I started debating in high school, competing in PF, LD, Parliamentary, and Congress debate. I have been judging debate for about two years now.

I accept spreading, but debaters should only do so in final speeches IF time is limited. Debaters should time themselves and always ask to make sure the judge(s) and opponent(s) are ready. I will be judging you on clash, topicality, and strong crystallization.

Our main priority in the debate round is respect. Rounds can get heated, but it is essential to keep a cool head and focus more on convincing the judge why your arguments weighed more than your opponents'. Remember that debate is a learning process. Don't misgender your opponents, and try your best not to let your emotions overtake your arguments. Arguments should be completely fact and/or philosophy-based.

Other than that, I am pretty simple. Further questions can be asked during the round. Good luck to everyone! :)

For Lincoln-Douglas debates, I look for clearly articulated value and criterion, with opening case statement arguments that are closely related to the value and criterion.

Arguments that are overly structured with complicated subset points begin to lose effectiveness; a clean, clear structure is more convincing.

The pace of speaking should not be so rapid, in haste to make as many points as possible, that the judge cannot clearly discern the arguments being made. A well designed argument is more convincing than rushed speaking where the judge may not be able to acutally discern the points the debater is trying to make.

NEG should focus in the case statement period more on building a strong argument rather than using an inordinate fraction of time to initiate rebuttal; if the case statement is made stronger, and minimal time devoted to the beginning of rebuttal, the NEG argument will probably withstand AFF rebuttal better.

Both AFF and NEG should avoid such phrases in rebuttal like "...if you don't buy that argument..." Such language suggests uncertainty in the argument just presented, which undermines its effectiveness.

I did LD for 2 years and coached for another two at Pittsburgh Central Catholic. I am now coaching debate at Oakland Catholic High School, and this is my first year back in a few years.

I'll vote on anything. However, if you're going to go for something, it must be extended in each speech. You should try and write my ballot for me at the end of the round by giving me 2-3 of your best arguments and going for them. If I look confused it is because I am confused, so try to not do that. I pay attention to cross x, but I don't flow it.

Be confident but don't be rude, there's a big big difference. I prefer that you have more offensive (your flow) than defensive arguments (your opponents flow), but you need to have both in order to win the round.

I will let you know if you are going too fast.

If you have any specific questions let me know and I'll be sure to answer them before the round.

For LD:

No spreading, please. I am not an experienced debater, but I have judged several LD events. I am familiar with keeping a flow, and will take notes. I tend to favor more offensive arguments (make your points strong) as opposed to defensive arguments (negating your opponents points). You still need both, but I tend to rely more on offensive points. Please be respectful of each other, and best of luck to both sides.

Respectful, clearly articulated debates.

I competed in mostly Congress and extemp in high school, but I dabbled in PF. I also have a tiny bit of Policy and Worlds experience. Since graduating high school, I have judged locally in Northeast Ohio and on the Circuit (for Hawken), mostly in PF and LD but also a little Congress, since Fall of 2018. Here are some thoughts; I often update them after a tournament if something stands out to me.

Congress:

I flow Congress rounds, and I expect you to treat it like a debate event. I won't rank you if you're not a good speaker/presenter, but you also won't rank if you're not a good debater.

The top people on my ballot will need to do a few things:

1) Know your place in the debate. Are you giving a 1A or 1N? Set up the issue and relate it to the bill. Early-Middle of the round? You can give me a new point or two, but make sure you're refuting (and, for the record, just name-dropping somebody doesn't count as refuting). Late-middle? You should be mostly refuting. Last? Crystalize, summarize.

2) Show me that you're versatile. All other things equal, I will rank the person that gave an early and a late speech (see Point #1) higher than the person who gave two early speeches or two late speeches. That being said, I will probably think more of you if you give two late speeches vs two early speeches, because I think refutation is more impressive than a canned speech.

3) This line appears in my paradigm for every debate event I judge: You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much.

4) Impact.

5) Be good at answering questions. Be good at asking questions. Do both things consistently.

6) Don't be a jerk. I'm not going to describe what being a jerk entails, but you know it when you see it.

I'm also more than happy to rank POs, and I do it often. I judge the PO in the context of the round, and will rank anyone (often highly) if they maintain control of the round and are fair and quick. I really can't give more detail than this, but you know who's a good PO and who's not.

PF:

Full disclosure: I loved PF in high school, but I've cooled on it a bit as a judge for one reason: I cannot stand the debates that come down to cards, args, and impacts that don't clash or aren't weighed. There is too much talking at each other that goes on in PF, to win you need to make sure you clash and tell me why you beat your opponent. You'd think this goes without saying, and I guarantee that many of you reading this think you don't do this, but I promise many of you will. I need you to do impact calculus. I need you to tell my why your card is better than your opponents' if they clash. I want to do as little work as possible, so clearly tell me why you win. Also, don't extend through ink--this tends to be something PFers struggle with a lot.

Framework is important, but winning framework doesn't mean you win the round. You should not use evidence without logic. You should not use logic without evidence. If you read evidence and do nothing to contextualize it or explain it, I will likely not weigh it much. If you go on a wild logical tangent with no evidence, I will likely not weigh it much. Impacts are important, I want to see weighing and impact calc. I like to vote on impacts. Tell me a story in FF about why you win.

For the record, I flow and can handle speed. I won't be happy if you spread, but short of that I'm fine. I love CX, but I probably won't flow it, if there's something important bring it up in your speech or I likely won't weigh it. I won't ever call for a card unless you tell me to and tell me why; if you tell me to call for a card and there was no good reason for it I'll be unhappy.

Less is more. I'd rather you made fewer arguments well rather than rushing through a laundry list of arguments.

Also, I really like it when debaters make their outline VERY clear. Make it as easy as possible for me to follow your argument.

- Tell me what you're going to say.

- Say it.

- Tell me what you said.

Also, verbalize your outline. "I have 3 points. My first point is X. Under X are sub-points a, b, c, and d."

Coach since 2014

For the most part,you'll be looking at this paradigm because I'll be your LD judge. cross-apply these comments to PF as applicable and to policy if/when I get recruited to judge policy.

Speed and Decorum:

Send me your case. This should go without saying, but let me know that you've actually sent me your case. I won't look for your case unless you tell me to look. Speechdrop.net or tabroom share is probably best rather than email.

I don't care if you sit/stand. Really, I don't. Just generally try to remain in the room. I won't be shaking hands.

Please time your speeches and prep time. I may not keep accurate time of this since my attention is to the content of your speeches. Flex prep is fine if all debaters in the round agree.

Debate:

I do not prefer theory. I'm usually left feeling that most debaters let it overcomplicate their arguments or worse. Some may even allow it to further make debate inaccessible (especially to those who are likely already crowded out of this forum in some other way). Please don't run it unless there you see literally NO OTHER WAY to respond to your opponent's arguments. Even then, I may not evaluate it the way you want or expect. If you planning to run dense or tricky theory, you should find a different judge.

You have an absolute obligation to articulate your arguments. Even if I’m familiar with the literature or whatever that you might be referencing I *try* to avoid filling in any gaps.

Signposting = GOOD! Flipping back and forth from AFF flow to NEG flow then back to AFF Flow to NEG Flow....BAD.... VERY, VERY, VERY BAD!

Tricks = no. Thanks.

I will not vote for arguments that are ableist, racist, sexist, homophobic, transphobic, Islamophobic, anti-Semitic, etc. This should go without saying, but for the sake of anyone who needs to see it in writing, there you go.

Above all, strive to make sense. I do not prefer any “style” of debate or any particular kind of argument over another. Regardless of what you run, if your case relies on me to connect the dots for you or if it is a literal mess of crappily cut and equally crappily organized evidence sans warrants, you will probably be sad at the end of the round.

Hey cool cats!

If you use any type of theory, I will drop you, even if the other side may not win as many points. Theory is inequitable and isn't real debate.

If you are condescending or bigoted, I will eviscerate you.

Please speak at a human pace. You may be a robot, but I am not... yet.

Use real sources and cite your evidence. I do not endorse plagiarism... even if that's what you rely on to pass AP English.

Fabricating evidence is dumb, don't do it... even if the mainstream media does.

Weighing is important. Don't make it my job to weigh you... I'm not your doctor.

PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE use a balance of logic and evidence, 

Cross is not the time to give another speech. Let's keep this train movin'...

And finally, for the love that is all good and holy, just have some fun. You are in high school this one round will not matter two weeks from now! Seriously, if you can't have fun, then maybe it's time to reevaluate your life.

Hi Everyone,

I am a traditional judge. Please talk at a moderate pace- no spreading. I would appreciate if you can keep your own time for your speeches. I am not comfortable with progressive debating so please don't run it.

Thanks!

Debate:

I do not mind spreading. If you are an inarticulate spreader, then you will send me your case as well as your opponent:isabella.droginske@k12.wv.us

I strongly oppose paraphrasing evidence. If I am your judge I would strongly suggest reading only direct quotations in your speeches.

I greatly appreciate framework debates and debates that really investigate philosophical ideas. I have a fair knowledge base of Rawls, Kant, Locke, Rousseau, Bentham, Mills, and general schools of thought.

I do not mind Ks but excessive T is something I feel very strongly against.

I believe that debate should have the highest form of decorum throughout. I do dock speaker point for lack of decorum and respect to your opponent, judge(s), and the art of debate.

I make final decisions based on my flow-Tabula Rasa.

—LD: I appreciate robust value debates. Don’t collapse. Flow value to your side.

--PF: I dislike excessive time spent on card checking. I will not read cards after the round.

--Congress: I'm looking for analysis that engages the legislation, not just the general concepts. I believe that presentation is very important in how persuasive you are. I will note fluency breaks and distracting gestures. However, I am primarily a flow judge, so I might not be looking at you during your speeches. Being able to clearly articulate and weigh impacts (clash) is paramount. I dislike too much rehash, but I want to see a clear narrative. What is the story of your argument.

Speech: Do not be on your phone while a performer is performing in a round. Decorum counts.

Prepared events should know their times and be, well, prepared from the start.

—Extemp: Citations and organization are really important to me, but so is the entertainment part. Be compelling. Have an interesting AGD. Connect it at the end of your speech.

I have no background in debate. However, with a PhD from MIT, I understand how to follow an argument and, most importantly, evaluate how well a line of reasoning is supported by valid evidence. What I mean by valid is that all data, findings, and expert opinions must be rigorously derived and presented to be counted. Feel free to challenge anything otherwise. In terms of communication, I don't mind fast pace, but you must be understandable at all times. Good luck to both sides!

LD:

The 2019/2020 school year marked my 4th year as a Lincoln-Douglas Debate judge. My preferred rate of delivery is a moderate speed. No spreading. The rate of delivery does not weigh heavily in my decision. In making my decision, the value is very important. In making my decision, the criterion is very important. I appreciate KVI's in final rebuttals. Please use jargon ("extend", "cross-apply", "turn", etc.) sparingly in rebuttals. Evidence (analytical and empirical) is important. I decide the winner of the round based on their overall position. During the round, my note-taking is a rigorous flow.

I appreciate the role that philosophy, logic, and evidence each play in Lincoln-Douglas Debate. Lincoln Douglas debate is designed to center on a proposition of value. A proposition of value concerns itself with what ought to be instead of what it is. It is not the purpose of this type of debate to identify a solution or a plan to implement in order to fix the resolution. Instead, the purpose is to offer reasoning to support the principle that may be used to guide a decision. I also will not allow my personal biases to influence my vote.

PF:

I am currently beginning my inaugural year coaching debate at Alliance High School.

Although I prefer a moderate speed, I can keep up if you are not spreading. Please Frontline. Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive. Line by line: I don't prefer the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you. If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!! Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Conflicts:

Alliance High School (Alliance, Ohio)

Louisville High School (Louisville, Ohio)

Last Chance BQD:I took 5th at Nats in BQ so I have a pretty good understanding of the event. There are little to no limits on arguments you can run in BQ so I will be pretty tabula rasa when it comes to argumentation. I, personally, believe the event should be debated pretty lay/accessible but I will not hold that against you if you run technical arguments. Feel free to read the rest of my paradigm for more information.

Basics: I competed in LD from 2016-2020 with experience locally and nationally. Now, I am the head coach of Dublin Jerome HS in Ohio where I coach all events. I have experience with all types of arguments and the remainder of this paradigm just goes over my preferences.

Conflicts: Louisville Sr. HS (OH), Dublin Jerome HS (OH), Alliance HS (OH).

LD:

Framework: You must run a V/VC. I use the framework to weigh the round but I do not vote on it alone. Do NOT make it a KVI because it carries no weight on its own.

Contention Level: I keep a rigorous flow. This means I will ask you to follow a line by line and will record all dropped arguments. This does not mean I will vote on who covers the most ground. You need to extend dropped arguments and weigh them against your opponents. If you kick a contention(s) that's fine, I don't care, just let me know in speech.

Evidence: You need to provide evidence in a timely fashion. I will use your prep time if you abuse this grace period. I will (likely) not review the evidence. It is not the judge's responsibility to do the evidence analysis. If there is a breach of rules then I will intervene. Otherwise, it is both debaters' duty to show why their analysis of the evidence is better.

PF:

*************Frontline. Frontline. Frontline.*****************

Framing: It needs to be topical and not abusive or I will drone you out.

Line by line: I don't buy the norm of PF to just leave arguments behind. You can and should be consolidating throughout the round, but that means you pull everything together. I will weigh drops against you.

Evidence: *SEE LD* If you would like to have your partner review evidence while you speak, the other team needs to agree. Otherwise, this needs to happen during prep.

Please Please Please ask me questions if you have them. I take no offense at all if you question any one of these comments. As long as you're respectful, I don't care how you debate.

Good Luck and Have Fun!!!

Robert Duncan He/Him/His

Head Speech and Debate Coach, Dublin Jerome HS

Columbus District DEIB Chair

Background:

4 years at Lincoln North Star; 2 LD <3, 2 PF. Competed at local and national circuit. Ran the trad & progressive ish and a tiny bit of phil w/ absolute hatred (Rawl's, Kant, Macintyre). Mostly read antiblackness (+ Warren, Wilderson, Curry, Karera) and Islamophobia. I do NFA-LD (single policy) at UNL.

Virtual debate will be wonky so speech drop/email chain is highly recommended. Yea I want every card read in round (debaters cut iffy evidence 25/8 -- lez not do that).

Email -- azzadebate@gmail.com

*Do what you want as long as you’re not being problematic. My job is to adjudicate the round as is. Even if I hate the arg, I'll evaluate it if it's warranted/impacted/dropped/conceded/etc. Adaptability is in yo favor tho.

Few big things:

1. Being racist, sexist, homophobic/transphobic, islamophobic, xenophobic, ableist, etc. will get you absolutely nowhere. I will ruin any chance you have at getting a speaking award and you def wont win. Choose your words wisely.

2. Debate should inclusive, as long as that's not being threatened then coo. I vote for identity-based args more.

3. Disclosure is always good -- Idgaf how you feel about it if you think it puts you at a disadvantage. It dont. Just disclose. READ DISCLOSURE THEORY.

4. I love sassy and confident debaters. I cant stand arrogance (and if you are you better not suck). Drop any unnecessary attitude. You look down bad and will irritate me.

5. Engage your opponent's args substantively. Comparing, collapsing, weighing, and impacting is justice. Line-by-line is my preference but big picture analysis at the end is always better.

***PLEASE DONT DO THIS: pick 3 "main'' arguments and summarize why you're winning them. Just no. Hella rzns why dis bothers me and it's not strategic. Please go down your flows.

6. If your extensions don't include warrant and impact, get it together bruh. Tell me how and why you're winning your args, I ain't doing any work for you.

7. I hate it when debaters read identity args that they can't identify with. Speaking for others/commodification is 100% true. You’re gonna bug me if you do this.

8. I wont vote on any yay death or oppression good. Trust me you wna take the L over wasting my time spittin bs and making me tell you how bad it was.

Speed:

- 6-7/10 but don't get too crazy now. I hate having to yell clear, dont make me.

- Accommodate opponents who don't mess with speed for whatever reason (novice, disability, ESL/ELL, etc). Go for speed theory if there's abuse.

- Start. your. speech. slow. Gimme sum time to get into it.

- Pause between cards for like 3 secs yo, it won't kill you to be comprehensible and gimme pen time. Signpost!! If I miss stuff bc i dont know where your sentence began and ended hehe das all you.

- Go at conversational pace and be punctual for t/theory, interps, ROB/J, overviews, underviews, framework/standards, etc. They're mostly text and don't involve hella cards so it's tough tryna get everything down. Chill n bear with me.

*** With online debate, Imma b chilling with "I didn't catch that" in my RFD if you're not clear and go too fast.

CX:

- Don’t ask “summarize/explain your entire contention for me” — it says you suck at flowing and/or weren't paying attention.

- Do what you want, cut it short or extend it with prep idgaf as long as everybody coo.

- Most likely won’t be paying attention so lmk if you’re tryna get me to realize sumn important.

- Do. Not. Bicker.

(Value)Criterion/Standards:

- I don't care for values -- they're not that important. Please collapse if you can. There's no need for yall to be debating morality v justice ong you'll live.

- VC/Single ST is first thing I look at. It's in your favor to win your fmk. Win offense under your opponents too- its strategic and spares me a migraine.

- Extend uncontested justifications on the standards and don't waste my time (shocker but its offense).

DA:

Pop off ig. Find specific links, generic will only get you so far (lez jus not b basic). NR needa do impact calc and case turns.

CP/PICS:

- Make sure CP is textually and functionally competitive. Establish mutual exclusivity/net benefit or a perm is persuasive.

*** Delay CPs in LD are nonsensical- read a better strat.

Theory/Topicality:

- Not the best judge on them so don't expect me to be hella versed. If I'm left with a bunch of blippy args, I'll have a hard time adjudicating it. Big pic analysis is the move.

- I will vote for almost any theory with valid standards.

*** Meta-theory: debaters who read this think they did sumn and they didn't. Don't think about it.

- T/Theory is always a voter and never a reverse voting issue. Nothing about your 6 bullet point answers in your backfiles will make the case otherwise. Just beat the arg.

- "Don't vote on potential abuse" is bs - if it's a bad interp then warrant that.

- Extend all parts of the shell throughout the round.

- Theory is cool to critiquing debate norms and very persuasive if you're winning that it results in better education.

K:

- My favorite.

- I ain't a walking encyclopedia. I'm not familiar with a diverse amount of K literature. Assume I have no clue what you're talkin about and break it down.

- I'm familiar with identity (antiblackness, fem, ableism, etc), militarism, anthro, biopower, abolition. K's I'm not good with are Samio-Cap, Deleuze/Guattari, Baudrillard, Bataille, Puar, and alla that abstract dense lit.

- Alt needs to be explained. Neg is responsible for implementation of the alt. If I don’t get what your alt will do, that ain't it.

Speaks:

I'll give a 30 if you blow my mind and leave me with no criticism. A 20 you done messed up bad, I'm livid, you owe an apology, and your coach will hear of it.

Tricks:

Do I look like a clown? Am I the circus director? Yuh I'm the wrong b, you got me bent.

Other stuff:

- I strongly dislike phil but feel free to read it.

- Don’t care if you’re standing, sitting, laying down, etc. Get as comfy as you want.

- I’m the LAST person you’d ever want to post-round. Don’t try me.

---------------------------------------------------------- PF -------------------------------------------------------

- Tbh; I'm prolly punching the air if I get thrown into judging this. It's been a hot second since I was involved with PF so for better paradigm references (Avani Nooka Addisson Stugart)

- I don't care if you speak fast. If you can do it with clarity and your opponent doesn't care, please do.

- I expect a good clash but don't just re-state stuff. If you clearly have opposing evidence, one of you please do me the favor of reading your opponent's and tell me why yours is better, theirs is trash, yours is more recent, theirs is outdated, etc. Yall only got 3 mins of prep so I wont take prep for exchanging/emailing/checking out evidence but don't abuse it and make me regret it.

- If I ask for evidence please highlight the warrants for me, don't just give me the article link.

- Line-by-line is fine; actually preferable but big pic analysis is always better especially for summary and final focus.

- First team speaking; the rebuttal should only be attacking the other side. Building your own case does nothing for you. The only exception to that is a quick overview at the beginning of the speech about the impacts of your case (here's where you can throw in one tiny new card if you want) but only do this if it interacts w/ A2 your opponent's case. Don't do this if it's not insightful because you're wasting time you don't have. And that OV should be 30-45 secs max.

- Second team speaking; rebuttal should defend and attack. Defend first -- you don't want to risk losing offense. I'm not timing so idc about time allocation but it's best to split the time as evenly as possible.

- Summaries; needa do hella collapsing and weighing, this speech should be set up to frame the final focus. The offense/defense you want to win should be here.

- Final focus; tell me why you won and how your args were better compared to your opponents. It's very important to do the impact calc here. I default to comparative world analysis so use that to your advantage.

- For the most part, I'm not paying attention to CX and especially not the grand CX. In the rare case that I'm paying attention; I don't care who does/doesn't speak in grand CX so don't ask lame questions just to participate in it.

Learn and have fun :)

I like to see content backed by sources, as well as clean debate. Do not personally attack your opponent, and I do not like spreading - nor will I vote for your side if I can't understand a word you're saying. Vocal intonation, vocal modulation, dynamic voice, appropriate pacing and pausing, clear enunciation, eye contact, facial expressions, and gestures are all tools that can support your presentation. Spreading and gish galloping in my opinion are NOT tools. Be honest and respectful in your presentation. Focus on framework and the value. Not one to disclose.

I am a parent judge who has judged LD for three years. I don't know everything about the topic, so inform me about your side the best you can, especially if you use a more complex framework . I like running a traditional round (no spreading, kritiks, etc). Clearly roadmap your speech beforehand so I can flow and understand your points better. I value truth>tech and flow CrossX. But most of all, have fun! That's the purpose of debate after all.

Hi! My name is Brad and I'm a parent judge. I have very little debate knowledge and judging experience so I'd recommend a few things:

- A complex "strategy" may be lost on me. A more traditional approach will likely resonate better.

- Please be as clear and artiiculate as possible. I'd prefer it if you didn't speak super fast but if you must, please be clear and disclose/flash your doc. My email is frishb@gmail.com . It's impossible for me to flow what I can't hear/understand.

- Please be topical

- most importantly ... HAVE FUN!

I'm have been judging Mid and High school debate and speech since 2015 season and I think I know what I'm doing. I keep a reasonable flow. I can handle speed, but don't particularly like it.

I think a good debate round should engage in a substantive, rigorous, and critical discussion of the resolution, at the same time, be watchable to a general audience.

Don't just tell me that you win an argument, show me WHY you win it and what significance that has in the round. Please narrow the debate and WEIGH arguments in Summary and Final Focus. If you want the argument in Final Focus, be sure it was in the summary.

For Speech Events:

Relax and show your talent. Don’t rush and keep consistent pace of your speech. When entries that are really close in rank, the person who hit the purpose of the event most closely and whose performance flowed best will get better rank.

Remember to have fun, relax and enjoy the round!

My name is Beau Gillam, I am an Applied Economics and Management major at Cornell University.

Debate Experience: I am very well versed in Parli debate as well as World Schools. I did a little policy and LD but it wasn't my specialty. I do have a solid understanding of public forum as well. But I would be wary of trying to incorporate extremely advanced tactics as they might be above my skillset (just to be transparent with y'all).

Preferences: I would prefer if debaters didn't speak too fast. I understand you guys have a lot to say just try and stop yourselves from getting out of control. As far as tactics, you are here to try and win a debate so I want to see you be creative and utilize the tools you have to do so. That being said, try not to get too lost from the actual motion up for debate. You are mainly there to learn and to have fun so keep that in mind.

I can't wait to see what you have to say! Looking forward to this tournament.

Hello, My name is Raj and I am a parent judge (consider me as a lay judge) who has judged LD and PF in the past. I do take notes but please do not speak too fast and also outline which part of your case you are on (ex. contention 1 of your case or a rebuttal to your opponent). Please do both of these so that I can have clarity on what you are saying. Be respectful to your opponents and most importantly, have fun. Don't worry too much about speaks and do your best. Good luck!

I did LD and Policy Debate in high school and now I coach Lincoln Douglas for a high school in Ohio. I heavily weigh impact calculus and framework debate. I'm fine with speed, Ks, CPs, everything is on the table -- just make sure your opponent is ok with that too so we can have a fair debate. Very helpful if you can time yourselves and keep your opponent accountable with their speech and prep times (but if you really need me to time I will). Be respectful and have fun.

Hey! I did LD in high school, going to nationals in 2011 and winning state that same year. I'm working on a classics PhD and also have a degree in philosophy. As far as my judging experience, I judged HS debate throughout college, including in final quals LD and PF rounds.

So, I love a good philosophical debate and think strong framework is more compelling than just massive amounts of evidence without analysis. For all types of debate, I'll basically vote on what you tell me to vote on in the round (as long as it's topical). I love a weird case and prefer that over obvious/canned responses (but won't hold my preferences against you-- whether I personally like your case doesn't matter if you debated better).

I'm good with spreading-- as long as you're good with it. In my opinion, if you're sacrificing clarity for speed, best not bother.

Basically, I'm pretty easy!

I am a traditional judge. Do not spread or read kritiks/theory/anything niche unless both you and your opponent want to then that is fine.

If you are going to argue that an action leads to something extreme like nuclear war/extinction/etc, I need a strong explanation for why that is the case or I will be very hesitant to vote on it. Though in general, I will vote on anything as long as it makes sense (and of course isn't offensive or blatantly false).

Please be respectful. I will drop you if you are extremely rude/unpleasant towards your opponent. I will also drop you if you spread against an opponent who does not know what that is.

last chance - i will have much less tolerance for circuit debaters trolling traditional debaters at this tournament, sorry. i don't mind what you read as long as you're not going too fast or being intentionally obtuse when you're asked to explain it

i have recently shortened this paradigm cuz it was getting really ranty - if you would like to see my thoughts on specific arguments, feel free to look at my rant doc

Intro

• I’m Eva (they/them) - please just call me Eva in round instead of judge. I did traditional LD (Canfield ‘18) in HS and have coached since graduating. I primarily coach traditional debate, but when I bring kids onto the circuit they typically go for theory and K heavy strats

• Affiliations: Hawken, VBI

• Email: evathelamberson@gmail.com put me on the chain but speechdrop is better :) i think docs are a good practice even for lay debaters and i would prefer if you send analytics

• Sidenote: I judge every weekend in the season, but Ohio doesn’t use Tabroom so it doesn’t show up :( I've probably judged an additional 500+ local rounds

TL;DR FOR PREFS i have come to the conclusion that i actually care very little what you read and hold a minimal amount of dogma re: what arguments should be read and how they should be read. i am good for whatever barring anything offensive, obviously. i have judged & voted for basically everything - if you have good strategy and good judge instruction, i will be happy to be in the back of your round whether you're reading the most stock larp stuff ever or tricky phil or friv theory or a non-t aff, etc. read the rant doc if you're interested in my specific thoughts on specific types of arguments. basically, do whatever you want, seriously

i believe debate is a game and it's not my job to tell you how to play it; i will be happiest when you are debating the way you enjoy the most and are best at

i consider myself a fairly flexible judge and try not to be biased toward any particular style. however, in very close clash rounds, i may lean towards arguments i find to be simpler/easier to vote for or that i understand better. to be open about my biases, i will say that i find myself voting for theory, phil, and tricks more than ks and all the above more than policy

accessibility:

• round safety is very important to me, and if there is a genuine safety concern that is preventing you from engaging in the round, i would prefer it be round ending as opposed to a shell - if you are feeling unsafe in a round, please feel free to email or FB message me and I will intervene in the way you request.

• pls give me a heads up if you're gonna read explicit discussions of self harm or suicide. you can still read them in front of me but i would like a warning as early as possible - email or messenger is the fastest way to reach me during tournaments

• DO NOT try to SHAKE MY HAND. on this subject, i am a huge germaphobe - i will be wearing a mask probably until the end of time, don't worry i'm not sick, i just don't want to get sick. if there are covid precautions or anything like that you want us to take in the round, please vocalize this and we will make that happen (open windows, masking, etc.)

she/her. please confirm your opponent's pronouns before the start of the round

i competed in LD for McDowell high school from 2012 to 2016. my senior year i won the PA state tournament and qualified to out rounds at NSDA. i've been judging on and off since

i'll judge any style of debate, but i prefer progressive. i generally vote on the route to the ballot with the least resistance. k's are my fav, followed by theory/t. i don't judge super often so i recommend going at maybe ~75% of your max speed if spreading, and if this is the case i prefer to be provided with access to what you're reading

i'm fine with trad case structure, theory/t, k's, plans/cp's, performance, whatever. just give me some sort of weighing mechanism so that i can vote off your arguments. please do not make independent voter args

my theory/t defaults include: competing interps, drop the debater, text of the interp, fairness & education, rvi's good, theory/t before k's/substance, meta theory before theory

if you have any questions send me an email at reneelaufer@outlook.com or ask me before round

I am a traditional judge.

I would like to hear clear analysis of why you should win in the final rebuttals.

Respect your opponent, no insults.

competitor 1986 - 1990

judge and coach 1995 - present

I am a traditional debate judge.

I do not like spreading in debate rounds. If your delivery is too fast or too unclear, I will not be able to flow vital information. If that information is not on my flow, I cannot make a decision based on it when you tell me that it is a voting issue.

I prefer clash, thoughtful logic, and clear weighing mechanisms in a round.

Hi, my name is Neale Misquitta and I am a senior at The Pennsylvania State University studying Energy Engineering with a minor in Environmental Engineering. I have not competed in collegiate debate but in high school, I competed in Lincoln-Douglas and Parliamentary debate primarily. I also competed in Congress, Extemp, and Worlds. I have experience judging all of these as well as Public Forum and Policy.

Past Experience: I debated in North Carolina from 2012-2016. I’m currently a PhD student in robotics and AI ethics at UT Austin and previously attended MIT, and did a concentration in Latin American politics and political philosophy. I was the district champion in the Tarheel East District and went to nationals my senior year, qualified for CFLs my junior and senior year, and placed 3rd at States my senior year. I made it to out rounds at Wake Forest. I've been judging/coaching off and on since 2016. I debated in both traditional and progressive styles, and have no implicit preference between the two. Both paradigms are below:

Traditional Paradigm: I’ll evaluate any argument you make in the context you make it. That being said, don’t take advantage of my paradigm to be abusive. If you use speed to overwhelm your opponent or employ other tricky or gimmicky strategies, I will probably be annoyed (as will your opponent) – I like to see actual clash of arguments, not a race to give the most arguments. The faster you talk, the higher burden you have to make thoughtful, powerful arguments, not just a multitude of weak ones. I can understand spread fine, but given the virtual format, spreading is probably a suboptimal strategy.

I give higher weight to framework consistency over contention level/statistical disputes – if you are clearly winning the framework debate, link your framework to the resolution, and can impact off it effectively, you’ll almost certainly get the win. I don’t expect either debater to be an expert on the literature, so focus more on winning the core of the value criterion debate than specific pieces of evidence. I won’t drop you for dropping a card if you use that time to extend meaningful impacts directly linked to the resolution. Tell me what I should care about and why.

For speaker points: everyone starts out with a 28 in my book. If you do good things (clear argument structure, signposting, well organized rebuttals [I LOVE when debaters number/label their arguments for me, it makes the flow much neater], etc.) I’ll reward you. If you do bad things (e.g. poor organization in your rebuttal) I’ll dock points. I’ll clearly explain my reasoning on the ballot and am happy to give additional feedback if requested. Given the virtual format, I’ll pay more attention to argument structure than how you actually sound and in general am lenient with speaker points.

Acknowledgement: Historically, women and minorities have been docked points in debate* for coming off "too aggressive," etc. I won't do that. Be as aggressive as you want.

* http://vbriefly.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/Tartakovsky_Tabroom_Analysis.pdf

Quote Kanye, get a 30**. That's the rule.

**unless you're losing and the tournament doesn't allow low point wins. Regardless, I'll give you the max speaks I can.

Note: you can convincingly win cross-examination without being condescending. Make strong arguments and ask difficult questions/put your opponent on the spot, but there's a difference between aggression and condescension.

I’m excited to hear your cases, just be respectful to your opponent and let’s have some fun!

for file exchange/comments/questions/concerns/additional feedback: kyle.morgenstein@gmail.com

Progressive Stuff, if that's your thing:

TLDR: do whatever you want, but I'm a hard ass about links. Otherwise, you can probably convince me to vote on almost anything. Tech > truth, usually. Ask me to clarify if this matters to you.

In general: Reading a card is not a warrant. Reading a card AND PROVIDING ANALYSIS is a warrant. Explain to me the mechanism for how you justify your claims. Why should I prefer your study over theirs? Why should I prefer this analytic over emperics? I care more about your link tree than about whether or not you get to existential impacts.

Kritiks: I love 'em, K affs are fine, and I can generally follow the literature, just make sure you slow down for the links. I have a very high standard for links (in general, but especially with Ks) so make sure those are clear. Explicitly tell me what the roll of the ballot is. Why does voting for the K matter, and why is that more important than arguing the resolution at face value? My only pet peeve with K debaters is if your opponent clearly can't/doesn't understand the argument. If that happens just slow down a little, make it clear; you'll do better in front of me if your opponent understands why they're losing to the K than if you just spread DnG while your opponent fights back tears. Otherwise, I'll evaluate any argument you make in front of me if you can justify it/it isn't literally racist/sexist/etc.

Theory: Please don't make me evaluate theory that isn't in standard shell form. Give me the violation, link, impact, role of the ballot, etc., and I'm happy enough. I'm kind of bored of the same education and fairness arguments. If an actual violation happened and you're using theory defensively, fine, but if you're going for theory as a strategy at least make it interesting.

Topicality: yeah fine, do what you want.

LARP/Policy Stuff (Plans, CPs, Disads, Multiple Advocacies, etc.): Same as before, I'm happy to evaluate it, just make the links clear and if your opponent is struggling to keep up, slow down on the tags/flash case.

Tricks: I'd rather you didn't. But if you do, justify it. I'll let you run your spike if it's clear why you deserve it. I'm not going to give you the win because you fit in the 8 words it takes to say "aff gets RVIs cuz time skew is unfair" but debate is a game and I'll evaluate any strategy you want to try to use to win it.

Performance Stuff: Honestly I think these type of debates are super interesting and I'm happy to vote for it if your link is good (I'm a broken record about links, I know). If you have a trad opponent I expect you to take the time to explain it to them: if you're going to argue that debate space is best filled by this performance and lead to XYZ real world impacts, then making sure we're all along for the ride is key. This is maybe the only type of argument for which I expect you to persuade me is authentic.

Role of the Ballot: lol you tell me. To me it's just pressing a button but if it means something more significant than that, tell me about it.

Traditional Judge

I am a traditional judge.

I expect to see an articulate, well reasoned debate.

TL;DR: I am a LAY JUDGE. I'm a recent traditional LD competitor, I'm mostly ok with speed, I flow pretty comprehensively, and I'm fine with any sort of arguments as long as they're clearly presented and weighed. However, I REALLY do not want to judge a round that's just card names, extensions, and line by line rebuttals. I really care about presentation, and, ESPECIALLY IN THE LATER SPEECHES, I would really appreciate it if you slowed down, stepped back, and gave some more big picture narrative/worlds analysis.

Experience: I competed in LD in Ohio for 4 years, occasionally competing at national circuit tournaments including nats 2018, as well as some local circuit PF. I graduated in 2018, and have been sporadically judging since. I also do American Parliamentary debate in college at Brown University.

Paradigm: The most important thing for me is clarity. I want both debaters/teams to have a clear understanding of how the round is breaking down, and then present a clear, weighed advocacy for their side. I want you to make the round as easy as possible to judge; do so by clearly presenting why you win your key arguments and why those points should win the round. Line by line rebuttal is important, but so is presenting a larger, more abstract idea of what your side is, or at least some analysis as to what is the most important thing in the round and why it weighs most heavily. I really appreciate good clear narratives.

Speed/flowing: I'll flow as fast as I can, and I should be able to cover everything unless you're really spreading. If you're too fast, I'll ask you to slow down. However, ideally, summary and final focus should be significantly slower than rebuttal.

Evidence: use it and call for it but also be sure to explain the warrants within it and impact it's use in the round.

If you have any questions, ask me!

One could consider me as both traditional parent judge and non-traditional parent coach. When it comes to experience, I have never participated in actual LD debate myself. However, I have a strong interest in philosophy, history and political science and have formal education in these subjects, even though I work as a physician. I am very much involved with coaching my daughter who participates in varsity LD debate. It means that I have spent some time on the topic that you are debating in front of me, and I am very well familiar with most of aff and neg arguments. I leave my opinions at home. However, it is your job as a debater to convince me that your arguments are stronger than your opponent's. Everything matters. You have to explain how you derived your values and criteria from the resolution, provide a framework, construct contentions which connect and re-enforce your framework, demonstrate superiority of your values and criteria via clashes and rebuttals. Non-traditional routes such as debate theory, disclosure, tricks, etc are fine but it will not grant you victory if it is your only strength in the round. You may talk as fast as you want but I have to be able to flow your round. I do not like spreading - it puts emphasis on your ability to talk fast ( perhaps beneficial to your potential career at auction (just kidding)) but takes away the essence of an interesting and constructive debate. If, in my opinion, you are talking too fast. I will let you know. I evaluate your speech skills and ability to think on your feet. You have to present yourself professionally and be courteous to your opponent. Throwing ideological labels and calling your opponent's arguments idiotic, racist, misogynistic, leftists, right-winged, etc will not win this debate. You have to prove your side. That is the point of LD debate. It is an honor to judge your round, and I take this job very seriously. Best of luck. I am looking forward to your debate.

My debate background is in Parli but I am familiar with all formats of debate. I am okay with all forms of arguments you want to run (T's/K's/whatever) as long as it serves a purpose in the round I dislike when debaters run a shell just for the sake of running an argument. I am okay with speed in round spreading is also fine (as long as your opponents are okay with it too) however I may not get everything you say on my flow and if I don't hear it I won't evaluate the debate with it so if something is important make sure to slow down. If you have any specific questions feel free to ask.

Name's Anju Saggi and I have been doing debate judging for couple of years.

Speak clearly - I will not flow if I do not understand what you are saying.

I am open to any and all arguments. That being said, only run theory if there is clear abuse in the round. I would much rather hear actual arguments than listening to back and forth about the technicalities of debate.

Have fun, and be respectful.

***EDIT 2/24/2023: FOR SPEECH STUDENTS (debaters should probably also read this)

Please treat sensitive topics with grace and respect. This can mean many things. I think content warnings before speeches are a good norm to follow in both speech and debate. If you are trying to represent other people's suffering, it should be exceedingly clear to me during your speech that you put a lot of thought into it and are engaging with it sincerely instead of commodifying or exploiting it. This is a tough line to walk but a necessary one if you decide to take on topics with which you have little personal experience. It's important to consider where your pieces/sources come from and your own positionality while representing them. Ask yourself questions like: what should the audience conclude from this narrative? How should they feel? What does my representation of these sources add to the world? Why am I drawn to this subject? How can I treat this subject in an intellectually and emotionally nuanced way? Let me be very clear: I am not trying to police your identity or limit the topics you feel like you are allowed to speak on. I am also not trying to pressure you to only discuss things you have directly experienced and bare your soul (although you may if you want to. content warnings still apply). I just want you to not lose sight of why you do speech in the endless quest for a higher ranking. I know it's hard and it may seem like rankings will make all the difference for your future. I am aware of the inequalities in speech and debate and the privileges it offers to students who are able to rise to the top competitively, so I grant that there is a grain of truth in this mindset. Just be kind to yourself, be kind to others, try to grow personally from this experience and let it teach you things about yourself in the world, try not to get burnt out, and reach out to me to discuss anything about my paradigm, RFD, or anything else. My email is ruth_schlenker@brown.edu.

EXPERIENCE

I am currently a college senior. I debated 4 years on the North TX circuit and qualified for state in LD for 3 of those years. The TX circuit is a very mixed bag so I am comfortable with both traditional and progressive LD.

Other events I competed in: Domestic Extemp, Policy, Congress, World Schools, Poetry Interp

BY PROGRESSIVE I MEAN:

-Speed is fine. I will say clear once if I don't understand you. For every additional time, you lose a speaker point. And obviously, if I'm saying clear more than once, it means I am not comprehending your arguments, cannot flow them correctly, and cannot use them to write a ballot in your favor.

-All types of arguments are fine (Ks, theory, etc.) I just need a way to evaluate the round (FW, ROB, etc.) and clear weighing. I repeat: weighing. Tell me what comes first and why!

-I default to reasonability on theory. Please give me a clear abuse story.

OTHER NOTES

-I don't like gimmicky arguments (frivolous theory, DAs with shoddy link chains, etc.). Show me you care about/put some thought into the argument you're making instead of just trying to win the round please

-On a related note. Make sure your cards say what you think they say. If a line by line argument is fuzzy I will go back and read the cards again and if the argument you were trying to extrapolate from the card is a stretch I won’t buy the argument. Power tagging is tacky. Instead of trying to make it seem like the author said x when they didn't, you can say x and justify it with logic!

-If you are a traditional neg debater I need you to make it clear whether you are defending the status quo or an alternative. If it's the latter, I need you to flesh out some solvency and competition if you want me to vote on it. Too many trad neg debaters just throw out alternate policies as responses on the AC flow and expect me to know how to evaluate them. I don't. Also for trad neg debaters: please don’t get up and read an identical framework to what was read in the 1AC it is very unnecessary

-If you are rude to your opponent(s) I will give you low speaks and call you out on the ballot. If you engage in hate speech or harrassment I will do these things and also vote you down. I'm not the PC or tone police; just be decent!

ANYTHING ELSE? Please feel free to ask!

4 years extemp jackson high school ohio

sophomore at brown

don't be racist/homophobic/xenophobic/sexist/ableist or I will drop u

stolen from another paradigm: "In every round, my top priority is a clear explanation of the arguments and how they compare within the round. Successfully weighing your arguments is absolutely critical to winning my ballot. Technical and moral arguments are great but they need to be applied and explained to be effective within the round. Finally, when refuting another teams evidence please explain how your evidence conflicts and outweighs your opponents instead of just presenting two opposing cards."

Don't assume I understand philosophical arguments. Don't just refer to evidence with author's last name. explain cards.

speed ok but dont spread, not well versed in k's/prog debate

framework debate super important

must explicitly bring up dropped arguments if u want them extended

I've rewritten my paradigm now that I've graduated and I've shifted to primarily judging NFA LD. I am also a little bit of a hoarder so if you want to see my old paradigm, it's at the bottom of this one. I still believe most/all of those things about debate, I am just endeavoring to make it more concise and NFA specific going forward.

A Little about me:

I debated at University of Nebraska-Lincoln for 4 years (2019-2023). I won the NFA-LD grand prix and nationals my last year (imo largely because of judge/opponent adaptation) but that does not necessarily qualify me as a good/bad judge. I competed at 3 policy tournaments with UNL.

I also coached high school LD for three years at Lincoln North Star High School in Nebraska (2020-2023).

Before that I was a policy debater at Shawnee Mission West in Kansas (2016-2019).

My topic knowledge is probably a 4/10. I am now in law school which means I don't cut cards right now because I don't have time, but I am planning to judge NFA pretty regularly for UNL.

My senior year I primarily read affs that were either squarely topical with large impacts or affirmatives with non-USFG advocacy statements instead of plan texts. On the negative I went for T (60%) or the K (30%) in 90% of my rounds. This doesn't mean you have to debate that way, that's just where I am coming from.

I like speechdrop, but I don't care enough to make you use it. If we do an email chain use wallenburg.debate@gmail.com.

TLDR:

I flow, which comes before almost all my other preferences. I like fast (but accessible) debate. I think the time limits in NFA are broken which changes how I would like to evaluate certain arguments. I will vote for nearly anything that has warrants. If you read a plan text, it should be topical, if you don't read a plan text, I think your aff should be at least tangentially related to the topic. I like when negative debaters lay their cards on the table in the NC to prioritize explanation over shock value in the NR.

General Things:

Speed: Sure. Go probably 90% of full speed and slow down on analytics. I flow on paper because I don't type very fast. Clear and slow is better than fast and non-understandable. If your opponent asks you to slow down for accessibility reasons you should. If you ask for someone to slow down for accessibility reasons and then in another debate go really fast, I will not be very forgiving. Those who do this create a poor perception of all requests for slowing down which harms people who actually need to have conversational debates.

Style: Frame my ballot. Tell me which arguments matter the most, why they matter, and why you are winning them. Fewer arguments that are well explained are almost always better than trying to make as many bad arguments as possible. Don't be afraid to "kick" me if you're in front of a more traditional panel. I will still flow and vote off that flow, so if you can win both the technical and ethos debate it will be better for you.

NFA Specific Opinions: 2ARs need to do pick their two or three best arguments and then do line by line on the negative's answers to those arguments from the 1AR. NCs should be less afraid of reading only 1 or 2 off. NRs (generally) shouldn't read cards except to answer cards that the aff read in the 1AR. I think generally more than 1 Conditional advocacy breaks the game, but you should probably get to read that one advocacy conditionally. When the Negative goes for multiple off case arguments that aren't part of the same route to the ballot (i.e. DA + K or T instead of CP + DA), I think the aff gets a ton of leeway in answering them all. The 6-3 time tradeoff just necessitates it and neg debaters will find their time is better spent in the NR really explaining 1 route to the ballot instead of shadow extending it all. I am frustrated with NFA judges that have really ideological oppositions to certain arguments and styles, I think it is just as much my (our) job to adapt to you as it is your job to adapt to me (us) and as such I will endeavor to listen to all of your (non-bigoted) arguments with an open mind.

Disclosure Theory: I am at a crossroads with how I evaluate disclosure right now. We can talk about this more, and I'm open to opinions or suggestions. Generally, I think everybody should be disclosing arguments they have read before on the Wiki. I also tend to evaluate theory arguments very technically. In the spirit of transparency, however, here are a couple thoughts I'm still working through in these debates (and I think they deviate pretty substantially from what people assume about me, hence the relative length):

(1) I am more likely to vote for disclosure theory against someone who knows better. In practice, this means I give more credence to potential abuse arguments against debaters who have been doing this for awhile and/or respond to disclosure with a really big "disclosure bad" shell. On the flip side, I have found myself defaulting to proven abuse/functional application when disclosure is run against new debaters or those that are losing the "tech" simply because they have never had a deep theory debate before.

(2) Often, people think "Nick will vote on disclosure theory" and so they jettison what would otherwise be a clean cut win on a different position. This makes me sad. 100% I would rather vote on the DA/Aff/K/etc. and tell your opponent after the debate "also you should really disclose or answer theory better." It allows me to give better feedback and will likely help you in speaker points, which I think are both good things for you.

(3) I find it hard to establish a discernible difference between "full text on the wiki" "Tags on the wiki" and telling someone what the aff is 15 minutes before the round (a) when asked and (b) with the willingness to send them a copy if they want it. If you don't ask for disclosure so that you can read disclosure, I think you should evaluate whether you actually wanted a fair debate in the first place.

(4) The more you are reading blocks for disclosure theory in the NR/1AR, the less likely I will be to vote for you. I don't want to weigh a novice's reading of their Top 10 teammate's blocks if I can say with substantive certainty that they would not be able to explain the arguments absent those blocks. I know this is the practice with all arguments, but it just makes me feel especially weird with disclosure theory and Idk why (probably an offshoot of my opinion in point (1)).

Arguments:

Affs: Should have an advocacy and an impact. I think if you're going to claim to be Topical you should be topical. If you aren't trying to be topical I prefer you just impact turn T instead of going for defense (I never much cared for "the people are the USFG" arguments). Don't read cards you don't need in the 1AR, you don't have time.

Disadvantages: Sure, I think you should read your best link card in the NC. I (generally) don't think you get add on scenarios in the NR. Specific links are always better than non-specific links.

Counterplans: Yes. Explain how they solve the aff, how they avoid the net benefits, and why they are theoretically legitimate. Do what you can justify, but I tend to fall pretty in line with (policy) established convention as to whether a certain type of CP is cheating or not. I will say I do like PICs and I think that judges that auto reject PICs are actively inhibiting creative negative debaters and rewarding affirmatives for lazy plan writing.

Kritiks: I lived here for the longest in College. Stylistically I think the NC should read less cards and spend more time articulating the links on the case. Why wait until the NR to make link arguments when you can have two shots at explaining it to me to understand it? Framework arguments should be in the NC/1AR. I don't think the NR needs to go for the alt, but it does need to explain why it doesn't need the alt. I think affirmative debaters get too generic answering kritiks, and should make more specific analytical arguments instead of just asserting "perm double bind." 2ARs should collapse more on these - if you're winning the no link debate, go for the perm. If you're winning the impact turn debate, who cares about the perm?

Topicality: (Against the aff with a USFG plan text) I love a good T debate. I think that topicality informs how we write plans in the future which means competing interpretations and potential abuse are (generally) truer arguments. Define words in the resolution, put any TVAs/ExtraT/FXT/impact framing issues in the NC shell. The NR should go between overviewing/explaining disadvantages to the affirmatives interpretation and line by lining the 1AR responses. Here, again, the aff should pick their battle in the 2AR.

(Against the aff with a non-USFG advocacy) I think this is a viable strategy. You should do more establishment of impacts in the NC then you might against a topical aff. Think of this as more a disad to their method than a prior question, which means you should be making arguments on the case about why topicality harms the aff's ability to solve itself in the NC. You will be hard pressed to win this debate if you do not put some amount of argumentation on the aff. You can win fairness alone but I think it's better explained as an impact to clash/education. Affirmatives should read 2-3 good 1AR impact turns based in AC evidence and explain them in the 1AR instead of 10 blippy, generic arguments. The 2AR should pick the best one and explain it against every macro impact the NR extends.

**********OLD PARADIGM***********

Last Edited in April of 2023.

TLDR:

Do whatever you want. I typically default to offense/defense paradigm and I think judge adaptation should be a two-way street: yes you should probably do what your judges prefer because its strategic, but judges should also make every effort to understand and evaluate your arguments fairly. I am very frustrated by judges that give RFDs like "I don't evaluate this kind of argument" or "You were going too fast so I didn't even try to flow you." I prefer affs are at least based in literature about the resolution. I started with more exposure to Policy style arguments but have since become somewhat of a "K hack." I love impact turns, T debates, tricky DA's, and well thought out Critical debates, not necessarily in that order.

Style Preferences:

Speed - Yes I can handle speed, but please don't go full out. I can flow pretty well, but going too fast will likely hurt you more than it will help you. I would say the 1AC/1NC should be like 90% of top speed, and warrants/rebuttals should be 75%, I'm not a very fast typist so I will likely flow on paper.

Frame my Ballot - Please. The 2NR/2AR should almost always start out with an overview of "You vote Aff/Neg Because..." if you fall into the nasty habit of just going straight into line by line without telling me where to look first in the debate, but your opponent gives a clear, concise overview of how I should evaluate the round and which arguments matter the most, you may not like my decision.

Round Vision - Keep an eye out for technical mistakes and cross flow applications. My partner and I came back from a lot of debates that we were very clearly losing by correctly analyzing bad 2NR kick outs or 1AR mistakes. Making strategic concessions and cross applications will be rewarded.

Adapt - If you're debating in front of a panel don't be afraid to kick me and cater to the other judges interests. I get it, no hard feelings. I will still make my decision based on a technical analysis of the flow unless explicitly instructed otherwise.

Argumentative Things:

Affs - I would prefer that Affirmatives are in the direction of the resolution, and have a stable advocacy, otherwise I will likely find a parametrics argument pretty persuasive. I have read planless affirmatives and I think they have lots of merit, but where teams go wrong is shadow extending aff cards but not explaining their method or solvency mechanism. What does the advocacy do? How do you resolve violence? Do you need to resolve violence? I think these are questions that need to be answered early in the debate. That being said, I think impact turns to FW should use the aff. I am not a big fan of copy and pasting your generic K aff blocks to every aff you read when your evidence justifies much more nuanced answers to framework. As for Affs with Plan Texts, I'm down for whatever. My senior year Alex and I mostly read soft left affs with a framing page, but we also occasionally went for a big stick economy aff with a lot of preempts to Cap and Dedev, so read what you want and I should be able to handle it.

Impact Turns - Yes. Please. Dedev and prolif good were my favorite. Focus your attention on the Sustainability debate, impact analysis, and Impact defense. Read any impact turn you want. Although hearing something like death good or wipeout will probably make me sad.

Topicality - I love a good T debate, but the key word there is good. I default to competing interpretations and I don't think you need to win in round abuse to win T. I typically view T as a Disadvantage to the Affirmative through an offense/defense paradigm and I think fairness is just an internal link to education. 2NC/1NR should have a case list and hopefully have a TVA. The biggest problems teams have when going for Topicality in front of me is warranting out their DAs. Why does the aff explode limits? What do they justify? Why is the ground they take core neg ground and why is that bad? Answering the why question will make topicality debates more persuasive for me. When answering T make sure you have offense or a very clear we meet. ***Pet Peeve: Reasonability is an interpretation level argument, not a violation level argument. "We are reasonably topical" makes absolutely no sense. You are either topical or you aren't, and whoever wins the interpretations debate decides that.

Disadvantages - Yes. There was always a Politics DA in my 1NC's in high school and I love them. The best 2NC's/1NR on DA's will have an overview of some form on top. Brink DAs are much more persuasive than linear DAs. Be sure to make turns case arguments and really flesh out your links in the block. Conversely, dropped turns case arguments in the 1AR typically make a neg presumption ballot significantly easier. Read whatever DA's you like and I can jive.

Counterplans - Also yes. The Bread to the Disad's butter. I think that judge kick is implied in condo and if you want to make a more in depth argument about why I shouldn't judge kick the cp for the neg then that debate should start in the 2AC. Conversely, if the aff wins no judge kick I am sympathetic to arguments about presumption flowing aff if a counterplan is in the 2NR. When reading counterplans sufficiency framing is your friend. Make your net benefits clear and your solvency warrants clearer. Carded counterplans are always better than non-carded counterplans, but pointing out that the aff evidence advocates for your generic CP is also pretty cool. I am always telling teams to do more framing in these rounds. What does the counterplan solve and why does it matter? I will draw the lines, but I will be hesitant.

I would say my opinions about counterplan legitimacy are pretty mainstream. If it's typically thought of as a "cheating" counterplan, I probably think its cheating too. That doesn't mean don't read it, just spend enough time to actually win the theory debate. Nuanced interpretations and fewer, better arguments are preferable to your 9 point "yes delay CPs" blocks.

Kritiks (When You are Neg) - Yes. I will listen to K's but I am probably not very familiar with your literature. I am probably a little bit more sympathetic to framework arguments about ontology/epistemology/pedagogy/etc. than some other judges, and I think the most effective way to win the framework debate is to get impacts external to fairness alongside all of your typical clash impact turns. I don't think you need to go for the alt if you can win framework and impact calc. If you do go for the alt, I think the most persuasive debaters describe it more as a process and less as a singular event. The link debate is the most important part, and an analytical extrapolation of generic links and how they interact with the case in the 2NC is more persuasive than reading 10 new cards that don't say much about the aff. My senior year when I went for the K, I mostly went for a Zizek Cap K with a really buff 2NC Framework (I look back and feel silly saying that). I also read Agamben and Security. In college I have focused my research on Ecological Pessimism (A Climate oriented spin off of OOO), Managerialism, Necropolitics as it is theorized by Achille Mbembe, Militarism, China Threat Construction (Pan), and critical pedagogy. The teams I coach read a lot of Warren/Wilderson, Puar, Munoz, and Edelman so I'm being exposed to that lit too. Everything outside of those I probably have a working knowledge of, but you will probably have to do more explaining to me than you might have to with another judge. If I don't understand the core thesis by the end of the round, it will be very hard to win my ballot.

Case Debate - Is a lost art. The more you can attack the internal links of the aff, the more likely you can pick up my ballot. I will vote on presumption if a significant amount of case answers are mishandled or good DA turns the Aff arguments are won. If you are debating against a plan-less aff do what you do - I could listen to a methods debate or a FW debate - I think often teams that read plan-less affs are really only ready for the latter, so you might consider using that to your advantage.

Theory - SLOW DOWN ON YOUR THEORY BLOCKS. The key to a good theory debate is a nuanced interpretation. The more tailored you can make your interpretation to the debate that is happening to subsume the other team's offense, the better off you will be. Theory is almost always a reason to reject the Argument and not the team, but I think the best aff theory is used to justify abusive permutations like Perm do the counterplan. Condo is a different beast, and a reason to reject the team if won. I would prefer the 2AR not devolve to condo, but I also understand that sometimes you get spread out or there are egregious performative contradictions that warrant a complete throw to theory. In these situations outline the in-round abuse and make your impacts clear - ensure that you can explain why your interp is not regressive.

**********************************************HIGH SCHOOL LD****************************************

Because I live in Nebraska I guess I have to include this stuff too...

Top Level: SHARE CASES. I don't understand this permissibility with not seeing your opponents evidence, not for flowing purposes but for checking reliability of the evidence, but it seems more prevalent in HS LD than other places. Pet peeve is debaters who don't share the AC/NC until after they give it or ask which evidence to send instead of just sending the whole doc :)

I have now been coaching/judging LD for the better part of 3 years and more often than not I find myself evaluating these rounds very similarly to how I would evaluate a policy round. With that being said, see above for my policy preferences if you want to have a progressive round, with a few caveats below. If you find yourself more of a traditional or phil debater, that's cool too, read on...

TRAD: This is the LD type I did when I went to high school in Kansas City. If you want me to just evaluate value v value with degrees of solvency, tell me why that's the best method for debate. I prefer arguments steeped in argument quality and structural fairness as opposed to arguments that appeal to "the spirit of LD" or "Morality is useful for everyday life." I find the first to be arbitrary and the second to be just silly. If you are debating against a Traditional case with a progressive case, focus on similar aspects of the framing debate. Tell me why it is pedagogically/competitively valuable to abandon pure value v value debate. I think there is a litany of reasons on both sides of this question and it is up to you to parse out.

PHIL: These are the concepts that are most foreign to me. I enjoy philosophy in my everyday life, but I don't often read a whole lot of books/papers through the philosophical lens of Kant or Locke or what have you. With that being said, I can often understand phil arguments, they just need more explaining in front of me. Explain how your philosophy better explains the world and moral action, and why it specifically takes out the competing method. Don't just say "act omission distinction," tell me what that is and why it's good/bad. Phil cases that I've coached and have begun to understand, but am by no means well versed in are Kant, MacIntyre, and Locke.

PROGRESSIVE: If you're actually reading paradigms this is likely why you're here. I try to be tabula rasa (don't we all?) but I do have preconceived biases that are not hard to overcome with well-developed argumentation. I tend to think that the round should be some flavor of hypo testing where the aff defends the whole rez and the neg defends the status quo or a counter advocacy that is not related to the resolution to resolve aff offense. If the aff reads a plan text, that's fine, justify it and parse it out. I think that gives the negative more leeway for Counterplan or PIC offense, as well as Topicality or Theory. On condo, I think that anything more than 1 or 2 condo in LD is abusive but can be persuaded to think less or more is permissible. I consider myself to be a connoisseur of theory debates, but I hate having 3 or 4 theory arguments flying around from the get-go. I would much rather you focus on one theory argument and really developed and debate it, instead of relying on your opponent dropping standard 3 subsection C.

A CAVEAT ON T WHOLE REZ: If you think this is your best option for the NR go for it, but I want to be very clear on how I often find myself adjudicating these arguments: 1. Grammar over pragmatics is silly to me, I likely won't be as persuaded by a grammar argument about what kind of plural the word "states" is but I would be much more persuaded by a Limits DA. 2. I don't think an interp card is necessary for this argument. I think it's just as viable as a theory argument like solvency advocate theory or Condo - affirmative teams that rely on "You don't have a card for that" will receive much less sympathy from me than teams that make their own counter interp and have the standards debate.

For the most part, everything above about policy debate applies, if you have any specific questions please ask me before the round and I will be happy to answer them. GLHF!

My paradigm isn't very complicated, but you'll notice that I'm a bit different that your average judge out on circuit these days. I'm pretty old school. At my core I'm a policy maker. I'm not a fan of critical arguments however, if they can be explained as a policy option then go for it. However, if I wanted to judge a round about how great the world would be if we were all just nicer to each other, then I'd be over in the LD pool. I have voted on both critical affs and negative K arguments, but I have a lower tolerance for them. Speaking of LD, I'm going to add on some LD specific stuff at the bottom.

I will never say that I'm a Tab judge. I'm just not. I will not make any excuses for that. I think it's unrealistic to assume anyone comes to a round with no biases. For example, I spent 20 years as a meteorologist. I have a degree in Atmospheric Sciences and was on television for most of that 20 years. SO, I will evaluate ANY warming arguments both for and against with a great degree of scrutiny. If you're going to run climate arguments in one my rounds you had better know your stuff because I will almost guarantee that I know the material much better than you do and I did it for a living and I won't accept half-baked or poorly understood arguments. Just because you can read something doesn't mean I have to accept it as truth especially if I know better, no matter WHAT your opponent says. THAT is the real world.

Politics arguments...understand that you can run them but know this, I am a complete non-believer in the theory of political capital. I don't believe it exists, nor will I ever be convinced that it exists. I do however believe that decisions are made and will be made with political considerations as a key motivator. That however doesn't mean that a president's ability to get something passed is impacted by some immeasurable, unquantifiable power metric that has no threshold where success or failure can be predicted.

Are you getting the idea that I'm a real world kind of judge? Good, because that's me in a nutshell. I love high quality, well researched discussions on what ifs, but they need to be based on real science, realistic scenarios, or at least scenarios with impacts that can be reached with a quality link chain. This year's resolution is EXTREMELY tangible and has so many real world implications that you should treat it as such. If we end up in the weeds talking about garbage that's only important to half a dozen people in a fringe think tank located in the broom closet of a lost downtown community college, then don't waste 90 minutes of my time.

Okay, enough with the I hate stuff. How about what I like. Well constructed arguments with strong links, well thought out analysis and clearly delivered. I like debaters that look like they're having fun. This is verbal gladiatorial games, and that's why we love it. Keep it cordial. Make it light when you can and engage with the judges when it's appropriate. We have to spend a good amount of time in a room together, so let's make the best of it. In the end, one team will win, and one team will lose, but we should all feel like we spent meaningful, entertaining, and educational time together.

With regard to LD since I judge that occasionally, like I said above, I'm a bit old school and that applies here as well. I DO NOT like my LD to be like my policy. They are different events for a reason. I detest progressive LD with a passion because every time I've judged it, it has turned into really poorly done policy debate. I'm a traditional LD judge that enjoys the value clash. I'm sure that will come as a disappointment to many of you, but it is what it is. Spreading in LD is unnecessary. I've been judging policy for nearly 20 years so It's not like I can't handle it. I just don't like it in LD. Just like I mentioned above, if you read it, I like clear analysis. Strategic arguments are worth their weight in gold...and speaker points. Keep it fun. Keep it fair. Keep it entertaining.

add me to the email chain: djwisniew@gmail.com

I am a fifth year parent judge and a former competitor in Policy in the late 80s. Currently, I judge for my daughter who is a small school LD debater. Pref me high if you want a FLAY judge

No spreading - I do NOT appreciate spreading. Skimming through a document trying to figure out where you are is NOT debate. I need to be able to follow and understand your arguments and responses. Dazzle me with your intellect, not your speed. I will not be relying on the docs - they're only good for reference.

For LD circuit debate - It’s in your best interest to give me signposts (a lot of them, and be clear) - policy, case, K, disad, counter plan, etc. I will evaluate the flow per your direction. If T comes before case, tell me why and we're good. I like K when done well, but it's not an automatic win. I enter the round tabula-rasa, if you're running something complex please explain it well. Make sure I know where you are in the flow!

For Parliamentary Debate - I judge you based on what you tell me, not what I know. There’s never a bad side of the motion. I will be flowing all your arguments, and I make my decisions based on who convinces me their arguments are the strongest. Don’t forget to weigh, this is crucial to how I make my decisions! Any impacts are welcome. The extra 30 seconds are intended to complete a thought, not start a new one. Ties are awarded to the Opposition. Please rise when you want to interrupt with a question. Time pauses for POCs and POs, not POIs. Please be respectful to your opponents and have fun!

For all other debate most of the same points go - run whatever you’re comfortable with and I’ll judge the way you tell me to. A list of preferences:

1. Contentions should be based on quality, not quantity. I’m not going to vote for you if you fly through 12 contentions and tell me your opponent dropped half of them.

2. In circuit debate you should slow down and literally write the ballot for me. I don't like tricks, but for everything else tell me what weighs and I will vote for the most convincing.

3. I will weigh all arguments carried through, and consider the impact of dropped arguments per your direction. (please don't drop your opponent's entire case). In LD, please weigh your argument against your framework.Framework is crucial in LD, and you should always have impacts. In all others, please clearly state how your impacts outweigh your opponent's.

4. I don't consider any new arguments in final speeches.

5. In your final speeches, please number or letter your voting points so we are all on the same page. I’ll flow you regardless, but it’s in your best interest.

Debate should be educational and fair. Good luck and have fun!

Updated 11.02.2021

Coach at Kent Denver School; he/him/his; HS LD 2014, TOC/NSDA competitor; second season coaching policy, LD & PF; conflict with KDS and Valor Christian High School.

> Please include me on email chains - andrew.wixson@zoho.com <

POLICY:

JUDGE INTERVENTION — I try to be as tabula rasa as can reasonably be expected — an argument is claim, warrant, impact. My paradigm is an abstract list of preferences and while I obviously live for its incorporation in front of me, it does not mean I will outright refuse to vote for you if you do certain things, but I will naturally accept weaker responses to problematic arguments. Bottom line: be as explicit as you possibly can about why I should or shouldn't vote for certain arguments so that I'm not forced to intervene, leaving everyone far more frustrated than they would've been if you simply said out loud how I ought to write the ballot.

DISCLOSURE — Please please please disclose early and often to the wiki and in-round and don't cheat. My thoughts on this have evolved, but I'm at the point where I think that radical transparency is a good hard policy to have and I really don't think there should be much dispute.

BEST STRATEGIES — The vast majority of my debate experience is in LD so I'm rather biased towards philosophical debate since that's what I came up on. I absolutely love Ks, but if you're running them in front of me, please make sure you're actually making it count and not just using a generic K purely to confuse your opponent with no deeper substance. Empirical debates that whittle down to an evidence dispute are very interesting to me, but I'm not the most skilled at making informed calls based purely on the data, so be careful to over-explain and not assume that hard data will win rounds by default. Obviously, theory's the only way to check abuse and debaters definitely need that guardrail, but please don't run non-applicable theory for strategy's sake or I will be very sympathetic to I meets and counterclaims of abuse.

AFF BURDEN — You have to have a present a topical advocacy, by having a well-warranted plan text. I tend to prefer concrete advantages, but justify anything, there's great ways to subvert this expectation if executed properly. I default NEG unless given topical offense by the AFF. This does not mean that AFF teams are bound to only reading topical offense in their constructives, it just means that at the end of the round the AFF has to have some shred of topical offense survive that I can hinge my ballot on.

NEG BURDEN — I default NEG, which means just cast as much doubt on the resolution as you can by any means necessary. Please make sure off-case positions are relevant: DAs and CPs only work on plan texts and word kritiks/PICs only work if your opponent used the actual language ascribed in the literature you're reading. Too many NEGs have one strategy that they use to answer every AFF regardless of its relevance so please be careful to avoid giving this impression.

CX — CX is the fun part of debate. CX is binding, but take a deep breath and relax, be funny and likable, and perceptually dominate and you're good to go. Please don't use CX as an opportunity to abuse your opponent, especially if they are obviously a weaker debater than you, it will make me uncomfy and that should not be the goal.

KRITIKS — Krit lit is awesome. Don't assume I know your K — even if you think it's generic, make everything crystal clear as K debates often get way too muddy to justify an objective decision. If it's obviously policy backfiles, I won't be impressed. I won't vote on what I don't understand, so if you can't extend it without reading verbatim from the author nor explain your argument to your opponent in CX, I will be very hesitant to vote on it. If you're running a K with no alt, I don't have a reason to vote on it unless your opponent massively fumbles it. Please do the explicit weighing for me since Ks are inherently ambiguous and don't hesitate to back up any argument you're making with a theory justification.

THEORY — Be careful to address substance first and foremost and avoid cheap tricks that don't actually contribute to anyone's understanding of the round. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and fairness over education and competing interps on T. I'm much easier to convince with "I meets" than most judges — i.e., theory should only be run on real violations and the threshold for those violations is high enough that you should be using a substantial amount of your speech time defending that it comes before any substance happening in the round. Potential violations are trash and I prefer that you warrant why the theoretical interpretation isn't valid and move on, because providing offense back to a counter-interpretation becomes infinitely regressive.

SPIKES — Just don't. While there's *a* reality where I vote on this if someone openly doesn't address it at all, I doubt they're winning on substance anyways so just avoid it in front of me especially if I'm rolling my eyes the whole time you're reading them.

SPEED — While I can follow speed, I probably can't flow your top speed — clarity is the issue, particularly if you aren't disclosing. Try to slow down on analytics, tags, and author names so I can follow where you are in the document. Please email/flash me your speeches.

DELIVERY & SPEAKER POINTS — I like giving high speaks. If you are making smart arguments and debate well, your speaker points should be good. A 30 will be hard to come by (but not a 29.8), but I'll tend to average 28.5. Well-placed jokes are the best and can (usually) only help your speaks. My judgment on how to assign speaker points is based on my perception of your debate sense and ability to cut through the BS and make complex arguments crystal clear. I won't hesitate to give you a loss 0 for oppressive discourse that creates an uncomfortable debate space or justifies things we all know are atrocities. I tend to be expressive during the round, so look up from your computer every once in a while and adjust accordingly.

Do what you do best and please be original and creative. Great weighing and writing my ballot for me wins rounds, it's really that simple. Don't get lost in the formality of it all, literally just level with me and bring me on a journey, that's what it's all about.

LD:

JUDGE INTERVENTION — I try to be as tabula rasa as can reasonably be expected — an argument is claim, warrant, impact. My paradigm is an abstract list of preferences and while I obviously live for its incorporation in front of me, it does not mean I will outright refuse to vote for you if you do certain things, but I will naturally accept weaker responses to problematic arguments. Bottom line: be as explicit as you possibly can about why I should or shouldn't vote for certain arguments so that I'm not forced to intervene, leaving everyone far more frustrated than they would've been if you simply said out loud how I ought to write the ballot.

DISCLOSURE — Please please please disclose early and often to the wiki and in-round and don't cheat. My thoughts on this have evolved, but I'm at the point where I think that radical transparency is a good hard policy to have (other than local Colorado tournaments lol) and I don't think there should be much dispute.

BEST STRATEGIES — I'm rather biased towards philosophical debate and absolutely love a well-constructed K, so if you're running them in front of me, please make sure you're actually making it count and not just using a generic K purely to confuse your opponent with no deeper substance. Empirical debates that whittle down to an evidence dispute are very interesting to me, but I'm not the most skilled at making informed calls based purely on the data, so be careful to over-explain and not assume that hard data will win rounds by default. Obviously, theory's the only way to check abuse and debaters definitely need that guardrail, but please don't run non-applicable theory for strategy's sake or I will be very sympathetic to I meets and counterclaims of abuse.

AFF BURDEN — I like topical AFFs but non-topical AFFs can be really great especially when approached in a similar manner to a K. I tend to prefer concrete advantages on policy-based topics and ethical theory on moral dilemma topics, but justify anything. I default NEG unless given topical offense by the AFF. This does not mean that AFF teams are bound to only reading topical offense in their constructives, it just means that at the end of the round the AFF has to have some shred of topical offense survive that I can hinge my ballot on.

NEG BURDEN — I default NEG, which means just cast as much doubt on the resolution as you can by any means necessary. Please make sure off-case positions are relevant: DAs and CPs only work on plan texts and word kritiks/PICs only work if your opponent used the actual language ascribed in the literature you're reading. Too many NEGs have one strategy that they use to answer every AFF regardless of its relevance so please be careful to avoid giving this impression.

CX — CX is the fun part of debate. CX is binding, but take a deep breath and relax, be funny and likable, and perceptually dominate and you're good to go. Please don't use CX as an opportunity to abuse your opponent, especially if they are obviously a weaker debater than you, it will make me uncomfy and that should not be the goal.

KRITIKS — Krit lit is awesome. Don't assume I know your K — even if you think it's generic, make everything crystal clear as K debates often get way too muddy to justify an objective decision. If it's obviously policy backfiles, I won't be impressed. I won't vote on what I don't understand, so if you can't extend it without reading verbatim from the author nor explain your argument to your opponent in CX, I will be very hesitant to vote on it. If you're running a K with no alt, I don't have a reason to vote on it unless your opponent massively fumbles it. Please do the explicit weighing for me since Ks are inherently ambiguous and don't hesitate to back up any argument you're making with a theory justification.

THEORY — Be careful to address substance first and foremost and avoid cheap tricks that don't actually contribute to anyone's understanding of the round. I default to reasonability, drop the argument, and fairness over education and competing interps on T. I'm much easier to convince with "I meets" than most judges — i.e., theory should only be run on real violations and the threshold for those violations is high enough that you should be using a substantial amount of your speech time defending that it comes before any substance happening in the round. Potential violations are trash and I prefer that you warrant why the theoretical interpretation isn't valid and move on, because providing offense back to a counter-interpretation becomes infinitely regressive.

SPIKES — Just don't. While there's *a* reality where I vote on this if someone openly doesn't address it at all, I doubt they're winning on substance anyways so just avoid it in front of me especially if I'm rolling my eyes the whole time you're reading them.

SPEED — While I can follow speed, I probably can't flow your top speed — clarity is the issue, particularly if you aren't disclosing. Try to slow down on analytics, tags, and author names so I can follow where you are in the document. Please email/flash me your speeches.

DELIVERY & SPEAKER POINTS — I like giving high speaks. If you are making smart arguments and debate well, your speaker points should be good. A 30 will be hard to come by (but not a 29.8), but I'll tend to average 28.5. Well-placed jokes are the best and can (usually) only help your speaks. My judgment on how to assign speaker points is based on my perception of your debate sense and ability to cut through the BS and make complex arguments crystal clear. I won't hesitate to give you a loss 0 for oppressive discourse that creates an uncomfortable debate space or justifies things we all know are atrocities. I tend to be expressive during the round, so look up from your computer every once in a while and adjust accordingly.

Do what you do best and please be original and creative. Great weighing and writing my ballot for me wins rounds, it's really that simple. Don't get lost in the formality of it all, literally just level with me and bring me on a journey, that's what it's all about.

umichdocs@gmail.com for college email chains. mattzhu@umich.edu for high school. Please make the email subject something sensible that includes the tournament and round.

Arguments have to pass the sniff test.

I'm probably among the most willing to assign negligible risk to an advantage or DA.

I'm not good for affs that don't defend a plan. If I am judging a framework round then establishing that your interpretation can be workable for the neg is probably necessary. I think logically impact turning is also a good approach but I think I'm a hard sell on fairness totally bad or predictability totally bad.

Topic Notes

I don't closely follow any topic.

Judging Idiosyncrasies

Won't vote on ASPEC or new affs bad unless either dropped for 2 consecutive speeches or 1NC time invested exceeds 10 seconds. I don't presume (or think) that a new aff justifies infinite neg flex.

I usually find most impact calc to be totally useless. Everyone says extinction so it's all about probability at that point. I think timeframe is not an intrinsically important consideration in impact calc since impacts are magnitude times probability. It's more useful to me if you try to quantify how much each argument mitigates a particular piece of offense.

Cross-applications are best made on where they are being re-applied or say something to indicate I should look elsewhere.

Impact Turns

I'm fine for any impact turn including spark or wipeout. Aff moralizing should be accompanied with a genuine ethics argument.

Topicality

I am a *very* good judge for the con on topicality. I think it’s very important that affirmatives prove inherency for topicality.

Quality of definitions is vanishingly important to me. Precision almost never matters.

Very easy to convince me that it's preferable to interpret the plan through things other than plan text in a vacuum.

Disads

I could see myself voting for intrinsicness or other disad theory.

Extinction turns case is a useless argument.

Counterplans

Counterplan inherency is not as important as many think, but it can be relevant especially if you choose to “kick” the cp.

I'm probably among the worst judges for the opposition on nearly all CP theory. I think the ideal version of debate would not have conditionality, but I think debate could be too hard for the neg without condo. I think 50 state fiat does not make sense logically if the hypothetical scenario is someone deciding what to do, but debate could be too hard for the neg without it.

That said if you can defend that a cp is legitimate I'm probably among the better judges for judging a competition debate/a debate around somewhat intrinsic perms.

I think CPs need to have some indication that the action is somewhat practical (somewhat being very permissive). Doesn't have to be a full-on solvency advocate that's expected of affs, but I wouldn't accept a CP that has some random individual amend the Constitution without any indication that such an action is even possible.

Affs, please connect solvency deficits to specific advantages/impacts. Negs, please never say "sufficiency framing".

Kritiques on the neg

I think about the alt the same way as a uniqueness cp.

Framework is alright but if you're going for framework you should commit to it. Otherwise I will weigh the aff by default.

Pet Peeves

I'd prefer if you don't call me "judge". I'd prefer either "Matt" or "hey you".

When you're marking a card say "marked at [word]". Don't say "cut the card at [word]"