conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

I am generally a policy judge and prefer policy arguments. However, I am open to voting on anything that is argued in round (Ks, T, theory, etc.).

I debated for Dow High for I am fine with speed but stick your tags and sign post.

I will not look at the card unless specifically asked to or if the round comes down to competing interpretations of a card

Duncan Donahue

Debated - 14-18 for H.H. Dow (Policy), 18-20 for the University of Notre Dame (NPDA), studying sociology + peace/conflict studies

Coached - 18-21 as Assistant Debate Coach at H.H. Dow High School

email: duncdonahue@gmail.com (please add me to the chain)

TL;DR

- my preferences don't determine my ballot - you do you and i will do my best to evaluate your arguments on their own terms

- that being said but i feel most comfortable in k v policy/fw and k v k rounds

- the framework/framing flow will decide what I'm doing as a judge in the back of the room, so please don't overlook it for the minutiae/line-by-line on other flows

- tech over truth, but every arg has to be impacted and warranted to be weighed

- affs need to defend something other than the status quo but don't necessarily need to have a plan text or advocacy statement.

- overall, explain what your arguments are and why they mean I should vote for you. see below for little specifics about how tend to evaluate different types of arguments.

- in terms of feedback/ballot, i view my role as a judge as a pedagogical one therefore i try to write detailed speech-by-speech feedback on ballots. if i leave lots of comments it does not mean you did poorly, i just know the value of judge feedback as someone from a small program and want to make that available for y'all.

Procedural Information

- Be nice and have fun! Being rude/offensive will drop your speaker points quick, regardless of whether it's in a speech or not.

- Speed: Speed is great as long as you are clear.

- Warranted Claims: an argument isn't complete unless there's a warrant for the claim. I won't vote on unsupported blippy arguments even if they're conceded. If the tag does not contain a warrant for its claim then I will not mark the tag as an analytic.

-Calling for Evidence: I will not look at evidence unless each team disagrees on what is in the card or accusations of cheating are made. It's the debaters' job not mine to extrapolate what's in the cards and argue what it means for the round.

- Immoral arguments along the lines of "Oppression Good" will sharply drop speaker points. Offensive/hurtful language directed at another debater will result in a loss, a zero in speaker points, and me contacting the offending team's coach.

- Please please please feel free to ask questions but post-rounding (i.e. arguing with me about my decision) will drop your speaks.

- Cheating: one warning for stealing prep before I dock speaks. Removing analytics from speech docs requires using prep. Proven clipping will result in being dropped and zeros.

Specific Arguments:

Case (this is more for novices) - Extend it every aff speech. When the story of the aff is missing, I'm left wondering what I'm supposed to be voting for

K affs/FW - Love them. Hate them when they're soulless and unexplained. I staunchly believe the affirmative should know their advocacy in and out and not just reread tags. Sure, K affs can just impact turn FW, but the best answers to FW usually go a bit further. On FW, it's gonna be hard for the neg to win any sort of "prior question" or apriori args in front of me and I'll probably lean toward weighing impacts on FW so tell me how to weigh them!

Ks - love them, especially creative and specific ones. Make sure you’re explaining exactly what your alt is/does, including who does it and what my role as a judge is in participating/endorsing/affirming etc. I am familiar with Cap/Neolib, Critical Pedagogy, Security, Foucault, Settler Colonialism/Postcolonialism/Decoloniality, Anthro, Queer Theory, Anti-Blackness, and Fem. I don't pretend to understand Baudrillard/DnG but you can still run it. If you're curious about my familiarity with a lit base I don't mention here, feel free to ask me.

T - I love T, but because of that I have been told I have a high threshold for evaluating T. I favor tech over truth for T, but you’re interp and violations should at least make logical sense. I default to T being apriori unless the affirmative makes args to the contrary.

Theory - isolate how the other team’s specific actions warrant me punishing them with a loss or with dropping a certain argument. Generic claims of fairness and education won't get very far unless you contextualize specifically to the round and the infraction. Also, don’t spread theory blocks please :)

CPs - no problem with CP debates but the solvency and net benefit debate need to be flushed out. I don't judge-kick CPs so if it's in the 2nr, the neg doesn't get the status quo. I will stick the negative to the exact plan text in the 1nc just like I will stick the aff to their plan text in the 1ac. Sympathetic to PICs bad.

DAs - I think a lot of traditional DA link chains and impacts are kind of comical outside of the lens of debate, but so are a lot of advantages so don't expect me to believe the plan 100% causes nuclear annihilation, just weigh the probability of your impacts relative to the aff. Politics DAs are kind of disgusting in my personal opinion (aesthetically and logically) but do your thing.

Speaker Point Ranges

27.5 to 27.9 you've likely been exceedingly rude or unwelcoming to other people during the round

28.0 to 28.3 decent job! make sure to read my notes for more info

28.4 to 28.7 good

28.8 to 29 should probably get high speaker placement, maybe an award

29.1-29.4 speaker award

29.5+ top speaker contender

Getting my PhD at Wayne State University in communication studies. Competed at Wayne State, qualified to the NDT twice. Assistant coach for West Bloomfield High School’s public forum and IE team.

Include me on emails chains please: DouglasAHusic@gmail.com

I flow on paper, please give me pen time. Start slower and settle into top speed instead of missing parts early on. I care about clarity more than who reads a few more cards. CX is a speech, I flow it in every debate format. I rarely follow along with docs.

Non-important old man yelling at cloud moment: The 1ac is an opportunity for free speaker points and sets the tone for the debate, a lot of people sound like they don't practice reading it.

----

Whoever controls the framing of how to evaluate offense in a debate generally wins my ballot. This is universally true for all argument styles and debate formats. I am very flow dependent. Specifics listed below, but absolute defense is a hard sell absent drops, strategic concessions, or the argument was poorly constructed to begin with.

Debate is a persuasive and communicative activity first and foremost driven by student research. As a debater research was my favorite part of the activity so I certainly appreciate quality evidence production on unique and different arguments. Communication surrounding the importance of evidence is most relevant to how I evaluate it at the end of the debate. A great card that is undersold and not explained and applied may get my appreciation when you bring it to my attention in the post-round, but absent you directing me to the significance of that evidence or why I need to read it won't be important to my ballot. If it’s not on my flow, it doesn’t register for my decision, and, if the warrant is on my flow and uncontested, it won’t matter if the evidence supporting it is weak. I'm extremely uncomfortable with the lengths many of my peers turn to the docs to verify claims that in my mind are just not being debated. If your arguing on the line by line in no way questions the other team's characterization of evidence, I will never go on a fact finding mission.

I expect debater's to make relevant issues on evidence known in the debate.

Debater's should answer arguments.

You don't get to walk-back win conditions you establish that are conceded.

Thoughts on framework:

Full transparency I went for this argument for the majority of my career as a debater as a one-off position, and can be compelled that there should be some limit on the topic for the purpose of predictable negative ground. So take that for what you will.

However, I am also highly sympathetic given my personal pedagogical and research interests as a scholar of alternative interpretations of the resolution for the purposes of interdisciplinary/undisciplined debates. Teams that have a well thought out counter interpretation and vision for what their model of debate looks like are often in a strategically good place for my ballot. In my mind a counter interpretation provides a useful avenue for resolving both sides offense and is often a place where I wish the negative invested more time in the block and 2nr.

That being said, I have been persuaded by affirmative teams who impact turn framework without a counter interpretation. Iterations of this argument which have been persuasive to me in the past include critiques of predictability as a means to actualize clash, critiques of fiats epistemic centrality to clash/fairness/education, arguments which emphasize styles of play over notions of fairness for the game, as well as impact turning the rhetorical performance of framework.

A frequent line in decisions I vote aff on framework, "I think the negative is winning a link on limits explosion, but has underdeveloped the internal link between limits to clash/fairness/epistemic skills as an impact, and furthermore that impact's relationship to the way the aff has framed insert X DA or X impact from the 2ac overview on case is never once articulated". I'm a big believer in if you want to say T/framework is engagement you should actually engage the language and impacts the aff has presented, I will not fill in these connections for you because you say "praxis or debate is key to activism".

Teams over-emphasize the TVA without fully developing the argument. A core dilemma for the negative in round's I judge is the TVA's interaction with affirmative themes, performances, and theories remain superficial and surface level at best. Even when a great piece of evidence is read by the negative, it is an error in execution for the negative to rely on the judge to resolve these connections. My threshold for the TVA being "sufficient" is often higher then my peers. Given the value of the TVA as a way to resolve affirmative offense it is a spot where I think the negative must dig deep(ala Jeff Probst from Survivor) to put themselves ahead in a debate. There are many ways the negative can do this effectively, but all require a more thorough incorporation of the TVA from the onset of your strategy. It's bad form and a missed opportunity when the negative refuses to give an example/or doesn't know of a TVA in C-X of the 1nc. I'm a believer that there is a benefit in the negative block introducing other TVAs in the negative block, The 2nc should tie TVA's to performances, impact arguments, and theories of the 1ac. Saying you could have talked about X thing as a performance instead often falls flat. Do research pre-round or pre-tournament into the artefacts of the 1ac, be creative, you can incorporate them I believe in you.

I am also not a particularly good judge for negative impact explanations which rely on the assumption that the values of research/clash/fairness/iteration are inherent/exclusive benefits of a limited model. The negative often debates in front of me operating from the assumption the aff will win none of their offense or has abandoned these values in their entirety, this is both a bad move and often just a blatant mischaracterization of aff debating. An example with iterative testing. A premise which is hard to dislodge me from: all research is iterative, full-stop. Even when the aff has no counter interpretation, their research practices and argumentative styles are iterative because they build upon previously written research and arguments. This means arguments like iterative testing require more specificity in their explanation. The framing of "Only the negative model allows room for teams to refine arguments to third and fourth level" often rings hollow because it is more descriptive of the strategic incentives to develop arguments over the course of a season (which likely exist in any research activity), and not describe the actual benefit of the style of iteration of your model. A more persuasive iteration impact to me focuses on the question of quality and utility of each models style of iteration, tending more to questions like: is there an insurgent/epistemic benefit to maximizing iteration of state based politics vs negative critique? Instead of saying "the aff always goes for the perm in K v K debates," delve into questions of how affirmative models might distort the capaciousness of K v K debate? Or shutdown debates that are meaningful in the literature through standards and practices of debate's offense/defense paradigm? Are there moments where the aff contradicts their model or counter interp performatively? What is the significance of these contradictions? Are there potentially negative effects of the aff model for subjectivity? All of this is really my way of pleading with you burn the blocks of your predecessor, make some new arguments, read a book, do something.

Creativity and negative argument development on framework has plateaued.

You all sound the same.

I will be extremely frustrated if you opt to go for framework over any argument that is clearly well-developed and clashes with the aff that they blow off. There are many rounds where the 2nr decision to go for framework shocks me given 1ar coverage. Don't include A+ material if you are not prepared to go for it.

K’s vs Policy teams:

I’m a fan. I like when there is a lot of interaction with the case. I'm an ok judge for specific philosophical criticisms of the plan. I'm a substantially worse judge for "you defend [use] the state." The alternative tends to be the focus of my decision (is it competitive, what does it do to resolve the links, etc). I'm a pragmatist at heart, I believe in real-world solutions to problems and I'm often persuaded that we ought to make the world a better place. How your alternative deals with affirmative attacks of this genre matters a lot to me. I've voted for more pessimistic or alt-less Ks, but, again, mostly due to technical errors by the affirmative. I find myself caring less about alternative solvency when the negative team has spent time proving to me that the aff doesn’t solve their impacts either.

Aff teams are most successful when they have a clear approach to the theme of the negatives K from the 1ac. Either be the impact turn alt doesn’t solve team --- or be the link turn plus perm team --- wishy washiness just gets the aff into more trouble then its worth often allowing the negative a lot of narrative control on what the aff is or isn’t about.

Unless told specifically otherwise I assume that life is preferable to death. The onus is on you to prove that a world with no value to life/social death is worse than being biologically dead.

I am skeptical of the pedagogical value of frameworks/roles of the ballot/roles of the judge that don’t allow the affirmative to weigh the benefits of hypothetical enactment of the plan against the K. You're better served making arguments which elevate the importance of the impacts you've described and undercutting the ability of the aff to resolve their own. I'm totally open to disproving the affirmative's model of predictions - I just think you have to do the work to have my skepticism outweigh their narrative. I don't think its a particularly hard sell for me when the work is done. But I rarely see teams engage the case enough to decrease risk.

I tend to give the aff A LOT of leeway in answering floating PIKs, In my experience, these debates work out much better for the negative when they are transparent about what the alternative is and just justify their alternative doing part of the plan from the get go

DAs:

Links control the direction of the DA in my mind absent some explanation to the counter in the debate

You should invest neg block time into the link story (unless it's impact turned). A compelling link argument is very powerful, and can cover holes in your evidence. "Impact turns the case" is a bit overrated, because it normally lacks uniqueness. Not making the arg is a mistake, but banking on it can also be a mistake.

I miss straight impact turning and link turning strategies from aff teams.

Theory:

theory arguments that aren't some variation of “conditionality bad” aren't reasons to reject the team. That being said, I don't understand why teams don't press harder against obviously abusive CPs/alternatives (uniform 50 state fiat, consult cps, utopian alts, floating piks). Performative contradictions matter less to me in the 1nc especially if they’re like a reps K (stuff like the Econ DA and Cap is more suspect). Performative contradictions carried through as a position in the block grinds my gears and should be talked about more. Theory might not be a reason to reject the team, but it's not a tough sell to win that these arguments shouldn't be allowed. If the 2NR advocates a K or CP I will not default to comparing the plan to the status quo absent an argument telling me to.

New affs bad as a policy argument is definitely not a reason to reject the team and is also not a justification for the neg to get unlimited conditionality (something I've been hearing people say).

Topicality/Procedurals:

By default, I view topicality through the lens of competing interpretations, but I could certainly be persuaded to do something else. Specification arguments that are not based in the resolution or that don't have strong literature proving their relevance are rarely a reason to vote neg. I will say though lack of specification often annoys me on both sides have a debate, cut some offense, defend something please. It is very unlikely that I could be persuaded that theory outweighs topicality. Policy teams don’t get a pass on T just because K teams choose not to be topical. Plan texts should be somewhat well thought out. If the aff tries to play grammar magic and accidentally makes their plan text "not a thing" I'm not going to lose any sleep after voting on presumption/very low solvency.

Points - My average point scale is consistently 28.2-29.5. Points below 27.5 are reserved for "epic fails" in argumentation or extreme offensiveness (I'm talking racial slurs, not light trash talking/mocking - I love that) and points above 29.5 are reserved for absolutely awesome speeches. I cannot see myself going below 26.5 absent some extraordinary circumstances that I cannot imagine. All that being said, they are completely arbitrary and entirely contextual. Things that influence my points: 30% strategy, 60% execution, 10% style.

Cheating - I won't usually initiate clipping/ethics challenges, mostly because I don't usually follow along with speech docs. but if i notice it i reserve the right to call you out when especially egregious If you decide to initiate one, you have to stake the round on it. Unless the tournament publishes specific rules on what kind of points I should award in this situation, I will assign the lowest speaks possible to the loser of the ethics challenge and ask the tournament to assign points to the winner based on their average speaks.

Ethics challenges brought up pertaining to fabrication or out of context evidence submitted into a round end the debate for me. If it is determined that the ev is fabricated or meaningfully out of context then the team who introduced the evidence receives a loss and the low end of my point scale.

Pronouns: Any (They/He/She/Them/Him/Her)

E-mail: loganedward77@gmail.com - put me on the email chain

Updated in October, 2020.

Experience: 2 years high school debate at Mona Shores High School, 2.5 years college debate at Wayne State University, 1 year coaching at Mona Shores High School, 2 years coaching at Detroit Country Day School, and a long judging history over that time to present, for both high school and college-level debate.

I'll give a short version: I'll listen to just about anything, minus overtly problematic arguments (racism good, sexism/gender discrimination good, fascism good, etc.), which will at best lead to tanked speaker points, at worst an automatic loss (and I lean that way).

I have a fair amount of experience debating both traditional policy and K frameworks but find myself being more entertained in K v K rounds. It's a T/Framework thing, it's boring and I don't trust the government to do anything right. Read more below, I definitely still do like a policy v. policy round, I just hate voting on T.

I expect everyone to be timing themselves. Please don't call me "judge," I don't like most of them IRL. "Logan" is fine.

Virtual Debate: I don't care whether or not your camera is on, regardless of what the tournament rules are saying. If your virtual workspace is anything like mine, it's improvised and ugly. Also, it feels like I'm invading your privacy on some weird level when you're debating from your bedroom. 2020 is weird enough without trying to force you to show me your house. Also, if you're experiencing connection issues, turning the video streaming off can really help. On another topic, CX is kind of tough right now due to talking over one another by accident. I don't really have a solution for it other than trying to stick to the model of whoever's not speaking next asks, the person who just spoke answers. That being said, if you can tag-team effectively virtually then go for it. When the questioner tells you to stop answering, stop answering.

Dropped arguments are usually true arguments (save for the above), you must make the argument early enough in the debate for me to vote on it (outside of theory/common-sense or evidence-based analysis). That being said, I vote on arguments I understand. If I don't understand, that's on you, this is a speech activity.

More probabilistic impacts outweigh bigger magnitude ones for me, on almost every level. Establishing probability is most important to me and I think the overemphasis on existential impacts is making policy debate stale (as well as literally untrue, I have not yet died in a nuclear war).

A lot of the longer version below doesn't really apply in high school debate outside of Open division.

The long version (ask specific questions before the round if anything is unclear):

T/Framework - T needs standards and voters on the neg and counter-standards and -voters on the aff or you probably won't win it. Framework is also fine, but you should do it right (when I didn't go for Cap, I went for framework). You need to have impacts to Framework that you can weigh against the aff (or another off-case argument you can weigh). "Fairness" is not an impact I'm going to vote for. Framework can be defensive if you want to go for the other off, and this is usually the best way to use it in front of me. I don't find skills arguments very convincing at all and I find them very easily turned as the only skills I learned in debate either A. weren't transferable or B. were skills that help the government murder people more effectively (this is definitely more for college and I'll definitely vote on skills args at the high school level). I have a high threshold for this line of argumentation and I'm not ashamed to hold you to that, but I will vote on them if they're mishandled or you've found one of the few I believe (here's a hint: research probably isn't inherently bad). Explain the impacts to the generally accepted ones like fairness (research burden, ground loss, etc.) Probabilistic impacts matter more here too: Does the aff you're running framework against stand a chance of modifying debate culture? What specific fairness/skills loss was there? The most probabilistic impacts happen in-round, in front of my face, and this is how I weigh T. I default to competing interpretations, as do most, but my threshold on reasonability is comparatively low, because for me to vote on competing T interpretations, you're going to have to convince me beyond a doubt that the way they violated the topic was uniquely bad for you debating in this round. That means if you're reading a CP or DA that clearly links, you probably shouldn't run T as I will probably buy the "but their DA links" arg.

The Aff, in general: I was a 2N and when I was double 2s I hated being aff, so I don't have much advice here. Most teams who are aff lose in the 1AR, but the 2AC is close behind. Time allocation is much more important on the aff (which is why I hated being a 2A, I'm slow), so identify which arguments are the biggest threat early on and adjust accordingly. The biggest mistake newer debaters make is forgetting about all that evidence you read in the 1AC, which should have embedded answers to your weak spots.

Policy Affs: Cool. You should probably kick some of it by the end of the debate at the college level, free up some time for that 1AR and 2AR. Left-policy affs are usually weaker than both their policy and K options (standard policy follows the rules better, helping you out in a framework debate, and the K probably solves better), so try not to read them unless you have really good ideas for how to use it.

K affs - Fine by me, be prepared for the framework debate, win the impact turns to framework and I'll vote for you. That being said, I still have to understand. These weird "every theorist ever" affs are kind of getting out of hand (at least at the high school level), but if you can explain it, run it. No plan text or advocacy statement required if the mechanism is clear. If you're going to run a left-policy aff, you'd might as well just run the K version in front of me, I'm good for it. I prefer K v K debates in these rounds because I hate listening to framework/T (it's just boring), use it as leverage and time-skew instead. I also think they're more useful and educational because waxing poetic about how a team broke the rules for 4 speeches is not only extremely boring, it's self-fulfilling and frankly only useful for institutionalized debate (which isn't a real thing IRL). They should probably still be tangential to the topic, but I can be convinced the topic should be ignored in favor of something better.

The Neg, in general: The more specific the strategy to the aff, the better chance you have of winning. General topic links are usually not enough and need some analysis to make them compelling. That's not to say I won't vote on more general links/uniqueness evidence, but that the aff is probably winning your DA/K/CP coming out of the 2AC and you'll need to develop the arguments a lot more in the block.

DAs - fine, run them, explain them, win them. Winning a link (and the internal links) is more important than totally winning the impact. I'll vote on risk, depending on how things are going on the case flow.

Theory - I've become a bit more open to theory but the only theory I find automatically compelling is conditionality bad (and that's if the neg runs too many condo off-case args, "too many" being determined by the skill level). If theory is dropped and is a reason to reject the team, that is super bad for the team that dropped it, keep track of the line-by-line. Best case, I reject the argument, worst case I reject the team (if they've dropped it but you haven't explained it well, I'll probably just reject the arg, be prepared to lose if your 2AR is 5/6 on theory). Theory about generally accepted and common args is probably useless (50 states fiat, neg fiat, limits on aff fiat, etc.), but I'll vote on it if it's explained well and is mishandled by the other team, or you can convince me an actual offense was committed (a long shot). Your theory should have warranted impacts, just like any argument ("They did a bad thing that's bad because...").

CPs - See above for how I feel about conditional advocacies. I can be convinced of most counterplan theory (again, see above). The best PIC/Ks are when no one knows that's what they are until the 2NR, usually that's an immediate neg ballot. PIC theory is usually a wash after you read your blocks at each other. I love a good advantage CP and I hate a bad one.

Ks - I went for the Cap K in almost every 2NR of my college/late high school career. Ks should usually engage something specific about the aff. Specific links are good. However, I don't think you necessarily need them, your general ones probably do the job well enough, paired with explanation. Ks should prove the aff is a uniquely bad idea/influenced by bad ideas and prove the alt can solve the impact. They should prove the perm doesn't work (preferably just being able to cross-apply case offense and prove it still links) and that the impacts outweigh the aff. This means you have to win the framework debate too, unless the K has existential impacts). I'll vote on risk of alt solvency if there's enough defense/risk on the case flow, probably at a lower threshold than most, given the framework debate basically has to be won (unless you kick the alt and go for structural impacts, which means you're probably having a bad time anyway). Fiat is illusory. It just is. Good policy-prone teams know this better than the K team.

More specific thoughts, as I did debate the K:

Cap: Honestly, I have a slightly higher threshold because I went for it so much when I debated. I'm an anti-capitalist in "real life" and familiar with most theoretical arguments contained within and if I think it's a dumb argument (not even in the round, just generally) I might have some bias, but I promise I'll try not to. I love great Cap rounds, though, so, if you're confident in your strategy (and maybe more importantly, theoretical basis), go for it!

Queerness: Read this for maybe a year as well, but wasn't as heavily invested or well-researched. That being said, I am passingly familiar with the field and like the line of argumentation, but it must be explained well, both for my sake and your opponents', as Edelman can be basically incomprehensible at times.

AntiBlackness: I find this and Cap most compelling when talking about debate writ large, which AntiBlackness debaters frequently do (not so much on the Cap side, but you should, debate is classist). I have found the best AntiBlackness rounds I've spectated or watched (or, rarely, was a part of) directly tied their impacts to the round or the topic (governance writ large isn't as good of a link/internal link, but use it anyway). However, I also think that many AntiBlackness debaters have a hard time encountering a Black policy debater, when they really shouldn't. The strategy should NOT be to attack or cast doubt on this debater's Blackness, but the structure of policy debate that incentivizes skewed topics, interpersonal violence, resource skewing, and bad rhetoric. I'm fairly read on the subject of AntiBlackness but, as a white person, I'm always listening closely in these rounds (not to imply I don't otherwise). Also, as a white person, I CANNOT be trusted fully to adjudicate these rounds, which AntiBlackness debaters would do well to keep in mind for all of their white judges. I find alternate root cause arguments fairly unconvincing on most Ks, but this one even more so (although there are TYPES of arguments I can find convincing in this realm, such as the totalizing description of oppression that some AntiBlackness teams make; It's complicated). I (and if "we" were being honest, most white judges and debaters) am usually pretty uncomfortable adjudicating these rounds as I feel whiteness is inherently moderating in these cases. That being said, I think white debaters should be very careful with these arguments (to the point of maybe considering not reading them), ESPECIALLY in reading prewritten tags. Don't call yourself Black or imply that you are a part of the "Black Body" if you are not.

Anthro: I can be convinced, but it's been a running joke to me (and pretty much anyone who isn't a die-hard) for years. I'm a vegetarian for ethical reasons, so I'm probably more persuadable than most people on this one. Animal death matters and anthropocentrism definitely defines our relationship to the environment, but I'm gonna find it really annoying if you equate animal death to human death, as I feel like this has some... implications. The better impacts here are rooted in environmental destruction, but there are easier ways to that impact.

Ableism: I am very easily convinced that the root cause of ableism is capitalism. Other alt causes could probably convince me too. Always open to hearing your way around that, though.

Beaudrillard/Symbolic Exchange/"The Real": I gotta be honest, this usually isn't helpful without being combined with theory that evaluates an axis of oppression under this theoretical framework. Another point of honesty: Tough to understand, especially being read at Mach 5 in a debate round. Explain yourself well, impact it out, and explain how the alt resolves the impact. The link debate is less important with this type of K (at least to me), but it should still be there.

Rhetoric more generally: Should probably contain a justification for the self-link here, but other than that I can be pretty easily convinced that debate is bad and the rhetoric we use sucks too, read further on for details.

Speaker points - I generally try to think as little as possible about them, as speaker points are subjective and largely useless except for tie-breaking. I am a chronic stutterer, empathize with speaking difficulties, and they obviously won't affect speaks. Doing things like using problematic language, misgendering, stealing prep, being generally rude, etc. will at worst get you dropped (malicious or ignorant use of problematic language or misgendering will get you dropped 100% of the time), and at worst will get you docked speaks. However, I understand mistakes happen, especially in the case of misgendering, and as long as it doesn't become a reoccurring/malicious issue, I won't be very heavy-handed with the docking. Get to know your competitors and asking for pronouns never hurts. The way you earn the most amount of speaker points is good STRATEGIC decision-making. I don't really care about your style, but the way you manage the round. Also, if you're not using all of your prep/speech time, it better be perfect or you'll probably lose speaks for that too.

One caveat, definitely more for college-level - My debate experience has been complex and frankly, frequently negative in university. The community is toxic and often overworks students to the point of serious mental health issues. I am thankful for what I learned and what resources debate gave me, but some of the behavior in this community is inexcusable and leads to the sort of institutional abuse (verbal, emotional, and sexual) that plagues politics, which makes debate a good microcosm for government (which, if it's not clear, I hate). I take extreme issue with anyone that uses institutional power in debate to give themselves or their team an edge and will make that clear if I think you or your team is doing so. Of course, this is an unsolvable problem, as more wealthy schools have inherently better access to resources and, thus, better win rates. I encourage every debater to remember that debate does not happen in a vacuum and to respect your fellow debaters no matter their skill level, style, or status because at the end of the day, your skill level, style, and status are all dependent on luck and environment. I also especially encourage coaches to take this into consideration and help your students understand this, as you are ultimately responsible for not just their careers and health, but everyone else's in this community (especially because it is usually coach ego causing these issues). All of this being said makes me sound like I have a heavy bias against policy debate (versus the K), which I'd like to think I don't, but I may have one. I suppose what this all means for your rounds, besides the obvious decorum I expect, is that I likely have a higher threshold for arguments that assume policy debates, and to some extent government and statehood, are inherently good. I believe some of the skills arguments, but any argument about upward mobility (gross), political understanding good (which "political understanding?"), or literature knowledge (again, what "literature knowledge?") I may chuckle to myself over, but begrudgingly vote for if the other team drops the ball. I think it's pretty proven that most former debaters either become bureaucrats or other government (gross) or debate coaches (due to lack of time to pursue literally anything else in college), which makes me basically not believe most policy debate education arguments. All of that being said, K affs focusing on debate bad still have to win. I know these perspectives in debate are rare, with many viewing policy debate education as being worth power, time, and energy trade-offs, but I've only seen these issues exacerbated in recent years. Policy snobs (myself included) need to either modify the activity to help with these issues or embrace other forms of debate. That likely makes me more malleable to arguments that break "the rules," such as form or content differences, because anything else is debate fascism.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

alexmujtaba@gmail.com

Please put me on the email chain.

I'm Alex Mujtaba, I did four years of policy debate at Okemos High School.

I do have some experience with debate and most arguments, except for k's. I ran a couple cap. K's in high school but that's the extent of it. If you run a K please explain it to me in excruciating detail, otherwise I likely wont understand what your talking about. If you explain your impacts/links/FW/alt well enough, ill vote for you if I understand it and I think you are winning on all fronts. This applies to K affs as well.

When it comes to most Policy arguments, I'm fine with T's, CP's, DA's, etc.. Please be clear when speaking, and emphasize your tags/important points. You should signpost between arguments, that would be much appreciated.

he/him

Coach at Michigan State University 2019-

Coach at Wayne State University 2010-2019

Debater at Wayne State University 2006-2009

Debater at Brother Rice HS 2000-2004

BruceNajor@gmail.com

--

Below is a compilation of thoughts. Some are argument related, some are decision-making related. I update it periodically to keep it fresh, but nothing important has changed since you last read this.

-General-

- I used to judge 80+ debates a year, and now I probably judge less than 20. As with anything, skills atrophy, and I find that I'm a bit slower in terms of argument processing, both in real time and in decision time. It would behoove you to narrow the debate and explain the winning arguments as early as the negative block, treat the 1AR like a rebuttal, not a 3AC, and make connections on the line x line, instead of emailing me a plethora of cards and expecting me to sort it out.

- I flow. I don't follow the speech doc while you're talking. If you are unclear I won't be able to get what you say down and I won't vote on it.

- Slightly more truth > tech than the median judge. Once indicts are made your rejoinder burden grows depending on the strength/weakness of the original argument. Bad arguments can lose to bad arguments. Your argument got what it deserves.

- I value my decision time, and I'd hope you do too. Judges normally get around 30 minutes assuming everything in the round ran promptly. This is not an unreasonable amount of time, but ask yourself if the minute(s) it takes to get that marked copy before CX, or the "econ decline doesn't cause war" card before starting prep > subtracting those minutes from decision time. Please be prompt in making and sending a post-round doc.

- I carry the try-or-die flag higher than anyone else in the judge pool. I find I get sat on this argument more than any other. This probably won't bother you on a panel, but may be a tad more frustrating in a prelim debate. Ensuring that the world you're advocating for has a chance at sustainability is important. This isn't applicable to how I think about impacts generally (see below), rather, I think of it as a win condition of the game. If voting for you means there's a 100% chance of everyone dying, but voting for the other team means there's a 1% chance of everyone staying alive you lose, regardless of solving an impact. I'm open to teams who find themselves in a try-or-die trap arguing for rejecting this as a win condition, but debated out equally, or not debated out at all, well, you can't say you weren't warned.

- A bit inconsistent with the above, but once the conditions for try-or-die are not met, I find that I put greater emphasis on the link than many of my colleagues. When I get sat for non try-or-die reasons, it is often because I thought the link was small despite the impact being large.

- I don't flow "stream of consciousness" well. I encounter this a lot in 2NRs where the 1N typed up a thing for the 2NR to blitz through. I don't have an issue with speedy delivery communicated in a way that allows for the listener to digest the content, but if you're just speed reading through a long chunk of text I'm probably missing 50+% of it.

- We don't "debate out" accusations of unethical behavior/practices. If you want to stop the debate and have me adjudicate whether a debater/team was unethical, the debate ends. We cannot restart the debate from the alleged unethical practice, and the winner of the debate cannot be decided on "who did the better debating." I think a fundamental standard for "unethical" must be obfuscation for the purpose of gaining a competitive advantage. This doesn't mean the team in question had to know they were gaining a competitive advantage (i.e. they didn't have to have cut the card), but that the way the evidence was presented gained the team a competitive advantage they wouldn't otherwise have had if the evidence was presented properly.

-Critical / Critique-

- I generally understand impact turns to topicality as "counter-standards" that support a counter-interpretation, so I struggle as a judge to get to an aff ballot when the "critical aff" (broad interpretation) fails to provide a counter-interpretation to the resolution. I equally struggle when that counter-interp is self-serving and not grounded in defining resolutional terms (i.e. "affs can affirm or negate the resolution").

- Most critical debate is too fast for me. If these arguments are your thing, you will benefit from slowing down over-explaining.

- I struggle to understand critiques of "fiat." I find that most of them rely on an interpretation that is divorced from what I understand "fiat" to mean. Absent a tech disaster from one team, I have consistently been persuaded that the aff gets to weigh the benefits of implementation versus the impacts of the K.

- A critique argument still needs to engage the case. Trying to simply outweigh the case or framework it away has empirically been unlikely to persuade me to vote neg.

- Critiques of "impact magnitude" are generally unpersuasive to me. "Critical affs" are much more successful in front of me when they focus on challenging the link.

-Evidence-

- My decision will probably reflect evidence quality / evidence specificity more than the median judge.

- I value good evidence with coherent highlighting. Nonsense highlighting makes me want to read for flaws in your evidence and have it reflect in my decision making even if not brought up in round.

- I don't have an issue with "insert re-highlighting" as long as its accompanied by an actual argument, and the insert has merit. If your "inserting" is actually just mis-readings on your end, I won't care if it's "dropped". Likewise, if you're inserting stuff but haven't introduced context for an actual argument, the other teams burden of rejoinder is low to nil.

-Theory / Competition-

- More neg than the median judge on conditionality.

- 50/50 on judge-kick but presumption is 2NR = one-world. This means if neither team addresses the judge-kick contingency, I will not do it and vote aff if the neg fails to prove a NB and/or competition, even if I think the NB links to and outweighs the case.

- Slightly more neg than the median judge on neg fiat (states, international, multi-actor). I can't see myself ever rejecting the team for non-conditionality theory arguments, even if dropped in every speech.

- "Perm do CP" means the plan and the CP can be the same thing. "Perm do both" means doing the plan and CP at the same time resolves all the NB, or enough of the NB that the solvency deficit outweighs. If you are making a different perm than either of these, you need to say more in the 2AC than "do both" or "do CP"

- I'm not going to vote on disclosure args (not disclosing the 1AC is a voter, you disclosed to us wrong, you're not on the wiki, you only gave us a paper copy, you only read this in X spot, etc.). Disclosure is a privilege, not a right, and I'm here to judge a debate, not be the disclosure police. That said, poor aff disclosure can be persuasively used to justify leniency for the neg on theory args, like conditionality or judge kick.

-Speaker Points-

- I don't really have a model. I suppose my scale goes from 28-30, but realistically my range is probably 28.5-29.5. That doesn't mean if you get a 28.5 you're the worst debater I've seen, it means you did an adequate job and I expected debaters I judged at this tournament to fall in that range. #BringBackTies

Oakland University - PhD Applied Mathematics (2017)

U of M - Dearborn - BSE Computer Engineering & Engineering Mathematics (2011)

I debated for Groves High School for two years, U of M - Dearborn for one year, and I debated for U of M - Ann Arbor for one year. I have been coaching at Groves High School since August 2007, where I am currently Co-Director of Debate.

Please include me on the email chain: ryannierman@gmail.com

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

Top Level: Do whatever you want. My job is to evaluate the debate, not tell you what to read.

Speed: Speed is not a problem, but PLEASE remain clear.

Topicality: I am willing to vote on T. I think that there should be substantial work done on the Interpretation vs Counter-Interpretation debate, with impacted standards or reasons to prefer your interpretation. There needs to be specific explanations of your standards and why they are better than the aff's or vice versa. Why does one standard give a better internal link to education or fairness than another, etc?

CPs: I am willing to listen to any type of CP and multiple counterplans in the same round. I also try to remain objective in terms of whether I think a certain cp is abusive or not - the legitimacy of a counterplan is up for debate and thus can vary from one round to the next.

Disads: Sure. There should be a clear link to the aff. Yes, there can be zero risk. The overviews should focus in on why your impacts outweigh and turn case. Let the story of the DA be revealed on the line-by-line.

Kritiks: Sure. I enjoy a good kritik debate. Make sure that there is a clear link to the aff. This may include reading new link scenarios in the block. There should also be a clear explanation of the impact with specific impact analysis. Spend some time on the alternative debate. What is the alt? Does it solve the aff? What does the world of the alternative look like? And finally, who does the alternative? What is my role as the judge? The neg should also isolate a clear f/w - why does methodology, ontology, reps, discourse, etc. come first?

Theory: I don't lean any particular way on the theory debate. For me, a theory debate must be more than just reading and re-reading one's blocks. There needs to be impacted reasons as to why I should vote one way or another. If there are dropped independent voters on a theory debate, I will definitely look there first. Finally, there should be an articulated reason why I should reject the team on theory, otherwise I default to just rejecting the argument.

Performance: Sure. I prefer if the performative affirmation or action is germane to the topic, but that is up for debate. I am certainly willing to listen to your arguments and evaluate them fairly.

Paperless Debate: I do not take prep time for emailing your documents, but please do not steal prep. I also try to be understanding when tech issues occur, but will honor any tech time rules established and enforced by the tournament. I will have my camera on during the round. If my camera is off, please assume that I am not there. Please don't start without me.

Other general comments:

Line-by-line is extremely important in evaluating the rounds, especially on procedural flows.

Clipping cards is cheating! If caught, you will lose the round and get the lowest possible speaker points the tournament allows.

I do not feel comfortable voting on issues that happen outside the round.

You should read rehighlightings.

Don't change what works for you. I am willing to hear and vote on any type of argument, so don't alter your winning strat to fit what you may think my philosophy is.

Cross-x is a speech - it should have a clear strategy and involve meaningful questions and clarifications.

Have fun!

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

I'm healed now run it all back

Please put me on the e-mail chain: peanutdebater@gmail.com

**Highschool peeps: I've been told by my coach friends, my debaters, and students I've judged that I come off mean in RFDs because of how blunt I am. I don't mean to be rude or anything like that but if that seems like I am, it's most likely not you.

***Well done*** Naruto references get you speaker point boosts.

Background

Greetings Comrades, I debated four years of varsity debate in high school at East Kentwood competing nationally and then debated for five years at Wayne State. Now I'm a grad assistant at Baylor. I have been almost exclusively a K debater. Some of the areas include anti-blackness, settler colonialism, cap, Edelman, and Chicanx arguments but I also have read and coached policy arguments so throw em at me. (Random impact turns like bootlicking China).

The Topic:

College: Oh wow nukes can't wait to hear all the same impacts from the last five years.

High School: BIG MOOONEY

In round:

Evidence sharing and disclosure is good. Do it.

As of this moment I am not evaluating anything out of round unless I see it or you have physical proof (screenshot, recording) that your opponents did something violent messed up etc. I'm not gonna play detective again nor am I going to make value judgements on peoples sincerity or honesty.

Tag teaming is okay but I'd rather it kept to a minimum or zero.

Did you read a? Did you skip b? What cards did you read? Are cross ex questions I will enforce that time on a one judge panel. Don't like it? Get good at flowing, sorry but I'm not sorry, like at all.

Don't be oppressive or violent in the round, don't say that mess we are too old for that. If you do I'll let the other team roast you in their speech if they want to dunk and gain speaker points, if they don't take the opportunity to do it I will do it post round including lower speaks and an L.

I've noticed now more that I am an expressive judge so you will often know how I feel about something in the debate. So do with that as you will.

I've started to hate large overviews because honestly most of that work can/should be done on the line by line portion of the debate. I am also personally fine with the 1AR or block foregoing and overview and just tear up the opponents arguments directly.

More hostility in debate. Like why are we treating bad or silly arguments and the people that run them as serious. This isn't like be mean and call people names, but like you just called their epistemology racist and you're friends or cordial with someone reading that racist stuff? That's weird... Enter the room with that mamba mentality, that's all.

***Online Debates. I would love and prefer your cameras on at all times as I think it checks back cheating, helps me see you and allows you to use non-verbal's to persuade me and absent that build a sense of community and friendship :). If you can't or it's important to your argument and/or have another reason for not using a camera I get it, just my preference.

Args

If you have a fringe argument that some deem as silly, funny, goofy, weird, and/or obscure read that ish I like weird impact turns and all kinds of funky DAs. Spark, rouge AI, aliens, or whatever have fun.

I think post-rounding is silly because debate is communicative and if you failed to articulate your round winning argument then I’m sorry but I’m not going to go crying to tab changing the result. But waste our time if you really feel that way I won't think about the round ever again likely so no clue what you want to be the result of it. I've only had this problem once twice thrice so let's keep it that way.

If I wanted to hear just the truth I'd go to therapy. In other words the tech on the flow matters

Perms need a deeper explanation than you just rambling off four perms in hopes that the neg drops one it likely won't be developed enough by the 1AR/2AR to get my ballot

Aff

Aff has the burden of proof, prove a change is needed or what you do is the change + is good. Neg has the burden of rejoinder respond any way you want. Lots of times I feel that I vote neg because I lose sight of what the aff does as the 1AC slowly decomposes into nothing-ness at the end of the round. Explain what your aff does, why you are doing it, and how. Neg people don’t let affs shine light on their arguments and you have a hot shot at getting a win or a presumption ballot at the least.

T

First slow down on the violation, standards, and voters people blaze through it at top speed please relax let me flow it, damn. I feel like well done policy affs vs. T debates are some of my favorite but also could be really really generic and mid debates. So don't be boring. The impact level needs to come down to what specific abuse or education loss happened not something abstract.

FW

Borrowing from Pirates of the Caribbean, "The [Resolution] is more what you call guidelines, than actual rules."

Aff teams should prove a reasonable way, form, and or model of engagement or have significant impact turns to the neg arguments, I'm not convinced by some generic bs like "policy bad" we can do better y'all. Neg teams not gonna hold you IDGAF about fairness in the abstract. You need to prove the specific abuse in the round not just some lofty fairness claims. You need to contextualize your offense to the specific aff you debate and if you can do that you'll most likely be good absent something external in the round.

K Affs

Rez connection is appreciated and desired although not mandatory ig, please make sure you have thought through why you have completely rejected it. If you are just gonna say debate bad but have no other juice aside from that why we here?

Theory

So I've come around and like a good theory debate so go for it. I'm most open to disclosure theory, condo in a world of 4+ off (i.e. time skew claims and ability to generate offense on the net benefits). I also will flow on paper so like depth over breath for me. Y'all really need to levy perf-con against teams that read Ks and then have some policy defense/args. In a world of two perf con policy CPs I'll lean more neg flex but in a world of K v Policy stuff it shows bad K debating and I lean aff.

D.A.’s

TBH not a fan of most politics DAs because they seem boring and repetitive. If I had a dollar for every time something was supposed to shift a vote or election I would have more money than Bezos so you either need really good specific link evidence or you should read something else. If you decide to read a new disad in the block make sure you have a warrant as to why you did.

CP’s

Make sure you outline the net benefit pretty please? However, how much fiat the teams want to grant the CP will be up to y’all. I love a tricky PIC but don't love 4 plank long counterplans.

The K

Real world impacts are good and are grounded in more reality thus I feel are easier to believe than most. In addition to the arguments I mentioned in my background I dappled with a broad range of other arguments but that does not mean I'm neck deep in all the literature of everything so explain. Going for alt? Explain how it solves the links. No alt? Fine K’s can also function as disads without alts and be a reason to not do the aff but you will have to win how the aff increases said bad thing not just they use the state. In general I think the state link is probably the weak “link” of k links, see what I did there ;). I’d rather you contextualize your argument to the aff. Or to win the K you need a good FW/epistemology connection so make sure to have that if you aren't going the material route.

Ummmm... why ain't we fiating alts around here we really letting the policy crew have a monopoly on the tools of imagination?

**HS in particular: Please don’t be like “He’s a K debater so reading the K is how we win” If you would like feedback I can probably provide that for you as an educational opportunity but don’t read it just for the sake of it. I don’t like buns K debates and if you think you have that FW or DA fire instead just read that.

Online Debate Updates:

Debate is still a speech and education activity. The following are things you should certainly read:

0. Cameras on during the debate.

1. Stop marking cards. Your speaks will tank if you mark more than a card (maybe two if the other team runs 8 off). If you aren't reading all the warrants in the card, you are effectively making an analytic, not an evidenced argument. And clipping cards without marking them is cheating. Don't do it.

2. Clarity is key in an online world - if I do not understand what you are saying I absolutely will not vote for it. This means that almost every team should be adapting and slowing down, on tags and analytics especially.

3. To get higher speaks and a higher chance of winning, don't just read your prewritten blocks back and forth. You need to do a line-by-line. Tell me what your 2AC or neg block card is responding too and why you are reading it. Warrant extraction and comparison is an effective way of making yourself more persuasive.

4. I don't kick your CP's, K's, DA's, etc for you. You need to do it yourself and do it properly.

5. Yes I want to be on the email chain. NO I WILL NOT READ YOUR CARDS, TAGS, OR EVIDENCE. Knowing when emails are sent etc helps me make sure that prep is accurately timed in an online world.

6. Prep ends when you hit send on the email (if there is one).

Background:

I debated at Dow High School in Midland, MI for 3 years. I did not debate in college, but have continued to work with the Dow High debate team.

Add me to the email chain: vikram@vikramshanker.com

I aim to be a tabula rasa judge. I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on in the round. I am more likely to vote for you if you make me do very little work for you. However, you can do a number of things to improve the efficacy of your arguments. If you aren’t sure how I view things, looking at the paradigms of Nick Smith and Amanda Bishop ( from whom I copy/paste/edited my paradigm) might help. Please feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the debate.

Specifics:

- As a judge, I believe my default role is a policy maker. You can convince me otherwise in the round.

- I enjoy listening to arguments that people actually understand, rather than only reading your pre-written shells/frontlines/etc. I would rather hear fewer, well developed arguments than a lot of arguments that go under covered. I like things explained to me. Don’t assume because I’ve seen your argument before that I will automatically understand what you are saying.

- You need to signpost so I know where to flow things, when you are starting a new card, etc. At the bare minimum, make sure you say next in between cards/analytics etc. An organized speech, especially on the line by line, will get you a long way. Read your tags slower so I don’t miss things.

- I consider myself middle of the road with speed. I view spreading as a means to making more arguments in the round. Being faster or slower won’t impact your speaker points. If you are a crazy fast team, you might consider slowing down a little bit for me, especially on tags. If I don’t get it down on my flow, I won’t vote for it. I will say “clear” when I don’t understand what you are saying and will attempt to continue flowing.

- I think that in-round critical thinking, analytics, etc are under-valued in policy debates. Simple empirics can be more convincing than a random piece of evidence that is taken out of context.

- I will not call for evidence unless there are conflicting claims about what a piece of evidence says. My job is to judge the round and what the debaters said, not what the cards say. I do not want to intervene.

- The quality and relevancy of evidence is more important than the amount of evidence.

- I’m not a topic expert, please explain your arguments.

- I need to be told what to vote on at the end of the round and what my decision should be based off of/how it should be framed. When it comes to framework, you need to impact your framework. Why is your framework the best and why should I vote on it? If you don't frame the round I am left up to deciding who is best on my own. That being said, I need impact calc and weighing at the end of the round.

- I like T and think while it isn’t always the most fun thing, it is important. I went for T a number of times myself as a high school debater. While the neg needs to win all parts of the flow to win T, I judge it bottom up. The neg needs to win the voters for me to vote on it. Then I will evaluate the standards to decide which definition to use. I will then consider the top of the flow to see if the aff meets the better definition. If you go for T in the 2NR, it should likely be the only thing you are going for.

- I like a good counterplan debate. Make sure you slow down for the plan text. Case specific counterplans are probably my favorite kind of neg argument. For the neg to win the counterplan, they must prove the world of the CP is better than the world of the plan. Presumption will flip aff on the CP.

- While I am not familiar with most K’s, I am open to voting for them. Please know that if your K evidence has tags that are 50+ words long, I am probably going to miss at least part of the tag, so either really slow down or edit your tags. Signposting will also help you a lot (see above). Running K’s with specific links are more convincing. Explaining what the world of the alt is and how we get there is also very convincing. Alts that only say deconstruct or imagine are likely open themselves up for attack from the aff. However, the aff has to make these arguments in the round.

-I enjoy a good case debate. I mostly ran policy affs with some critical advantages. I think a lot of people don't use their case to their full advantage. Cross applying is important and the neg should not ignore the case. Case work is always good. The case needs to be extended for the entirety of the round. Disads are usually underutilized in my opinion.

-Tag teaming in cross is fine, as long as it isn't excessive. Tag teaming to add something to a partner's speech is okay as well. Just don't dominate. I've watched debaters give their partners speech and I won't flow it until the person whose speech it is actually says it.

- I default to believing the aff should be about the debate topic for the year. That being said, I’m open to listening to non-topical affs/performance affs/etc. But know that I am not familiar with your argument, and that you may need to adjust a bit to make sure that your arguments are best understood by me. If the neg runs T/theory on what debate is about/etc, I am willing to vote on that. Performance affs in particular should probably use FW to make sure that I understand why your form of performance is good for debate.

Email: rtimm4341@gmail.com (went years opposing being on the email chain on the grounds that it removes the debate from what is actually claimed by the debaters, but zoom debate being what it is, maintaining a purist stance is not practicable)

I have been involved with debate since 2003. As you might suspect of something I've been doing longer than most people reading this will have been alive, I'm here because I genuinely believe in and enjoy the activity. Hopefully you feel the same way! Happy, fun teams make happy, fun judges make happy, fun, high point rounds.

Tech > truth. There's virtually no argument that can't win if argued well. The places where truth matters more are generally structural issues with debate, e.g., barring a drop, you can't tech uniqueness arguments into controlling the direction of the link or a non-competitive advocacy out of the perm. Other than that, I judge with the least possible intervention whatever my (often strong) thoughts on the argument may be. I tend to read VERY little evidence, as few teams actually make sufficient use of their evidence for it to be relevant to my decision. Evidence is an argument support system, not an argument itself, meaning that you need to actually flag a card and focus on its warrants for it to stand a chance at directly coming into my decision.

Far too much impact calculus is incredibly shallow. The majority of rounds, impact calc consists of noting an untouched extinction impact and asserting then asserting an immediate timeframe and 100% probability. This is as silly inside a debate round as it would be in the real world. You're much better served making specific, probabilistic arguments drawing on carded warrants and comparing them to your mitigation of their impacts. Relatedly, too many teams simply let impacts stand untouched, hoping instead to mitigate at the link and uniqueness levels. This tends to result in me having to grumpily parse whether to vote in favor of the side claiming two extinction events that may not be unique or the side claiming three extinction events that may not link. Impact defense and (be still my beating heart!) impact turns therefore tend to result in cleaner, more fun rounds.

CPs: I am extremely aff-leaning on most questions of competition. If your CP competes off the definition of normal means or certainty, it doesn't. That goes for consult, delay, condition, what have you: if perm do the counterplan is in the 2AR, you will almost certainly lose. No, perm do the counterplan as a response to your sweet consult Turkmenistan CP does not sever out of anything. Yes, that does make your CP almost impossible to run.

States CPs are often theoretically illegitimate, but I'm actually unusually sympathetic to them this year. The vast majority of our criminal justice system is controlled by states rather than the feds, meaning that there is an unusually rich literature supporting state-level solutions.

Critiques: I'll openly admit to being one of the least sympathetic judges on the circuit to the theory behind most critical arguments in debate. There's tons of great and interesting philosophy being written and read every day. Unfortunately, almost none of it is what we as a community have decided to use to write our Ks. The vast majority of "high theory" authors are embarrassing hack frauds. Every time I wind up being exposed to Zizek or Baudrillard or the like reminds me of Schopenhauer's famous comments that Hegel "was a flat-headed, insipid, nauseating, illiterate charlatan, who reached the pinnacle of audacity in scribbling together and dishing up the craziest mystifying nonsense" and wrote "such stuff as madmen tongue and brain not." (Note: if you don't know what I'm talking about, you almost certainly do not have a strong enough background in philosophy to actually understand the arguments you are making.)

That said, I have a slightly above 50% lifetime voting record in favor of the K. Good K debaters make their argument as specific to the aff as possible, something especially easy on the criminal justice topic. You will always be better off engaging with the substance of the aff. Good K debaters also try not to let the round devolve into a seeming stream of consciousness in no particular order. The average high school K 2NC/1NR seems to skip up and down the flow with no regard for structure or responsiveness. Structureless speeches result in messy flows result in frustrated judges trying to parse implicit clash after the round.

Non-traditional/performance: Debate is a game, and the only rule that can't be disputed is the length of your speeches. However, I'm never going to be a particularly good judge for performance affs. All things being equal, the neg will usually have the advantage on T/framework for two reasons: 1) empirically, almost every performance debate is a meta-debate with almost no topic-specific education after the 1AC; and 2) especially on a topic like CJR, virtually everything done by non-traditional affs could also be done topically, requiring actual engagement with your performance. That is to say, no, the aff saying "the USFG should" is not the same thing as roleplaying as the USFG.

Theory: theory arguments outside the "conditionality bad" family are almost never reasons to reject the team. This goes double for blippy little nothing arguments in the middle of a block being labelled an independent voter. However, arguments like severance or floating PIKs are often extremely useful. If you go for a CP/K, I will not compare the plan to the status quo without an extremely compelling argument why I should.

Topicality: Unless told otherwise, I default to evaluating T through a competing interpretations lens. A-spec and similar arguments are rarely a winner.

Theo Van Hof

Assistant Debate Coach, Okemos High School

Michigan State University '24

Please include me on the email chain.

theodebate27@gmail.com

Bio: I am Theo Van Hof, I debated public forum debate for one year at Lincoln Southwest High School and policy debate for two years at Okemos High School, and two years of policy debate at Michigan State. I am now in my fifth year of assistant coaching and judging for Okemos High School. This is also my second year judging for the NSDA tournament.

TL;DR: Read the speaking section. If you don't, I'll know and give you dirty looks the whole round, and I don't want to do that. Recently, I read some god-awful substack article in which the author complained that debate judges bring too much of their own bias into rounds, and that makes debate unfair. Not only is this an extremely stupid argument, but it is also one that is just wrong. This isn't really relevant to anything, it just annoyed me. Anyway, read what you want, however you want. I will vote for anything as long as it isn't actively racist, sexist, xenophobic, transphobic, homophobic, etc.

Speaking: Speak loudly and clearly (maybe not so loud if it is a morning round). Please have overviews and signpost. Even something as simple as saying "next" will do. If you signpost poorly you will be docked speaker points. Speed is fine as long as I can understand you. I will not flow what I cannot understand, so please do not expect me to go sifting through your cards to figure out what you said. Other than that any style of speaking is great. Do whatever floats your boat.

Bonus speaker points if you are funny. In a persuasion activity, humor can be very effective, and it irritates me that no one seems to care about actually "persuading" me, but I digress.

Aff: Read whatever you want. Creative and unique plan texts are appreciated, but certainly not required.

K Aff: If you are a K Aff team, pref me low! I am a very dumb policy nerd who refuses to learn K Affs out of sheer laziness. With that said, I am more than willing to listen to any and all K Affs and I have voted for them in the past. The ones that I vote for are the ones that are explained the best and don't get bogged down by too many buzzwords and too much silly debate jargon. If you have any performative elements, feel free to instruct me on how you want me to flow things, so I can follow along properly.

Topicality & Theory: I like T as a negative strategy. You can read a couple of T violations if you want, but if you stand up and start reading 5+ T violations, I'm going to start laughing. If you want to win T in the 2NR, make sure your link to the aff is clear, and make sure you impact out why the violation is relevant and why it means you should win. If you don't want to lose on T as an aff, read counter-interps/we meet arguments but do not read an RVI, I will not vote on it and I will start blasting crappy EDM during your speech (not really, but no RVIs please).

Theory is fine but mostly dumb. I will still vote on it, but the burden of proof is definitely on the team running the theory argument.

DAs: Great. Please explain your DAs, primarily your link story, and how they outweigh your opponent. Impact calculus is excellent in the final speeches of the round.

CPs: Great. Please read a plan text other than; "Do the aff". Explain the net benefit(s) and why the CP is better.

K: Generally, simple Ks like Cap or Security will be fine, but more complex Ks are going to need a good amount of explaining. I am not super familiar with a lot of the buzzwords of Ks and will most likely not be able to understand a bunch of jargon. I will vote for your K as long as I can understand it, and just like anything else, you win it.

Add me to the email chain: william.wang822@gmail.com

Background: I debated at H. H. Dow High School and now at the University of Michigan.

Preferences that probably distinguish me from a generic judge:

The evidence says whatever you tell me it says; it's unfair for me to read all of it and decide for all of you.

Do evidence comparison beyond "they're wrong because our author disagrees."

"Permutation is intrinsic/severance" requires substantial explanation.

I can definitely do fast, but I prefer relatively slow.

Kritikal Affs:

These rounds are difficult for everyone involved because it seems like every judge has a different take on every argument. However, even though I certainly have predispositions here, it's unstrategic for you adjust to me because there aren't any framework arguments on aff nor neg that I've heard that I wouldn't vote on.

I have sparse experience with K v K rounds, but I wouldn't necessarily feel lost in one.

Kritiks:

Policy aff vs neg K comes down to framework almost every time for me.

Describe to me the threshold for both voting aff and neg.

Counterplans:

If you start your speech with 'the counterplan solves 100% of the aff and avoids the net benefit,' you should follow up with a plan-specific explanation for both.

If your counterplan doesn't 'cheat' then it's probably not good enough to go for.

I do not kick a counterplan for you.

Theory:

I'm sympathetic to aff theory, especially on counterplans.

Incomprehensible two second theory shells are not voters.

Debated at Okemos High School 2016-2020

Debated at KU 2020-2022

Coaching at Blue Valley

sonyaazin@gmail.com

T - fine

FW - fine

DA's - fine

CP's - fine

K's - I love these, so definitely fine; race theory/pomo/gender and or sexual orientation

K-Affs - ^^^^

Theory - fine

not much lit base for K's (or much of any arg) on this topic so just explain the link, I/L, and impact.

Non-TLDR

Run whatever you want, be clear, signpost and warrant out all arguments you want me to vote on. If it isn't in the 2nr/2ar, I will not vote on it. A dropped argument is a concession but make sure you point it out and EXPLAIN why it matters. I'm familiar with a fair amount of K literature but some of the heavy pomo/race theory stuff should be explained and warranted.

LBL should be a little more in depth and have a lot more warranted analysis than I've seen recently.

TLDR

Args I've run consistently: Cap, Militarism, Set Col, Antimilitarism K-aff, Set Col K-aff, FW/T-USFG

Args I'm familiar with: Fem, Set Col (and it's varients), Afropess (and it's varients), Psycho, Black Psycho, Baudrillard, Deleuze and Death Good.

K stuff

Link: make sure it's something unique to the aff, something that the aff does or supports through direct evidence or analysis. "Aff does _____ with ____ which causes ______" A link doesn't have to be a direct quote but it does have to be a direct mechanism or flaw with the aff/resolution. If you're critiquing the resolution then at least tie your theory into whatever your are dismantling/restructuring. Other than that, I don't have too much of a high threshold for the topicality of the K or the K aff.

Alt/Solvency for K-Aff's: I have a little more leniency with alt's on a K than an alternative/mode of solvency for a K aff because in my opinion, when critiquing an aff, it should honestly be enough to say that the aff's epistemology is flawed, therefor we shouldn't invest any energy into debating about it, and they should lose. If you're critiquing the resolution though, you need to have some concrete way of doing something about what you've critiqued. A lot of K-affs just kind of say the rez sucks and then do quite literally nothing about it. Even in round education can beat a lot of other off case offense, but you have to explain how reading your aff in debate spills out into something that changes our relationship to the rez. Even in a world without fiat, I need to know why the scholarship of the aff is net better than any scholarship the neg would have access to in a debate under different circumstances.

Case and Case v K Stuff

At the end of a round in which I vote aff, I need to be able to coherently describe the mechanism of the aff, the impacts, and how the aff solves the impacts. If the 2ar doesn't have this or spends a minute doing some sloppy LBL with unintelligible spreading on case and then moves on to answering 4 minutes of the K/FW, I'm probably not going to vote for you. I understand that sometimes people feel like they know their case very well and the "premise" of the aff "should" solve the residual offense, but it gets muddled or you get rushed because you're running out of time on the K. So just be mindful. Explain the warrants of the LBL.

T stuff

Do whatever you want, but I don't really believe in voting on T as a reverse voter but under some special circumstances, I can see myself doing so, assuming the Aff can clearly explain a voter and standards that prove they lost ground by having T run on them (for some reason I have a fear of this, don't ask). Slow down a little on standards and block stuff.

FW stuff

If you don't extend your interp throughout each speech then I probs will have a harder time voting for you, so make sure to do so. Other than that though, do whatever the hell you want. Standards and/or Impact turns being gone for should be extrapolated and contextualized to the type of advocacy/education in the round. Read all the disads you want. Make sure to tell me why policy education might be better vs. critical education in the long run for a certain case scenario. Keep FW separate from framing on case but MAKE CONNECTIONS.

CP stuff

I mean if you want. I tend to give condo more weight when there are 3 + conditional advocacies, including the K, so be a bit careful there.

Impact stuff

IMPACT FRAMING!!!!!! 2ar/1ar as well Block/2nr need to be solid about what impacts/offense is/are being gone for in the debate. There's obviously going to be concessions on both sides at the end of the debate but where are they, why do they matter, and what does this mean for other arguments on the flow? 2ar's/2nr's that write the ballot at the top of the rebuttles>>>>>>

Spreading Stuff

Pls enunciate the tags and don't spread through blocks at the rate of a lawnmower on drugs, especially when/if they're not in the doc. I have a sore spot from a round with clipping so I'll probably say clear like 5 times, and if there's still an issue after that I'll mention something at the end of the speech. If it keeps happening, there will probably be more severe consequences.

Speaks

I'll probably give you better speaks if you're slower and have good arguments than if you're fast and make little strategic arguments. If you're fast and make good args, I'll definitely give you the extra speaker points.

The vibes I'd like us all to strive for are ????????????, preferably in that order. ???? does not include derogatory lanague or disrespect. Rock on!