BIO:

Education:

BA in Philosophy, Peace Studies, & Communication Studies from Regis University

MA Communication Studies -K-State University

Debate Teaching/Coaching:

-Debate Coach @ Colorado Academy ('23 - present)

-College Debate Coach @ K-State for BP debate ('21-'23)

-Assistant Coach for WSD @ The Greenhill School ('20-'23)

- Instructor, VBI-San Diego '24

- Instructor, Harvard University - Harvard Debate Workshop '24

-Curriculum Coordinator & Top Lab Leader at Global Debate Symposium for WSD ('19-present)

-Instructor at Baylor Debate Institute for LD ('22)

-Instructor at Stanford National Forensics Institute (PF & Parli) ('19-'21)

PARADIGM
First and foremost I believe debate is about engagement and education. I highly value the role of charity in argumentation and the function of intellectual humility in debate.

NOTEs FOR ONLINE DEBATING:

1) You'll likely need to go slower

2) Be gracious to everyone, don't freak out if someone's Wi-Fi drops

3) I've reverted to flowing on paper--so signpost signpost signpost *See my sections on Cross-X & Speed*

You’ll see two distinct paradigms for WSD & LD/Policy in that order:

World Schools

I love World Schools Debate! This has by far become my favorite format of debate!

Do not run from the heart of the motion--instead, engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate (not just in the 1!). Ensure that you have a logical structure for the progression and development of the bench, work on developing and staying true to your team line. Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through your given principle or framework system. You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story: make the implicit, explicit. World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each judging area seriously.

Some thoughts on WSD

1. Prop Teams really need to prioritize establishing a clear comparative and beginning the weighing conversation in the Prop 3 to overcome the time-skew in the Opp Block. This involves spelling out clearly in the prop three not only what the major clashes in the round are but also what sort of voters I should prefer and why.

2. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

3. Opposition teams should use the block strategically. This means that the material covered in the opp reply should not be a redundant repetition of the opp 3. One of these two speeches should be more demonstrative (the 3) and the other less defensive (the 4) — we can view them as cohesive but distinct because they prioritize different issues and methods. There is a ton of room to play around here, but bottom line is that I should not hear two back to back identical speeches.

4. Big fan of principled arguments, but lately I have found that teams are not doing a fantastic job weighing these arguments against practical arguments. The framework of the case and the argument should preemptively explain to me what I should prefer this *type* of argument over or against a practical argument (an independent reason to prefer you). This usually involves rhetorically and strategically outlining the importance of this principle because of its moral/value primacy (i.e., what is the principled impact to disregarding this argument). This said, winning your principle should not depend on you winning a prior practical argument.

5. Regrets motions are some of my favorite motions, but I find that teams really struggle with these. You are debating here with the power and retrospect and hindsight. To this end, watch out for arguments that say something is bad because it “will cause X;” rather, arguments should say this thing is bad because it “already caused X.” This does not mean that we cannot access conversations about the future in regrets motions—but we need to focus the majority of our framing on actually analyzing why an *already present/happened* event or phenomena is worthy of regret.

__________________________

LD & Policy Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well. Though I dislike tricks & am not a great judge to pref for theory debates. Some of these sections are more applicable to either LD or Policy but that should be intuitive.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not tell me and paint the story for me I will really despise doing the work for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outway the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks. I don't disclose speaks. This seems arbitrary. I'm not confident why the practice of disclosing speaks has become a common request--but I think this is largely silly.

Speed: I am fine with speed; though I am not fine with bad clarity. More the half of the spreading debaters I listen to seriously neglect diction drills and clarity. Rapidly slurring cards together and ignoring clear sign-posting does not allow as much time as you think for the pen to put ink on the flow. I cannot tell you how many debates I have judged in the last two years where the entirety of CX time is spent by the opponent's trying to figure out what the other debater just said. I will only yell "clear" twice if you are going too fast for me--clarity has only become more important in the world of online debating. Recently, if I reach the point where I have to either say clear (or type it in the zoom chat) debaters get visibly frustrated. You have to choose between a judge who is capable of flowing your material or your desire to go so fast even when incomprehensible. In non-Zoom debates, typically nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity. *Note my Section on Online Debating*

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework. Morality is not a value. It's just not. It is descriptive; debate requires normative frameworks.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I am a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. I will default to comparative worlds unless told otherwise. Some level of intervention is required on the part of the judge unless the framework debate is carried all the way to the 2AR--don't make me intervene. Make sure you return to the framework debate! (Especially important for me in LD)

Theory: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory, tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interp clear and the violation clear. I want to be clear here though: I do not enjoy theory debates, I think the proliferating practice of theory debates and competing underviews is net-bad for the activity. Additionally, if theory is a consistent leg of your strategy as a debater, that is fine, just do not pref me. I will not be a good judge for your preferred strategy. I'll also concede here that I am really poor at analyzing tricks debates and I am not a fan of the practice of lists of theory spikes--debate should be, at its core, about engagement not tricks for evasion. This is not to say that I have no understanding of how to adjudicate competing interps or theory debates, but it is not my comfort zone and I dislike the practice.

Cross-X: I flow cross-ex. I do consider it a substantive portion of the debate and cross-ex is binding. I believe that too many debaters waste their cross-ex time by desperately trying to get some understanding of their opponent's case because of the increasing absurdity of some case strategies and/or the lack of clarity that accompanies some speed. There are fundamentally three types of overarching cross-x questions: 1) Clarification, 2) Rebuttal, 3) Set-up/Concession; they rank in weakness/effectiveness from 1-3, with 1 being a non-strategic use of time.

Plans/CPs IN LD: This is fine. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are fine. Once again, If you do it right you are fine. Again: If your strategy is to run a theory argument against a CP, a Plan, a PIC, or the like I may not necessarily be super happy about this *See my section on theory*. Debate is about engagement, not evasion--but I will listen to anything to the best of my ability.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. I love to see something Unique but relevant if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! You gotta give me some function beyond “give me the ballot.” I am comfortable with most critical theory and post-modern scholarship. In particular, I have well-established academic training in phenomenology-informed critical theory, metaphysical frameworks that take strong ontological positions, and Deleuzian scholarship writ large. I can draw the links for you; Please do not make me. If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. I have experience working with critical theory and have worked alongside Dr. George Yancy firsthand on Critical Race Theory--I cannot stress this enough: good K debaters do their authors and their authors' scholarship justice by understanding the primary texts and scholarship inside and outside of the round. If your only exposure to a K author is a list of cards, you are philosophically unequipped to meaningfully engage in that author's scholarship, and unprepared for a good K debate.

This in no way means that you have to be a PhD student on Baudrillard to run a Baudrillard K, it just means you have to actually do your homework and trust your reasonable knowledge of the case-dependent scholarship because you didn't take shortcuts in understanding the K-Author, and your main textual engagement with the K-Author goes well beyond a series of cards, especially cards someone else cut.

Evidence: Be ethical with your evidence. This is serious stuff.

Weighing and Impacts: Spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, if you argue with me or begin to debate with me, I will give you a 20 on speaks--no joke Do not waste my time.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jared Bressler. My email is jbressl3@gmail.com if you are using an email chain or you want to email me a question (Include tournament name and debate in the subject line if its a pre-round question). I did LD debate for four years a very long time ago. I competed in then coached NPDA debate at Texas Tech for a very long time. I have also coached LD on and off for the last decade or so, some traditional some less so. I will go into my stylistic preferences bellow but there are a few things that apply no mater what style of debate you chose. Warrants are good, weight impacts, be nice to each other, I will evaluate the debate if front of me based on the arguments made to the best of my abilities. Also I am ok with speed (I know that should go without saying at a bid tournament but I also know that I am new here)

I am happiest judging policy style debates (I like to evaluate the aff plan vs either the sqo or a compitive CP). I have judged and am capable of judging any style of debate you chose (critical (identity or otherwise) traditional ect.) I will reward quality arguments with speaker points in a way I will not reward tricks.

Policy making: I will cover more of this in the theory section, but a few things. Offence is your friend, don't forget uniqueness controls the direction of the link. I really like heg and politics debate. Impact turn debates can also be fun.

Theory I judge all theory on competing interpretations. All that matter is the aff (or the neg) meets the best interpretations in the round as decided by weighting standards. I struggled with rather to give you my theory prepositions since they are not strong since a: they can be overcome with quality arguments and b: they were formed doing NPDA and policy which has different resolutions and times so I'm not even sure that these preconceptions are good for LD, but I think its good to have as much idea as where I am coming from so here they are. A good interpation provides predictable limits. The aff should be topical, CP should be textually and functionally competitive (they can of course be topical), all neg advocacies are conditional unless stated otherwise (though if you want to go for condo bad you should clarify in CX). I am willing to vote on framework/wrong form arguments. Also make sure you share your theory interps (and advocacy texts) or if for some reason you can't read them twice at below conversational speed.

Critical debate. I ran this a lot as a debater, but have become less fond of them as a judge. My default is to weight the alt as a competing advocacy. I am cynical of ballot of advocacy but I have voted that way before. I am able to follow most critical litature as long as its extend properly.

Traditinal LD: I have judged a bunch of this and some of it has been pretty good. Remember that debate is still about impacts, saying my value is "..." dose not automatically make that important. I have seen too many rounds where half the speech time was spent arguing value/criteria in a way that was completely detached from the rest of the debate where the impacts were.

I participated in LD debate, as well as extemp, in high school, and have experience with both value-criterion and progressive case formats. Neither is preferred.

I focus on more big-picture arguments and rebuttals. Give me compelling arguments over a list of attacks precisely following the flow. Focus on the ideas at hand rather than (for lack of a better word) petty fights; ie mentioning relevant semantics is great, but hashing that argument to death will be penalized. Listen to your opponent, but also feel free to frame and summarize the debate on your terms. Impact arguments and strong data analysis are also valued. Anecdotal evidence and emotional appeal are strongly discouraged.

Speaking: Please speak at a reasonable speed; drops are perfectly normal when speaking at a reasonable speed, so please do your best to pick out the most important aspects of the issue at hand to address. I value clarity and concision over spreading. Loud volume is appreciated.

I assign speaker points between 20 and 29 for the vast majority of debaters.

I judge speech and interp based on the rules and based on the round--comparing the performances in the round. I think author's intent is important for interp. I think communication skills, organization, rhetoric and evidence is important in speech events.

Email: Include me in the email chain please - jdaviangarcia@gmail.com

General:

tell me how/why to vote

refocus the debate on the central issues of the round during the rebuttals

clarity > speed: try to slow down on or at least emphasize tag lines and analytics

In most cases tech > truth, but that doesn't mean a concession is an automatic loss; warrant out why each argument matters

I'm generous with speaks

Topicality:

Regarding interpretations, I focus more on the relevancy/quality of the source of the definition, especially in relation to the topic at hand. I do tend to default to reasonability, but can probably be convinced to default to competing interpretation. If you can prove abuse, you have a good chance at winning T.

Framework:

Go for whatever impact you would like in framework (procedural fairness, advocacy skills, topic education, clash, etc.). It really comes down to the impact calculus and interpretation comparisons for in and out of the debate space.

Theory:

Theory debates can be interesting, but when it it an actual strong theory and not a 15 second shell. Tell me why/how to vote especially on theory arguments.

Disadvantages:

I prefer to listen to case-specific arguments that link to the affirmative rather than generic disadvantages that link primarily to the resolution, but I can probably be convinced that generic arguments are good too. Uniqueness matters a lot on time-sensitive DAs like politics DAs. Clear and concise link chains always help. Impact calculus is super important!

Counterplans:

I prefer case-specific counterplans over generic CPs, but again, I can probably be convinced otherwise. Solvency advocates and clear net benefits should always be included for me to weigh your CP against the aff.

Kritiks:

I'm not familiar with a ton of lit, so be sure to explain the theory thoroughly and any buzzwords. Probably try not to read something you're not able to explain. Explain the alt thoroughly and why perms can/can't solve. Framing could go a long way. Overviews and line-by-line explanations/argumentation help a ton too.

Feel free to call me Allie. She/they. Former policy debater, judge/coach of 3 years running.

Current conflict is Jones (Chicago)

Email chain please: allie.gutierrez@live.com - If you have any questions before/after the round, shoot me an email! Especially when the RFD is on a time crunch, I'm happy to give more feedback.

TLDR:

No one is pure tab, but I'm as close as I can be. I'm good with Policy v Policy, Policy v K, and K v K. I lean pretty tech > truth. We're all here to learn, so be good people and have a good time!

If it’s LD or PF, you can probably get most of what you need from my CX paradigm, but particulars are at the bottom.

Some things I find affecting my general philosophy:

I've seen more judges refusing to vote for racism good, etc., and I'm all for it. If your arguments are offensive (racism good, sexism good, etc.) or make the space unsafe, I won't feel bad handing out an L25. What I haven't decided is how to handle cap good, climate change not real, etc. These arguments aren't explicitly offensive, but invalidate very real issues/experiences. As tech as I am, I'm skeptical of the rising popularity of arguments that embrace harmful pedagogy. For now, just know my tech > truth default wavers a little here.

Framework:

I'm not dogmatic about impacts, just prove why your model is best for the round and the world of debate. Bad for "Ks bad for debate", good for solid aff framework vs. neg Ks.

If you have an ROB/ROJ, please substantiate it. I've judged a lot of rounds where a pretty complex and/or self-serving ROB is read, but not A) what it means in the context of the round and B) why it's net beneficial for the debate.

For K affs, I tend to be happier if you debate the aff as is. Meta pre-reqs are a thing, but this too often feels like a way to avoid developing creative/strategic arguments. There are definitely exceptions - I'm sympathetic to the neg when aff literature doesn't mention something at least tangential to the topic. Regardless, don't feel the need to over-adapt to my preference.

I'll vote neg when: the aff has a poor counter-interp, the neg turns aff impacts, the topical version accesses aff impacts, or neg offense outweighs the limits DA.

I'll vote aff when: the 2NR fails to collapse the impact debate, the neg doesn't either turn or access aff impacts, or the aff successfully doubles down on an exclusion argument that turns neg impacts.

Topicality:

Evidence comparison!! If you have a quality definition that's contextual to the topic and fail to call out some nonsense def from Words and Phrases, I will be so sad. But, I don't want to read the size 2 text that makes 5 highlighted words a good definition. Either highlight more or weigh the ev for me.

I'm slightly reasonability-biased, at least for plan-less affs and stock cases. Good debating overcomes this. Please don't waste time running arbitrary, 5-second T shells. "Untruthful" T > 4 shells you kick coming out of the block.

I don't think TVAs are 100% necessary to win T (particularly against policy cases), but they can be useful.

Theory:

I think theory is super underused in high school! Explain why your interp is the best model and sets a necessary precedent, making theory a pre-req to the sub debate. While I don't often see rounds where things like condo and PICs are a genuine issue, I happily vote on them when executed well. Some slight biases:

Disclosure is good. Update your wiki's. No, don't run disclosure against novices or small-school debaters.

Condo is probably good within reason, but dispo is subjective and weird.

"Cheating" CPs are usually fine, but the legitimacy of delay, consult, etc. is iffy.

Perf con can sometimes be bad.

All of this can be overcome with good debating. Same as T, please don't run it for no reason.

DA's:

Case-specific is preferable, but generics are fun when contextualized in specific terms of the aff (yay for knowing your way around political/economic theory). Evidence, story-telling, and impact calc are all of equal importance. Zero risk is possible, but difficult to prove. Minimal risk makes the DA pretty negligible sans a strong framing debate. Some teams focus heavily on the link/impact and disregard uq and internal link chains, but defense here can make a big difference.

"Politics DAs are just bad for debate" isn't an argument. You can explain this and impact it out, but I don't accept the statement alone as a sufficient response. Root-causing and/or outweighing the DA is your best bet.

"DA outweighs turns case" works miracles. Say it more often.

CP's:

Specific and generic CP's both have their place. To quote Allie Chase, “I don’t subscribe to groupthink about which CPs ‘definitely solve' which affs.” So yes, re-highlight that aff evidence, give empirics, etc. but don't expect me to grant you a net benefit that isn't fully impacted out or is barely cross-applied down the flow.

Judge kicks are iffy because most of the time, the 2NR just throws out "and even if you don't buy the CP we have judge kick" in the last 5 seconds of the speech after doing virtually no work to weigh the aff against the squo. I'm not going to weigh multiple worlds for you, so this debate should start in the block.

K's:

I have a B.A. in philosophy and am working on my M.A., so I've read a ton. Feel free to ask how familiar I am with a certain lit base. Post-modernism and high theory are fine, but explain your jargon, contextualize your links, all that good stuff. If you can't do this, I'll assume you don't know your own K. More specific links as opposed to a broad K of the topic are usually best (strong analytic links are impressive). Links of omission are not links.

Strong LBL is much more persuasive than trying to pack embedded clash into a 5 minute overview.

I'm not particularly bothered by intense content. My hot-ish take is that death good has its place.

K affs are dope but should probably be in the direction of the res. At least be able to clearly state why it was brought into the debate space and what I'm doing by voting for you. Performance is fine, but framing and explanation your connection to the res are especially important here. I'm willing to vote on a PIK or attacks on the poetics/music you use, and I'm definitely not above presumption.

Please have some kind of advocacy. Kicking the alt in the 2NR is one thing, but I need to see what differentiates the world of the K from that of the aff/squo - even if it's not real world (I'm cool with utopian alts unless told otherwise). If you just say that the reading of the 1NC is an alt, what am I supposed to do with this without a clear explanation of your project? *cough cough, psychoanalysis*

Speaks:

I really try to give high speaks. Organization is needed, but go as fast as you want if you can be clear (extra important for online debates). I'm a fast flow, so if I've clear-called you multiple times, you're outspreading your own limits. I'm BEGGING you to signpost. I use the docs to read evidence, not flow. So say "and", number your warrants, literally anything.

I have a low threshold for rude debaters. If you hit a less experienced debater and use this as a power flex, your speaks will reflect my disapproval.

Misc:

I read the highlighted portions of ev during prep. I'll only read full text if you tell me to or it's a clear point of focus. Sub & case debate >>> 10 off. You don't have to send analytics, but it's helpful to number or otherwise emphasize when you're listing warrants and stuff. You don't have to send me a card doc - I'll probably ignore it. Tag team is totally fine, but if one partner is doing everything, that's not a good look. Flashing isn't prep within reason, i.e. don't stop prep if you're still copy-pasting, but having trouble with speechdrop doesn't count against you. Mark your own cards and keep your own times (I can definitely time, but you have to ask).

LD:

Prog LD is most familiar to me. I very much see value in traditional, I'm just less experienced. Phil is my second-best. I've read more Kant and util than I'd like to admit. That said, I still default very tab. I've voted on skep, disads, Ks, and good old fashioned framework, so really - do whatever you want.

My framework threshold is particularly high in LD. Interacting with the framework and/or creating value/VC clash is what makes LD unique. Coming down to T in LD is kind of strange, so at least make sure it's done well.

For the love of all that is good, don't make me vote on an RVI. Please. I'm begging you.

"Trix" are fine? I guess? I'm not gonna tell you not to, but I won't say I'd be excited to see it, either.

PF:

I view PF as a debate that is and has always been concerned what change is best, and this is how I'd like the round to be framed. As much as I'm a CXer at heart, I don't think plans have a place here. I often find them to blow the round out of proportion. That said, there are still plenty of other ways to create clash, so please do so.

I think K's and theory are very difficult to run correctly in PF. If you can do it, go off. But, mind that I'm a CX coach - my threshold is high.

I flow citations and paraphrased evidence the same way I flow warrants. If you want me to flow something as evidence, it should be structured something like a card.

I said not to blow the round out of proportion. What IS in proportion is painting a picture of both your world and the opponent's. The best PF rounds I've seen go beyond each individual card/contention to illustrate how the pro/con case would affect society, what they're valuing in society, and whether or not this is something they can and should achieve.

I did policy debate for three years in high school. I prefer a more traditional approach to debate but am more than willing to hear progressive debate if it’s based around solid framework. If you plan to spread the only thing I ask is that it be audible and intelligible.

THIS HAS A POLICY,LD, AND ANPF PARADIGM- SOME OF THE IDEAS OVERLAP.

I competed in Policy in 2010-2012 competed at UIL/TFA States (Texas), and NSDA. I consulted teams for 6 years and have coached for the last 5.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: brett.howard@canyonisd.net

TLDR:

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. As long as you are clear and POP TAG LINES, you can go fast, however if something does not make the flow it doesn't count in the round. I am from a slower circuit and thus have a hard time keeping pace at the highest speeds. Policy Debate is a game of Chess, not a truth seeking format for me. This means I want to see the strategies being played out by both teams, I want to see the clash, and I want you to tell me how/why you win. Do not assume that I will give you a win just because your argument is more "realistic." I try to be as much of a blank slate as I can.

POLICY DEBATE

General:

• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim. Claiming someone dropped something does not inherently mean it matters, do the work here.

• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates.

• I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments.

• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.

• While I tend to believe that CX is not binding, if I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, I will flow it against you.

Framework:

• Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.

Topicality:

• I enjoy a well ran T this year. I believe this topic lends itself to the T well as a way to correct lazy habits. This does not mean use them as time sucks.

• T is one place where I have a hard time going tech over truth, not that I have not voted tech on well run T’s but just keep this in mind. The work has to be done here for me to buy it.

• I'm a stickler for the quality of a definition, especially if it's from a source that's contextual to the topic, has some intent to define, is exclusive and not just inclusive, etc.

• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structured speeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.

• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.

• Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.

• I don't mind the role of the ballot args, but you need to explain to me why that's the role and how I as the judge am impacted by it. I’m not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out.

• NO K IN THE 2NC - There is literally not enough time to debate framework and grasp the depth of the K that is required for the debate. I literally will not flow this argument. It is a waste of my time and yours. Use your time well, create good clash.

Counterplans:

• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.

• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.

• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

• I think that CP’s provide a good amount of clash whether Condo or Dispo. I will defer to the Neg strat being Condo unless specifically argued otherwise. Again I prefer Tech over Truth as much as possible.

Disadvantages:

• Most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims. DO THE ! CALC

• I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic.

• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disadvantage is probably background noise.

Other

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important.

• Debaters from schools with limited/no coaching, the same schools needed to prevent the decline in policy debate numbers, greatly benefit from judging feedback. I encourage you to ask questions and engage in respectful dialogue with me. However, post-round hostility will be met with hostility.

LINCOLN DOUGLAS DEBATE

• I am from a more traditional LD circuit and thus I prefer to see that style of debate. If you want to switch to a different style I am open to it just make sure you have a framework to justify it.

Framework

• If I am not told otherwise I will defer to a morality based framework. I am open to a policy framework but know that the burden of clash increases when this framework is used. I will defer to moral framework if the work is not done here.

Value/Criterion

• I love to see a good literature based value debate. The more that you know about what you are saying the better the debate is.

Policy in LD framework

• I love the CP/DA strat if you justify this framework but know that it is your burden to prove why the Aff must provide solvency and not just an ethical position, especially if you are going to reject the moral framework that is inherent to LD.

K's in LD

• I will listen to anything as I try my best to be Tech over Truth, but a K in LD is a high burden to assume. I am less likely to accept a K that has no link to the Aff position. The internal Link chain needs to have a good workup. Prove to me the role of the ballot, never assume I will just flow K neg.

PUBLIC FORUM DEBATE

• I am from a more traditional circuit and thus I prefer to see that style of debate. The intent of PF is to debate to the masses and prove your position. That is my expectation.

• K - I am generally opposed to the K in PF. If you want to run this perspective your link to either the topic or team must be crystal clear. Otherwise stick to topic discussion

• CP - Will instantly vote against CP/P. This is not a debate of policies, but preferability of position, keep it that way.

• Evidence analysis is underutilized here and clash in PF seems to be lacking as of late. The more you directly clash with the position, the more likely I am to believe your position.

• Speaking quickly is okay but please do not spread. The teams that get the highest speaks from me tend to talk at conversational or slightly faster than conversational speed.

• If you're goal is to qualify for and do well at the TOC, you probably wouldn't consider me a "tech judge" ; I'll flow the round line-by-line in the case, rebuttal and summary but also want to see a lot of summation / weighing / big picture breakdowns of the round in the summary and especially in the final focus. I like a nice, clean speech that's easy for me to flow - tell me where to write things. Signpost more than you would think you have to.

• I think that it is strategically smart for the second speaking team to defend their case in rebuttal, but I don't consider it a requirement. In other words, if all you do in your rebuttal is attack your opponent's case, I won't consider all of your opponent's responses to your case to be "dropped."

• -If you want me to vote on an issue, it should be present in both the summary and the final focus. The issue should be explained clearly by both partners in a similar way in each speech.

• -If you say something about the opposing case in rebuttal and your opponents never respond to it, you don't need to keep bringing it up (unless it's a turn that you really want to go for or something like that).

• -Speaker points - My 30 is "I feel like I'm watching someone debate out rounds at a national circuit tournament" and my 25 is "I'm going to go ask to talk to your coach about what I just saw." The vast majority of my scores fall in the 29-27 range.

I am very much a traditional Debate judge. That means I prefer a more communicative mode of debate. If your speed limits communication, it will be reflected on the ballot. In LD and PF, I prefer no kritiks, plans, or DAs.

background:

el campo high school - policy, congress, extemp, and worlds (state medalist, outrounds @ nats)

southeastern ok state - LD, parli, PF, IPDA, extemp (state champion, state runner up, 2x national top speaker & 2x national quarterfinalist)

texas state - LD, parli, ipda (3x state champion, 2x state runner up, 4x state top speaker, national top speaker)

misc:

email chains are cool but so is speechdrop

hannahmn99@gmail.com

pls unhighlight your evidence -> i'm colorblind and if i can't read it, i'm not flowing it

tell me like a really funny joke to show me that you read my paradigm (which doesn't happen enough) -> i'll add points to your speaker points

if online, i'll also add no more than 0.5 to your speaks if you see and acknowledge my cats :)

i do not care what you call me but PLEASE stop calling me judge -i think this creates a really weird dynamic and it makes debaters uncomfortable

pls don't have an attitude with me, it's really annoying and you'll get the minimum speaks for it (you also might get the L). if i know your coach, i'll probably let them know what happened, as well.

i love this activity and i want you to, as well. if there's anything i can do before the round to make the teams more comfy, pls let me know, even if that means we need to have a private convo beforehand. i will do it for you

policy:

i'll listen to most policy args but here's some specific info

1) don't be a racist, sexist, etc. -> idc i'll vote you down as a punishment

2) i love Ks and K affs, but don't run them if you don't really understand the lit or the argument behind them

3) i'm down for the multiple links on the K (even analytic links) but pls collapse in the rebuttals and give me a solid story

4) make sure you have all parts for all of your args -> if you're missing solvency in the 1ac, i'll vote neg on presumption and vice versa (tech over truth)

5) cp's are cool as long as they're mutually exclusive and also non-t

6) impact calcs should happen starting with the rebuttals

7) i HATE having to vote on args that are just dropped. make sure you tell me why this dropped or conceded arg is important in context to the round

8) to win t on the neg, you have to prove abuse and not just expect me to judge on potential abuse (this is def up for debate and if you win the theory for it, i'll give it to you)

8.5) hot take i literally do not care if your aff is non-topical as long as you can defend that this is a good idea and has some net benefit

9) I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue

10) literally do not lie in any aspect of the round.

11) overall -> i try and adapt to the debater so pls make it as easy for me as possible

ld:

1) not too big of a fan of this switch to policy in ld, but i'll listen to it. if this is you, read my policy paradigm

2) if you decide on traditional ld, aff must have a v/c

3) no clash = the other side gets a W on presumption

4) i'll vote you down every single time if you lose f/w (don't be shocked)

I have coached and judged L-D debate for many years, watching it change and evolve. I enjoy this format because I think it challenges students to be critical thinkers and not just critical "readers."

I need to hear credible evidence.

I like a balance between practical and philosophical arguments, especially when debating a topic that has clear positions on each side.

As far as presentation, I will choose substance over style if presented that choice. If I can't follow an argument because of circular reasoning or speed, I cannot vote on it.

I do my best to not debate students on the ballot. I try very hard to understand your position and vote on the round I see, not the round I would have debated.

I consider myself a judge who will listen to anything as long as it is warranted. I have voted on just about any argument you can imagine. I am open to both traditional and progressive arguments. Do whatever works for you. Please give me voters. I love seeing clear ways you think I should evaluate the round. If you only read this paragraph, here is the TLDR version. I love direct clash. Voters are incredibly important in the rebuttals. Don't make me do the mental work for you.

I competed for 3 years in policy in high school, 4 years of NPDA, and 2 years of LD in college, and I was a graduate assistant for the WTAMU speech team. I have been coaching in some capacity for the last 8 years, so there's not much you can run that I have not seen.

Policy Debate

Topicality

I enjoy a good T debate. Stock issues are still very important in traditional policy debates, and I want debaters to do it well. Run T if there is a clear violation. Please emphasize voters.

Disadvantages

Please read specific links if you have them. Tell me exactly how the aff plan fits into your scenario. I'm fine with terminal impacts as long as they are warranted.

Counterplans

I like CPs when they are run well. Please have a unique net benefit on the CP. You can read CP theory for the aff or neg. It's a neglected argument, but I like hearing theories on different types of counterplans and their validity.

Kritiks

Just like disadvantages, I think Ks should have specific links. Theory is great, and I enjoy it when it is run well. Make sure you have more than just a reject alt. What does the alt call me to do besides vote for you? Do not run multiple Ks in the same round/speech. A good K is a big enough theoretical and ethical issue that it should be your main advocacy.

Lincoln-Douglas

I coached in a very traditional area, which means I see a lot of traditional debate. Ethical debates are incredibly important, and they've grown on me as I have coached the activity. That said, I am open to more "progressive" styles as long as the arguments are solid. Each side should offer a value and a criterion for their case. However, you choose to structure arguments after that is up to you.

Public Forum

I have less experience with PF than I do with CX and LD, but I enjoy judging it. Unlike traditional policy debate, public forum debate does not require a plan text. The time constraints make policy-style cases difficult. I'm open to hearing that format, but it's not required to win my ballot. I want to see well-reasoned cases and good clash in rounds.

Speed

It's very hard to speak too quickly for me. It is possible to mumble or speak too quietly, especially in a virtual debate. Debate is only good if both sides know what is happening. Please make sure you enunciate clearly. Please don't gasp for air while you read. It's one of the few things I truly hate. If you're doing that, slow down. Make your signposts and taglines very clear, so I know where to flow.

At the end of the day, it is not my job to tell you what you should run. Run arguments that you like and think you will do well running.

I am the Assistant Forensics Coach at Clemson University, a team that routinely competes in British Parliamentary Debate. I have Bachelors degrees in Communication and Philosophy, and I am working on a Masters in Communication with an emphasis in social media and disinformation studies. This is my ninth year within the debate community. My pronouns are He, Him, His, though I would rather be referred by "Judge" or "Panel" respectively.
Email Chain: w.nunley.111@gmail.com

____________________________

LD/PF Paradigm: Long story short "you do you." Details are provided. I'll listen to just about anything done well.

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outweigh the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks.

Speed: I am fine with speed. I will only say "speed" twice if you are going too fast for me. Typically, nothing is too fast so long as your diction is good. If you see me stop flowing or if you notice my facial demeanor change this is a good indicator that your speed is too fast with not enough clarity.

Partner Cohesion (PF specific): Partners should be able to function in rounds as a single unit. This means that one another's argumentation should follow a single line of thought, without fear of contradicting the other. Support your partner, they're your best asset in a round!

Refutation: Simply refuting the tag of an argument is not enough for me. Case writing relies on link work to substantiate claims and propose impacts, thus refutation should interact with the internal mechanisms of your opponents link work to disprove positions and gain ground within the round. Cases are meant to be engaging and impactful ways of viewing debate subjects, so lets engage!

Value debate: I love philosophical clash! View my comments under Framework.

Framework: Framework is very important to a good debate. Value clash should start here. This comes with two caveats. 1) Know what your authors are actually saying. I was a Philosophy major. I might penalize you for running content that you misconstrue. 2) Be able to explain, with your own analytics, any dense framework that you run. Ensure clarification where need be, and provide me clear metrics for evaluating your content and the round.

Theory/T: You do you. Not a fan of frivolous theory tbh; but you're in charge (more or less). Make the interpretation and the violation clear.

Disclosure: I will not automatically vote for someone simply because their opponent did not disclose. If your opponent is reading something extremely unorthodox I will hear the argument if it is well fleshed out.

Plans/CPs: This is fine. Do it well, do it right. I will not usually listen to a theory debate on plans bad or CP bad for LD. PICs are ok. Once again, If you do it right you are fine.

K's: Good K debates are wonderful! Bad ones are the worst debates to watch. Please do not run K unless it is good. Uniqueness is a big one for me. I love to see something Unique if you default to K. Please very clearly tell me what the Alt looks like; "vote neg" is not an alt!!! If you choose to run a critical theory, you should understand it well. With that said, I prefer to not watch K debate. Only run a K if you feel like its necessary, not for the fun of it.

Weighing and Impacts: spell out the voters for me. It's that simple. If you give me an impact calc, that is super beneficial for you.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. You will not change my mind, but your speaks are likely to be lowered as a result.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

------------------------------------

Big Questions

General: I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you. I will not reward any arguments that step outside of the true intention of big questions; meaning, running a K or theory shell will be heavily looked down upon. This format is meant to stimulate interesting and meaningful interaction with a topic, therefore traditional debate will be rewarded on my ballot.

Speaks: I am not afraid to give low point wins. The quality of the argument will always outweigh the persuasion that you use. It is ridiculous to vote for a team because they sound better. I will penalize racist, xenophobic, homophobic, sexist or ableist speech with low speaks.

Speed: You should speak at a pace that is easy to follow. Big Questions should not be a competition of speed; rather, I will reward debaters for meaningful engagement within the round over how many arguments they can refute against. If you are speaking to quickly, I will verbalize "Speed" so that you slow down.

Refutation: Simply refuting the tag of an argument is not enough for me. Case writing relies on link work to substantiate claims and propose impacts, thus refutation should interact with the internal mechanisms of your opponents link work to disprove positions and gain ground within the round. Cases are meant to be engaging and impactful ways of viewing debate subjects, so lets engage!

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. Debaters have every right to disagree with my decision, but you will not change my mind and arguing with me will not change the result on the ballot.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

World Schools

Do not run from the heart of the motion and engage in the most salient and fruitful clashes and you'll do great. I competed and now coach in the Worlds format of College Debate. I am very well versed in this format. Weigh very clearly and don't forget to extend the principled/framework conversation throughout the entire debate.

Ensure that you have a logical structure to the progression and development of the bench. I am very much a "flow" judge. Signposting is crucial, both in refutation and in construction. I do not extend arguments or draw links on my own. If you do not paint the story for me, I will not do it for you

Work to weigh the round at the end--divide the round into dissectible and engaging sections that can be understood through a framework system. Weighing is a big deal and needs to happen on two levels. The first level has to do with the specific content of the round and the impacts (i.e., who is factually correct about the material debated and the characterizations that are most likely). The second level has to do with the mechanics leveraged in the substantives and defensive part of the round (i.e., independent of content—who did the better debating by relying on clear incentives, layered characterizations, and mechanisms). Most debates neglect this second level of weighing; these levels work together and complement each other.

You are speaking to the judge as an image of a global, informed citizen--you cannot assume that I know all of the inner workings of the topic literature, even if I do; work to sell a clear story with syllogisitic link chains: make the implicit, explicit.

World Schools Debate takes seriously each of the following: Strategy, Style, and Content. Many neglect strategy and style--too few develop enough depth for their content. Ensure that you take each of these judging-areas seriously and you will do well in this event.

Note on POI: I will not give time signals in round, I expect that students will keep their own times and not ask questions during protected time. POI's can be either a question OR statement, with students getting a full 15 seconds to ask the question. As the speaker, do not cut off POI's mid sentence, I will verbally say "time" if the question goes over 15 sec.

****When I give my RFD in prelims, you are more than welcome to ask questions. However, please avoid arguing with me. Debate RFDs ought to serve as an educational tool for debaters to look retrospectively on, and arguing with me undermines this goal. Debaters have every right to disagree with my decision, but you will not change my mind and arguing with me will not change the result on the ballot.

* I will not tolerate any rhetoric that is racist, sexist, or homophobic. Taking morally repugnant positions is not in your favor.

I believe that first and foremost all debate should be based on communication. To that end be sure that you do not utilize forms of debate which leave the audience more bewildered than informed.

When it comes to speed, don' get a ticket. But, I will hang with you until about 350 words per minute. Exceeding that barrier will leave me with the impression that you are yet another lost narcissist with dreams of sugar TOC fairies dancing through your head.

Style, I consider myself a policymaker, although my wife seldom agrees. In argumentation, I like most arguments, however, I hate K debate when it turns totally ridiculous, i.e. time machines, comfort (keep your clothes on), pinkwashing, etc, I like theory arguments to be justified and tied to other arguments in the round that warrant their use. Humor is a plus when used appropriately.

I don't care about your WIKI. I won't ask you for your evidence after the round (Unless one of you is lying, then the liar loses). And, I don't care what your coach thinks. You're the one debating. Speak like your life depends on it.

In the end, I want to think, wow he/she would make a great president, not argh, ...another cute dog catcher. Represent the sport well.

Let the games begin.

I consider myself a stock issues judge. Debate is not for playing games but for honest argumentation and clash. I am not crazy about speed but do my best to keep up with you. If I stop flowing then you should stop speeding. Watch for my pen to be obviously placed on the table.

Link your arguments, make sure you give me your plan and play nice. If you decide to run a counter plan, you better do it right. I will not reveal my decision at the end of the round unless the tournament director tells me too. My ballot will tell my RFDs. Covid still exists, so I do not shake hands at the end of the round.

Please add me to the email chain: hstringer@princetonisd.net

CX Philosophy
As a judge, I look to you to tell me the rules of the round. I try to be as fluid as possible when it comes to framework and argument. I only ask that you make sure you explain it and how it impacts the round.

I enjoy topical affirmatives and unique arguments from the negative that link to the affirmative case. If an argument applies to any topical affirmative, I tend to not vote for it (provided the affirmative shows that it is non-unique). Really good impact debate is my happy place.

In regards to speed, I would say I am comfortable with mid-high, however it would be smart to think slower on procedurals and tag lines. Go ahead and add me to the email/flash chain and then do what makes you happy.

My facial expressions are pretty readable. If you see me making a face, you may want to slow down and/or explain more thoroughly.

I don't count flashing as part of prep, but prep for flashing/sending files (organizing files, trying to find the right speech, deleting other files, etc) are. It shouldn't take more than about 30 seconds to send files. Going on 5 minutes is a bit excessive.

In terms of critical debate: I am not opposed to it, but I am not well versed, so be sure to really explain any kritiks and how they impact the debate. One of my students called me a lazy progressive judge. That fits. I don't read the literature or envelope myself in the K. Do the work for me; I don't want to.

Counterplans, disadvantages and solvency/advantage debates are great.

I think topicality is necessary to debate, but tend to skew to the aff as long as they can show how they are reasonably topical.

All that being said, I will flow anything and vote on anything until a team proves it isn't worthy of a vote.

LD Philosophy

I have been near LD Debate for about 20 years, but have never been trained in it. So, I am knowledgeable about the event, but not about the content within it. You will probably need to explain more to me and why I should vote on a particular issue. As a policy debater, I tend toward evidence and argumentation. However, I will vote on what you tell me is important to vote on unless your opponent makes a more compelling argument for me to vote on something else.

Public Forum Debate Philosophy

My favorite part of public forum debate is the niceties that are expected here. I love to watch a debater give a killer speech and then turn to politeness in crossfire. Polite confidence is a major selling point for me. Not that I won't vote for you if you aren't polite, but I might look harder for a winning argument for your opponent. In PF, I look more for communication of ideas over quantity of argumentation. I don't coach public forum, so I am not well versed in the content. Make sure you explain and don't just assume I know the inner workings of the topic.

I am a stock issue/policy maker judge. I will weigh theory in a round but is must be presented properly and it isn't given any inherent weight. I will also consider any other factors in the round but they take a backseat to stock issues and advantages. I want to see class and professionalism in the round and courtesy towards opponents.

• Stock issues: In order for the affirmative team to win, their plan must retain all of the stock issues, which are Harms, Inherency, Solvency, Topicality, and Significance. For the negative to win, they only need to prove that the affirmative fails to meet one of the stock issues. Not a fan of Kritiks and some theoretical arguments.
• Policymaker: At the end of the round, the judge compares the affirmative plan with either the negative counter-plan or the status quo. Whichever one is a better policy option is the winner. The better policy option is determined by comparing the advantages and disadvantages of each.