Hiii, just call me Jess ♥

Put me on the email chain@ Cartercjessica@gmail.com

I debated for about two years as a policy debater.

The majority of my debate career I've only ran K's. I understand policy though so please do not come and run a k in my face so I will vote for you because if that shit is trash I will be highly disappointed.

I understand spreading, but if you are not clear I will say clear three times and if you aren't clear by then i will stop listening and flowing.

Topicality: its not a voter. If you run this you have to prove to me how they make education in this debate space worse. You also have to prove to me why fairness matters (it really doesn't). Specifically explain the standards. for example: Ground, why does it matter that you don't have ground and I don't want to hear fairness impacts.

Disads: I love these. Make sure you explain the link. I NEED A LINK STORY. Make sure your impacts actually sound like impacts and not a card that you read in the 1nc. IMPACT CALCULUS!!!!! LIFE CHANGING

Kritiks: this is probably where home is. Like I said earlier DO NOT RUN A KRITIK IF YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. I welcome K's. Most likely y'all will run into Topicality and framework. You as the K debater have to give me reasons why you running a K is better for education and why the negative interpretation is unfair for everyone and not just the aff

Roll of the judge and ballot: Tell me how I'm going to vote. Why should I vote aff or neg. Why shouldn't I vote for the apposing team.

Speaker points:

25-26.9: You were horrible. Most likely said something offensive; Racist, sexist, transphobic..... you get the gist

27-28.5: You were okay, but you probably will break. There is room for improvement just ask me.

28.6-29.5: You were awesome. Please keep debating. Email me I'd like to coach you.

29.6-30: if you got a 30 from me you're perfect. Most likely better than me.

ayooo

I'm a former LD debater for Needham High School, and Policy debater for Cornell University.

I will flow, and tolerate mild spreading. I'm more persuaded by voting issues that are well-developed through the round vs a random collection of drops.

Ryan Galloway

Samford University

Coached for 29 years

rwlcgalloway@gmail.com

Broad Strokes: I have voted for and against just about every kind of argument in the activity. While my background and research interests are primarily in the policy side of the equation, I have frequently been convinced to vote for critical arguments. I love debate and am happy to be judging you. Debate requires a lot of work and effort on your part, and I plan on returning the favor by working hard to reward your effort in the debate.

Framework: The most important thing I could say about debating this issue, or virtually any other issue, is to listen carefully to what the other team says and to answer it specifically. I find that teams on both sides of the equation become block dependent and fail to answer the nuance of what the other team says. Before last year’s NDT, I thought I was a good judge for the negative, but at the NDT I voted affirmative twice in framework debates. I would recommend more line-by-line from both sides, and less overview dependent arguments. In many framework debates I've judged, the AFF tends to overwhelm the NEG with so many arguments that the NEG can't keep up. I often encourage the NEG to go for other arguments in those situations, even if they are less scripted and rely more on analytic arguments.

Topicality: I tend to be a good judge for contextualized definitions from either side. My ideal topicality debate would be one more about what the word means in context than arbitrary definitions from both sides with appeals to limits and ground. I am more amenable to appeals to reasonable interpretations than most judges. I dislike de-contextualized interpretations that create a meaning that is not in context of the literature or field.

Kritiks generally: Here's where I think I fall on various kritikal strands:

Very good for identity kritiks, very, very bad for high theory kritiks, pretty good for IR kritiks, goodish for nuclear weapons Kritiks, pretty bad for ad hominems disguised as kritiks, do not believe you can cross-x the judge. Unlikely to believe that one theory of power or psychological drive affects everyone in every situation. Do not think the alt or even having an alt is as important as other judges if you prove the ideological or discursive justifications of the affirmative make the world worse. Do not think that there needs to be an alternative to justify permutations to the ideology inherent in the criticism. Kind of bad for tiny risks of extinction mean I should ignore all standards of morality. Think all philosophical endeavors should be geared toward helping real people in their everyday lives. Better for discourse kritiks than most judges. As a vegetarian, I have found myself more sensitive to impacts on non-humans than many.

Identity k's: history shows I'm very good for them. Not as familiar with all the authors, so you need to guide me a bit. Some familiarity with lit on Afro-pess and Afro-futurism. Not good for the logic that suggests “if you link you lose” is somehow a bad standard of evaluation for k’s.

High Theory K's: you should honestly strike me if your primary strategy is to read generic theory cards referencing a dead French or German philosopher and somehow think they apply to nuclear weapons policy in 2024. I have read a fair amount of post-modern authors, who I generally find to be dull, arrogant, incoherent, usually incorrect, and pragmatically unhelpful. I will not apply your general theory of power to specifically link turning a highly nuanced affirmative case .I feel strongly that a lot of what is happening in these high-theory debates is intellectual bankruptcy and am willing to say the emperor has no clothes. I also think I have a higher standard for evidentiary quality in these debates than most.

IR K's: I'll certainly listen to a security K, a fem IR K, Gender kritiks, Complexity Kritiks, Kritiks of realism, etc. Might need to do a little work applying them specifically to the AFF--but I'm pretty open. I think the lit is deep, credible, and important.

Nuke Weapons K's: As long as the K is an actual indictment of nuclear weapons reductions or disarmament, I'm very down. I will caution you that I think most of the cards I've read talking about "nuclear weapons discourse" are in the context of those who discuss building up nuclear weapons and justifying nuclear deterrence, and are not about reductions and disarmament policies.

Clash debates: I find them hard to judge for both sides. I think if each team would line up what they are arguing the debate is about it would be helpful. Am I evaluating the consequences of FIAT'd action? I am evaluating the AFF as a demand for state action? Am I evaluating the educational benefits of a model of a debate? Am I judging the AFF as an artifact of scholarship?

For non-traditional frameworks, having a method or metric to evaluate what the debate is about would be helpful. How do I assess what is good scholarship? What are the benefits of endorsing a particular model of debate?

I've been told I am a k hack. Perhaps. I have been accused of being erratic in clash debates, wracked with guilt, and apply an offense/defense paradigm where it is inappropriate. It is possible that all of these criticisms may be true or false to some extent. I try and judge the debate I’m watching without a pre-prepared standard of evaluation.

Teams that directly engage the argument of the other team and not use generic framing issues tend to do better in front of me. Engage the scholarship directly, even if you don't have cards. Be willing to talk about how your affirmative operates in the framework established by the other team. Be responsive and think on your feet. Surprisingly good for pragmatism and incrementalism arguments. If the k answer fell out of flavor in the mid to late nineties, I probably really like the argument. I am completely uninterested in proving my kritik credentials or proving that I am down with whomever is the new hot theorist making the coffee shop rounds.

Disads and risk: Framing arguments on risk are very important to me. I flow them and will try to evaluate the debate on the terms that you set up. I try to not have a pre-planned position on how to evaluate these arguments. As with most arguments, less overview and more line-by-line is better. I like when teams use their evidence, even if it is not specific, to make link arguments specific to the affirmative. I view evidence as part of the tool-kit that you have, and the specific arguments you make about your evidence are very important to me. Evidence alone is not an argument. The use of evidence to make an argument is a fundamental component of debate.

Counterplans: I enjoy nuanced counterplan debates made specific to the plan/counterplan in the debate. I dislike littering the flow with permutations and generic theory arguments. I like smart counterplans that solve the internal link of the affirmative. I like theory debates where either team responds to what is happening in the debate they are engaged in, as opposed to abstractions. I lean pretty heavily for the neg on conditionality.

Theory: I'm much better for "if they get 'x' we get 'y' then they absolutely should not get 'x' under any circumstances. I like strategic concessions on theory to justify arguments elsewhere on the flow. Standard theory blocks are stale and uninteresting, but if you've got an innovative theory or spin especially based on a concession of their theory, I'd be happy to listen. Standards of logic and whether something truly tests the affirmative plan or method are more persuasive to me than many others. Kind of not good for appeals to time skews and hypothetical strategy skews that are likely non-existent.

Novice Debate: I love novice debate and am so happy to be judging you. Novice is my favorite division to judge. I tend to reward novices who make smart arguments using their own logic to attack the other teams’ arguments. I tend to also reward specific line by line debating, so answer what the other team has to say specifically. Feel free to ask me lots of questions at the end of the debate about style, arguments, the decision, etc.

I have eased off some of my prior criticisms of the way novice is coached, but I will still tend to reward substantive arguments as opposed to arguments I view as cheap shots. I enjoy when novices are taught skills that will benefit them throughout their debate careers, instead of those designed to trick another novice with an esoteric and widely rejected theory they just haven’t heard yet.

Ethics challenges: I strongly believe that you should email your opponent or your coaches if you find a problem with their evidence. I think most mistakes are accidental. I have personally emailed coaches who have incorrectly cited a card and found the mistake to be accidental--cutting a lot of cards with multiple windows open and accidentally putting the wrong cite on a card, etc. I think we have to have a certain measure of trust and respect to make the activity happen.

Ethics challenges are happening way too often and are becoming trivialized. If you worry that my standard for trivial is arbitrary, non-trivial suggests you have contacted your opponents, that you are 100% sure you are factually correct, and you can illustrate intent on your opponents’ parts. I believe accusing someone of being unethical is incredibly serious and the standards should be very high.

Stylistic issues:

1. I prefer if you number your arguments.
2. Arguments should be clear in the 1ac/1nc. I dislike the idea that the other team should have to read your evidence to figure out the scope of the argument. The argument should be clear upon its initial presentation.
3. I prefer clear labels to arguments--no link, non-unique, turn, etc.
4. I prefer labels to off-case positions as they happen in the debate: The Politics disad, The TNW's PIC, the Security Kritik, etc. instead of just launching into a five plank counterplan text and leave me to figure out what the thesis of the argument is.
5. I prefer specific line by line debating to doing most of the work in the overview.
6. I don't read speech docs as the debate goes on and I flow what you say, not what's in the doc.
7. I am very concerned about how stylistic and demeanor norms in the activity marginalize non-cis-dude debaters. Please don't cut off, mansplain to, talk over, berate, or not listen to non-cis-dude debaters. It is shocking to me how much this still goes on.
8. I try to judge the debate, and not the quality of the speech docs after the debate is over. I strongly disagree with judges who read all the cards and decide the debate from that.
9. I seem to be particularly sensitive to aggression in cross-x and cutting someone else off while they are trying to ask or answer a question. I think people should be quiet more and listen to the other side. I also don’t like cross-x filibustering. I don’t think cross-x should be used to “clown” or belittle your opponent. I realize I’m probably saying I believe in the opposite of everything you’ve learned about cross-x, but it’s how I feel. The best cross-x’s set up a trap that isn’t revealed until later in the debate.
10. I still believe in a place called Hope.

I debated high school debate in Virginia / Washington DC for Potomac Falls '03 to '07 and college for USF '07 to '11. I am currently the debate coach for Oakland Technical High School.

add me to email chain please: aegorell@gmail.com

I am generally pretty open to vote on anything if you tell me to, I do my best to minimize judge intervention and base my decisions heavily on the flow. I love judge instruction. I err tech over truth.

However, everyone has biases so here are mine.

General - Removing analytics is coward behavior. Okay, after I put this in everyone seems to think I mean I need to see all your analytics ever. I’m saying if you have prewritten analytics you should not remove those (coward behavior) especially in the early constructive speeches. Removing analytics and trying to get dropped args from spreading poorly is bad for debate and if it’s not on my flow it didn’t happen. Analytics off the dome from your flow are great and not what I’m talking about.I'm fine with tag team / open cross-x unless you're going to use it to completely dominate your partners CX time. I'll dock speaker points if you don't let your partner talk / interrupt them a bunch. Respect each other. I'm good with spreading but you need to enunciate words. If you mumble spread or stop speaking a human language I'll lower your speaker points. Please signpost theory shells. I will evaluate your evidence quality if it is challenged or competing evidence effects the decision, but generally I think if a judge is pouring through your warrants thats probably not a good sign, you should have been extending those yourself I shouldn't have to hunt them down. Don’t cheat, don’t do clipping, don’t be rude. Obviously don’t be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc, in life in general but also definitely not in front of me. This is a competitive and adversarial activity but it should also be fun. Don’t try to make others miserable on purpose.

Topicality/Theory - Hiding stuff in the T shell is bad and I'll probably disregard it if Aff tells me to. Good T and theory debates need voters/impacts, which a lot of people seem to have forgotten about. I think for theory to be compelling in round abuse is supreme. If you're complaining you had no time to prep and then have 15 hyper specific link cards....come on. Disclosure theory is basically never viable independent offense but I think it can be a strong argument to disregard theory arguments run against you since they refused disclosure norms.

Framework - I'll follow the framework I'm given but I prefer a framework that ensures equitable clash. Clash is the heart and soul of this activity.

Kritiks - You need to understand what you are advocating for. If you just keep repeating the words of your tags without contextualizing or explaining anything, you don't understand your Kritik. I prefer to weigh the K impacts against the aff plan but I can be convinced otherwise. My threshold is high and it’s easier to access if you can prove in round abuse / actually tailored links. Also, I don't think links on K's always need to be hyper specific but I do not want links of omission. I like fiat debates. I think a lot of kritiks are very vulnerable to vagueness procedurals.

K-Affs - Good K-Affs are amazing, but I almost never see them. I used to say I tend to err neg but I actually end up voting aff more often than not mostly because negs don’t seem to know how to engage. Vagueness seems to be most egregious with k affs. Don’t be vague about what you’re trying to do or what my vote does and you’ll have a much better chance with me. I like debate, which is why I am here, so if your whole argument is debate bad you'll have an uphill battle unless you have a specific positive change I can get behind. Just because I like debate doesn’t mean it can’t also be better. I can recognize its problematic elements too. Reject the topic ain't it. I need to know what my ballot will functionally do under your framework. If you can't articulate what your advocacy does I can't vote for it. I think fairness can be a terminal impact. Negs should try to engage the 1AC, not even trying is lazy. Really listen to what the K aff is saying because often you can catch them contradicting themselves in their own 1AC, or even providing offense for perf cons.

CPs - I'll judge kick unless Aff tells me not to and why. Justify your perm, don’t just say it. You need to explain it not just yell the word perm at me 5 times in a row. I tend to be fine with Condo unless there’s clear abuse. I think I start being open to condo bad around 3 or 4? But if you want me to vote on condo you better GO for it. 15 seconds is not enough. I think fiat theory arguments are good offense against many CPs. Consult, condition or delay CP's without a really good and case specific warrant are lame and I lean aff on theory there. Advantage CPs rule, but more than 5 planks is crazy. By advantage CPs I mean like...actually thought out a targeted ones that exploit weaknesses in plans.

DAs - I evaluate based on risk and impact calc. More than 3 cards in the block saying the same thing is too many. Quality over quantity.

For LD - I try to be as tab as I can but in order to do that you need to give me some kind of weighing mechanism to determine whose voting issues I prefer. If you both just list some voting issues with absolutely no clash it forces me to make arbitrary decisions and I hate that. Give me the mechanism / reason to prefer and you'll probably win if your opponent does not. So like, do I prefer for evidence quality or relevance? Probability? Give me something. I'm probably more open to prog arguments because I come from policy debate but if someone runs a Kritik and you do a decent job on kritiks bad in LD theory against it I'll vote on that.

General Info
Sam King (email: debate@samking.org)

I went to South Eugene High School from 2004-2008 and did policy debate in the national circuit. I went to Stanford for undergrad and for a masters from 2008-2013. While there, I did some debating, and I coached Palo Alto High School. Since 2013, I haven't done much judging or coaching because I started managing tab rooms.

I try to be tab, so run whatever you're most comfortable with. I have biases, but I will try to suppress them when evaluating the round. I list my biases below in an attempt to be honest, not because you should do anything to adapt. You will do better debating something that you're comfortable with than something that you think that I like. Most of my biases aren't too significant, anyways.

Arguments I like or dislike:

• Any type of argument is fine. As a debater, I had a more or less equal propensity to go for the cap bad k, t / theory, or a case specific pic / sneaky counterplan DA strategy.
• The alternatives on most critiques are pretty weak. Also, a lot of K debaters are bad at arguing against impact turns.
• I love well-run critical affs, case specific pics, counterplans with Ks as net benefits, and good case debate.
• I think that Ks and performance arguments are interesting, and I'm moderately versed in the literature, but you should be sure to think about how it's relevant for a debate round or in the context of policy analysis.
• Bad theory debates are very boring. Good and innovative theory debates are interesting.
• Generic "using your agent is bad" das like politics, hollow hope, and prez powers tend to be boring unless they're non-standard or sneaky. So are consult counterplans.
• Sneaky arguments in general are good if you can defend them.
• Winning "terminal defense" is hard absent a concession or something that really doesn't link.
• Gendered language is bad. There is no good offense against the critique of gendered language. I don't understand why any debater ever lets another team that uses gendered language win. If you don't have a gendered language file, then ask me for one or check out bit.ly/genderedlanguage.

General stylistic things:

• If you are bigoted, don't expect very many speaker points. I might intervene against you too, who knows?
• Don't be afraid to extend your cheap shot.
• Argumentative depth is good.
• Speed is good. However, in the first 30 seconds of your first speech, I probably won't be able to hear you because I'm not used to your voice, so don't start out at your max speed, and don't start out on the theory debate. I probably won't yell clear because I expect you to get clearer anyways. I probably won't yell at you as often as I should.
• When you're debating, my face is a very transparent reflection of what I think if your arguments. If I look confused, it's because i don't understand your argument. If I'm nodding or waving at you, you have already made your point and should stop beating a dead horse. If I'm looking up and thinking, it probably means that you said something dense that I'm still processing.
• New Arguments: I was a 1a2n, so I'm fairly critical of new 2ar arguments. I consider an argument in the 2ar new if it isn't on my 1ar flow. For all speeches before the 2ar, I do not care if your argument is new unless the other team tells me to care: since the other team has an opportunity to respond and flag an argument as new, I won't bother looking to verify if it's new.
• Arguments are new or not new; I'm not sure how it's possible to have a "new cross application." Either the argument was in the previous speech or it wasn't; either it always applied to the "new" location or it never did. Everything else is just an artifact of particular styles of flowing, which has little bearing on the legitimacy of an argument.
• Cross-X: CX can be the most important or least important 3 minutes of the debate. I pay attention to CX and sometimes flow it, so make the most of it. Be aggressive.
• Debating Theory: recognize that every argument is some combination of disad and advocacy. In theory, the interpretation is an advocacy; the standards/voters are disads. That means that you need impact calculus and that you should use counter interpretations on theory for the same reason you read counterplans. Also, I prefer debates that discuss general rules of debate rather than ad hoc rules. The rule "a counterplan is illegitimate if there is no agent who could decide between the plan and the counterplan" makes much more sense and is probably more predictable than the rule "the China counterplan is illegitimate." Adopting this style of theory debate will also make you more likely to think about the DAs and impact calculus involved in adopting a given standard for debate.
• You don't need to generically re-extend every card in your scenario. If the other team only attacks your uniqueness, you don't need to specifically extend the link and impact. Just answer the other team's responses and do some comparative analysis between your scenario and theirs.

My theoretical conception of debate as an activity:

• Fairness and Education are Connected: Debate is a game. Being a fun and fair game is necessary to maintain participation. Debate, as a game, is valuable because it's educational. Speaking fast, thinking technically (including in theory arguments), the K and debates about values, discussions about the political process and policy, and thinking in a policymaking mindframe (ie, uniqueness/link/impact, impact calculus) are some of the different and valuable types of education that debate offers. Competition gives debaters a very strong extrinsic motivation to pursue this education. Competition also, by pitting ideas against one another, increases critical thinking and acts similar to a peer review, helping debaters get closer to the Truth.
• Performance: To win that debate should be changed, you need to win that a world that includes your modified version of debate would be superior to a world with the status quo form of debate. Both teams will argue that debate is a unique form of education. The question is how to best utilize that uniqueness. Making debate easier at the expense of education might hamper what makes debate unique; maintaining the rigor of debate while incorporating personal experience might make debate both more unique and more accessible. In order to convince me that debate ought to be change, you would have to win that your plan for debate has a better internal link to (inclusive / good / meaningful) education than their counterplan for debate. Alternately, you could just say that status quo debate educates people in a form of policymaking that leads to imperialist unilateral policymaking (ie, the Spanos critique of debate).
• Framework: No one really believes that signing an aff ballot means that congress will vote for your aff. That doesn't mean, however, that 'discourse' trumps 'fiat' in terms of a framework for evaluating the round: I vote for which (theoretically acceptable and competitive) advocacy the debate has established is best. To be clear, if I vote neg, it does not mean that I actually reject development discourse or that I will solve any of the real world impacts of your critique; voting for a negative critique is just as theoretical an act as voting for an affirmative plan.
• Specific Arguments: (And, remember, I suppress these biases if there's a debate about them) Floating pics are vulnerable to cross-x and theory. Condo is good. Advocacies without specific solvency advocates are annoying and generic. Advocacies that are not an opportunity cost DA against the aff don't make sense (that means, for instance, that if there is no agent who could choose between the plan and the counterplan, then the counterplan doesn't make sense. Feel free to get creative with how some third party might decide between the plan and counterplan, though. This also makes utopian advocacies problematic). Every plan has an implementation (defined by plan text, cross-x clarification, and evidence about what normal means is), and every part of that implementation is vulnerable to a counterplan; some people call this 'functional competition.' That generally means that things like pics and delay counterplans are fine as long as the aff is willing to clarify that their plan does something that makes the counterplan mutually exclusive.

Hi! yall can contact me anytime for whatever you may need at xanthialam@gmail.com (Yes I would like to be on the email chain)

bit abt me

- UC Berkeley Undergrad

- debated policy and k for all 4 years of hs

feel free to ask me anything abt args or if u need help

and I assume you are here bc I am your judge in which case...

(SHORT VERSION: you do you - I will vote on anything as long as you convince me and put in the work.)

*random things to note

- do not be scared to run anything in front of me

- for speaks: generally the more entertaining or captivating your speeches are the higher the points I give

(honestly I love a good performance whether it be yall doing something hella abstract or just being yall self ) - sad but true statement; if i am bored most likely things be droned out and my attention span will wane)

- I try to remain neutral as possible but understand everyone has their bias' but I do not let my personal feelings alter my decisions

- Be loud and clear when you speak; if you aint I cannot flow what you want me to

- use your time the way you want to

- outline what my ballot should come down too bc if yall do not tell me how to evaluate it imma just do it how I want to which isn't necessarily bad but I wanna give yall a say on how I write my ballot

- be confident not cocky, sas is fine just don't be a jerk, and remember HAVE FUN (well as much as possible at a tournament)

- if you find a way to integrate me into the convo so i feel relevant that props to you

PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL- this should be a safe space where yall can debate freely bc everything is debatable

(LONG VERSION BELOW)

Policy-

For aff run anything you want I don't mind as long as it is coherent - by coherent I mean that I can follow the set up and basis of the arg

On policy straight up: just DO NOT USE JARGON without explanation of the terms

K's- this is my strong suit but you need a clear link, alt, and impacts. Make the K unique aka run it in a way that it is specific enough where I wont think its generic.

Theory- this is something I can understand if reasonable, I have a relatively high threshold for theory but please try to limit buzz words

FW- i mean its fw, run it the way you want to...open for interpretation yo... often/majority of times I will resolve/evaluate this flow prior to other arguments but if you do not win this flow does not mean you cannot win other args or the round

Da's- inherency is a killer, be careful and if yall run a da as an off I expect another off to structure it but it is not necessary.

CP's- Its fine just make sure I hear a stable plan text and clear explanation of why.

T- honestly one of my least favorite arguments just bc ppl don't usually go for it and it then becomes a waste of paper (please do not make me kill more trees than I have to)

PERFORMANCE- as a whole make sure you can own up to what ever you are presenting, don't let yourself crumble. Give me a reason to vote on it.

Public Forum-

I do not keep up on pf topics but just upfront tell me to avoid confusion

Anything policy related I can catch on but just make everything clear for me when you outline reasons why I should vote for yall in the summaries

Last two speeches are crucial- make it count as the majority of my ballot will be centered on the final focus'

- the arguments made in the last speeches will be the ones I evaluate the most or possibly the only ones I do evaluate at all

even tho I will evaluate the round as a whole - make sure there are things in each speech that yall make clear yall are winning

Technical stuff

- tag team is fine

- sending email or flash is not prep but do not purposely try to extend your time; DO NOT PURPOSELY STEAL PREP

- speed is fine just refer back to the top of the paradigm

Nikhil Nag

University of Pennsylvania ‘15

Conflicts: Mountain View

Last Updated: 4/13/2020

TOC Updates:

1. I should be fine with your rate of delivery. That said, if I'm judging you in one of the first two rounds of the tournament, please at least start your speech slowly just to be safe. For full disclosure, my primary involvement with debate has come through the Bay Area UDL for the last several years. I promise I'm still a smart, thinking person that cleared at TOC twice during my debating career.

2. I hear role of the ballot arguments are in vogue these days. I'm happy to evaluate these, as I am to evaluate any genuine attempt at substantive debate, but do require that they generate some form of a decision calculus (explained below).

3. I'm impressed by smart, analytic arguments that suggest that you're a human being instead of a card-reading automaton. I do not default to assuming that cards are better arguments than analytic arguments (unless you're making an empirical claim, etc.).

4. The entirety of the paradigm below still holds, though I'm likely going to a bit more generous with speaker points given the expected caliber of competition.

The Background

I debated at Mountain View High School for four years, and graduated in 2012. I was primarily competitive on the national circuit.

The Ballot

Absent argumentation, I assume the affirmative has the burden to prove the resolution true, and the negative must prove the negation of the resolution. I assume that "prove" requires an offensive argument. All arguments must link to some form of a decision calculus to have any bearing on how I vote. Extensions need a claim, a warrant, and an impact. I believe in terminal defense (it’s absurd to think that people should give credence to a claim for the sole reason that someone uttered it), but in order for me to grant a debater terminal defense on an argument, that debater must tell me why the defense is terminal in nature. I will strive to objectively evaluate the round and (with certain caveats) defer to issues as decided in the debate. Given that I will be flowing on a laptop, rate of delivery will not be an issue. However, if a debater is unclear to the degree that I cannot understand what is being said, I will not consider the arguments that debater made while speaking incomprehensibly in my decision. I will only vote for arguments that I understand as justifying the ballot. I do not have any preconceived “thresholds” for any arguments (this includes framework arguments, theory, etc.). The following outlines my specific defaults, preferences, and ideological stances on certain issues (the colloquial nature of text below explains the shift to second person pronouns/verb forms).

The LARP

I’m very comfortable evaluating debates on the utilitarian level and often enjoy “LARP” debates. Contrary to popular belief, I actually really like developed plan vs. counterplan debates with lots of excellent evidence and evidence comparison, but that doesn’t mean that I’ll give debaters reading utilitarian frameworks some sort of advantage on the framework debate. I will assume that counterplans are dispositional unless additional clarification is given. I also like judging critical arguments, or arguments derived from continental philosophy, and often think that they make debates more exciting. That being said, critical impacts must link to a justified framework.

The Obligatory Evidence Ethics Section

Although I had wished that this wouldn't be an issue, the fact that I’ve judged numerous rounds that have featured egregious misrepresentation of evidence has prompted me to add my thoughts about unethical evidence practices. Unethical evidence practices include but are not limited to: severely mistagging evidence, blatantly citing a source incorrectly (e.g., reading a definition of one word as the definition of another word), and fabricating evidence. If I discover that any unethical evidence practices were utilized during the round, the offending party will lose the round with 1 speaker point. This is not meant to be a personal attack on anyone in particular, but rather to be a warning to anyone who decides it’s a good idea to read miscut evidence in front of me. If I think something’s fishy, I will not hesitate to call for evidence. Finally, evidence without at least a minimal citation (author name, article title, date) will not be considered in my decision.

The Theory and Topicality

I view theory as a necessary and desirable practice in debate. I default to viewing theory and topicality as issues of competing interpretations, but am open to adopting reasonability if clear parameters are given as to what counts as a “reasonable” interpretation. I will only vote on theory or topicality arguments that are in 4-point shell form (interpretation, violation, standards, voter). This means paragraph theory is “no bueno” (unless it’s extended as a four-part shell in the 1AR). As far as voters go, I find myself firmly in the camp that believes that fairness and education are important. That being said, I’m surprised to find myself persuaded by new, innovative voters such as critical thinking, advocacy skills, and deep learning. While the RVI is not my favorite argument, I will evaluate it like any other argument if it is made. Please do not claim that you can win by “turning theory” or reading an “offensive counter-interpretation” with an unwarranted plank (there are conceivable offensive counter-interpretations that are adequately warranted but I’ve rarely seen debaters construct such counter-interpretations) – you need an RVI if you’d like me to vote off of responses to a shell. I am also willing to vote on theory that indicts practices that occurred outside of the round I’m judging, such as disclosure theory, coin flip theory, spectator theory, and the like.

The Random Idiosyncrasies

• “Analysis” is defined by Merriam Webster's Dictionary as "a careful study of something to learn about its parts, what they do, and how they are related to each other". So, before you go about ranting about how your “Jenkins analysis” is “on fire” or how the “1AR’s analysis on X question” is “fantastic", make sure you’re using the word correctly. If you’re not, you’ll probably lose speaker points and credibility.
• What’s the difference between a warrant and an internal warrant? If you don’t know (I certainly don’t), just extend your “warrant” and spare yourself some embarrassment.
• I don’t do “implicit counter-interpretations” – if a competing interpretations paradigm is won and you don’t have a counter-interpretation (that you proceed to win)/make "I meet" arguments (that you proceed to win), you lose.
• I almost never call for analytic arguments. So, make sure to clearly articulate what your analytic arguments (especially T/theory interpretations). If it’s your fault that I didn’t get an argument down, I’m perfectly comfortable telling you that in my RFD.
• Telling me “it's in your paradigm, so you should vote this way” is a good strategy in front of me, assuming you are correct.
• If you have stapled your case and refuse to tear out the staples when your opponent asks you to pass pages, you will lose 2 speaker points.
• I don't like when people blur the pre-fiat/post-fiat distinction. Examples of this practice include but aren’t limited to arguments that claim that skepticism takes out theory, arguments that claim that your opponent’s skeptical argument means that you can sign the ballot because there are no moral rules, and arguments that say your opponent as a human being endorses obviously bad things as a consequence of arguments they’re running.
• I’m very easy to read. If you look up, you’ll be able to know if I despise or agree with an argument you’re making. Adapting to my nonverbal reactions is often a good idea.
• I reserve the right to apply a subjective “gut check". I will not agonize over a messy round just to artificially make up a flow-based decision (although I’ve been able to do so in all but one of the many rounds I've judged).

The Speaker Points

Given how low my speaker point totals have been in the past, I’ve decided to “curve up” speaker points so debaters I judge aren’t placed at a disadvantage. As such, the average round will now receive a 28.5. The lower end of my speaker point distribution will probably move up (significantly), so you don’t need to worry about getting a 23 unless you’re truly atrocious. Speaker points are awarded based on how much I enjoy your performance. This means that speaker points are not lifetime achievement awards. You can, however, get better speaker points by ending your speech early if you know you have already won the round (for example, you don’t need to use all 6 minutes of your NR if your opponent drops theory – I will give you some sort of visual cue to stop talking), showing swagger/personality instead of being a monotone robot, and making the round engaging by introducing an unusually interesting or counterintuitive argument. Debaters who have fun and make the round enjoyable for all parties in the room are often pleasantly surprised by their marks.

The Conclusion

If any of the preceding makes you think that I have altogether lost my marbles, I encourage you to give me the old strikerooo; of course, rage, angry sobbing, and barely-concealed disdain are all available alternatives, but I must say that I would much prefer the more dignified anonymity of your strike.

Hi, I'm Aaron. I did policy debate for four years in college at West Point and am currently a JD/PhD student at Stanford University.

I vote based on the flow, that is, I vote for the team who, at the end of the round, explains how the arguments (or, in better debates, the warrants) which their opponent has conceded/misunderstood logically imply that they should win the ballot. This means that I try to evaluate all arguments without regard to my personal convictions. I have voted for traditional policy arguments, (almost) every type of kritik, non-topical affirmatives and everything else that might be in between. If you want to win my ballot, focus on keeping your part of the debate organized and on pointing out your opponents' concessions. If I have any bias, it is that I tend to believe the affirmative should defend an actual implementation of the resolution.

Debate, however, is more than a competition; it is an activity which should encourage and accomodate intellectual pluralism. Please run the arguments in which you are interested and passionate about. Regardless of outcome, I am always willing to provide feedback on the substantive portions of the debate, as opposed to simply explaining the mechanics of the RFD. There are good and bad arguments in debate, but there is no guarantee that the former win out over the latter. I think part of the role of the judge is to note when this happens.

For speaker points, I admire any style done well. If you spread, spread well, if you perform, perform well, if you do both, then bonus points if you do both well.

If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to ask.