I am a tab ross judge. I don't care what you run or how you run it. Speed is fine. Make sure I can flow what you're saying.

I judge on the flow and won't interfere so make sure you pull through your arguments.

Be respectful and respect each speakers time.

It's your round. I'm just living in it.

Any other questions can be answered in round.

LD

I'm looking for strong, value-based arguments in LD. I want to hear clear link stories between claim-warrants-impacts and want to hear clear connections to the framework. I will listen to most positions but I'm definitely listening for those link stories. No project Ks

Policy

While I typically deplore spreading, I do understand that it is a convention of Policy debate. I will do my best to flow, but if your rate is beyond my abilities I can't promise all of your arguments will make the flow. Be a good communicator. See LD about hearing positions and link stories. I want to see constructive partner communication.

PF

Really don't love spreading in LD or PF. Condense your arguments to fit the confines of the speaking times. If I can't reasonably flow it, it won't be on the flow. I want to see constructive partner communication.

Generally:

- Communicate effectively and ethically

- Treat each other with respect

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.

I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.

Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.

As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:

(1) I think the topic should be debated.

(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.

(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.

I was WY state champ for LD in 2020; I do policy at the University of Wyoming now (go pokes!) under instruction of Lawrence Zhou, Matt Liu and Brent Lamb. I also help coach LD voluntarily at Rock Springs High School (WY)

If there's a chain, please add me: knickknackmack@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns

Last updated for the Bobcat Invitational

~~~

Summary for prefs (CX and LD)

Approach the debate however you like, just make sure you focus around the topic; I'll totally vote for K affs if they provide specific warrants to the topic's wording/content/epistemology and why it's harmful, and do this throughout the round.

I'm not apt to vote for tricks or arguments that are contingent on your opponent missing them.

I'll, of course, vote on any argument if it's not responded to well regardless of paradigm. That said, my paradigm does lower the threshold your opponent needs to meet for them to win/not lose on that particular arg.

For LD: I generally think Nebel T is true, but as always tech > truth. I do lean towards reasonability (if the aff is actually reasonable) but an undercovered T is an undercovered T, y'all.

Notes for all debates

1.) I'll vote by evaluating what the winning framework was (if this was a point of contention; if it wasn't I'll probably assume standard util) and then taking the most straightforward route to the ballot through that framework.

2.) Tech > truth, but very obviously untrue arguments have a much lower threshold to overcome, especially if they're analytics

3.) You don't need to ask me if I'm ready, I'll tell you if I'm not

4.) This should go without saying, but I'll vote you down for making the debate space unsafe. Slurs, intentionally misgendering someone after being corrected, mocking someone in a way that undermines their identity or personhood, those are all no bueno.

~~~~~

Policy paradigm

Pre-paradigm note: Don't assume I know the topic very well. I do college policy and help a bit with high school LD -- I know a workable amount of argumentation, not nearly as much content.

Counterplans

Condo in policy is way more justifiable than it is in LD. I'll usually side neg with conditionality in the average debate (5 off with two counterplans will 9/10 times be fine). Judge kick is also fine. Of course, I'll still vote on condo bad if there's evidence of significant time skew on CPs that get kicked in the block, or if aff doesn't do a sufficient job at proving no abuse. I'm a 2A so I'm sympathetic to it, y'all

CPs must have a net benefit and be competitive (duh). Lots of CPs (agent and process specifically) don't do one of those very well. You don't need to read (and I'd prefer you not read) "Agent CPs bad" or "Process CPs bad" theory, just defend your mechanism via solvency deficits and use perms to test competition.

Impacts

Advantages/disads with nuclear war impacts that have an arbitrary mention of "extinction" in the tags but no mention of it in the internals are likely to work against you. Often people forget that their card does not, in fact, frame nuclear war as existential, in which case they lose impact calc

On the CJR topic in particular I will probably find myself leaning towards probability more than magnitude; I think the link story on either side is particularly tenuous when trying to connect the aff's domestic CJR action to extinction.

K affs

As always, it is the negative's job to prove the aff wrong. The aff needs to offer some point of predictable stasis so the neg can be prepared to prove the aff wrong. I will vote aff on kritikal affirmatives that a) are related enough to the topic to allow for enough neg prep, and b) are debated better than the negative on a technical level. A is a prerequisite to B; if you debate net better on a technical level but still don't prove sufficient points of clash I probably won't vote for you.

Ks

I really like Ks, however, I tend to find many difficult to vote for. Please tell me what the alternative does without obfuscating the discussion until the 2NR. This includes both the action and the actor

I find the "serial policy failure" argument powerful in the CJR topic because I think it is particularly true in this context. The aff should be aware of this and allocate time accordingly.

I would prefer K debates stay away from broad, overarching claims and narrow in on the nitty-gritty in terms of how the aff links, why this matters, and how the alt solves this specific problem. Example, one saying "Their epistemology legitimizes oppression and we solve by rejecting the state" versus "Their Smith 20 card talks about reform being good. This is a link -- reform is a tool of cruel optimism by the state, used as a smokescreen to hide its illegitimacy -- that's our Nguyen 20 card. This means as long as there is narrative around reform, the state can stay in power. The alt solves by disintegrating that narrative because the alt rejects reform in favor of abolition." Specificity is key in K debates, especially when they're often so broad that nobody knows what's going on.

~~~

Trad LD (if you're competing at the Bobcat Invitational, this is probably you)

I'm gonna keep it real with y'all, framework is not helpful in, like, 99/100 debates (that being said, it probably will be a bit more helpful with the LAWS topic.) Still, if both of you run util, please don't spend a minute on it in the 1AR. It is a) painful, but also b) doesn't help you get phat dubs. The only time I really see value clash as having any sort of... value (heheh) is when someone runs deontology and the other runs consequentialism.

One thing I've learned from college policy that can help with trad LD: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. Let me repeat, for emphasis: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. You can collapse down to a single one and just be like "This is incredibly important and makes the rest of the debate moot," and then explain why that contention matters so much. I will absolutely adore this and give you v high speaks.

~~~

Circuit LD Paradigm

ctrl+F Policy paradigm for policy stuff.

K Affs

The aff should be related in some way or another to the topic. Shifting the debate to something entirely inapplicable to the resolution is very likely to lose to T-FW.

If the K has an application to the topic that they explain well and with warranting (e.g. saying "Predictive policing and this specific rhetoric around it are used in these specific ways to uphold the state which is bad for these specific warrants" instead of "The neg supports the state"), I'll be more apt to dismiss neg FW args.

Phil

I am completely fine with philosophically based arguments, but if they are something I'm not familiar with (below), you will need to explain them knowing I don't have as much background on them.

Phil that's often used in LD that I'm familiar with (in order of most to least): Mill's util, Rawlsian justice, Kant's deontology, Baudrillard/simulation theory, a very small bit of Nietzsche, everything else

Tricks

I don't particularly like tricks, or any argument that is dependent on your opponent missing or misunderstanding it for you to win. I'll vote on them if you win them and they're warranted but I'm not a fan and would prefer you make other arguments.

Some tricks are so sneaky that they lose the opponent but also the judge. If you blow up a trick in your last speech, but it's not on my flow, I'm going to assume it's a new argument.

Counterplans

I love counterplans. In LD, I lean towards condo bad but can be convinced otherwise depending on how the aff handles the argument. If aff doesn't breathe a word about conditionality until the 2AR I, of course, won't vote on condo bad.

I reflect Jacob Nails' paradigm in that "perm do the counterplan" is almost always a better option than "process (or whatever) CPs bad." Any type of CP that has its competition resting on a single Merriam-Webster definition of "Resolved" is pretty shaky and will more often lose to tests of competition than to theoretical arguments.

Agent CPs need to clearly demonstrate a net benefit to the aff. Most of them don't do this unless they have an explicit solvency advocate with carded evidence on why "courts are key" or whatever the CP is.

Topicality

No preference. If you're neg and you legitimately think the aff is untopical, you're probably not the only one. If you're neg and you're running it to waste time on a very topical plan, the aff saying "we meet" is sufficient.

Inclusivity

It's good. If your opponent is trad please make it educational for them. As someone who was against progressive LD for a while because of opponents that were condescending and wouldn't explain what anything meant, I can tell you for sure that your behavior matters. More people and interactions with different styles of debate is net good for education and the inclusivity of small circuits.

~~~~~

Public Forum

PF is the debate I've admittedly done the least of. I do adore judge instruction, so if you tell me what to vote for and why, your chances of winning and/or achieving high speaks are pretty good.

Tech > truth, but the more untrue an argument is, the less your opponent will have to say about it to beat it.

Progressive arguments are totally fine as long as you keep them accessible to the opponent (explain them, answer questions about them straightforwardly, etc.)

You can read the rest of my paradigm to get a feel for me as a judge but it's not very PF-specific. I'm not very picky. Just have fun and don't be a dingus.

Experience: I competed for four years in policy debate at Green River HS. I won State once and qualified for Nationals twice in World Schools Debate. I competed in IPDA for two years at Eastern Wyoming College and did another year of Policy at UNLV.

Overview: I'll buy whatever you say if you give me enough of a reason to. Want to blow up the moon? Cool! I'm down for that. A boring policy debate can be excruating. I want to see debaters bring something to the table that I haven't seen before and get my attention. Get heated, but don't personally insult anyone or cause any bodily harm. Otherwise, you can swear, you can yell. I'm comfortable with K debates. I'm comfortable with speed, but I'll stop you if you become inarticulate.

Please signpost along the way so I know where to be on the flow.

Roadmaps are off the clock if you can be timely about them.

You WILL get bonus speaker points if you can make a meaningful reference to Space Jam.

PF:

I've never done PF in my life and I've only watched a handful of rounds. With that being said though, I think it's one of the most straightforward styles of debate I've ever seen. It's a raw debate without any of the jargon that comes with the other styles, and I'm about that. I know my way around an argument so I'm confident that I can judge your arguments with the same degree of effort that you put into them.

LD:

Like PF, I have never done LD, and I've only watched a handful of rounds in my life. With that, I know argumentation. You just may have to break down the LD jargon for me during the round. Like my CX paradigm though, I'm still looking to be entertained and I want to see something different.

· Delivery: Clear and measured delivery that is not raced through. I like to be able to follow each point with time to flow the debate.

· Evidence: Should be from credible sources that are diverse in their spectrum.

· Argument style: Attack the issue, not the person or their style. A debater should be able to persuade a judge through strength of argument, never Ad Hominem attacks.

I will base my decisions on performance quality for each event. Clear speaking style, familiarity with script or case, accurate pronunciation, and the attitude toward and respect for fellow competitors.

I value clarity in rounds. I can absolutely follow speed, however it does not mean I like to. I am typically not a fan of spreading. I am a flow-judge, If I can't understand you, I will stop flowing. Quality is always greater than Quantity.

Know your evidence and your arguments. It is clear to me when you are presenting evidence but have no understanding of the material.

I like to see clash in a round. Strong V/C. Solid frameworks. Definitions. Impacts.

Experience- 4 years high school as competitor, 2 years competing on my college team, and 5 years coaching my high school team.

What I like to see- I joined the dark side of debate as a parli. debater on my college team. Because of this I value the logistics of the debate rather than cards/evidence. Meaning, I am not putting any ink down while you are throwing out information off of all the cards you are reading. I think that you should read your card and then explain why this is relevant in your case. Any type of debate is suppose to be a persuasive speech, not a competition of evidence. As far as technical debate I will vote on those arguments alone if they are done well. I don't appreciate spreading or just dropping arguments as a strategy, I think that is a waste of time. K's are welcome, especially if they are done right. Speed is fine, but if I have to ask for your case because you read so fast nobody could understand you I will vote you down. I believe that if I have to do the work and read over your entire case in order to understand it that you are not debating. Don't make me do the work for you! I will not flow during any cross x. I believe that the time is for opponents to clarify and get information. If you want to bring up what is said during your speech I am cool with that. Lastly, during cross x I would appreciate letting opponents finish their thoughts and being respectful, I don't think being rude during cross x should be used as a strategy.

Value and Value Criterion Clash

Civility and Concreteness

Fine with fast speech, but speak fluently

3 diamond coach. Member of Wyoming coaches Hall of Fame. TabRoss on all debate.

Howdy! My name is Breeze (she/they) and I am very excited to be judging whatever it is you are competing in.

A little about me I attend Hamilton College in Clinton, NY where I am a major in International Relations.

I did speech and debate for four years in High School. I did almost every event under the sun (PF, LD, Congress, OO, Info, DUO, PO, Impromptu). I like to think I was pretty good. I've got two national tournaments under my belt and a top 24 in congressional debate at the 2020 nat tourney.

If you are looking at this I'm gonna assume you are here because you are a debater so let's get to the good stuff.

All Debaters: Please, on-time road maps (With the exception of CX). I will be timing you, any speaking past a 10 second grace period will not be considered in the debate. This should be obvious and a standard at this point but hate speech and disrespectful debate are never tolerable. Got a chain? Add me breezepetty@gmail.com

LD: Clash is super important obviously, but that includes value, value criterion, and contention clash. Don't get too caught up on one versus the other. I will be flowing so make sure you do your best to cover the entire flow in every speech. Evidence is good but philosophic debate is it's equal I just ask that every new argument you make is supported by one or the other, otherwise, it gets challenging to weigh it accurately in the debate.

PF: Clash is important, duh. I want to see evidence supporting every argument made in the debate and validity of evidence is a welcome point of contention in the event it is necessary.

CX: Not a big fan of spreading but if you speak clearly I will probably follow. Stock issues are important.

Congress: Wow I didn't think congress kids looked at paradigms, I'm impressed if you are here. I like to see good concise speeches with structure and evidence. If you are speaking later in the debate on a bill don't waste everyone's time arguing the same thing that's been argued before.

Generally, I will make decisions based on who presents a full and complete argument supported with evidence, not conclusions drawn upon conjecture and assumption, and one who is more comprehensive in delivery.

I look for the debater that has a balance of offense/defense and shows me that they have not only a comprehensive understanding of the resolution but also gives me, as the judge, a comprehensive understanding of your case.

I do not support a theory or disclosure theory debate. The resolution has been given to you. Debate it.

I respect civility between competitors. Debate hard, but be courteous.

Watch your speaking pace. Saying points really really fast does not automatically make them count if they are impossible to hear and note.

I like clash much more than arguing debate technicalities.

LD: I tend to favor more "traditional" flavors of LD, but I will vote on critical affirmatives and other departures from the norm if they are appropriately impacted and extended throughout the round. While I appreciate framework clash, I do not consider framework to be an independent reason to vote AFF or NEG. You should win the framework debate and then apply the framework to the contention-level debate and motivate voters there.

PF: I will flow carefully and appreciate extensions of specific cites and warrants rather than pure volume. Summary and Final Focus speeches which fail to collapse the debate to a manageable list of voters should be avoided. I don't like to intervene in any round, so provide clear reasons to vote in Final Focus. Propose and apply some weighing mechanism....

Policy: I favor policy making and stocks debates, but I will vote on anything if properly developed and weighed in the round. I tend to look less favorably on procedurals and theory shells which multiply lots of standards and substructure in the round but don't amount to much after the block.