1. Contentions should be clearly laid out. (Ex. My first contention is...) This makes it easier for both me and your opponents to follow along with your case.

2. Please try not to spread (speak too quickly). I need to be able to understand your contentions in order to take notes.

3. I need you to have strong evidence to back up all claims. I prefer statistics and numbers over anecdotes.

4. Please be able to give your source when asked.

5. It is important that you have a strong impact and that you prove to me why your impact is more important than your opponents'.

One last note: please put the name of your school and which side you will be debating in your name. If you are comfortable, please add your pronouns too.

** For Policy Debaters, 2020-2021. My graduate academic background is in comparative criminal justice, meaning that I probably have a lot more content familiarity than a typical judge, albeit not necessarily the debate world version of the literature. I will probably have opinions about some of your sources. Ask if you think this may help or hurt you **

I am a former policy debater and have coached and judged (at least 100 rounds of each) policy, public forum and LD debate. I flow and can whatever speed you want to throw at me, but I'm not impressed by it. I am old enough to remember LD and Public Forum debate in their infancy and what traditional policy debate was.

There are no formal rules in debate; please do not assert so in the round. There are rules about evidence that you should adhere to . . .

Debate is both a competition and an educational activity, and as a judge, I try my best to be fair and to promote debate as much as possible as a learning activity. I know debaters work hard and I try not to spoil that work by inserting myself into the round. As a result, I try as much as possible to let the round be decided by you, the debaters, and not my preferences, knowledge or values as a judge. Concretely this means:

I will not vote based on whether I like or dislike you, notions of debate etiquette or style of debate. If you behave in a way that would be a concern for a good Human Resources director, I will assess it in your speaker points, not the decision for the round.

All debaters have to argue both sides of any topic or resolution; I generally do not like arguments that systematically favor one side (pro or con; aff or neg) over the other.

I think evidence is important, not because evidence makes things magically true, but because it allows me to anchor your claims to some empirical reality. Emphasizing evidence allows me to reward you for doing the learning and work before the round. Both sides have access to the same evidence. This is the easiest way for me to be fair and promote learning as a judge. You should be able to produce any evidence read in your opening speeches within 30 seconds, WIFI willing, and you should be able to produce any source read in any speech within a few minutes.

Evidence is not necessary; you can assume that I am a fairly well-read and knowledgeable person who cares about public policy and public affairs. However, I do not agree with those who think their analytical arguments somehow trump expert analysis and sources. I have watched a lot of debate rounds over a long time in a variety of frameworks, I have yet to see Ciceronian rhetoric or Socratic logic appear. I find that what most take for "analysis" is bowlderized ECON 101 on domestic topics and IR Realism for foreign policy topics; the world is much more complex than this. Policy analysis is operationalized common sense, but there is more than one common sense out there.

I try to decide the round by evaluating two competing RFD presented in the FF or 2AR/2NR. I then use my flow of the round to hypothesis-test the RFD presented to me.

During the round, if one team clearly seems to be winning, what I am thinking about is: "what would the team that is currently losing need to do to win this round?" As a result, I tend to be a squirrel on most elimination round panels.

While I think that there

MAGIC: another way to weigh arguments (Adapted from Yale Psychologist, Robert Abelson, Statistics as Principled Argument), substitute the words "arguments" or "evidence" for "effects" and I think this is a good framework to weigh.

1. Magnitude - How big is the effect? Large effects are more compelling than small ones.
2. Articulation - How specific is it? Precise arguments are more compelling than imprecise ones.
3. Generality - How generally does it apply? More general evidence and arguments are more compelling than less general ones. Claims that would interest a more general audience are more compelling.
4. Interestingness - interesting arguments/evidence are those that "have the potential, through empirical analysis, to change what people believe about an important issue". More interesting arguments are more compelling than less interesting ones.
5. Credibility - Credible claims are more compelling than incredible ones. Debaters must show that the claims made are credible. Claims that contradict previously established ones are less credible

A good summary of common logical errors made in arguments

Rhetological Fallacies:

https://www.informationisbeautiful.net/visualizations/rhetological-fallacies/

Hi! Starting with the basics of the round, I'm a flow judge, and I look mainly at weighing and framework. If you are not able to give me a solid reason to vote for you, I'll probably give it to the other team or judge based on cost-benefit analysis, and you probably won't like either outcome. On Framework, please carry it through the round FULLY or else I wont count it into my decision. Same goes with the rest of your case, no sticky defense.

If you say anything Islamophobic, racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. you will be dropped. This includes generalizations about the Middle East, any rebuttals that sound very ALMish etc. If you run this, you should strike me cause I will drop you with no hesitation, and I will give you the lowest possible speaks.

PLEASE DO NOT ADD BLIPPY ARGUMENTS ABOUT SOCIAL ISSUES. i love arguments that call out the injustices across the world, but don't bring it up just to get a cheap win in 2nd summary.

I do not care about anecdotes. Please bring facts to the round and cut cards.

Theory/K's: totally fine, make sure it works in the context of the round.

Speed: speed is good. Make sure you speak clearly.

Crossfire: Cross is an important time to poke holes in your opponents arguments, and if you want to bring up something that happened in cross in a later speech, i will flow it. However, I do not flow cross.

Rebuttals: Make sure your signposting and try to go down the flow, or else it will be harder for me to take what you're saying into consideration. Giving an off-time roadmap would be preferred, and generally please make your arguments more than "this is non-unique" or reading a card. Give me a reason to prefer your argument and drop theirs.

Please keep track of your own time, I won't be giving time stamps. If you call cards, I'll give you 3 minutes to find and send them and then I'm running prep. I refuse to flow through new arguments in summary or FF, so please do not bring them up. I will take off speaker points if you do.

Lastly, I'll add speaks if you make me laugh, mention a quote from the movie Zombieland, mention the title of a Greenday song, and read the paradigm:)

I am a senior at Bard Queens. I have been debating for the past seven years. I mainly do PF but I have parli experience as well (World Schools and AP).

I am good with speed but you should be coherent. No use making an argument if judge/opponents cannot understand what you're saying. This is not policy.

Aff needs to prove that their side is better than the status quo and they need to provide solvency. Neg has to prove that there are serious disadvantages to voting aff. Please please please extend your arguments through. Don't just repeat your arguments in final focus, that's a waste of time.

I won't flow cross but I will pay attention.

I am going into a round with a blank slate. Tell me why your impacts matter. Explain your links. I will follow an argument if it is explained well but you should do the heavy lifting for me.

I like progressive debate but I am unfamiliar with most kritik literature so you have to explain it to me. (I also wouldn't recommend running prog args at a local tournament but whatever floats your boat.)

Be kind. Debate is supposed to be a fun activity so enjoy yourselves! If you disclose or if there are any evidence email chains, loop me in: hope.dworkin@gmail.com

prefer no long "off time" roadmaps

please stick to your time

looking for clear weighing of your impacts vs your opponents' impacts

avoid reading very long passages/quotes

Flay Judge

Personal: daelias02@gmail.com

BHS '21, 4 years varsity pf debate

Preferences:

-I hate spreading because I value quality over quantity. If you have to gasp for air when you're speaking I consider it spreading. (I'll say clear if I can't understand you)

-Be nice, you probably don't need to scream. Interrupting is fine but only if you're responding to an argument, not preventing your opponents from making one.

-Try to stay within the time allotted but I allow 10 second cushions for each speech, including constructives. Won't flow anything after that.

-Signposting and clear extensions are greatly appreciated and will improve your chances of winning

General:

-Defense is sticky - if they don't address your response there's no need to repeat it. Offense is less sticky, try to extend throughout the round.

-Weigh a lot in summary and FF - comparative weighing as soon as possible

-Try to collapse, you can win a round without winning every single issue

Progressive/K Cases: Don't really like the idea of them but if you make a strong argument I will judge you on it.

Speaker Points: Losing team starts at 28, winning team at 29 unless you're super rude/disrespectful. After that, I'll judge on warranting, word efficiency, and strategy.

I have judged debate, both policy and public forum, including intercollegiate policy, for the past 15 years. I debated policy for Gonzaga University from 2002-2006 and competed at the National Debate Tournament and the CEDA National Tournament. I currently coach and primarily judge public forum debate.

I firmly believe that it is not my place to impose my values or beliefs on a debate. You, as debaters, are primarily responsible for determining what I should value and how I should evaluate specific arguments. You need to tell me what Impacts matter, you need to explain your link and internal link stories, and you need to compare those argument against your opponents. If you do the work, I will follow and will make the effort to understand and respect those arguments. You are responsible, however, for proving, explaining, and analyzing those arguments. You need to explain your internal link and impact story in a way that is both compelling and backed up with evidence. Do not take for granted that I will immediately vote for you just because you said XYZ causes nuclear war. You have to do the work to get me there.

If you leave the debate entirely up to me, making short unwarranted and unevidenced arguments, you are likely to be frustrated with the result. I will rely on my flow as a witnessed accounting of the debate and attempt to deconstruct the arguments made on both sides.

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.

I am a lawyer and Executive Director of the NYCUDL.

I have judged PF for the last 6+ years, over 100 rounds and run many judge trianings.

I will judge based on a combination of the flow, general logic and common sense.

Speed-don't do it. If I can't understand you, I can't give you credit for it.

If you want me to vote on an issue please include it in both summary and final focus.

Write my RFD for me in final focus.

Only call for evidence if there is a real need (context, integrity).

In general, be nice. I believe in debate access for all so I will cut your speaks if you create an environment where other people don't want to participate in the activity.

Good luck and have fun!

I am a flow judge. if you want me to consider a point in my RFD, you must state it cohesively in your speeches and ensure that you bring up important points. if it’s not on my flow, i won’t consider it.

speed: i’m all right with speed as long as you’re speaking legibly and i can comprehend your words enough to note them down. i don’t see any benefit or reason to spread but if you do, it’s your choice. remember, you’ve to win the judge over, but if they can’t understand you, there’s going to be some problems.

evidence: statistics > anecdotal/theoretical evidence. your argument must be supported by sourced evidence consistently. don’t simply state an argument and expect me or your opponent(s) to buy it. if asked for a card, you must be able to provide. if you ask your opponent for a card, the time you take to view the card will be deducted from your prep time.

*REMEMBER TO SIGNPOST* begin your speech by saying “my framework is...” or “contention 1...” it makes it easier for both the judge and your opponents to flow your case.

i love seeing active clash during crossfires. be quick on your feet and attack your opponents, defend valiantly, and win every single battle. you might not win the round for being able to handle crossfires well, but you will be rewarded with good speaker points.

I'm a relative newcomer to the world of debate, so any arguments that are done at a speed that an average human would struggle to comprehend, I might also have trouble following. Arguments that clearly highlight the impact are particularly important. During crossfires, I really appreciate questions that allow your opponent to actually answer meaningfully, as opposed to critical statements with a question mark at the end (i.e. "You proved that your argument wasn't valid... don't you agree?"). I keep time and expect you to do the same.

I judge based on my ability to follow an argument, its logic, and the strength of evidence used to support it. I am generally skeptical of statistical evidence and often find it vulnerable to challenge. I will not flow crossfire but I will listen. Summary and final focus are the most important speeches; I depend on these summaries to clarify and refine arguments. I do keep my own time as a way of ensuring that each team uses time equitably. I will try to follow speedy arguments, but I am, myself, on the slower side.

sammrich@umich.edu

Hello!

I debated on the policy team for Brooklyn Tech for 4 years and now I'm a freshman at the University of Michigan (not on the debate team here though).

For policy: I read a solid mix of everything in high school so I am probably familiar with whatever type of argument you want to run, that being said I have only judged a few rounds on the water topic so make sure to explain whatever you're reading well, especially DA scenarios and things like that (obviously explaining your arguments applies to everything you read but it will be especially important in that context). All I ask is that you properly compare impacts/evidence and tell me how to weigh your arguments—when I go to write my ballot I want to already know how to prioritize different arguments and what I should be voting on.

For PF: Though my background is in policy, I've judged a fair amount of PF rounds and feel comfortable doing so. However, I may not be familiar with the intricacies of the topic so keep that in mind.

Feel free to ask me any questions via email or in-round about my own debate history, other specific preferences, etc. Good luck!

Hi, I'm Jeremy. I did policy debate in high school and now in college..

Some thoughts, not necessarily in any order:

--the 2nr/2ar should write my ballot. that requires judge instruction surrounding key framing questions and how those framing questions implicate my evaluation of the rest of the debate. the best rebuttal probably wins a framing arg at the top and then goes down the flow to apply it. Recently i've been persuaded by role of the judge arguments because they provide me with a epistemic/ethical position from which to adjudicate arguments on the flow. If you want me to do work for you in my decision, this is how, you just need to implicate it.

--If ur a 2n, probably don’t drop case. if you’re a 2a, punish the 2n for dropping case.

--hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical

--The same logic folds true for other impact analysis. I tend to think that institutions/systems/entities, etc. have historical existence (for instance, "historical capitalism") which binds their coming-into-Being (past) to their Being (present). That is to say that violence isn't just an ethical choice in a vacuum, but something that accumulates through the reproduction of its existence over time and through space. that means that hypothetical impacts are probably less important than real-existing impacts since the future existence of hypothetical impacts is not certain and/or necessary. That being said, if you win your internal link chain is true, that the hypothetical impact outweighs, and that you solve it, i probably will vote for you absent some tricky framing argument you drop.

Topicality

• I like these debates. i don't judge a ton of them though, especially not on this topic.
• Fairness is probably the best impact if you're reading T, but you should have inroads/internal link turns on clash/edu because i'm willing to be persuaded that the inclusion of debatably (un)topical aff into the activity is good because it provides a unique type of education not accessed by existing affirmatives
• the current college topic has made me believe in subsets (do with that what you will)

Framework vs K affs

• hypothetical/universal models of debate probably don’t exist in so far as my ballot can not fiat them into existence, there is just the specific debate under adjudication and real existing debate practices within the concrete totality of the activity - whether that is true or not is ultimately up for y’all to prove/disprove - that means that in round abuse tends to be more persuasive than potential abuse because it means ur impact exists rather than being hypothetical
• I tend to think that FW is chosen ground vs many k affs unless its a new aff because many teams get by fine without reading fw
• Fairness is probably an impact, but its not necessarily the most important impact and is often just an internal link to other things (clash/education/etc.)
• The biggest issues that i have with 2nrs that go for fw is a) the lack of an external impact (people quit, debate dies - participation has decreased over the years, explain that impact flows ur way and how you solve it) and b) not explaining why debate is a valuable activity that should be preserved (this is where things like education, skills, and fun often become terminal impacts to the internal link of education) c) lack of defense (SSD or TVA) that absorbs the educational net benefits of the aff
• The biggest issue that i have with 2ars responding to fw is insufficient impact calculus - i will probably let you weigh ur aff's theory of power/understanding of the world vs fw, but you have to explain you impacts on the level of the activity and contextualize that as offense vs their reading of fw - does FW, particularly the invocation of procedural norms, insulate debate from a critique of its ideology? Are the content-neutral education/skills produced by their content agnostic model good?
• I don't really care whether you go for a C/I or an impact turn, but a mix of the two can be good i.e. a straight impact turn might leave you without defense, whereas a C/I means your vulnerable to the normative impacts of theory debates. I think that if you isolate a critique of the outcomes of their model, then provide an alternative model, you're probably in a good place.

K v K Debates

• Affs probably get a perm, theoretically (if the 1nr is 5 min of perm theory that would be pretty devastating) but whether the perm solves the links is up for debate.
• A good 2ar either goes for the perm with case, link turns, and alt DAs as Net benefits OR goes for case outweighs with a disad to the alternative
• A good 2nr has an impact which outweighs the aff with either an alt that resolves the aff impacts OR presumption
• you can probably win presumption with me in the back. I used to go for baudrillard a lot

DA/CP

I don't judge these debates very often and thus don't have any specific thoughts that aren't captured by stuff i said above. just win the flow.

Dawson '21 in Houston

Tufts University '25

Debating as a Hybrid with Harvard as Tufts

Please put me in the email chain and feel free to reach out if you have any questions about debating at Tufts: mattjstinson2003@gmail.com

TLDR:

pref me KvK>Clash> Policy and give me a card doc after the round

Please do not over adapt to my paradigm. You do you and I will adjudicate the debate to the best of my ability. I always hate when judges strongly inflict their biases into decisions so I try to be as non-intervention as possible. But inevitably, I have some preconceptions and biases about debate so look through before rounds.

In high school, I was a double two going for policy args on aff and setcol and daoism on the neg, but in college I am a 1N/2A reading primarily flex args from across the library

I am a huge fan of argument innovation - make cool and original args and Ill reward you with extra high speaks

I like reading ev but pls do the work for me - if you frame your arguments clearly and basically write the ballot for me you will be far ahead.

Im kinda of a points fairy and reward debaters who are funny and make the debate enjoyable and educational.

Im not the type of judge if your debate style is bullying your opponents or being outright aggressive to them.

Finally, please just be nice to each other. I understand debate can be competitive at times, but try your best to be respectful and kind to your opponents. Problematic behavior, such as racism, sexism, homophobia, or transphobia, is completely unacceptable and will result in immediate judge intervention to ensure the safety of debaters.

Specifics:

Policy Aff vs K:

I have no strong leanings either way. These are my favorite type of debates to watch and judge. Kinda weird flow choice by me but in one off debates I prefer to flow different parts ie. FW, ontology, perms and links on different sheets so pls give me pen time

I think top level: both teams need to win an instructive claim on what the role of the ballot is and how I should weigh the aff vs the alt or the squo. Framework debating is often underutilized on the high school level and I think in a lot of debates it becomes a wash, which isnt good for both teams

I prefer for links to be to the consequences of the plan, generally, i find links of omission and reps links to not be super strategic. They are winnable but I would like some aff-specific contextualization with fleshed-out impacts and turns case analysis.

I find in a lot of fiat K ontology debates are really reductive and their isnt really explanations from either side about what the implications of their examples are and why is this the case.

I find 2AC shotgunning perms to be annoying and I give the 2NR leeway for new answers if a shotgunned perm suddenly takes on a new meaning in the 1AR. I prefer perms beyond PDB to be explained in the 2ac in like a sentence

Im not the judge for vague alt theory, use it as a solvency takeout instead

I think alt debating is usually pretty bad and isnt explained enough how the alt solves the links. Both teams need to pay heed to this and do more work on this part of the debate

Clash:

I believe FW is a legitimate form of rejoinder against non-topical advocacy. Having read a K-aff and FW consistently in college I find myself to be middle of the road in these debates with no strong leanings either way

Generally speaking, I view FW as a sliding scale. We meet affs will have an easier time while affs that dont engage with the topic theme at all will have a harder time.

My best advice is to choose an angle against FW and stick to it rather than going for a we meet, counter interp, and Impact turn all in the same 2AR.

I believe for me personally debate is a game that has some value outside of debate. I believe fairness is an external impact, but I find clash or skills to usually be more strategic against most K affs

I think for a winning 2NR in these debates I need clear impact explanation, offense on their CI/IT, and a bit on the case page to minimize case cross apps

I am also quite sympathetic to presumption and rejoinder bad arguments and I think sometimes going for case in the 2NR is quite strategic

For the 2AR to get my ballot explain your theory of power, its offensive applications on framework, and win either a counter-interp that is a better model, we meet, or an impact turn to FW

My final thoughts are I appreciate solid case debating. I think a coherent 4-5 minutes on case with both offense and defense to central claims will be way more strategic than a generic cap K

KvK

I lean on the side that the aff gets the perm, but the burden for explanation is higher than we sorta mention x or we would work in solidarity with y. Treat the perm like independent advocacy and explain why it resolves the links and explain how it would function.

I prefer as specific link contextualization as you can get, I think ontology without contextualization arent the best in front of me

Id like more impact comparison on both sides and explain how your theory of power interacts and supersedes your opponents

CPs:

Some of my favorite args in debate are clever process cps or pics. At the same time, my most hated arguments are perennial troll cps like con con or consult nato

2Ns honestly get away with murder with a lot of these shady cps. 2As hold the line on theory and call out these abusive cp texts

I tend to lean neg on condo at 4 options and below, states fiat, and process cp theory and aff on international fiat, condo above 5 options, and consult/conditions cp.

I usually judge kick unless given a reason not to

Theory is usually not a voter unless the 2nr goes for the arg in question (this excludes condo)

ill vote on condo but im also a reasonable person.

DAs:

Generally speaking, the more ev the better

Impact calc and a good cp/case push is key to get my ballot on a da

Turns case is also a good idea

Case

I have a soft spot for squirrelly affs that interpret the topic in an exciting way

Case debating is underrated - 99% of affs can get destroyed if u just do more than the bare minimum to answer them

Case turns are good and you should be reading lots of them in your 1nc

a trend im noticing with policy affs is alot of them read just god awful impact scenarios - neg pls dont drop them or ill be sad

a lot of case debating is just tagline extensions with rly no argumentative interaction - pls give warrants

go for an impact turn on case :)

T:

I tend to lean competing interps.

To easily win my ballot, treat t like a disad and have a coherent story for why your vision of the topic is better than your opponents

Im not likely to vote for bottom of the barrel args like ASPEC or disclosure

if u hide procedurals ima prob not flow it and if i do realize it ur getting a 25

Misc

I'm fine for the death K, wipeout, spark etc.

Go for memes - trolling is an underrated art in debate

I don't like when teams play music in rounds

The older the card, the better - read some ancient texts

I believe the ballot can only remedy who did the better debating- anything else is reflected in speaks

Nba references are much appreciated but don't say you're the Lebron of HS debate

LD:

K>Larp> T/Theory > Phil > Tricks

TBH i dont know how to give speaks in LD so ill prob default to 29.4 and go from there

generally speaking the closer your are to policy the better

I find phil and tricks debates make me want to slam my head into my desk

Ive noticed a lot of lders are borderline unflowable - do pen drills or slow down and be clear

Basically ditto my policy thoughts here

PF

Ditto my policy thoughts - closer you are to policy the better

i have not seen a good k debate in pf and its likely i never will

I have seen some decent theory debates but they are not fun to judge

Don't spread.

I will flow.

Frontlining offense in second rebuttal is necessary but defense is optional though recommended.

Defense is NOT sticky, please extend it even if it is dropped.

Please weigh!

I will vote off theory as a last resort. Be warned, I am not experienced in theory. You can run it at your own risk.

If you have any questions, ask me in round.

Hope your tournament goes well!