little bit of everything from straight up policy affirmatives, to affirmatives that advocated individual protests against the war in Iraq, to the US and China holding a press conference to out themselves as members of the illuminati. In terms of negative arguments, I read a lot of bad theory arguments (A/I spec anyone?), found ways to link every debate to space, read a lot of spark/wipeout and read criticisms of Language and Capitalism.

In terms of teams I have coached, most of my teams have been traditionally policy oriented, however over the last 2-3 years I have had some successful critical teams on both sides of the ball (like no plan texts, or slamming this activity....). For the past 2-3 years, I have been working with teams who read mostly soft left affirmatives and go more critical on the negative.

My Philosophy in Approaching Debate:

I understand we are living in a time of questioning whether debate is a game or an outreach of our own individual advocacies for change, and I don't know fully where I am at in terms of how I view how the debate space should be used. I guess as a high school educator for the past decade, my approach to debate has been to look for the pedagalogical benefit of what you say/do. If you can justify your method of debating as meaningful and educational, I will probably temporarially be on board until persuaded otherwise. That being said, the onus is on you to tell me how I should evaluate the round/what is the role of the ballot.

This is not me being fully naive and claiming to be a fully clean slate, if you do not tell me how to judge the round, more often than not I will default to an offense/defense paradigm.

Topicality

I tend to default to competing interpretations, but am not too engrained in that belief system. To win a T debate in front of me, you should go for T like a disad. If you don't impact out your standards/voters, or you don't answer crucial defense (lit checks, PA not a voter, reasonability etc.) I'm probably not going to vote neg on T. Also, if you are going for T for less than all 5 minutes of the 2NR, I'm probably not voting for you (unless the aff really messes something up). I am more likely to vote on T earlier in the year than later, but if you win the sheet of paper, you tend to win.

I do think there is a burden on the negative to either provide a TVA, or justify why the aff should be in no shape-or-form topical whatsoever.

In approaching T and critical affirmatives. I do believe that affirmatives should be in the direction of the resolution to give the negative the basis for some predictable ground, however in these debates where the aff will be super critical of T/Framework, I have found myself quite often voting affirmative on dropped impact turns to T/Framing arguments on why the pedagogical model forwarded by the negative is bad.

Hack-Theory Arguments

Look, I believe your plan text should not be terrible if you are aff. That means, acronyms, as-pers, excessive vagueness etc. are all reasons why you could/should lose a debate to a crafty negative team. I probably love and vote on these arguments more than I should.....but....I loved those arguments when I debated, and I can't kick my love for them.....I also am down to vote on just about any theory argument as a "reject the team" reason if the warrants are right. If you just read blocks at me and don't engage in a line-by-line of analysis....I'm probably not voting for you...

I am on the losing side of "condo is evil" so a single conditional world is probably OK in front of me, but I'm open to/have voted on multiple conditional worlds and/or multiple CPs bad. I'm not absolutely set in those latter worlds, but its a debate that needs hashed out.

I also think in a debate of multiple conditional worlds, its probably acceptable for the aff to advocate permutations as screens out of other arguments.

The K

Eh.......the more devoted and knowledgable to your literature base, the easier it is to pick up a ballot on the K. Even if you "beat" someone on the flow, but you can't explain anything coherently to me (especially how your alt functions), you may be fighting an uphill battle. I am not 100% compelled by links of omission, but if you win a reason why we should have discussed the neglected issue, I may be open to listen. The biggest mistake that critical debaters make, is to neglect the aff and just go for "fiat is an illusion" or "we solve the root cause" but....if you concede the aff and just go for some of your tek, you may not give me enough reason to not evaluate the aff...

I am the most familiar with anti-capitalist literature, biopolitics, a small variety of racial perspective arguments, and a growing understanding of psychoanalysis. In terms of heart of the topic critical arguments, I've been reading and listening to more abolitionist theory, and if it is your go-to argument, you may need to treat me like a c+ level student in your literature base at the moment.

Case Debates

I like them.....the more in depth they go, the better. The more you criticize evidence, the better...

Impact turns

Yes please......

Counterplans

Defend your theoretical base for the CP, and you'll be fine. I like clever PICs, process PICs, or really, just about any kind of counterplan. You should nail down why the CP solves the aff (the more warrants/evidence the better) and your net benefit, and defense to perms, and I will buy it. Aff, read disads to the CP, theory nit-picking (like the text, does the neg get fiat, etc.) make clear perms, and make sure you extend them properly, and you'll be ok. If you are not generating solvency deficits, danger Will Robinson.

I think delay is cheating, but its an acceptable form in front of me...but I will vote on delay bad if you don't cover your backside.

Misc

I think I'm too dumb to understand judge kicking, so its safe to say, its not a smart idea to go for it in front of me.

Don'ts

Be a jerk, be sexist/transphobic/racist/ableist etc, steal prep, prep during flash time, or dominate cx that's not yours (I get mad during really bad open CX). Don't clip, misrepresent what you read, just say "mark the card" (push your tilde key and actually mark it...) or anything else socially unacceptable....

If you have questions, ask, but if I know you read the paradigm, and you just want me to just explain what I typed out.....I'll be grumpier than I normally am.

Basic practice preferences

If you want an email chain - msawyer@tps501.org

I will be flowing the round and that will be the largest decider in our round. Defend/debate all portions of an arguments and that will reflect well for you on the flow. I want to see ya'll interact with the arguments read - if you choose to discount an argument without just refutation, it'll be a yikes for all involved.

I will never vote on arguments which are discriminatory and encourage violence (racism good, ableism good, anti-queer literature, etc.) If you create spaces which encourage violence or are the source of abuse in the round in any way, you will lose this debate. I view my privilege in this round is to protect education and the safety of all debaters - in no way will I sit by and watch another team/debater be attacked for any identity they may possess. Debate space should be a space to act without fear of oppression - I will make sure that is reflected in my judgments and comments. I would rather see ethical debaters than those who read awful arguments in hopes of gaining a winning edge. Be a better person than you are a debater at all times.

I am fine with any speed you choose, but I will hold you accountable for creating a safe and accessible space for the debate to occur. If the practice is used as a way to push a debater/team out of the round, that's a problem. I will not directly intervene in this case, but if the team/debater chooses to critique your process or read in-round abuse theory, I will prefer it.

Argument breakdown

Framework: I will flow what you want from me to either change my evaluation of the round or use it as a critique of debater methods. This can be important at the end of the round if you make it to be. I will evaluate the round as your framework dictates if you give me the solid reasoning as why it should be preferred over default consequentialism. I want to see your ability to interact with the framework throughout the round, not just a one-time read at the end of an aff or at the start of a neg argument. If you are willing to read it, work with it during our time.

Author debates are tedious and boring. Do the work. Do the analysis. Disprove the argument written and presented rather than count on me to judge whether a piece of evidence should be included. Again, I want to see you engage with the evidence as read rather than dismiss it.

Topicality: I love it. A good T debate is my favorite debate to judge and was my favorite argument to run. By default, the aff needs to win the interpretation and work through the standards/voters. Don't discount the argument and make sure to prove T through thorough argumentation.

Counterplans: Always a fun time! As the neg, I feel this gives you automatic offense which can lead you away from the "the aff is still better than the SQ" debates. The thing that will irritate me quickest is the aff simply saying the perm to be argued rather than adding a simple line or two to analyze how that perm performs its abilities within the round and in the world of the aff. Do the work! In my opinion and practice, condo bad can help guard importance analysis space. Go for it! Other theory arguments are chill with me if you provide adequate analysis for how it negatively/positively shapes the round.

Criticisms/Performances: As a debater, I ran a few K arguments and have coached students through lit bases. There is a high chance I will be familiar with the base you are pulling from, but if I am not, I am sure I can understand the argument through the flashed evidence! Any K read should be an advocacy. This means that I want to see these arguments function as something you/the team truly believes and truly are a part of the community the literature bases itself within. Running literature from a community of which you are not a member runs the line of commodification which is bad for many reasons! I am willing to hear any K and will rely on the you to prove link and solvency clearly.

BOTTOM LINE

Debate is about education and learning how to interact with arguments on great topics. I want to see your work, your passions, and your way of debating. Make this activity fit you and your teammate, not the other way around! With as much as I value education, I want you to value and safeguard that education for all involved. This is why I will never vote up a team which places that in jeopardy for the round. As I tell my team: be better people than you are debaters. Never sacrifice parts of yourself for arguments that may seem competitive. Be a part of the reason this community is becoming safer for its members, not a reason people dread the activity.

I did not debate in high school or college but I have judged every year for the past 10 or so years. I would describe myself as a policymaker judge although topicality is important to me and I don't mind Ks. I am not opposed to CP as long as net-benefit or perm are clearly articulated. I am comfortable with traditional or progressive debate as long as the harms are real world and I don't have to struggle through speed readers.

I debated in HS 2016-2020 and college for the last 3 years. Any argument is okay with me as long as it is relevant and well thought out. K's are cool but please please please run them correctly if you're going to run them. I don't know enough about them to be able to judge a sticky K round

Organization is key throughout your speeches. If you're bouncing around through your speech it'll confuse everyone and not give a clear representation of what you're for.

I love speed as long as you're fluent and not mumbling :)

Be respectful because at the end of the day if you're being disrespectful or rude you will not win my ballot, ever