*Updated 11/30/21*

My email is daw8332@sdsu.edu

I'm hired. Used to do Policy.

Good stuff to do:

- Avoid Cheerios and other sugary cereals

- Hydrate before + after every speech

- Get 8-9 hours of sleep a night

- Don't be mean to each other

The Round:

As big or small and as outlandishly or by-the-book as you want - just make it matter.

I prefer you debate like I was dragged off the street and made a judge. You're probably smarter than me anyways.

Judging:

Offense/Defense & Games. I'm TR until you say otherwise.

My RFD's are going to be as constructive and in-depth as I'm able to deliver on. If you think I'm going nowhere with whatever I'm saying during this time, please interject.

Affiliations:

I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution and WANA topics.

I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+

Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.

What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?

I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.

As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.

I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.

If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.

Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating

Debated at Blue Valley Northwest - Now a debater at the University of Kentucky

Add me to the chain: lex.barrett33@gmail.com

Speed is Fine but not required

Speaks - Start at 28.5 and will increase based on performance

Tips for speaks - Good CX, efficiency, LBL, funny jokes, be polite - seriously a lot of debaters are jerks in round - dont do that in front of me unless you like not getting speaker awards

My Ideal debate involves lots of clash with 2 teams that have well prepared arguments - But at the same time if the 2AC drops ASPEC I'm probably voting neg.

Every argument needs a claim and a warrant in order to be evaluated.

Dropped arguments are true.

Case: Try or Die > Presumption - case debates are an underrated 2NC and will give you great speaks.

T: I default to competing interpretations. T is never an RVI. Limits are good. Precision is also good. Don't drop procedurals on T.

Theory: Rejecting the argument not the team is sufficient on nearly all theory violations. I lean neg on condo. New Aff=Anything goes.

DA: DA + Case is my favorite 2nr. I need specific links and an impacted out scenario. Turns case analysis and impact calc in the late rebuttals really help write my ballot and make it easier for me to decide a close debate. Link turns case is very helpful and should be utilized more. Politics disads are dumb but can be won. If you go for a DA about Mitt Romney's Political Capital I will be impressed.

CP: Also cool. I will not judgekick unless told otherwise but judgekick is a logical extension of conditionality. Cheating CPs are cool.

K: A clearly explained link and good LBL goes a long way for me - i don't understand high theory Ks very well so clearly explained links go a long way for me

K affs: The aff should respond to the resolution in some way, otherwise it will be pretty hard to get my ballot. A good TVA goes a long way.

FW vs K affs: Go for it. Generally lean neg but can be persuaded otherwise.

K v K: If this is your strategy I'm probably not a fantastic judge for you - BUT - as long as you have a clear link story and are ahead on the LBL you can probably convince me.

Not cool with inserting rehighlightings

I debated for Dougherty Valley. I don't debate for Cal.

be comprehensible/go slower - i dont judge as often as you compete

way better for the K now than I was 3 years ago - I still require explanation and examples to the same extent though

Debated mostly in LD but went to policy camp and some policy tournaments. If you're a PF-er you shouldn't have counteradvocacies but other than that I will judge it like it’s a policy round - read cards

he/they

add me to the email chain (bhatsavit@gmail.com).

if you're short on time, just read this top section:

don't overinvest, have fun

Tech>Truth, but it’s easier to win more truthful arguments.

arguments require a claim and a warrant and (eventually) an implication. i wont pretend you said something you didn't and have no problem voting on lack of explanation or not hearing something.

online: record speeches locally if online, flash analytics if possible

email chain should be set up at start time

if you or your opponent might read theory or topicality as a viable out (not just to waste everyone's time), read the "rant" under the theory section. everything else in the paradigm is extremely standard and you'll be fine even if you don't read it.

Misc:

- you don't need to adapt to novices if on the national circuit

- circumvention and impact turns are nice

- number/delineate your arguments

- will reward fun, high-risk strategies such as 1-off disad, a massive impact turn , 7 minutes of case turns or circumvention etc.

- "independent voting issues" are rarely ever independent or voting issues

- happy to give the "i don't get it" rfd

• defaults: comparative worlds (LD), no judge kick, "competing interps", no rvi, drop the debater on T and condo and disclosure theory and drop the argument on all other theory, fairness and education are voters, everything other than fairness and education is not a voter

- tell me to judge kick or I won't: condo assumes 2NR collapse exists.

Evidence:

- disclosure is good

- sending a marked copy does not constitute prep, requesting a doc where "unread cards are deleted" does

- you can insert rehighlights

-clipping - stake the round and show me the recording.

- ev ethics - any misrepresentation of evidence (stopping in the middle of a paragraph, if the article concludes the opposite way after the card ends, mis-cited) is an automatic L even if not called out. if your link is dead but the article can be procured through a different method you won't lose.

- i expect evidence to have cites/qualifications and not be bracketed unless offensive language. read theory

• i read a lot of ev, the quality of the warrant is the quality of the argument.

"Framing Contentions"

- extend warrants, weigh, and answer warrants. implicate each argument, don't leave it to me to do the work for you

- you still need to answer the disadvantage

- this just shifts the burden of explanation, it doesn't magically make extinction not a problem anymore (or the reverse). that being said, you should still leave some time for the framing portion of the debate

Disadvantages:

- I used to like politics disads but then I grew up

- no new links/IL/impacts/uq arguments in the 2NR, but may use cards to answer (new) 1AR arguments

- 2NR/2AR impact calc isn't new and is vital

Counterplans:

- love smart and creative counterplans

- start the solvency debate in the 1NC (card or analytic), not the 2AC. burden of proof on the negative!

- defining "sufficiency framing" isn't enough - make it contextual.

- read CP theory but don't speed through blocks. Counterplan theory is generally a question of research and predictability, having a specific advocate is important.

- i do not have a predisposition for/against condo/dispo bad in LD (they're good in policy)

- err neg/drop the argument on 1AR theory is persuasive in LD

- LD only: non-resolutional actor CPs in LD don't provide an opportunity cost to the plan insofar that the aff's obligation is to prove an actor's moral obligation, i will still evaluate them as they are read and debated unless that argument is made.

Kritiks (on the negative):

- good k debates are cool but rare - consequently good k debates with explanation and knowledge of your argument will get great speaks and bad k debates meant to take your opponent by surprise or rack up easy wins with blocks will get extremely deflated speaks.

- the more the negative wins their link the easier it is for them to win Framework

- filter alt solvency through Framework - and actually explain it please!

- please actually warrant your fairness arguments on Framework - 'moots the aff' absent an explanation of why consequences are specifically key is probably not enough

- LD only: Link walls must be in the 1NC. New 2NR links from the 1AC are new and will not be evaluated. New 2NR links based on the 1AR will be evaluated. In policy, new 2NC links are fine

- not relying on precluding the aff = higher speaks.

- extensions of 'ontology' and similar broad claims need to be much more robust than you think they do. you can't just say the buzzwords "natal alienation" or "gratuitous violence" or "metaphysics" without telling me 1) what they are and 2) how they implicate progress.

- i will vote for warranted K "tricks" but keep the overview shorter rather than longer please

- vagueness in cx bad

- particularity vs Ks is good and Ks should either link turn or impact turn this and overinvest time on this argument

Kritiks (on the affirmative):

- T-USFG/Framework - aff teams can easily out-tech neg teams but i usually went for T/Fwk. Don't care which internal link/impact you choose: fairness, skills, testing, etc. as long as they have an actual impact

- I am unfamiliar with K v K debates, but I'm not opposed to judging them.

- try to answer the case even if you go for T especially the parts that interact

- you get a perm

- go for presumption if the 1AC is just an impact turn to Framework

Theory/Topicality:

- Rant: Reasonability vs Competing Interps is much less important than you think it is. If the substance tradeoff DA or overpunishment DA by dropping the debater outweighs mitigated interp offense, I will vote against theory because of "reasonability". If neither of those arguments are introduced or leveraged successfully, I will not use reasonability (i.e. there must be some offense vs the interp to vote against theory). if both teams pretend like this part of my paradigm doesn't exist, I'll likely just use competing interps because it causes me less of a headache to evaluate

- i like T, went for it a lot.

- weighing is essential

- evidence comparison is underutilized

- RVIs are bad but don't drop them

- if a 1AC theory underview has more than yes/no theory, competing interps/reasonability, dtd/dta, voters you instantly lose 0.5 speaker points for making me flow all that :)

- Interpretations are models of debate, and definitions are the warrants for why those models are predictable - standards should be filtered through predictability

- "semantics first" is not persuasive, precision as an internal link is persuasive

LD Philosophy/Ethical Framework Debates:

- i am much better for literally any other argument. I'm sorry I just really do not care

- that being said, if your cards and rebuttals do a good job of explaining the syllogism and reasons to prefer(they usually don't), you'll be fine.

- tricks: If there's a clear claim, warrant, and implication to an argument when it is first introduced, then I will flow and evaluate it like any other argument. Even if you go for terrible one-liners that are almost definitively false, you should still collapse and oversell the truth of your arguments.

• "we defend the aff as a general principle" is a topicality issue about implementation.
• general confidence vs modesty bores me - contextualize (with cards) !

Speaks:

CX matters, -0.1 speaks if you shift around your order multiple times when giving it or if you don't label your flows in the 1nc ("next off" is insufficient).

Credit to whoever I copped some lines of this paradigm from

Add me to the email chain: thenateisgreat@icloud.com

Backup email: thenateisgreat@gmail.com

Nathan Brown, Peninsula 24'

Pronouns: he/him/his

Novice stuff (applies to everyone since I'm only judging middle school/novice anyway):

If you use google docs I'd recommend watching this video before the round: https://youtu.be/OXc7-GAyYOw

If you are unfamiliar with what an email chain is/how to operate one, please watch this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NGu6MOEDNeI'

Time your speeches, please!!! Also, time your opponents' speeches.

2nr/2ar should predict the most important things in the debate and make sure they win those, which is a prerequisite to judge instruction. 2ns should not spread themselves too thin in the 2nr or that makes it tough for me to vote on anything when I have too many options but not enough substance.

Top Level:

Call me whatever you want, Nathan, Nate, judge Nate, Nate dogg, etc. I won't vote on what you call me.

I try my best to be a fair judge, but if you don't understand the argument, please don't read it.

Your camera should be on, don't steal prep. If your camera is off, you should be letting me know what you are doing so I don't think you're stealing prep (i.e. sending out the doc). I will keep my camera on during the debate unless something unexpected comes up, so if I'm not visible on camera make sure I'm there.

Recording the debate is allowed and encouraged, it will help you get better.

Clarity over speed, but beware of the dangers of excessive speed and online debate. Relying on the power of your wifi and my wifi is risky, but if it cuts out for a significant amount of time I'll let you know and we can re-start from the timestamp.

Join rounds ASAP, disclose ASAP.

Tech over truth, dropped arguments are true, though whether or not the argument was truly "dropped" can be contested based on the previous speech. Open cross-x good, it's ok to ask a quick question of the other team during your prep, I believe the other team should answer those questions.

Policy:

Aff:

I've been a 2N basically my whole debate career; only run policy affs

I'm not more biased toward soft-left affs vs big-stick affs but know that soft-left affs usually come with the burden of winning framing. I'll vote for them if your framing is sufficient, but I will default to extinction first unless you tell me why to prioritize your impacts. I will never assign zero warrant or risk to extinction, but framing is a good way to mitigate their offense and bolster your impacts, but don't rely on solely framing to take out the neg's impacts. I'm only going to believe that there's an extremely low risk of the DA if you are actually winning some defense against it. Read whatever impact you want, especially nuanced impacts that can't be impact-turned. Also, I don't mind long internal link chains as long as they are logical and "follow-able".

No new 1ar answers unless it's to new impacts/offense in the block of course. If you manage to hide new 1ar answers disguised as extrapolations of 2ac answers, good for you.

Planless affs:

I don't think K affs in middle school/novice debate is a common thing, that's good. If you do read a planless aff, just know I do not have much experience with these but I will hold it to a high standard. I think fairness and clash are good, strong impacts so that makes your burden high. You have to prove to me why the ballot has the role you assign it in the debate, and why that role is good. I will default to the interpretation that the ballot is to communicate which team did the better debating to tabroom unless thoroughly persuaded otherwise.

Neg:

Dissads: Great, this is probably the neg strat you learned how to debate with. A dissad has to be complete, it needs uniqueness, link, impact. Just reading a single generic link card in your 1nc is not enough. Of course, aff-specific links are great, but you can defend generic links too. Make sure you're reading a dissad that still has uniqueness. (i.e. don't read senate elections if they're over)

Counterplans: CPs are good, make sure you have a net benefit. If the net benefit is internal, it's your burden to extend that along with the counterplan. If the net benefit is external (i.e. a dissad), then extend that through the 2nr. It's not a net benefit if it isn't extended into the last speech.

CP theory's a reason to reject the arg. (except condo)

PICs that pic out of a fundamental part of the aff are good. How legitimate your pic is is up for debate.  I don't like "should" competition (who does?)

Adv CPs are good, plank abuse might change my mind

Process CPs are probably bad

I think conditionality is probably good, but if you lose it, it's still a voter. For the aff, it will be a lot to convince me condo is bad, but if they're being extremely abusive with it in-round, that's reason to vote aff.  

Topicality: Affs should be T. Impacts are important. Also, make sure you extend your interp. It's easier to win T arguments that aren't super limiting and I tend to side with T interps that are specific and clearly exclude the aff's mechanism. It is the neg's burden to prove why the aff doesn't meet their interp, I am especially inclined to vote on the we meet if the neg reads a vague interp.

Kritik: I can't stress this enough, you're probably in middle school if you're reading this, so please only read Ks that you can understand and defend. Reading blocks and never responding to the neg arguments on the K is not a good debate. I believe you should also defend the theoretical/framework reasons to vote for the K, though I am generally reluctant to vote on "you link you lose" unless the neg is clearly and thoroughly ahead on framework. That being said, root cause claims or "our impact makes theirs inevitable" are arguments I believe help mitigate case well. Long overviews are overrated - get to substance.

FW v K affs:

The aff has the burden of convincing me why their interp of what debate should be outweighs any neg offense, and that means responding to neg arguments thoroughly and explaining why your view of debate is better, because I will assume debate is a competitive game going into a round. I love clever neg add-ons or dissads on the FW or T flow. Fairness is an intrinsic good and probably the best impact to go for. Try to explain why you access more offense with FW than they do with a ballot. It's not hard to convince me that my ballot can only remedy procedural unfairess.

=Assorted Theory

ASPEC: prefer not, I'll vote on it if it's clearly warranted in the 1NC and (functionally) dropped by the aff

Disclosure Theory: I think disclosure is really important in a debate. That being said, it's a hard ballot to write unless there is proof that the aff purposefully evaded disclosing their aff before the round. Provide proof they refused disclosure and I'll hear you out, but for it to be a ballot it's gotta be extended heavily in block/2nr.

Condo: above, under "counterplans"

LD:

I do not have much experience with LD, but please refer to the "Top Level" section of my paradigm. If I am judging you for LD, you probably are just starting so don't stress out in round and have fun.

Key Takeaways

Signposting and organization is critical. Be polite to each other. Extend your arguments, and delve deeper into the analysis by explaining the interactions between arguments.

CX

Theory and Topicality

I default to reasonability on topicality, and while I enjoy a good theory debate, you must clearly explain the harms done and significance of your opponent's argument.

Kritiks

I'm open to any kritik, but don't assume that I'll understand every argument out there. Clearly explain the philosophy backing your kritik, and create a compelling story about how the aff links to it. Also, if you run a kritik, make sure your alternative is clear and actionable outside of the debate round. While in-round education is important, I prefer to see alternatives that can be creatively scaled up.

Counterplans and Disadvantages

Love these! I especially enjoy counterplans paired with a disadvantage that believably acts as a net benefit.

Side note

Don't use theory or kritiks for the express purpose of confusing your opponent. I have much more respect for debaters who clearly explain obscure terms to make sure that all in the round have a full understanding, compared to those who attempt to make the debate inaccessible.

LD

I judge both on value criterions and contention level arguments. If you are going to read a passage explaining your value/value criterion, make sure it contributes to your argument meaningfully and you actually have an understanding of what you are saying.

If you and your opponent have the same value and value criterion, you should dedicate a portion of your speech to expressly explaining why your contentions allow you to better achieve that value criterion and value compared to your opponents.

Speed

All speeds are fine. If you're spreading, just slow down on the taglines and any particularly important points within the card.

Speaker Points

25 - terrible round with massive flaws in speech.

26 - bad round. Glaring clarity, time management, or fluency issues.

27 - average. No large mistakes but persistent errors nonetheless.

28 - above average. Few mistakes. The quality of speech made the argument more compelling.

29 - well above average.

30 - fantastic.

Cross Examination

All arguments brought up during CX must be extended and developed in actual speech time.

MPLS South '21

Dartmouth '25 (If you are considering Dartmouth, please talk to me in person or send an email. I would love to talk to you. Go Trees!!)

- If there is an email chain, please add gabemkc@gmail.com and southdebatecoaches@gmail.com (policy only)

Stanford 23 Update: Assume no familiarity with the LD topic. I will judge this like 1 person policy except with LD resolutions I don't think a lot of arguments from policy make sense i.e if the resolution doesn't require a plan I don't get why there should be one.

Answer arguments in the order presented. This is not a suggestion nor a recommendation. It is a rule and if you refuse to follow it, I will be looking for reasons to vote against you.

I have many preferences about debate, but I will try very hard for them not to influence my adjudication of the round. There are a few that I find true:

1. Students spend incredible amounts of time preparing for debate tournaments and I have an obligation to put just as much effort into the round - this means I will try to fairly evaluate each argument as presented and seek to limit my biases.

2. Debate is a research based communicative activity - this means that both how you prepared to speak and what you say matter. I care about evidence quality and correct evidence practices. This means I find arguments that are divorced from external scholarship (academia, pundits, public intellectuals) less convincing. I will be impressed by innovative research, which will make me more likely to err for the well-evidenced team on close questions.

3. My favorite debates are small, evidence heavy and specific to the resolutional controversy - they are intellectually exciting and bring me great joy. The policy or K binary does not determine this - rather, teams that are able to choose points of disagreement early in the debate, go deep on those and outframe their opponent will be more successful in front of me than teams that win by brute force of speed. This is not based on any conviction about the value of arguments - rather, I am not good at adjudicating large debates and am likely to think about what Edmund Zagorin taught me are the "meta questions" in close debates.

4. Debate is good because we get to try new things and change our minds - dogmatic 1ACs/1NCs that don't change from topic to topic are terminally unpersuasive. Arguments based on past ethical failure will not be considered. Behavior that causes immediate harm to other debaters will culminate in an L and a 26.

5. Speaker points should be given based on the judges' discretion - I will intervene against people who ask me to give 30s. I will give you speaker points based on my regular discretion minus 2. I find the modern 29-30 speaker point scale hard to use and expect to give around a 28.7 if you have debated as if you are a member of the top 32 teams in a given pool.

Specific Arguments:

Most arguments are very similar and will be filtered through the above biases. Some are hard to understand from above so I will explain below.

I find well articulated theory arguments about the detrimental effects of specific practices more persuasive than most - articulating the importance of unconditional counterplans, solvency advocates and affirmative specification may be more persuasive to me than most.

Topicality arguments about the most desirable construction of the resolution for debating rather than a single side are most persuasive to me - articulating your impacts in the language of iteration, the game structure of debate and testing rather than AFF/NEG ground has always made the most sense to me.

The K v Policy divide is detrimental to debate - read the arguments you think are best supported and respond to your opponents position. I have no major preference if that results in a Afropessimist critique of democratic theory or a defense of the liberal international order, but I would prefer a planless affirmative that discusses water politics to a plan based affirmative that has more terminal impacts than topic specific cards.

I have been heavily influenced by Oskar Tauring-Traxler, Izak Gallini-Matyas, John Turner, Brett Bricker, Raam Tambe, Holland Bald.

Some judges who I aspire to judge similar to: Anirudh Prabhu, Shunta Jordan, Sean Kennedy, Shree Awsare, Chris Callahan, Brianna Aaron, Ansh Khullar, Kevin McCaffery, Yao Yao Chen and Kevin Hirn.

Ethics

- I will follow docs for evidence of clipping. If I see it, the round will end and the offending team will get L 25. Evidence of clipping or cross reading, along with an accusation, will be evaluated. If correct, L 25 for offender. If incorrect, L for the accusing team.

- agree with Truf -- Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me.

Newbie Coach for ADL

I flow.

I give pretty high speaks if you're nice.

Email Chain: Brandonchen.135@gmail.com

Ask in round if you want to know more about me

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years in high school. In college I competed in policy debate for four years at the University of Richmond where I was a three-time participant at the NDT. Since graduating from law school I have been practicing as an attorney in the New York state court system. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. To me, well-warranted arguments extended and explained in rebuttals combined with strategic control of the flow wins debates. Technical proficiency in terms of argument interaction is also appreciated. Well executed link and impact turns are also impressive. It won't change how I evaluate the debate, but in case you are curious, I was primarily a 2A/1N and ran everything from hard right, to soft left, to ironic affs as well as a full range on the neg. My email is jchicvak at gmail dot com.

jmu '25

affiliations: berkeley prep (2022-), solon and saint ignatius (2021-22)

mconcon4@gmail.com

bprep-debate@googlegroups.com

tl;dr

tech>truth

I primarily run policy arguments and coach critical ones.

will vote on 0 risk

I have found that aff teams are just not sufficiently extending solvency to any of their advantages, internal links, etc., thus the I find myself having a lower threshold for neg offense

speed is fine (I will only "clear" you once and then ill flow what I can)

call me matty or matt not judge (he/him)

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.

clipping = auto L and 0

unlikely to vote on things that happened outside of the round

K Affs/FW

I think K affs should have some relation to the topic and am less persuaded by debate bad arguments. you don't need a c/I to win. I am persuaded by both fairness and clash. the easiest way to my ballot is establishing external offense vs internal link turns and do real impact comparison. presumption isn't gone for as much as it probably should. contextualizing the links to how they specifically destroy the ability of the alt to happen will help you out a lot. don't assume I know any of your lit.

Ks

you can win without an alt, however I prefer if you generate UQ from somewhere else rather then going for the k as a linear disad. I think teams spend way to much time on fw, in almost every case the aff gets to weigh the 1ac and the neg gets reps links.

CPs

I like well thought out advantage cps. affs don't utilize their 1ac enough when answering cps. condo is good, multi-plank condo is good. pretty much all other theory is probably a reason to reject the arg.

DAs

The politics DA was most of my high school career. I enjoy complex stories with clear internal link turns to the aff or some form of cirvumvention/a solvency take out. teams who explain how the direction of x shapes the direction of y are much more likely to win a close debate. I will probably not read you ev during the debate, but if the final rebuttals include a DA, please send a card doc.

T

default to competing interps but its not hard to get me to vote on reasonability. the simpler the definition/the clearer the violation the better.

misc

organization/signposting is important

I enjoy impacts turns/traps/double binds etc.

have fun

***My hearing was not too great during 2023 but it is doing much better now and I'm feeling much more confident on judging. Just a health FYI/PSA.***

For email chains and any questions, my email is jason.courville@kinkaid.org

Speaking Style (Speed, Quantity) - I like fast debate. Speed is fine as long as you are clear and loud. I will be vocal if you are not. A large quantity of quality arguments is great. Supplementing a large number of quality arguments with efficient grouping and cross-application is even better.

Theory - Theory arguments should be well impacted/warranted. I treat blippy/non-warranted/3 second theory arguments as non-arguments. My threshold for voting on a punishment voter ("reject the team") is higher than a "reject the argument, not the team" impacted argument. I'm open to a wide variety of argument types as long as you can justify them as theoretically valuable.

Topicality - My topicality threshold is established by the combination of answers.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + solid defense of reasonability = higher threshold/harder to win for the neg.

Good aff defense + no aff offense + neg wins competing interps = low threshold/easy to win for the neg.

Counterplans - counterplan types (from more acceptable to more illegit): advantage CPs, textually/functionally competitive PICs, agent CPs, textually but not functionally competitive PICs (ex. most word pics), plan contingent counterplans (consult, quid pro quo, delay)

Disadvantages - Impact calculus is important. Especially comparison of different impact filters (ex. probability outweighs magnitude) and contextual warrants based on the specific scenarios in question. Not just advantage vs disadvantage but also weighing different sub-components of the debate is helpful (uniqueness vs direction of the link, our link turn outweighs their link, etc).

Kritiks - My default framework is to assess whether the aff has affirmed the desirability of a topical plan. If you want to set up an alternative framework, I'm open to it as long as you win it on the line-by-line. I most often vote aff vs a kritik on a combination of case leverage + perm. It is wise to spend time specifically describing the world of the permutation in a way that resolves possible negative offense while identifying/impacting the perm's net benefit.

I most often vote neg for a kritik when the neg has done three things:
1. effectively neutralized the aff's ability to weigh their case,
2. there is clear offense against the perm, and
3. the neg has done a great job of doing specific link/alternative work as well as contextualizing the impact debate to the aff they are debating against.

Performance/Projects - I’ve voted both for and against no plan affs. When I’ve voted against no plan affs on framework, the neg team won that theory outweighed education impacts and the neg neutralized the offense for the aff’s interpretation.

Other Comments
Things that can be a big deal/great tiebreaker for resolving high clash/card war areas of the flow:
- subpointing your warrants/tiebreaking arguments when you are extending,
- weighing qualifications (if you make it an explicit issue),
- comparing warrants/data/methodology,
- establishing criteria I should use to evaluate evidence quality,
- weighing the relative value of different criteria/arguments for evidence quality (ex. recency vs preponderance/quantity of evidence)

If you do none of the above and your opponent does not either, I will be reading lots of evidence and the losing team is going to think that my decision involved a high level of intervention. They will be correct.

Any pronouns, they/she listed - it's complicated, referring to me using feminine descriptors is fine, though any are accepted. I have no strong feelings about my gender.

***Apparently to search my paradigm, you need to type "Sophia Dal" instead of "Sophia Dal Pra" - just a heads up***

Background: Wooster HS '20, Kentucky ex-pat, Now debate at West Georgia, Class of '25

Conflicts: Wooster High School, Reagan High School,

Put me on the email chain - sophiavansickle477@gmail.com

---Updates---

2/1/24 - This is not the high school level of "We'll take the rest as prep" debate. This is the high school level of cross examination debate. Use your time. CX is important to me and your speaks.

1/18/24 - Sending the plan in the email chain is scuffed. Put it in the speech doc.

10/14/23 - My personal style of debate has become a lot more critical. I coach policy teams pretty much exclusively, but I'm way more familiar with the engagement between lit bases in K v. K debates. As always, I love organized, technical debates, but I have no strong preclusions whether I'm in the back of a policy throwdown or a method debate.

2/22/23 - Some things in debate that others may view as non-negotiables (i.e. flowing, speech-times, etc.) are things I lean towards as being so, but I can be persuaded by framing arguments that these are things I should disregard.

---Top Level---

I think that debate is amazing and unique because of the diversity of positions and stances that we can take, from typical substance debate to debates about the rules to debates about debate. I think that debate is a competition at its foundation and that the educational benefits we gain are shaped from its research benefits. I also think that debate as an activity or as an institution is not shielded from critique.

Feel free to ask me about anything below or any thoughts you have in the pre-round!

My RFDs - are scripted as best I can to organize my thoughts. I have pretty bad ADHD and I tend to have a lot of external thoughts about arguments in any given debate, so I do this to stay organized. It's also how I verify that my decision can be delivered in a sensical manner. My decision on any given debate is usually made at a relatively normal pace, but writing out the decision, (and sometime a separate decision for the other team/over another argument in close debates) usually takes me to d-time in elim debates. I will sometimes read them to myself aloud as well for good measure. I would want my judges to care about the decisions in my debates, so this is my way of returning the favor.

General Argument Preferences - I prefer well-crafted strategies over all else. I do have a soft spot for specificity, but I understand when that is not an option because of new affs, team resources, or miscellaneous reasons. Linearly, the more thought you have put into the strategy, the more I will probably like it.

I have found that I am increasingly annoyed by debates that do not have a substantial portion of them dedicated to answering the aff in some way. This does not have to be with a specific strategy; it can be with making the most with what you have. This can be through generic impact defense, deconstructing a poorly-constructed aff, citing 1AC lines when explaining how the K links, creative counterplanning, etc. Policy debate is plan-focused, and your strategy should be to address it, not to empty your box in the least appealing way possible.

This does not mean that I have apprehensions about the amount of offcase that you read. I think that thought can go into a 12-off strategy as much as a no off/only case turns strategy.

Evidence - Evidence comparison is a great way to get me to like you. Recency isn't everything when it comes to ev comparison. Give me author indicts, prodicts, think-tank biases, etc. The best skill that debaters take from debate is the ability to critically process large amounts of information, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that the analysis of the evidences' sources is important to that processing in our day-to-day lives. If you would be embarassed to read the qualifications of an author aloud during a debate, don't include that piece of evidence and find a better one.

Another point of contestation that should make its way into more debates is the way that authors make their arguments, or the way that debaters have highlighted these claims. Is the author making this claim based on one case study or based on a peer-reviewed, time-series cross sectional statistical analysis? Does the card itself not provide any warrants? Is the highlighting of the edvidence not able to lend itself to a claim and a warrant, or even a complete sentence? Point these issues out during your debating.

I believe the highlighting of your evidence should be coherent enough to read as a public speech, and not phrased like Rupi Kaur's new poetry anthology.

You can "insert the re-highlighting" if you need to discuss the quality of your opponents evidence. I think that having debaters re-read bad evidence means that there is a disincentive to do this type of evidence comparison because of the time it takes out of a speech.

I love evidence-based debates and will want a card doc at the end of the debate. My evaluation of these card docs will be in a way in which I feel I have done the least amount of intervention. To me, this means that cards/arguments that are referenced heavily by the debaters in the final rebuttals, even if they aren't by name, will be read and I'll adjust my thoughts on them accordingly. I will assign the meaning to the evidence that the debaters give it, so, for example, if the 1NC has a highlighted link argument within a card on the kritik, and the 2NR doesn't go for that link argument but goes for another claim in the card, I will not evaluate the extraneous link argument as meaning anything. The evidence you read does not give your argument more weight than you gave it. If you read stellar evidence but can't interpret it for me or move your analysis beyond tagline extensions, then I will not rely on the fact that that card is better than your opponent's.

CX is binding, but that doesn't mean you can read evidence in CX or finish cards in CX. There is a reason that CX is denoted as separate from speech time, and I still hold folks to the threshold of bringing those arguments into speeches, which means that you will just be wasting a lot of time.

Even if someone else cut the evidence you are reading, you are responsible for any issues of academic integrity that arise when you read that evidence, even if you weren't aware of the issue beforehand.

This is not to say I will not vote for teams that don't read evidence. I vote for teams that win debates.

Flowing - I only flow what I catch you saying. Please try to recognize communication break-downs and adjust. I will be following along in the speech document as you read, but I want to be able to understand you.

One of the biggest negative impacts of online debate along with a drop in participation is the increasing card-doc-ification of debates. I am not a fan. Make arguments, do line-by-line, know what evidence they read, FLOW THE DEBATE YOURSELF!

ADAPTATION: I have an auditory processing disorder that makes it especially difficult to flow unclear, online speeches. I can flow top speeds and follow along, but you do not understand how big of a difference clarity makes.

I have recently been attempting to learn how to type with more than my pointer fingers, and am a good flow on my computer but still, please don't let that be a substitute for your own communication.

When flowing debates, I will attempt to line up arguments next to each other, and I would appreciate it if line-by-line is clear as to facilitate this. If I can't do this, I will flow straight down and match arguments and their responses together at a later point, though, this may extend my already egregious use of time post-debate to deliberate.

Absent a defense of splitting up speaking times, the partner that is supposed to be speaking in that speech based on their speaker position is the one I will flow. I will not flow arguments that are being fed to another debater by their partner.

Tech and Truth - I am a "tech" judge. The arguments from the debate that make it on my flow and their implications will be compared based on the connections and the argument resolution that debaters have made.

Above all, when technically evaluating arguments, I value the way that debaters have characterized specific arguments rather than relying solely on evidence to make those comparisons or connecting the dots for them. Cross-applications still need explanation as to how they apply to the new argument. Debates are won and lost through small link distinctions, and especially in buzzword-heavy theory debates, this nuance is lost and leaves me in no way ready to vote on them without explanation.

I have a low threshold for "out-teching" stupid arguments. Stupid arguments can have just as stupid responses. However, if an argument is factually incorrect or incomplete, I'll disregard it. This includes, but is not limited to, voting issues without warranted standards and anything that I can easily google.

(Former) Argument Non-Starters

While rewriting my paradigm, I critically thought about my previous argument inhibitions and realized that they were just based on what I thought were accepted community norms, left over from when I created my paradigm when I was first introduced to national circuit debate. That was stupid of me, and I think that I should be able to defend to myself why I completely exclude an argument from evaluation. Other than, obviously, arguments that are on-face violent, I am fair game for any position.

My previous nonstarters that are now on the table include

- Death Good

- Objectivism

- "No perms in a method debate"

There are two arguments that are difficult for me as a judge:

1. A very pessimistically-read "Debate Bad" argument. Without a way to resolve the offense, I am left wondering why this doesn't link to every debater participating in the debate.

2. This is more of a brand of argument than a specific argument, but any personal arguments that I cannot verify within the current debate. This includes previous debates against this team or incidents between the teams. Debate competition is not the best accountability method for interpersonal violence, you should take these issues to tab, coaches, or relevant authorities to resolve it, not me.

All of my dispositions can be overcame through outdebating the other team. There is always the chance that you could be the debater who makes me enjoy judging issues that I once disliked.

---Misc---

If your strategy involve humiliating the other debaters in the round you should strike me. I am fine with passion about arguments and the way that people communicate them, I do not want harm to come in personal attacks against debaters and their unique positionality in debate.

Online Debate - PLEASE BE MORE CLEAR. I cannot stress this enough. In some of the rounds I have judged, I was very close to losing the argumentation to mumbling or a lack of clarity of speech. Start off slower please. I can flow at fast speeds, but high schooler's laptops are usually not the best, so please be as clear as possible.

The timer stops for medical issues and tech issues.

Lay Debate/Non-Circuit Styles - I debated on a semi-lay circuit for my high-school career, so if your debate style is more stock issues, traditional, or slow, go for it! I will not penalize you for sticking with a local style that you have no control over, just know that I am still a "flow" judge. I'm not a lay judge or blind to circuit norms by any means, I just think that it is not a team's fault where they begin debating, and will not penalize a different style that does not match progressive debate norms.

Speaker Points - are based on skill, respectfulness to the judge and your opponents, clarity, roadmapping, and how you execute your strategy. I do not give you higher speaks based on you telling me to. If you ask for speaker points, I will give you the tournament minimum.

Procedural issues always come before substance.

---Topicality---

I like T debates. I especially enjoy T debates where a substantial amount of evidence is read, epecially evidence about caselists and interpretations with intent to define and exclude. Please explain to me your visions of the topic and why that should frame my decision. Impacting out these debates is important. T is always a voting issue. Some things that I think you should focus on:

1. What is the distinction between the interpretation and the counter-interpretation? I find that debaters oftentimes lose the forest for the trees and dive into the violation debates without solidifying what makes each team's views of what should be included in the topic distinct. A great way to do this for me is with caselists, from both teams, prodicting their interpretations and indicting the opposing interpretation.

2. In what way does the aff violate the interpretation? This seems like a basic portion of T debate, but I see so many high school shells being whitled down so much so that the violation doesn't make it in. If the violation is poorly written or non-existent, point that out to me. I have judged way too many T debates where the violation hinges on an assertion from the negative that the aff is not a thing, when they probably are that thing. I give affirmatives the benefit of the doubt when explaining intriciacies of their plan. This is an area where neg T evidence can really help.

---Theory---

I default to rejecting the argument on theory except for conditionality. If you want me to reject the team on anything else, impact out why. I think that you shouldn't rely heavily on blocks in these debates, or at least make those blocks responsive. Impacts to theory should be clear and articulate; the less buzzwords, the better. The offense of your interpretation or your counter-interpretation should be intrinsic to the interpretation/counter-interpretation.

My leanings on conditionality are that it's good, but I'm not opposed to pulling the trigger on condo bad by any means. I think going for conditionality when mishandled by the negative is perfectly viable and more aff teams should do it. I don't necessarily have a lower limit if you want to pull the trigger. As long as your standards are intrinsic to your interpretation, I'm fine with it. I find that the general practice of conditionality can be argued against and potential-abuse based arguments that come along with it are pretty compelling in these debates.

---Case Debate---

Please do more of this, as per my rant above. I seriously love a good case debate. Have good 1NC answers to the advantages and good explanations and clash on the aff, and we'll have a good day. I think that advantages can be beaten by zero risk arguments. I will vote on presumption if the aff has a ridiculous, completely misconstrued scenario with 0% risk of any of it being a thing.

I think that I can vote negative on presumption if a CP has no net benefit but the neg team proves that presumption lies with them.

I prefer framing pages that are specific to the aff. Debate tends to be extremely reductive of ethics and moral philosophy. Conflating consequentialism and utilitarianism, conflating deontology and structural violence, etc. Pointing out discrepancies in a team's framing and the way they view arguments in the debate is very convincing to me, i.e. a team advocating deontology making a consequential claim, etc.

---Impact Turns---

I love impact turn debates. Please be nuanced with the uniqueness question - I need a very good unsustainability argument to weigh against their impact, otherwise I will still give their impact risk.

---Disadvantages---

Please read a full shell in the 1NC. The link is the most important part of the DA, please explain it well. I think the Aff team can beat a DA with zero risk arguments. Please have a reason why it turns the advantages.

---Counterplans---

Neg must prove competition and that the CP is net-beneficial to the aff. I think process CPs are fine, more so if they are topic-relevant. CP and Perm texts should be specific. "Do Both" or others mean nothing unless the aff explains how the perm functions.

Multi-plank CPs should be broken down for me; please explain how each plank functions and solves the advantages. If planks can be kicked, and the CP is egregiously long, then each plank functions as a conditional advocacy

I think that judge kick needs to be flagged in the debate. This can be through saying "judge kick" explicitly or "The status quo is always a logical option", which I take as meaning "judge kick + conditional".

CPs - Novice and JV Debate: Please y'all, you need a net benefit to your CP. I will not vote on a CP that "just solves better". This has happened in almost all of the JV/Novice debates I have judged this year. Please be a stand-out and don't do this.

---Kritiks on the Negative---

Disclaimer: Though the common theme of this section is that you should explain your thing, this is because I am a perfectionist when it comes to how literature is represented, not because I think teams that read kritiks need to break down their stuff more than policy teams. I recognize that teams that read "policy" style arguments get away with the most blippy characterizations of their arguments too often, and this is a practice that I would like to stop in any style of debate I judge. Both teams will be held to the same standard of explanation of any argument. I despise 5-word theory arguments, framework standards, etc. All arguments have to have a claim and a warrant. Explain the link and the impact of the K in the context of the advocacy you are criticizing.

High theory is fine and welcomed, as long as you show you know what you are talking about.

I need a lot of alternative explanation. What is it and how is it distinct from the aff? Does it capture the aff? Why is it mutually exclusive to the aff? Most importantly, how doe the alternative resolve the links to the K? I think a very convincing way the aff can beat the alt is a defense of your method and DAs to the way the alternative explains the case, if at all. Alts should have a consistent text throughout the debate.

I think Ks should have an alternative or something external that resolves the offense (framework, CP with the K as a net benefit, etc.) I don't like evaluating linear DAs based on K impacts and links if the status quo does not resolve the offense.

In K v. K debates, I need the debaters to explain to me the distinction between the methods. What impacts do each of the methods access? What does the perm look like OR Why does the perm ruin the alt? How does the aff's method resolve the K's links?

Debaters should decide for me whether there are perms in a method debate, but I tend to lean neg on this question. See below.

---Framework/T-USFG v. K Affs---

After the first semester on the water topic, I maintain an exactly 50/50 voting record for for or against framework.

I think that the way that most people evaluate fairness impacts writ large is based on personal preconceptions and biases about what it good. I want to make mine as clear as possible here, while also emphasizing that any framework impact to me is fair game. However, the most convincing genre of impacts for me in framework debates are clash, argument refinement, and iterative testing in relation to how they affect advocacy skills.

I like affs that have creative counter-interpretations that include your method and creative impact turns. If you articulate to me why the aff should be included in the topic better than the neg does, you win. This is best done for me through an indict of the neg's interpretation and the research it creates, not by reading a linear DA against debate norms as a whole.

My only caveat is that I believe that there should be limits on the topic of debate, and I think that the aff will always have a more expansive view of the topic (unless only the aff is topical/some explanations I have yet to find convincing). However, placing at least some defined limits on the aff's interpretation mitigates the offense the neg gets and puts me in a good spot to weigh your impacts against however-better limits the neg's interpretation provides.

I don't think that the reading of framework constitutes violence. Arguments that are loose metaphorizations of debate norms to real-world violence are difficult to win in front of me, and I would be keen to vote on arguments from the negative that that metaphorization is bad. However, more nuanced versions of the "policing/exlusion" DA that involve connections to the aff's lit base and academia as a whole and have an impact that is focused more around your research and education are more convincing.

---K Affs (General/K v. K)---

I'm fine with K affs as long as you have both (A) some sort of advocacy statement and (B) a reason why you shouldn't defend this year's topic. This seems intuitive, but in some K debates I have judged, the affirmative is focused more on the community as a whole rather than

I'm not a great judge for K affs that don't have a robust method defense in the 1AC. I think there is a common trend for these types of affs to defend as little as possible in the 1AC and then shift their explanations to defend whatever suits their fancy in the 2AC and beyond after the neg lays down their core offense.

Because of this, I feel as if, in direct opposition to my previous opinions, I am leaning neg on "no perms in a method debate". It is easy for me to buy that the ability for the aff to permute the K incentivizes writing affirmatives with vague theses to eliminate competition, which hurts kritikal clash, education, advocacy, etc. I think that the negative can do a better job convincing me of this when they read literature-specific offense. Aff, you should have a hearty defense of your method. A specific perm text or hearty explanation, coupled with answers to "no perms" should be enough for you to argue and win that "this perm is good and we should get it". Cards for perms are especially helpful when deciding whether you get a perm or not.

Reflected in the the update above, I find myself spending more and more time reading K literature in my free time. I am familiar with the basics of many areas and their key authors, and I have done some assistant coaching for teams that primarily read kritkal positions, but am not an expert on the latest stuff. Therefore, while I would love to judge more of these debates, I understand that I may not be the best for you in terms of pre-existing knowledge.

Performance - Fine with it as long as it's educationally appropriate.

---Lincoln Douglas---

Judging LD is something I don't commonly do, but you can translate a lot of the above here.

ATTN: My standard for what is a complete argument is high for current norms in LD. Claim, Warrant, Implication. Make less arguments and use that time to make better quality arguments.

I am best for policy debates, quality T/Theory debates, and Policy v. K debates.

I am fine for K v. K debates, and my reading and debate style has put me in way more of these than in the past.

I am less ok for dense phil. I need a lot of explanation and impacting.

I am not good for frivolous theory or tricks.

---Bottom Level---

Behavior - Being rude/obnoxious gets speaks taken away.

Please be humble and considerate if you win and patient if you lose. As long as I'm in the room, no comments should be made about the skill of your opponents or their knowledge on certain subjects. Post-rounding is welcomed until it crosses the line from picking my brain to being angry at me for not seeing that you are so obviously right. If you have a habit of post-rounding aggressively, break it. I have PTSD and will not spare a second going to tab if you react in a way that may trigger an anxiety attack.

I will intervene and stop a round if I think that there is violence, physical or verbal, that endangers those participating in that round. Those who perpetuate the violence will receive an instant loss, 0 speaks, and coaches will be contacted. I will fight tab to give you 0 speaks or have you ejected.

Evidence Ethics Violations - Clipping, Paraphrasing without reading the evidence, and cutting evidence out of context is what I define as academic dishonesty. Academic dishonesty mean an instant loss and I will award you the lowest amount of speaks that the tournament allows.

I understand the novelty of the activity for novices, but I hold JV and Varsity debaters to the standard of being able to properly read a card.

To quote Ryan McFarland, “Clipping is cheating no matter the intent."

Peninsula Debate 2019-2021

Damien Debate 2021-2022

Top Level Stuff

Tech>Truth but truth doesn't hurt.

Offense/defense - zero risk only exists for theory.

An argument without warrants isn't an argument.

Dropped warrants are true - you still need some explanation to extend them though.

Neg on theory - infinite condo's good, judge kick, etc. Sole exception here is that while perf con obviously isn't a voter, I become very skeptical of certain "epistemology first/reps first" K framework arguments.

Inserts are fine.

Fairness is an impact.

Bias/Ideological Leanings

I'm a lot better for Ks v policy affs than I was a year ago, as they have become my most common 2NR. I especially have a soft spot for psychoanalysis as a security K. I don't have a predisposed opinion on framework (on the aff or neg) that can't be reversed with good debating (if you win that I shouldn't weigh the aff then I shouldn't weigh the aff, and vice versa).

Nevertheless, I always love and am familiar with classic policy arguments.

I'm probably not great for you if you read a K Aff, even simply on a level of familiarity, although I will do my best to adjudicate without bias.

Novice Notes

Try to only use word documents.

Don't say a count down before speeches.

Give an order of what FLOWS you'll be going to (ie "Case in the order of advantage one, then two. The X CP. The X DA").

UK, Peninsula

Email

---add: jordandi505@gmail.com, griffithd2002@gmail.com

---forward complaints to: debateoprf@gmail.com

---email title should include relevant information, such as the tournaments, teams, and round.

TLDR

---this is the only section that matters.

---I will flow and decide the debate accordingly. Any preferences can be overridden by technical execution and judge instruction. If I am left to my own devices on particular arguments, I am usually tempted to arrive at the most “reasonable” conclusion.

---as I am flowing and I don’t enjoy suffering, I will flow straight down. While I am a good flow, I am prone to miss things. Debate is a communicative activity and it’s on debaters to make themselves more comprehensible. That doesn’t necessarily mean you must slow down. Rather, there are several other things to do to be more clear: separate analytics with carded arguments, use numbers, differentiate using tone, and frontload argument labels.

---I am incredibly malleable. That means judge instruction and “framing” are important to how I make decisions. This also means debaters should utilize this early and often to hash out my rubric for deciding. The range of possibilities are vast but include anything from impact calculus to inserting a re-highlighting to the direction of presumption. I would much rather debaters hash these out rather than be left to my own rather weak defaults. I find myself diverging from other judges usually when I am given a set of arguments with little instruction for how to evaluate them. I assure you, extending argument #10 is less relevant than explaining the implications of #1-9. Debate becomes entirely untenable if I insert my own thoughts and opinions into certain arguments where debaters have explained it in a particular way. For example, if a team explains the link as “perception-based” and that premise is uncontested by the other team, I do not care if the aforementioned team’s evidence actually speaks to this frame or not.

---I don’t know what constitutes a “good” or “bad” argument. All I know is technical and warranted debating, usually with evidence to support it. That being said, I prefer you to read all the evidence.

---I will ask if I want a card doc, but you should assemble one under the presumption I will want one. Evidence should be formatted neatly, using verbatim, and organized coherently. This is true of both the card doc as well as every speech that features evidence.

---I want to adjudicate the round in front of me. Anything that affects my ballot is ideally confined to the start of the 1AC through the end of the 2AR. I have literally zero interest in anything extraneous to that.

---I got rid of the long section about evaluation mainly since it’s now entirely above for the most part.

Other Thoughts

---the topic: I have done quite a lot of topic research and have a better than average understanding of economics. T arguments generally seem bad, but I am quite open to an appeal to limits. What is with all this process garbage when you have the Econ DA. Like, I am pretty good for process stuff, but like the Econ DA exists.

---planless AFFs: specificity is preferable to vagueness, debate is a game could be more, but it certainly is that, AFF offense should hopefully be intrinsic to the process of debate, and K v. K debates are something I think about a lot. My familiarity with your arguments and/or literature is higher than what may be expected.

---DA: K of impacts is better than "probability first" and politics DA is good.

--CP: sufficiency framing is intuitive, judge kick good, condo good, most theory should be perm justifications, and am generally pretty NEG on most theoretical arguments. I am fine for CP competition debates, but prefer the distinction be drawn as early and clearly as possible.

---K: it should either be a DA or framing the AFF out of the debate, specificity is good, framework interps should be mutually exclusive or don't matter, I don't care fiat isn't real. Research about the K is incredibly interesting to me and I want to reward it. Demonstrating a commitment to researching topic- and AFF-specific literature and applying it as such is something that I enjoy.

---T: yes competing interps unless ridiculous, predictable limits are good, more cards are good, definitions of words are good, and internal link debating is good. A note for clarity is I can be pretty good for limits. I'm not as much in the camp of "small difference in predictability outweighs big limits DA" as people I think I am associated with.

---conditionality: since this is increasingly popular and because I've recently had to think about this a lot due to a lousy 2N I know making me answer condo, I decided to put some random thoughts here about it. These will be thoughts for the NEG just because I don't have many interesting thoughts for the AFF other than maybe that these will be the most important things for you to grapple with. Things I am good for the NEG about:

· Theory is usually "cowardice," as per the sentiment of said lousy 2N. I have yet to see a 1NC where I thought the 2A's job was so difficult that it would be impossible to substantively respond. For example, you don't NEED an 8 subpoint response with 5 cards to answer the Constitutional Convention CP. The flip side of this for the AFF is either establishing a clear and consistent violation from the 2AC onward or focusing on the "model" of debate to override my presumption that maybe this 1NC wasn't too bad.

· NEG flex is great. Two sets of arguments are persuasive to me here. First, side bias. 2AR is certainly easier than the 2NR. I am unsure about "infinite prep," but I am persuaded that AFFs typically can answer most NEG arguments thematically. For example, having a good "certainty key" or "binding key" warrant addresses a whole swath of potential CPs. Second, the topic. Teams that appeal to the nature of the topic (honestly for either side) are persuasive to me. For example, the idea that appeals to "specificity" allows the AFF to murder core generics is one I find persuasive.

· The diminishing utility of conditionality seems true to me. Appeals to "infinite condo" allowing the nth degree of advocacies is something I am presumptively skeptical about. There are only so many arguments in the NEG box that disagree with the 1AC in different ways. Take what I said about being able to answer arguments thematically to apply here. In addition, for the NEG to accomplish such a massive proliferation, arguments tend to be incomplete. Again, this was talked about above.

· "Dispo" is a bit ridiculous. The 2AC must define it (the NEG needs to implicate this still). After some tinkering, I unironically began searching for a definition of "dispo." Everything I found either defines it differently from each other or from the way it has been defined in most debates I have judged. Therefore, I can be easily convinced the phrase "dispo solves" by itself does not constitute a complete argument. The only other thought I have other than the "plank + process spam" stuff (which I like) is that I can be persuaded "dispo" would mostly only ever allow one advocacy. It now seems intuitive to me that absent 1NC construction that made sure every DA was a net benefit to every CP, the 2A could force the NEG to have to extend everything but since one links to the net benefit, it would be impossible to vote NEG.

· This is more of a random quibble that I think can be used to frame a defense of conditionality. It seems logical to me that the ability of the AFF to extend both conditionality and substance in the 1AR, forcing the 2NR to cover both in a manner to answer inevitable 2AR shenanigans (especially nowadays) is the same logic criticized by "condo bad" as the 2AR can pick and choose with no cost. It seems worse in this case given the NEG does not have a 3NR to refute the 2AR in this scenario. This is a firm view, but it seems much easier to me for the 2AR to answer the fourth mediocre CP in the 1NC (like uncooperative federalism lol) than for the 2NR to answer the 5-minute condo bad 2AR that stemmed from a 45-second 1AR.

---death good: a quick note since I have had to think about this recently. I won't vote for anything endorsing self-harm or violence against anyone in the debate. That is different than arguments like spark/wipeout, the "death k," death good, or some revolutionary praxis (for example, Huey Newton). I think the line is generally a difference between arguments about the people within the debate vs actual academic controversy.

---evidence ethics or anything else in a similar vein should typically be debated. That's what I prefer but if there is a clear violation consistent with tournament policy, the onus is on the debaters to direct me to stop the round and address it.

---"Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone uses gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is entirely up to me." – Truf.

My introduction to debate started in College 2014 -2018 British Parliamentary. I taught BP debate at the College Of Staten Island Summer 2019.

I am not a Policy Debater. I do coach for SA middle school policy debate.

I will vote on framework if you tell me to vote on framework. I will vote on the stock issues if you tell me to vote on stock issues. I will not read evidence unless their is an issue of specific cards being read. I only flow what is said in your speech.

I am a huge fan of voters. Tell me exactly what you want me to know, the ROB and ROJ.

Overview and Relevant Experience: I debated in the previous century, both in high school (Topeka High, Kansas) and college (University of Louisville [NDT]). I also coached at the high school level (as a volunteer, also in the previous century) and spent my fair share of time working summer camps and even contributed to handbooks (now antique collectibles). I was away from debate (directly) for two decades on either side of the century mark but stayed connected on the periphery in a number of ways. In the real world, I run an investment firm that I founded nearly 20 years ago with a focus on energy and real estate. I resurfaced in the debate world in Georgia (some might say, with fright, “He’s Back. . .”), as my children are of debate age. I’m excited to reengage.

Debate is the most important academic pursuit of both my high school and college years. I believe that policy debate – and the skills learned as a participant – is almost singularly responsible for my success in life as an investor, a company leader and nearly everything else I have accomplished. Likewise, I believe interscholastic debate remains a key predictive element of success for middle school, high school and college students.

Macro Views: While no mid-50s human can be free of preconceived ideas or bias, I will do my best to listen to each debate round with an open mind and without a predetermined construct to critique the round. While I am most comfortable evaluating competing policies, I do not – by definition – consider myself to be constrained inside a policy making paradigm.

At the end of the day, my role is to determine who performed better in the debate and “won” the preponderance of the arguments based on the rhetoric in the round. It is important to note that, for me, debate – whether policy, forum or some other permutation – is an exercise in advocacy, rhetoric and persuasion.

While speed is fine (it is unlikely that you can clearly talk faster than I can flow), speed at the expense of clarity is not. While I am not opposed to reading evidence during or after a round, I shouldn’t have to (and probably won’t) if it is for the sole purpose of making sense out of a constructive or rebuttal that sounded more like a piston engine at a race track than intelligent syllables from a smart advocate. Breathe, intonate and inflect in a way that makes it easier and more fun for all of us. (I may or may not ask to be added to the email chain. . .the important point being I should not need to be added to the chain to help me decide the debate). I may feel compelled during a round to suggest that a speaker be more CLEAR. . .however, I may also simply “look confused” which should be visual cue enough to result in an adjustment.

Individual points are the result of a lot of the above as well as the perceived credibility and “debate IQ” of each speaker. While I may range lower for egregious violations of decorum, ethos or real futility related to extra-debate issues, 27 is about as low as I go and, generally, well presented effort gets you a point above that. 29 and 30 are reserved for excellence and exceptionalism that I know when I see it. Clash, argument resolution in rebuttals, exceptional “spin and explanation”, a “good story”, humor and creating a debate environment that is enjoyable are all important considerations in the speaker point calculus.

One a priori consideration. . .we live in a world with more than enough incivility. While debate is meant to be a critical evaluation of competing arguments, such a construct can occur in an environment of mutual respect and individual honor. Argumentative aggression is fine; personal aggression and disrespect are not.

Idiosyncrasies

Stock Issues/Prima Facie Burdens: Generally speaking, these issues work themselves out in the course of a debate round, however (as a relic, previous century debater), they do resonate with me. Affirmative has to justify the resolution which presumptively requires (absent compelling theoretical arguments to the contrary) the affirmative to successfully defend a topical example of the resolution. That is, the affirmative should be topical and topicality is (presumptively, but not absolutely) a voting issue. I will listen to topicality debates, especially those that are well developed with both definitions and standards. (Hint: The best topicality arguments clearly explain how definitions are linked to standards and the standards are well defined and supported). Generally speaking, topicality is a jurisdictional question. Arguments as to why that should or should not be the case are welcome.

At the beginning of every debate, I enter the room with an understanding that the affirmative must justify an example of the resolution with an advantage over the status quo and presumption rests with the negative team. Those “understandings” can be challenged and debated during the round as long as it is understood that relaxing or abandoning long-standing tenets of the activity require compelling reasoning.

As an important aside, clash is a highly underrated and oft-forgotten debate concept. I love a great case debate (aka line-by-line) , especially one that "extends" (pun intended) into rebuttals. In addition, new arguments in second-constructives are fine (you are still constructing, after all).

Conditionality/Hypothesis Testing and Other Variable Strategies: Fine, as long as you understand and explain the theory justifying the position and are ready to argue the theory when challenged. Good theory debates are just as important as good policy debates. While I listen to “voting issue” arguments, absolutes can be difficult to prove and fairness would generally dictate that if you can win a round on a “single” argument, the opposite could be argued successfully.

Counterplans: Absent a compelling reason otherwise, they should be intrinsically competitive and offer a non-topical alternative to the resolution. Those offering the counterplan generally have a burden to show the proposed alternative is exclusively superior to a combination of the affirmative’s example of the resolution and the counterplan alternative (e.g. permutations). As noted herein, theory discussions are welcome but they must be well developed and those proposing the alternative must have command of the concept and principles.

Kritik/Critique: Fine with all of the understandings above. If you are going to advocate a position, you should be prepared to advocate the position competently, including the substantive nature of the position as well as the process/theoretical implications of the argument in the debate.

At the end of the round, I am looking for the team with the best “Debate IQ” which is a combination of superior argumentation, creativity and ethos. The roadmap will be unique in each round but the destination will always be the same.

Final Notes: As noted earlier, I am here because of my love for the activity and belief in the critical importance of debate’s integral role in education and maturation of our children. My goal is to be objective and to vote for the best debate team in each round (with every round being an independent event). I also believe strongly in post-round interaction and critique and will answer any fair and objective question following a round. (If you don’t want your teams to exposed to post-round discussions, please strike me).

My final words: Civility matters. Be kind to your opponents, your coaches, your judges, your partners (and especially your parents). . .to everyone in this community. And, have fun. . .Most importantly, have fun!

Email: cedmonds@enerecap.com

Preferred Name “Nae” pls and thx :)

6 bids to the TOC senior year

3x NDT First Round

For Email Chains: edwardsnevan@gmail.com

College Paradigm:

Do what you want and I will vote for who wins I care very little what anyone at this level reads as long as isn't blatantly racist, sexist, homphobic, etc. Just do you the best you can.

HS Paradigm w/ some edits:

I am a young judge and I am still figuring out my ideas about debate so this paradigm will be an image of what I currently think about the activity. My favorite Judges: Shree Asware, DB, DSRB, Eli Smith, Rosie Valdez, Nicholas Brady, Sheryl Kaczmerick. Here's a list of what I think about certain arguments/ideas.

TLDR: I don't care about what you do just do it well. I can judge the 7 off CP/DA debate or the straight up clash debate. I'm down with speed but will yell "clear" if you're just mumbling. GLHF.

BTW: I make decisions quick it isn't a reflection of y'all I just think debates are usually pretty clear for me. I also have noticed I make a lot of faces and am pretty transparent about how I feel about stuff....take that as you wish.

Tech = Truth- i do believe technical debate is incredibly important to keep the flow ordered and to stop judge intervention BUT only if you are winning the meta-framing of the debate that makes your technical arguments true under your vision of the world. I'm also willing to throw the flow out the debate if compelling arguments are made by the debaters that it's a bad model for how I adjudicate. WARNING: This means you need to have a clear way for me to evaluate the debate absent the flow or I will default to it ie "flow bad" isn't enough.

Theory = Needs an interp not just xx is bad vote them down, but I'm always down to judge a theory debate.

DA- They're fine. I'm capable with judging them and have no problem keeping up with normative policy debate. I enjoy impact turns and I think the most important part of this debate is the impact calc/impact framing. I need reasons why your impact comes first and how it interacts with the other team's impacts. If you're both going for an extinction claim you need to win the probability and timeframe debate with some good evidence.

CP- I enjoy the theory debates here and I think they are important to set precedents for what debate should look like. I lean slightly aff on theory but I think I lean more neg against the permutation if it's well debated out. I think the affirmatives's best bet in front of me is to take out the net benefit unless the CP is just not competitive with the aff. NO JUDGE KICKING THE COUNTERPLAN NO NO NO EITHER GO FOR IT OR DON'T PLS AND THANKS.

K's- this is what I do and i'm most familiar with but this is a double edged sword because it means i expect you to be on point about how you articulate these arguments. Specific links are killer, but generic links applied directly to the aff are just as powerful when warranted. You can kick the alt and go for presumption but that usually requires you winning a heavy impact framing claim. Do your thing and make it interesting debate with your ideas and don't read me your generic Cap blocks (i do enjoy a good cap k though) that have nothing to do with what's going on in the debate. MORE EXAMPLES PLEASE!!!!

K AFF's- non-traditional affirmatives are also my bread and butter. I love how creative these affs can be and the educational benefit that these affs show. Be passionate and care about what you're doing and use your 1AC as a weapon against every negative strategy to garner offense as well as the permutation. Go for nuanced framing arguments and don't be scared of an impact turn. Having Roberto as my partner and Amber Kelsie/Taylor Brough as my coaches has forced me to learn a lot more high theory and I actually enjoy it if done right just know what you're talking about or I will be sad. :(

T - I actually like T against policy aff's a lot if you're gonna normatively affirm the topic you better do it right ;).

FW- this is where I feel like I get pathologized a lot on how I feel. The summer before my senior year my partner and I went for straight-up framework every round with fairness and limits arguments. I think this position run correctly combined with nuanced case engagement with the aff is actually a fantastic argument especially against aff's with weak topic links. I think arguments like dialogue, truth-testing, institutional engagement > fairness, limits, ground BECAUSE the latter group of impacts end up being internal links to the prior. There's a TVA to almost everything so get creative, but TVA with a card that applies to the aff is a killer. If you're aff in these debates you should either impact turn everything or have a model of debate with some clear aff and neg ground. There are a bunch of ways to debate framework but having offense is the key to winning any of those strategies. ALSO DON'T FORGET THE AFF. YOU WROTE IT FOR A REASON EXTEND IT EVERYWHERE.

SIDE NOTE: All pettiness and shade is invited if you make me laugh or throw a quick jab of quirky shade at the other team I will probably up your speaks. If you make fun of Roberto (my partner) I will up your speaks. Also, Naruto/Bleach/My Hero Academia references will be rewarded.

OTHER SIDE NOTE: I grow increasingly tired of people yelling at eachother in CX and the trend of white cis-men constantly interrupting and talking over black folk/poc/women/queer/trans folk. If you do this I will probably be less inclined to care about whatever you say in CX and I may slightly punish your speaks.

Anything racist, homophobic, sexist, etc. will cause me to stop the round and move on with my life

Everything is a performance.You can hmu on my email at the top for any questions. Good Luck!

- Josh (he/him)

I'm a former national circuit high school debater from the mid-1990's, but since that time I have not had much in-round debate experience until the 2020-2021 season.

My general approach is to assess the round based solely on the arguments presented by the debaters, with as little intervention by me as possible, and where tech dominates truth. The remainder of this paradigm should be viewed in that light -- that is, it's a heads up on my general perspectives on debate that may or may not be helpful to you, but if we're all doing our jobs well, my perspectives shouldn't really matter and shouldn't enter into the RFD.

The specifics below are really intended to highlight a handful of areas where my own views or capabilities may differ from other judges.

********

Flowing / speed / clarity: I flow on paper. Please don't start your speech until you've given a roadmap, and until it's clear that I'm ready.

If you're an experienced high school debater, please know that my ear for speed is not quite what it used to be. I would suggest going a little bit slower everywhere except the body of cards. (That said, I do pay attention to what is read in the body of cards, and only consider a card to be evidenced to the extent that it is actually read in the round.) You certainly don't need to be at normal-person conversational speed, but taking 20-30% of your speed off would probably be helpful to you.

Please include some sort of unambiguous verbal indicator at the end of a card and before the following tag. A very brief pause is a start. A simple and clear "Next" is better. While it may be old-school, and very slightly inefficient, I'm still partial to some sort of number or letter in early constructives, particularly because numbers and letters allow for easier signposting in the line-by-line in later speeches. (Though, I also tend to hate 1-a-b-c, 2-a-b-c, etc., unless the sub-structure is highly related to itself, e.g., CP theory.)

There's an extent to which line-by-line seems to be a lost art, as does flowing. To an extent, I'll try to do the work for you and see if a given argument has in fact been dropped, but the best way to ensure that my flow has you covering everything is to signpost everything, and respond / extend in the order of the original line-by-line, i.e., the 1NC on-case and the 2AC off-case.

Please include me on the email chain -- I'll provide my email address before the round. In middle school and high school novice, my standard policy is to *not* follow along in the file, and I won't read cards unless I need to do so at the end of the round in order to assess some question of evidence. At the high school JV and Varsity levels, I'm more willing to follow along in the speech doc in order to do my part to adapt to you. But, I still expect clarity, signposting, and modulating speed on tags and cites.

Also, particularly at the high school JV / Varsity levels, I would strongly advise against reeling off multiple blippy analytics in the course of several seconds. If you do so, then if you're lucky, I will get one out of every four arguments on my flow, and it may not be the one you want the most. If there's a round-winning argument that you need me to understand, best to explain it thoroughly rather than assume I will understand the argument based on just a handful of words. This is all the more true if your delivery relies excessively on debate jargon or short-hand, some of which I can guarantee I'm not yet familiar with. (As an example, in a recent round, it took me a minute to infer that "a-spec", which I hadn't previously heard of, was just short-hand for "agent specification", with which I'm fairly familiar.) Please trust that I'm doing my level best, and that I'll be able to follow you when you're explaining things reasonably well.

In the end, if it's not on my flow, I can't assess it as part of the round, even if it's in your doc.

Kritiks: I have no principled opposition to voting on kritiks. This includes kritiks on the Aff. I do think Aff has the burden of proof to win definitively that they do not or should not need to have a topical plan. That is a burden that I have seen overcome, though the more of these rounds I see, the tougher this sell becomes for me. Regardless, in the end this is a question that I'll resolve based on the flow.

I'm arguably not clever enough to understand many kritiks -- I dropped the philosophy major because I couldn't hack it, and became a physics/math major instead -- so persuading me to vote on the basis of a kritik may require a fair bit more explanation than you would typically offer. I will take no shame in telling you that I straight up didn't understand your argument and couldn't vote on it as a result. This most likely occurs if you overly rely on philosophical jargon. If anything, my lack of experience relative to other judges in this particular debate subspace probably provides a natural check on teams reading arguments that they don't understand themselves. I'll posit that if you can't explain your argument in reasonably simple terms, then you probably don't understand it, and shouldn't win on it.

I'll say as well that I've judged a number of K teams that seem to rely heavily on blocks that have been prepared fully in advance, or maybe very slightly tweaked from what's been prepared in advance, with little attempt to actually engage with the other side. First, I find these speeches pretty tough to flow, since they're often extremely dense in content with little attempt to engage with their audience. Second, I happen to think this over-reliance on advance-prepared speeches is rather horrible for the educational value of the activity. It pretty severely undermines the "K debates are better for education" argument, and it also acts as a fairly real-time demonstration of the "link" on "K debates are bad for clash". I'm likely to be highly sympathetic to an opposing side that has any reasonable degree of superior technical execution when K teams engage in this practice.

It might be worth you knowing that K's were not really a thing yet back when I was debating. Or rather, they were just in their infancy (particularly in high school), rarely run, and/or they were uniformly terrible arguments that I don't think are run much anymore (e.g., Normativity, Objectivism, Foucault, Heidegger). Teams argued the theoretical legitimacy of the Kritik, and whether or not they should be evaluated as part of the ballot, but these arguments weren't unified under a notion of "Framework". Alt's definitely weren't a thing, nor were Kritiks on the Aff at the high school level.

Disads: I've quickly grown wary of Neg's claiming that their disad "turns case". There's a crucial difference between a disad "turning case" (i.e., your disad somehow results in the Aff no longer accessing their own impact, and in fact, causing their own impact) and "outweighing case" (i.e., your disad simply has a shorter timeframe, higher probability, or greater magnitude than the case). I've become increasingly convinced that Neg's are simply asserting -- unwarranted both in fact and in claim -- that their disad "turns case" in the hopes of duping the judge into essentially making the disad a litmus test for the ballot. If your disad legitimately turns the case, then that's awesome -- make the argument. However I think bona fide claims of "turning case" occur far less often than Neg's want us to believe. In the end, this is not much more than a pet peeve, but a pet peeve nonetheless.

CP's: Counterplans need a solvency claim/warrant, but not necessarily a solvency advocate, per se. That is, if the CP's solvency is a logical extension of the Aff's solvency mechanism, no solvency evidence should be required.

Theory / Ethics / General Behavior: I tend to be more sympathetic to teams launching legitimate, well-reasoned, and thoroughly-explained theory arguments than it seems many more modern judges may be, up to and including "reject the team, not the argument".

When it comes to ethics and general in-round behavior, it seems that many paradigms contain a whole host of info on what judges think debate “should” be, how debaters “should” act, and/or the judge’s perceived level of fairness of certain tactics.

My own paradigm used to contain similar info, but I’ve since removed it. Why? Because I think including such info creates a moral hazard of sorts. Debaters that are predisposed to behave in certain ways or deploy certain tactics will simply not do those things in front of judges that call them out in their paradigms, and then go right back to engaging in those behaviors or deploying those tactics in front of judges that don’t. To the extent that judges view themselves at least in part as guardrails on acceptable behavior and/or tactics, it seems to me that a better approach to rooting out negativity might be to put the onus on debaters to be considerate, ethical, and reasonable in deployment of their strategies and tactics – and then, if they aren’t, to mete out appropriate consequences. I do not feel obligated to state ex-ante that “X behavior is an auto-loss” if reasonable judges would conclude similarly and respond accordingly.

Don't worry: I'm not looking to be arbitrary and unreasonable in exercising judicial discretion, nor am I looking to insert my own opinions when teams engage in behavior that's debatably unfair, but goes uncontested by the other side. Just be thoughtful. It’s great to play hard. But if your tactics are questionably fair or bad for debate, be prepared to defend them, or reconsider their use. If the other side is deploying tactics that are questionably fair or bad for debate, make the argument, up to and including “reject the team”. I will evaluate such arguments and their implications based on the flow.

******

With all of that said, I consider myself to be in the midst of getting back up to speed in the modern norms and conventions of our activity, particularly at the high school Varsity level. I'm more than willing to be convinced that I should rethink any and all of the above, whether as part of an in-round debate or out-of-round conversation.

Email: arjun2garg@gmail.com

Dougherty Valley High School 2021

General

- tech > truth

- compiling the doc is prep, flashing is not

- arguments (even dropped ones) must have a claim, warrant, and impact

- won't vote for arguments I don't understand

- CX is binding

- if online, locally record speeches in case of a tech problem

Evidence

- citations should be complete and ideally include author qualifications

- don't use brackets except for offensive language or to expand numbers

- strongly dislike cards written specifically for debate (by former debaters, coaches, etc.)

- an evidence ethics violation (clipping, missing paragraphs/ellipses, starting or stopping in the middle of a paragraph, or mis-cited evidence) with proof is a stake the round issue and L 20 for whoever is wrong

Disadvantages

- went for these almost every round

- good impact calculus decides these debates

- should concede defense to properly kick

Counterplans

- love smart and creative counterplans so please read them

- ideally should include how it solves the aff in the 1NC in LD (either with a solvency advocate or analytically)

- competition arguments > theory

- default judge kick

Theory

- default reasonability

- counterplan theory is usually only a reason to drop the argument

- disclosure is good, but the more trivial the interp the harder to win

- RVIs are bad, but you should answer them

- if the 2NR is all in on theory the 2AR does not need to extend case

Topicality

- really enjoy these debates

- weighing is essential

- standards should be filtered through predictability

- evidence comparison is underutilized

- "semantics first" is unpersuasive

Kritiks

- good K debate is rare—its often just buzzwords and under-explained nonsense

- links should be specific to the aff, ideally to the plan

- am persuaded by particularity

- usually don't understand how the alt works or solves

- the aff should probably get to weigh the case

K affs

- would prefer if you defend the topic, but will vote for it if won

- the neg should answer the case, even if going for T

- TVAs are strategic, but not necessary

- neg strategies like impact turns/DAs are pretty epic

- am not a good judge for K v K debate

Philosophy

- default util

- should thoroughly explain your syllogism

- modesty is persuasive

Misc

- having the email chain set up early will result in high speaks

- clarifying questions outside of CX or prep will result in lower speaks

Cypress Bay '20 | Georgetown '24

Put me on the email chain: Gavsie.joshua@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff:

I did policy debate in HS and I'm currently competing at Georgetown.

Do whatever you want. I'm as happy to judge a K v K debate as I am a nuanced CP/DA debate. This round is for you all, not me. Most of my opinions about the activity can be overcome by good debating so just be smart and you can probably win my ballot.

That being said, there are obviously the standard non-negotiables. For example, "racism good" or anything else of the sort gets you an L with 0 speaker points. I feel like shouldn't have to say much more here just please don't be a bad person.

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny.

A significant amount of the following stuff is taken from Tessa Harper. I think they articulated their thoughts on this stuff really well and it mirrors how I feel about these issues.

How I Evaluate Debates:

I'll evaluate arguments as per the execution on the line-by-line unless told otherwise. Dropped arguments are true but that doesn't mean it's the best argument or the winning one. Explain why concessions matter and why they should frame my ballot.

I'll have the speech doc open but I'll be following YOU so please be clear (especially in online debate)!! I'll be looking at cards if I really need to or if specific pieces of evidence are flagged.

Clash Debates:

- I'll vote for framework but it's not an excuse to not engage with the affirmative. Negative teams that fail to do this usually sound like block-reading robots and will not fare super well in these debates unless they grapple with specific parts of aff offense.

- That being said, there is a difference between T and framework. If you want to take the aff up on some other part of the topicality debate outside of focus on the USFG, I'm definitely down for that.

- Critical affs should probably have a model of debate. This means that impact turns to T should be coupled with a good counter-intepretation and that the aff should counter-define words in the 2AC. A 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards.

- Examples/history matter a lot and will influence how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make the arg far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

- TVAs are usually not super important to me. At best, they're fine defensive arguments but not what you really need to be winning in these debates to get my ballot.

- Critical affs should ideally have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be more persuaded by T against affs that don't do or say anything about water than I will be against teams that read an affirmative which answers a core question of the topic.

- K's v policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I also enjoy in-depth link and alt work. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out, even if it is a useful trick. These are the kind of debates I'm the most well versed in if that's something that's important to y'all.

K v K debates:

- These debates can be a lot of fun to watch - if both sides demonstrate a good understanding and application of the literature they're reading I'll be very satisfied.

- I like critical affs that defend material praxis. Advocating for grounded praxis will always get me interested in a debate. Don't let this mean you abandon theory -- theory is extremely important for controlling the direction of politics, subject formation, praxis, etc. but when I have a soft spot for critical affs that are able to combine theory with praxis. (See above about using history.)

CPs:

- Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

- I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

- PICs -- I like these. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory.

DAs:

- Specific DAs are always good but politics can be good too and get the job done when debated well

- The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

- 2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically are cool

Topicality:

- Not super familiar with the T norms on the water topic - do with that what you will

- I do really enjoy T debates - creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

- Precise and predictable limits are good!

- Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

- Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed - you should control this framing.

- I default to competing interps but reasonability arguments paired with a strong push on arbitrariness/precision can be persuasive.

Pet Peeves in no particular order:

- Not flowing speeches. There shouldn't be a minute and a half of figuring out what cards were skipped before cross-ex. (Especially in varsity debates lol like cmon pay attention)

- Bastardizing revolutionary history and/or reading ev written by reactionaries will lower your ethos and speaker points - there are so many better ways to debate the cap K than reading imperialist propaganda about communism. Please do better.

- Don't call me "judge." Josh is fine.

- Profoundly untopical policy affs written only to beat critical teams but never to be read against policy teams (ehem, "sabotage")

- Being mean for no reason in cross ex.

- Reading the cap K as a root cause/state good double whammy, rather than, ya know, a real argument.

LD Things

Everything above still applies but it’s worth noting that I think tricks/friv theory is an absurd form of argumentation. If this happens to be your thing, strike me and move on. If you primarily read anything else, I’m probably a fine judge for whatever you want to do lol.

I’m not super familiar with the heavy philosophical aspects of LD but am not unwilling to vote for it, I just may require a higher threshold for explanation in these debates.

PF Things

My background is in policy debate but I'm familiar with the structure and style of PF rounds. That being said, I'm really not trying to watch kids in PF attempt to spread through their case and adapt to me in a way that is clearly not their preferred style of debating. What this does mean is that I have a higher standard for evidence comparison, line by line, and actually answering arguments. If you do these things, you're in a good spot. If you don't, you will likely lose. Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

ALSO, the evidentiary standards in this activity are wild. If someone calls for a card and it takes you five minutes to send out a link to a 60-page PDF, I will not be terribly happy. Please actually cut cards and have them readily accessible in the debate.

Oak Hall '24

(he/them)

add me to chain- aneeshgogineni0@gmail.com

I think that debate is an educational activity where students gain knowledge and skills which will be important for the rest of their lives. With that being said, just do what you do best or are most comfortable with. Please do not choose to read a different argument because of what my paradigm says. I don't care what you read as long as it does not condone violence against people which would include arguments like death good, racism good, etc.

MS TOC Update

If you use an email chain effectively for the entire debate and only use MS Word to send documents, your speaks start at 28.5 No Joke

Old paradigm

Truth=Tech- I'll vote off of the flow, but tech is determined by truth, not vice versa.

I'm fine with speed, but coherency is necessary. I hate listening to speeches that are unclear, and I probably won't flow if I can't understand you.

For prefs

I'm cool with every single argument as long as it is morally acceptable. Morally unacceptable would look like death good, racism good, etc.

Specific things-

CX wins debates - I do pay attention

K's -- Love the K. Personally, I like the K side of debate more. Cap K is my favorite and people must understand that in every K debate, the link debate is the most important aspect and the root cause debate doesn't really matter. Even in cap debates, the root cause debate is arbitrary if the link debate is not won. Contextual links are important. Do not read long 2nc blocks that aren't contextual to the aff. Regardless of whether I have or not, do not assume that I have read the literature and explain the K as if your theory of power is foreign to me.

IF you are reading some sort of critical literature, I would like to see an actual understanding of it (hopefully much better than mine if its some obscure theory).

K affs -- K affs are really cool especially because most of them are really well thought out and cut. I've read them and I encourage others to read them. With that being said, I will vote on T-framework, but I definitely buy the T side more than the framework side. In other words, I have a very higher threshold to vote for arguments that argue that K affs must be excluded from debate because I think that is untrue. However, T impacts like predictability are a lot more buyable and make more sense.

Cp's -- Good cp's are cool, but process cp's and PICS aren't as cool because they're probably intrinsically abusive. I'm cool with whatever cp you wanna read, but preferably don't read more than 2 or 3 in the 1nc and then end up going for a super abusive one that moots the aff.

Disads -- I like well-cut disad shells that have real internal link and links.

T -- Only read if the other team is actually not topical. Policy aff or K aff, move towards the T side and not the framework side because I buy impacts like predictability but I disagree that K affs should be excluded from debate.

Theory -- Probably won't vote on it unless it's condo. However, if the opposite team is truly abusive, then read theory and explain the abuse. If it's debated well, I will vote for it.

I typed this up really quick and this is all for online tournaments so if u have a question email me

I have based most of my ideas about debate off of that of Marna Weston, Kumail Zaidi, and Evan Cartagena, my coaches. If you want to check their paradigms, then you will have a better understanding of my ideas.

Any bigotry = hot L plus 0 speaks.

Higher Speaks --

don't read numerous blocks with absolutely no contextualization - contextual debates are amazing and will be rewarded with high speaks.

Please be super clear - only go fast if you are confident that I will be able to understand every single word that you are saying - if I cant understand a lot of the words you are saying, your speaks will be docked. Vice versa for amazing speakers

David Griffith

Coach at New Trier

Debater at the University of Kentucky

Add griffithd2002@gmail.com and jordandi505@gmail.com to the chain.

If you are interested in debating in college and want to know more about Kentucky, please feel free to ask me via email or at tournaments. I also (most likely) have Kentucky Debate stickers on me at any given tournament, so if you want one, let me know.

For LD.

I don't like phil. I don't like tricks. If you go for theory, you will lose. If you read a "Kant AC/NC," you will lose. If you don't go for DAs, CPs, or topicality, do not pref me. If you don't read a topical plan, you should not rank me highly.

The following is the only information that you must know. The rest of this paradigm is just organized ramblings that may or may not be helpful.

Conditionality is good---absent significant technical concessions, I will vote neg in a condo debate. I do not want to judge these debates. To be abundantly clear, this is meant to deter people from going for conditionality. This is not a challenge.

Organization is more important than style or substance---if you are unclear, refuse to number your arguments, do not signpost, make arguments in long, intricately worded paragraphs, or fly through analytics at a million miles an hour, I will miss arguments. I will not hesitate to call "clear." I always try to make it obvious through non-verbal cues that I am not able to flow. I will never use the speech doc to fill in holes because debate is communication activity. If I miss an argument, that is on you.

How do I get the decision I want from you?

I want to be told what to do---judge instruction is the only way to avoid potentially catastrophic judge intervention. The best debaters don't force the judge to find their path to victory for them; they tell the judge why they win and the other team loses. I vastly prefer clear narratives developed throughout the debate. The final rebuttal should clearly explain the implication of winning your most important arguments, particularly relative to the other team's arguments. Doing so will result in a faster and clearer decision as well as better speaker points. I despise having to read cards in order to understand what is going on, and I actively try not to. I love having to read cards when there is a genuine dispute over evidentiary quality, author qualifications, or an emphasis on card quality.

I don't care what you go for---I hold very few predispositions when it comes to arguments informed by evidence of any kind, whether that be cards, personal experience, or something else. The only thing I need to know is why you should win.

Please ask me questions in post-round---if you think I'm wrong about something, that is okay! I understand that judges can be frustratingly unclear and often seem like they watched a completely different debate. I try to explain my thinking to the best I can, but I am not the most concise (clearly given this paradigm) nor the clearest, particularly after a long day of judging and coaching. If you want feedback, I'd be happy to provide more of that too. I'm also glad to answer questions via email if you have them.

Explain the implication of technically conceded arguments---the bar I use for this is that I have to be able to explain to the other team what the implication was of them dropping a certain argument. Often teams will assert that things like "turns case" are dropped but won't apply them to the case. If you truly believe something is conceded and important enough to jump up and down about, you are leaving me to my own devices to figure out the extent to which that argument matters. The most often reason that I sit on elim panels is because I, right or wrong, often have a different understanding of technically conceded arguments than the other judges did. The way that this can be corrected is by arguing concessions as if the other team will win full risk of every other argument and explaining why I still vote for you (this means arguing conceded links as if the other team wins link defense to the other links, theory as if the CP is better than the plan, or rollback as if the aff wins solvency). Otherwise, relative risk could come back to bite you.

What can you do to maximize your chances of winning?

Complain about new arguments---the bar is on the floor. I think new 1AR arguments have gotten out of hand. If the block informs me of its deliberate choice not to make certain arguments because of 2AC errors/concessions/to avoid new 1AR arguments, I am very likely to obey 2NR judge instruction to ignore whatever new 1AR nonsense occurs. For example, if the 2AC says "perm do both" but does not explain why it solves the net benefit, the negative does not have to answer it. Further, if the 1AR then explains why it shields, the 2NR can just say the explanation was new. For the aff side, I willing to entertain the idea that the 1NR does not get new impacts to the DA (or even give the 1AR add-ons in response). Just call these things out when you see them, and the debate will become much simpler.

Go for substance---I hate, hate, hate, hate, hate theory debates. I hate judging them. I hate being in them. I hate thinking about them. I hate the idea of them. Stop being a coward. Do not go for conditionality. I will vote for it if major technical concessions are made, but the bar for me is significantly higher than virtually every other judge because I do not want to waste my valuable weekends judging conditionality debates, and I want to reward hard work with my ballot rather than cheap shot theory wins.

Don't pander---as much as being pandered to boosts my ego, I would much rather see people do what they're comfortable with. Debating with personality and confidence is infinitely more likely to boost your chances of winning than your argument selection. Debate is a persuasive activity, and I would be lying if I said it was possible to sever presentation from technical debating. If you debate your best, everything in this paradigm, including my stylistic preferences, go away.

How should I approach debates involving planless affirmatives?

You don't need to adapt---I'm agnostic towards both the "best impact" to framework and the "best" way to answer it. Framework is ultimately a strategy like any other argument, so if you are good at debating your side, I'm likely to evaluate the debate in a manner no different from any other round.

Shallow debating will favor the neg---I find that teams will often repeat lines of argumentation that they assume to be true without explaining them. For neg teams, this is oftentimes asserting that fairness is an impact without any of the explanation required to prove such a claim, and for aff teams, this usually looks like asserting some structural problem with debate and/or the topic without explaining why that problem exists/why the aff solves it. This is where my bias comes in: because I am more familiar with the neg side of things, when underdeveloped, I am more likely to intervene for the negative simply by virtue of the fact that I have only been aff in these debates like 4 times roughly 6 years ago, and I do not have as much of an intuitive grasp on how the aff arguments apply to the neg ones as I do of the inverse.

Focus on internal links---what I mean by this is that teams seldom disagree with one another about whether debate has some value. The question that each team should try to answer in front of me is how we can maximize debate's value wherever it exists. A good portion of the final rebuttal needs to be dedicated to explaining why the model that you have forwarded does that better than the other team's can. This may just boil down to "do impact comparison," but I find that framework debates are more engaging to watch and easier to evaluate when teams explicitly focus on comparison as opposed to making large, structural claims and trying to get me to connect the dots for them.

What should I know in debates where the neg goes for the K against a policy aff?

Vagueness will favor the aff---I'm finding myself increasingly frustrated when teams going for the K have arguments that could serve as case defense that they then vaguely assert in the 2NR and don't apply them to the aff, particularly when these arguments are often well warranted in the block. This is all to say go for tricks, but do not assume that their mere existence is sufficient for me to vote neg absent explanation.

I often don't care about "ontology" on its own---most ontology arguments do not answer most 1ACs. Link framing is one thing, but "dropping ontology" is not an automatic loss. You still need links.

Very good for the link turn and perm---I would much prefer to judge link turn/perm debates than whatever you'd call buzzword-laden 2ARs about utilitarianism. The latter certainly have their place, but in 1-off debates where the aff reads their version of the 1AC with lots of pre-empts, I find that the negative is in a much worse place when the aff actually talks about the link in specific terms rather than gesturing at the world being complex and saying the case is true.

May I have a list of random counterplans related thoughts?

Judge kick is my default, I guess?---does this matter? Barely anyone goes for "links to the net benefit" these days and even fewer have full-throated defenses of permutations against anything but the slimiest of process junk. If those things are won, I guess I'll kick it for the neg unless told not do. If the CP isn't worse than the status quo, voting on it is the same as kicking it anyway.

I need to understand CP solvency---I do not presume that a CP solves the case in the same way that I do not presume the 1AC reading a plan text automatically means it solves its advantages. The 2AC cannot drop CP solvency if CP solvency is not argued by the 1NC. The same is true for the 1AR if the 2NC does not explain the CP. The neg burden here is not unreasonable, but I have seen enough decisions hinging on this issue recently that I feel the need to say this explicitly.

Not great in complex competition debates---just not something I think about a lot. I find myself voting neg a lot just because of technical concessions and a lack of 2AR judge instruction. The neg argument often seems more intuitive to me when I'm left to my own devices perhaps due to my love of legal intricacies. Moreover, I am not intimately familiar with the inner workings of functionally and textually non-severance partially-but-sometimes-fully intrinsic permutations, and I require some extra hand-holding in the 2NR/2AR on this issue in particular.

Impacts matter---solvency deficits need them. "Delay" and "certainty" only matter if the aff has a short-term impact that requires certainty. If I can't explain what impact that is, the deficit doesn't matter.

Theory should justify a perm, not a ballot---I can see myself voting on most theory arguments. I don't love these debates most of the time, but I get it, cutting cards about CPs is hard work. I prefer that theoretical objections to CPs are phrased as justifications for competition, as those debates seem much less arbitrary than the latest flavor of "X CP is bad because it solves the case."

Don't go for condo---I probably won't vote aff in a condo debate unless it is dropped. I don't understand why the neg should be punished for obeying the pairing and disagreeing with the aff. The aff got to choose how to affirm the resolution, so the neg should get to choose how to negate.

Do you like T?

Sure do---some of the best debates I've watched, judged, and have participated in involved T. Good T speeches earn very high speaker points. I don't really care what the T argument is as long as you explain it compellingly.

What is plan in a vacuum?---seriously, someone tell me. How do you interpret the plan in a vacuum? The 1AC read evidence that informs what the plan means. This is why the aff can go for solvency deficits against CPs and nuanced no link arguments against DAs. To me, it seems untenable to suggest that the evidence the 1AC used to define plan function should be ignored when deciding topicality. This is not to say that plan in a vacuum is completely unwinnable in front me. Rather, I am not a fan of writing vague plan texts that lack a clear mandate, reading a 1AC that defends potentially untopical action, and then going for plan in a vacuum as if the 1AC deliberately read an advantage/solvency cards about something the plan didn't do.

Predictability matters vastly more than anything else---I think that the more precise or predictable an interpretation is, the less it matters how good its limits are on the topic in a vacuum. If a "bad" definition is more precise or predictable, limits are solely a reason we should've written the resolution better. This also means that I believe that precision is possible. Certain people in debate have convinced themselves that one definition cannot be more "precise" than another. Tell that to a lexicographer, and they will laugh in your face. This is what T debates should be all about. While I agree that "random court definition" is not a desirable model, there is always a debate to be had over the applicability over those "random court definitions," and the case facts, context of the definition, and outcome of the opinion certainly are relevant when reading the resolution. In past debates with insufficient impact calculus in the 2NR/2AR, I have intervened in favor of the team that more convincingly articulates predictability as an internal link because of this view.

The aff should go for reasonability---this is the obvious conclusion to my disdain for limits. Most neg impacts to T can be taken out easily enough that offense about substance crowd-out can outweigh them.

What if I have the misfortune of needing to go for the status quo?

This is where I am the most neg biased---I am better than average for believing the world is better now than it is post-plan. I'm generally bad for structural uniqueness arguments if there's adequate link debating by the neg, and I am such a sucker for case defense that even weak DAs end up doing enough for me to win.

Evidence quality matters---this is in the DAs section of the paradigm because it is where it matters most. Far too often, teams read lots of bad cards that gesture at vague economic concepts for a few rebuttals, tell me to read the cards, and then don't look alarmed when I conclude that the cards sucked. Debates over bad evidence result in more intervention, particularly when that evidence is under-explained by the 2NR/2AR. This means that if you're going for the status quo with a DA that doesn't have the best evidence, you cannot afford to let your cards do the debating for you.

Thumpers are boring and cowardly---mostly applies to politics on this topic. "There are other bills in Congress" is not a link nor a uniqueness answer to the politics DA. You have to explain why your thumper implicates the DA or is not priced in by the neg reading a uniqueness card.

Be smart---I am not a particularly smart person but know one when I see one. Smart arguments as an alternative to getting lost in the cards will not only increase your chances of winning, but it will also boost your speaker points. Knowing stuff about the world is really cool.

How can I get better speaker points?

Be yourself---the worst form of overadapting is when serious people try to be funny or funny people try to be serious. I love debaters with personality and reward them with speaker points much more than I do anything else. Show me you want to be there, and you'll be fine.

Any thoughts on impact turns?

I struggle to understand arguments about AI---had a year on the personhood topic and still do not understand why AGI is possible, what it is, or why it will kill us all. You're going to need to do some hand holding here absent technical drops.

Impact framing matters more than impact defense---I am more than willing to pull the trigger on impact framing even with unmitigated impacts from the other side. I am not averse to stomaching a nuclear war if animals come first or risking the heat death of the universe if future generations don't matter. I think people care too much about impact defense in this debates when it rarely matters. Invest more time in explaining how I should decide than assuming I can follow every technical drop.

I have no thoughts on the substance of impact turns---everything is fair game. I am not likely to presumptively dismiss certain impact turns as stupid. If you can't explain why spark or wipeout or warming good is incorrect, you deserve to lose because the majority of impact turns are academically ridiculous and often philosophically inconsistent with themselves.

Why is your paradigm so long?

I like reading long paradigms when I am bored. It generally shows that someone cares deeply about judging, and I aspire to put as much care into my judging as my favorite judges do. Plus, I judge enough debates to be guaranteed an audience of annoyed coaches and debaters, so I might as well take advantage of it.

I also think paradigms are mostly unhelpful (this extends to my own). The best way to learn how a judge thinks is to have them judge you and to ask questions after the debate. Most judges, myself included, don't really know how they judge debates until they're in them. The length of this paradigm reflects a series of observations that, if adhered to, would make it easier to predict how I would vote.

I struggle to get rid of parts of my paradigm. I update it whenever I'm bored because that is what spending a long time on debate will do to your brain. As a debater, I hate paradigms that don't provide helpful information about why a judge thinks the way that they do (especially ones that refer to other judges that I also don't know or expect me to care that someone won debates 15 years ago). I figure that having a long paradigm is the best way to avoid being unhelpful, because the more information I include, the clearer my thinking should be to the people I am judging.

email chain cody.gustafson@dallasurbandebate.org

tl;dr: do what you do best, at whatever rate of delivery you can be clear at. My paradigm was previously much longer for no reason at all, so i shortened it. Feel free to email me with any questions you may have, but I kept what I thought were the quick hitters:

- Read whatever set or style of arguments you would like, my job is to evaluate the round through an offense/defense lens and vote for the team that makes the world a better place (i.e. won the debate, ya know). I frequently judge all types of debates (from policy v policy, k v k, and k v policy to world schools, parli, policy, LD, and college debate to middle school debate, etc) and am more interested in seeing good debate rather than any particular style of debate.

- Warrant & evidence comparison, impact terminalization, historical examples, global context, and 'telling the story' of the round late in rebuttals are typically the content choices that help sway my decision when a clear winner is not decided by the flow.

- I don’t have any predispositions regrading the content, structure, or style of your arguments. I will defer to evaluating the debate through an offense/defense paradigm absent a team winning an argument for me to evaluate it another way. Clear impact weighing in the rebuttals and evidence/warrant comparison are typically what I notice in teams I enjoy judging.

- I attempt to be a ’technical’ judge in every round I watch. I try to keep a detailed flow, and use my flow to evaluate the round that happened. If the flow doesn’t decide a clear winner, I will then look to the quality of evidence/warrants provided. I tend to find I’m less interested in where an argument in presented than others. While clear line-by-line is always appreciated, some of my favorite debaters to watch were overview-heavy debaters who made and answered arguments in the debate while telling a persuasive story of the debate. I would rather you sound organized and clear than following a template throughout each flow.

- Instead of framing debates through ‘body counts’, I am much more persuaded by framing as ‘who saves the most lives’, or who has the best advocacy for change. Sometimes debaters talk about claims of very real violence and problems for various communities with little regard to the real world implications of their political advocacies.

- I tend to prefer specific plan texts over vague plan texts. I also like specific internal link claims and impact scenarios. Specific instances of war are more persuasive to me than ‘goat power war’ claims.

- In reformism v revolution debates, I prefer explanations that pinpoint why the conditions of the status quo are the way they are, and can best explain casualty for violence. This is where historical examples become especially important, and where warrant comparison becomes paramount.

Part-time coach at the University of Kentucky, formerly debated at UK (graduated in 2020)

add me to the email chain: genevieveelise1028 at gmail dot com

General Thoughts

I like for debate to be fun and will generally enjoy judging in debates where it is clear you are having a good time and doing what you're passionate about. Don't be afraid to let your personality show in how you debate - being funny or spicy in the CX are often times I enjoy the debate the most. I understand the amount of time and dedication it takes to do this activity seriously, so I will work very hard to make sure that I am evaluating your debate in a way that respects the hard work that you have put into the activity, and the time and energy you are using to be present at each tournament.

The more I reflect on how I judge, the more I think it is really important for debaters to provide instruction/guidance in their speeches about how to tie all of the different pieces of the debate together. 2NRs and 2ARs that do a lot of this, backed by quality evidence read in earlier speeches, will often find themselves winning, getting good speaker points, and being more satisfied with my decision and how I understood the overarching picture in the debate. I generally believe, in the 2NR and 2AR, reading cards should be an absolute last resort.

Online Debate

I appreciate the accessibility benefits of online debate but do think it suffers from some quality deficit. If my camera is off during prep time, I have probably walked away for a number of reasons. I'll generally try to pop my camera back on when I get back to signal I have returned, and will also usually keep a headphone in to maintain awareness of when you stop prep. Just give me a sec to turn on my camera and get settled before you launch into an order or the speech.

I have an audio processing disorder, which makes it more challenging to flow due to the variety of ways that online debate affects clarity/feedback/etc - please take this into account and put in more effort to be clear on your transitions, tags, etc. It helps me to be able to see you talking, so if you are angled to be completely hidden by your laptop, I will likely be less of a precise flow than otherwise.

Please recall that while I cannot hear you when you are muted on zoom, I can still see you - things like talking for the entire 2AR, blatantly not flowing your opponents speeches, etc are still bad practice, even if you can technically do it.

Nukes Topic

I love this topic, think debating about nukes is educational and based on a robust controversy in the literature, and personally worked in nonprolif/arms control advocacy so it's an issue I care about lots!

That being said, I'm bored - I think assurances/deterrence is a great debate, but have a pretty high threshold for debating the DAs well on both sides - I think innovation in the way people answer and debate the generics could be more interesting and will reward quality in connecting all of the pieces of these debates. I would also enjoy judging some more varied negative strategies, and will reward innovation on the topic with good speaker points

soapbox moment - say it with me: de-clare-uh-tory - declatory is NOT a word

DA/Case/CP

Disad and case is awesome, more case analysis that is smart will be rewarded in points. I think smart and specific counterplans are cool. The more specific and in grounded in the literature your CP is, the less likely I am to care about theory.

Topicality (vs aff with a plan)

I think a limited topic is good and care immensely about the comparison of one version of the topic to another when it comes to T. If you cannot explain coherently what the difference between the two topics are, I am much less likely to care about your very abstract appeals to the notion of limits or ground.

K (vs aff with a plan)

I enjoy judging these debates. Being more specific about the topic is far better than some random backfile check about Baudrillard. You should explain your arguments clearly vs using buzz words because I will be much more likely to understand what you are trying to communicate.

The specificity of the link and explanation of the link and how it coheres with your broader theory about the world and interacts with the consequences of the plan are all things that strongly influence how much I am persuaded by the K. If you have a link to the action of the plan and clearly explain how the impact to that compares to the impacts of the affirmative, as well as having an alternative that resolves this impact, I am likely to vote for you. I find myself less often voting for the K in debates where the neg relies on a strong framework/prioritize rhetorical/discursive links path but would not preclude this entirely because the aff is often time pressured and poorly equipped to debate about framework and fiat.

In addition, I think it's important to resolve how I should weigh impacts in the later speeches - I find myself often concluding I should weigh the aff and its consequences but also weighing the discursive/ethical/structural impacts described by the neg but not getting a lot of instruction about how to compare those two things and decide which one to vote on. I think mitigating claims about total extinction impacts with impact defense and specific solvency take-outs would go a long way to changing how I vote in these debates.

Planless Affs

I have found myself voting both ways in framework debates, but am usually persuaded by the benefits of clash, procedural fairness, etc. The more specific the aff is to the topic & good aff cards are things that most often lead to an aff ballot in these debates. The negative making a strong, coherent limits argument that includes arguments that appeal to clash while providing defense that proves the topic is compatible with the affs theory are things that most often lead to a neg ballot in these debates.

I think specific strategies against these affs are interesting and good (whether that be a da/k/pic) and will reward this specific research with speaker points. I generally think if something is in the 1AC I am likely to believe there is a link to your argument, and am very persuaded by strategies that utilize the cx to pin down specificities of the 1ac advocacy and then predicate the strategy off of that. If the aff is unwilling to speak specifically about the strategy of the advocacy, I generally tend to be more persuaded by framework.

I usually am not persuaded by strategies that rely on the idea that we should destroy debate, or that extinction or death is good. I do not think there is much of a difference between "debating about death being good" and "advocating death being good" so if your strategy relies on a pivot resembling "well we don't think everyone should die but we should talk about death", it is not a good strategy to use in front of me.

Misc.

I tend to lean towards conditionality being good, but would be persuaded otherwise in particularly egregious incidents.

If you are going to read cards written by former debaters, take ten minutes to ask around why they are no longer in the community. Strongly consider if the reason is one which should preclude their evidence from being introduced in a debate. I do not expect perfection in this regard, but I do think we should be talking about this.

It has come to my attention that I am what one might call a "points fairy". I will be working to adjust my points to more accurately reflect the scale I find most other judges follow.

I like when lots of quality evidence is read, and will often read your evidence at the conclusion of the debate (and if evidence is referenced in a cx, will usually try to find what you are referencing while it's being discussed). That being said, evidence is best paired with strong judge instruction in the rebuttals. There are instances when evidence is good enough to speak for itself, but in a debate where both sides read decent ev on an issue, I will often find myself voting for the team who tells me how and why their arguments matter more.

After hosting a bunch of tournaments in my time at UK, I am sympathetic to the pleas of tournament hosts and tabrooms. Please be on time, keep things efficient in debates, and clean up behind yourselves.

My facial expressions are likely unrelated to the things you are saying. In particular, I may come across low-energy. This doesn't mean that I am unhappy with the debate (although if I find your debating upbeat, engaging, and high-energy I will probably be a bit more likely to mirror that). Tournaments are a long-haul, I judge a lot of debates at each tournament (often every debate), and there seems to be increasingly little time afforded to restorative things like sleep or eating, so don't worry too much if I'm coming across a little sleepy.

Also, I sometimes just stare off into space when I'm typing - I'm still paying attention as long as I'm typing.

I do parli!

add me to the chain smhpoppy@gmail.com, tech>truth, i'm down for anything, ask me in round if you have questions. so:

respect your opponents, pronouns, preferred labels/lack of them, all that jazz. That said, be as aggressive as you want! I lean towards letting ethics debates and stuff to play out in round, but if you're getting uncomfortable or if there's just something you don't feel like having to justify just let me know!

if you ask me to gut check nothing will happen. Don’t rely on reasonability; spell out your competing interps and impacts. I'm tabula rasa so the rest of this paradigm is just my defaults

Speed: cool, but if you can't do it well, like. please don't. If you do spread, have a case drop ready for me to access. i'd honestly prefer even one solid contention over a series of cards, but it won't affect my ballot.

K/Theory: Love! I default theory>kritik=case, but obviously subject to change if you argue to evaluate tech differently. I will consider anything and everything and will likewise happily drop arguments if the other team points out frivolity/bigotry. and go for the fun alts! solvency arguments against "reject res" are gonna convince me pretty easily. i will not disclose what lit base i'm most familiar with because if you're not able to eli5 it, i'll assume your opponents won't be able to understand either. If and only if you check in with your opponents before round and confirm they're familiar with what you're running will I vote for not clearly explained Ks.

Signpost.

i don’t care what your strat is, give me a clear path to the ballot. Ngl idc about case i'm probably voting on this. I will judge however competitors tell me to and i will and have judged IErs who just ran their speeches during round instead of debating the res. it is genuinely up to you how you want the round to go. I also take tabula rasa very literally! if someone says something like "vote aff because aff is the coolest team in round," i need some sort of response on the flow, even if it's just "neg cooler than aff" bc otherwise i will buy whatever i hear.

i wont accept new arguments if i notice, but its on you to call the other team out and to tell me what to judgekick, etc.

speaks start 27.5, but go ahead with speaks theory! Swearing won't drop your speaks, jokes will raise em, if you make jokes at the expense of a minority i will in good faith assume you're part of it. if ur reading this far add a mention of tax fraud, cats (2019), or baguettes in your speech and i'll raise. I don't care about clothes, but if you wear a halloween costume or smth i'll add a couple points

tldr: do literally anything as long as you do it well, you dont have to be polite but be kind, and whatever i say in this paradigm doesn't matter as long as you say so.

they/them

please add me to chain - jamdebate@gmail.com

important stuff not directly related to my opinions about debate:

ceda update:

this is my first year judging college debate and kentucky is the only tournament i've judged at. i have not done any topic research for nukes. i've been out of college debate for a few years, but have been consistently coaching and judging high school debate. i am pretty experienced coaching/judging most different types of arguments, but for the past three years have mostly coached teams going for critical arguments. i used to primarily judge policy debates, but now primarily judge clash and kvk debates

please be honest with yourself about how fast you are going. i need pen time! i don't need you to go dramatically slower than you normally would, but please do not drone monotonously through your blocks as if they are card text or i will likely miss some arguments.

if debating online: go slower than usual, especially on theory

how i decide stuff:

i try my best to decide debates strictly based on what is on my flow. i generally try to intervene as little as possible, but i am not a judge that thinks that any argument is true until disproven in the debate. as much as some consider themselves "flow purists," i think every judge agrees with this to a degree. for example, "genocide good" or "transphobia good" etc. are obviously reprehensible arguments that are harmful to include in debate and i won't entertain. that being the case, i have kind of a hard time distinguishing those "obvious" examples from more commonly accepted ones that are, to me, just as harmful, like first strike counterplans, interventions good, etc. i’m disappointed i have to add this to my paradigm, but i will not vote on “the police are good” or "israel is good"

despite how the above paragraph might be interpreted, i frequently vote for arguments i don't like, including arguments i think are harmful for debate. at the end of the day, unless something i think drastically requires my intervention, i will try to judge the debate as objectively as i can based on my flow

by default i will vote for the team with the most resolved offense. a complete argument is required to generate offense, so i won't vote for an incomplete argument (e.g. "they dropped x" still needs a proper extension of x with a warrant for why it's true). judge instruction is very important for me. if there is an issue in the debate with little guidance from the debaters on how to resolve it, don't be surprised if there is some degree of intervention so i can resolve it. i will also not vote for an argument that i cannot explain

opinions on specific things:

i am willing to vote on arguments about something that happened outside of the debate, but need those arguments to be backed up with evidence/receipts. this is not because i don't/won't believe you otherwise, but because i don't want to be in the position of having to resolve a debate over something impossible for me to substantiate. i know it’s somewhat arbitrary, but it seems like the least arbitrary way for me to approach these debates without writing them off entirely, which is an approach i strongly disagree with. however, if someone i trust tells me that you are a predator or that you knowingly associate with one, i will not vote for you under any circumstances.

plan texts: if yours is written poorly or intentionally vaguely, i will likely be sympathetic to neg arguments about how to interpret what it means/does. neg teams should press this issue more often

planless affs: i enjoy judging debates where the aff does not read a plan. idc if the aff does not "fiat" something as long as it is made clear to me how to resolve the aff's offense. i am very willing to vote on presumption in these debates and i yearn for more case debating

t-usfg/fw: not my favorite debates. voting record in these debates is starting to lean more and more aff, often because the neg does a poor job of convincing me that my ballot cannot resolve the aff's offense and aff teams are getting better at generating uniqueness. i am less interested in descriptive arguments about what debateis (for example, "debate is a game") and more interested in arguments about what debate ought to be. the answer to that can still be "a game" but can just as likely be something else.

k thoughts: not very good for euro pomo stuff (deleuze, bataille, etc) but good for anything else. big fan of the cap k when it's done well (extremely rare), even bigger hater of the cap k when it's done poorly (almost every cap k ever). if reading args about queerness or transness, avoid racism. i don't mind link ev being somewhat generic if it's applied well. obviously the more specific the better, but don't be that worried if you don't have something crazy specific. i think "links of omission" can be persuasive sources of offense. for the aff, saying the text of a perm without explaining how it ameliorates links does not an argument make

theory: please make sure you're giving me pen time here. i am probably more likely than most to vote on theory arguments, but they are almost always a reason to reject the arg and not the team (obvi does not apply to condo). that being said, you need a warrant for "reject the arg not the team" rather than just saying that statement. not weirdly ideological about condo (i will vote on it)

counterplans/competition: a perm text without an explanation of how it disproves the competitiveness of the counterplan is not a complete argument. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the neg loses it and evaluate the squo as well. aff, if you don't want me to do that, tell me not to

lastly, i try to watch for clipping. if you clip, it's an auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it, but i am much more comfortable voting against a team for clipping if the issue is raised by the other team with evidence provided. if i clear you multiple times and the card text you're reading is still incomprehensible, that's clipping. ethics challenges should be avoided at all costs, but if genuine academic misconduct occurs in a debate i will approach the issue seriously and carefully

avoid saying slurs you shouldn't be saying or you'll automatically lose

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

karl.joyner@saschools.org. He/him/his.

Spreading is fine. If you’re unclear I’ll let you know. Or add me to the email chain. Take time on your tags so I can flow them.

I don’t flow authors unless you want to draw attention to the quality of evidence, credibility of author, etc. Point it out to me. Otherwise, extend your arguments, don’t just mention the author’s name. And extend/add warrants, even if it’s just important that the other team provided no response. (Again, it helps if I’m on the email chain if you want to draw attention to authors later).

I probably won't flow cx - add it to your speech.

I’ll vote on anything - just tell me what you’re argument is/role of the ballot/what’s important for my vote.

On Ks - make sure you’re clear on all parts of the argument. I enjoy them greatly, but I’m not familiar with anything but the basics (cap K, Abolition K), so articulate the argument clearly please.

Give me an impact calc. On every argument. Especially T. I’m not going to vote on a predetermined sense of abuse. Let me know in round how the argument is affecting you. Or what the significance is for debate going forward.

Never debated policy, 3 years of coaching experience.

-- Update 1/14 --

Tech issues:

Please slow down a bit - for my sake and the competition.

Tbh, I'm very lenient on tech issues - I'll be assuming the best out of everyone. If you're concerned with the other team's actions, please bring them up, because I won't.

I feel the need to emphasize again, and more strongly this time, that I vote on impacts. You'll see in my decisions that I list all of the impacts as presented to me and use that to determine which issue I should vote for in the round. Impact calc is the most important part of the round to me. Spend time on it.

matt kelly - ou 2025 - he/him/his - 2a for ccs hk

mxttkxlly@gmail.com

@mxttkxlly

read whatever you want in front of me, i'm open to hearing everything you have to offer as long as it's explained pretty well. make the round easy for me to vote on. tell me why you win the round, why your opponent doesn't, etc. just give really good analysis on your args (especially critical arguments) and you should have a good time

keep your own time pls

make a kanye reference for boosted speaks

if you're doing prefs i'm prob more policy oriented but read whatever you want just explain your k lit if it's more obscure

You can e-mail me at ian.kimbrell.debate@gmail.com.

I coached for Saint Ignatius High School for 10 years in the 90s. I coached for Case Western Reserve University from 1995-2006. I started coaching again in 2016. The teams I coached were 75% policy and 25% Kritik debaters. I am fine with any type of argument, but I tend to enjoy fast, evidence intensive, traditional policy debates that collapse down well to a few clear reasons for me to prefer.

I do my best not to interject my opinions or perspectives into the decisions. I like being told how to sign the ballot and will try to pick either the 2NRs or 2ARs interpretation of the round. I like the analysis of warrants. The clash between competing warrants makes for the best debate.

Bravado is encouraged as long as it is done within the confines of fun, friendliness, and fairness.

DAs: Analysis of the evidence, comparison of evidence, and clear articulation of uniqueness, link, and impact are important to me.

TOPICALITY: I like topicality debates but rarely see them. I look to compare two competing interpretations. I probably have a lower threshold than most for having to justify it as a voting issue.

KRITIKs: They are fine. I treat them like any other argument. The more specific the link evidence and link story is to the affirmative, the more engaged I will be. Multiple links are exponentially more persuasive. Permutations need to be clearly explained. I am open to K is bad arguments. I am not deep into all of the literature.

COUNTER PLANS: Counter Plans are fine. Permutations need to be clearly explained. Solvency for counter plans matter.

FRAMEWORK: Clarity on Framework is helpful early on in the debate.

I have a bias towards new/odd arguments. Especially creative DAs and Counterplans. If you are looking to test something out, I may be a good judge to try it on. I'll make sure I give you all the feedback you need.

The most important thing to know about me is that while I would like to be included in the email chain, I will not read evidence during the round. I believe it risks too much judge bias even from the most experienced judges. I will read evidence at the end of the round if things are close or if the one of the debaters convinces me I need to look at one or two key pieces of evidence. Ultimately, I will vote on my flow. This means a minimum level of speaking articulation, clarity, and general ease of flowing does matter. If I can not understand a speaker I will verbally give a warning or two with no penalty.

Berkeley Prep Assistant Coach - 2017 - Present

10+ years experience in national circuit policy @ Damien HS, Baylor University and other institutions

Email: Jack.Lassiter4@gmail.com

I will evaluate offense and defense to make my decision unless you tell me to do otherwise.

Framework

I have an appreciation for framework debates, especially when the internal link work is thorough and done on the top of your kritik/topicality violation before it is applied to pivotal questions on the flow that you resolve through comparative arguments. On framework, I personally gravitate towards arguments concerning the strategic, critical, or pedagogical utility of the activity - I am readily persuaded to vote for an interpretation of the activity's purpose, role, or import in almost any direction [any position I encounter that I find untenable and/or unwinnable will be promptly included in the updates below]

The Kritik

I have almost no rigid expectations with regard to the K. I spent a great deal of my time competing reading Security, Queer Theory, and Psychoanalysis arguments. The bodies of literature that I am most familiar with in terms of critical thought are rhetorical theory (emphasizing materialism) and semiotics. I have studied and debated the work of Jacques Derrida and Gilles Deleuze, to that extent I would say I have an operative understanding and relative familiarity with a number of concepts that both thinkers are concerned with.

Topicality:

I think that by virtue of evaluating a topicality flow I almost have to view interpretations in terms of competition. I can't really explain reasonability to myself in any persuasive way, if that changes there will surely be an update about it - this is also not to say nobody could convince me to vote for reasonability, only that I will not default in that direction without prompt.

Counterplans:

Theory debates can be great - I reward strategic decisions that embed an explanation of the argument's contingent and applied importance to the activity when going for a theory argument on a counterplan.

I believe that permutations often prompt crucial methodological and theoretical reflection in debate - structurally competitive arguments are usually generative of the most sound strategic and methodological prescriptions.

Updates:

Judging for Berkeley Prep - Meadows 2020

I have judged enough framework debates at this point in the topic to feel prompted to clarify my approach to judging framework v. K aff rounds. I believe that there are strong warrants and supporting arguments justifying procedural fairness but that these arguments still need to be explicitly drawn out in debates and applied as internal link or impact claims attached to an interpretation or defense of debate as a model, activity, or whatever else you want to articulate debate as. In the plainest terms, I'm saying that internal link chains need to be fully explained, weighed, and resolved to decisively win a framework debate. The flipside of this disposition applies to kritikal affs as well. It needs to be clear how your K Aff interacts with models and methods for structuring debate. It is generally insufficient to just say "the aff impacts are a reason to vote for us on framework" - the internal links of the aff need to be situated and applied to the debate space to justify Role of the Ballot or Role of the Judge arguments if you believe that your theory or critique should implicate how I evaluate or weigh arguments on the framework flow or any other portion of the debate.

As with my evaluation of all other arguments, on framework a dropped claim is insufficient to warrant my ballot on its own. Conceded arguments need to be weighed by you, the debater. Tell me what the implications of a dropped argument are, how it filters or conditions other aspects of the flow, and make it a reason for decision.

Judging for Damien Debate - Berkeley (CA) 2016

In judging I am necessarily making comparisons. Making this process easier by developing or controlling the structure of comparisons and distinctions on my flow is the best advice I could give to anyone trying to make me vote for an argument.

I don't feel like it is really possible to fully prevent myself from intervening in a decision if neither team is resolving questions about how I should be evaluating or weighing arguments. I believe this can be decisively important in the following contexts: The impact level of framework debates, The impact level of any debate really, The method debate in a K v K round, The link debate... The list goes on. But, identifying particular points of clash and then seeing how they are resolved is almost always my approach to determining how I will vote, so doing that work explicitly in the round will almost always benefit you.

If you have any questions about my experience, argumentative preferences, or RFD's feel free to ask me at any time in person or via email.

I. Background:

I have extensive college debate experience. I competed during my undergraduate years for California State University of Long Beach and Pepperdine University. My experience includes both team and Lincoln-Douglas formats. The Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) was the primary format.

While competing in college, I often judged middle and high school speech and debate tournaments. My experience includes both value and policy formats. Upon graduation, I occasionally judged college tournaments over the years as a hired judge. The past 12-months, I have judged multiple tournaments hosted on virtual platforms. The formats include: PF, LD, CX, Parli, and Congress. I also competed in and have judged I.E.'s.

II. Overview:

The following applies to all formats:

1. Speak clearly. I do not like excessive speed, but I can tolerate a moderately fast pace. Please bear in mind that excessive speed often can be muddled due to tech issues and connection speeds in virtual formats.

2. I like empirical evidence. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument. Quality and well-sourced evidence often impact my decision.

3. I like a well thought out case that makes sense logically. I like to be able to connect the dots.

4. I prefer quality over quantity.

5. Clarify the key issues in rebuttal and explain why your side prevails.

6. I flow. However, if you wish to add me to the evidence chain my email is liebzeit.larry@gmail.com

7. Do not be rude. It is acceptable to be assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but rudeness will be reflected in speaker points.

I debated at Blue Valley North and at the University of Kentucky.

clucasdebate@gmail.com

For online debate, please turn your cameras on.

I would prefer if you went slightly slower than what you usually debate.

Topicality: I view topicality as a strategic argument on the same level as any other off-case position, I think it is incredibly valuable to debate. I don't think limits are the only impact but it is probably the best one. Instead of listing a lot of cases that exist under interpretations, I would prefer a smaller amount with a little explanation for each one. If reasonability is a big push, explain what you want me to understand when you say reasonability because I won't automatically understand how you are using it.

Disads: I will care a lot about smart turns case arguments especially ones that have cards. 

Counterplans: I won't judge kick unless you say something. This isn't a statement about how I believe conditionality interacts with judge kick or whatever, but more of if it's something you wanted me to do you should have the strategic thought to say it. I don't have any negative thoughts towards any types of counter-plans, but I would not say I am a strong judge for debates that would center around counterplan competition. 

FW: I think fairness is an impact. However, I think that the magnitude of that impact depends on your explanation of how you get there and what fairness itself means. I know that just describes doing impact calculus, but I always thought that doing impact calculus in framework debates was the most interesting kind of impact calculus because it has the most real-world implication. You are having a debate about debate so I think clearly framing impact calculus in a way that shows you have thought about how and why debate would get worse without just reading a super old script. For AFF teams, I haven't judged a lot of the debates to know my preferred aff strategy. I think it would be helpful to know I think debate is a game, I will only evaluate what's happening in the debate in front of me, and that being topical in some sense is important. I used to read a lot of racial capitalism books in high school.

Kritiks: I think that everyone gets their arguments in these debates. I do not enjoy it when people make framework arguments with no clear purpose and strategy and it is very easy to tell when you are just reading it just because you have a block. I like relevant historical examples and descriptions of impacts as supposed to generic descriptions. I research and read arguments about capitalism and biopolitics. I debated, judged, and coached about arguments centering around most other things.

Other general stuff:

I don't have a lot of particularly strong thoughts about debate so I will not automatically assume a lot of things that other judges might for you. That should hopefully give you a lot of creative autonomy in how you want to debate if you really guide me through how you want me to judge your arguments.

I think cross-ex is one of the most important parts of the debate and will pay attention to it and factor it into my points.

Evidence quality is really important and should be the main focus of final rebuttals and cross-ex. Even if people don't talk about evidence, I will read it and will inevitable have perceptions about them so reading good cards is important.

When reinserting ev if you just highlight the parts you want me to look at and paraphrase what you are trying to say that should be fine. You don't have to reread a tiny line to say what you already said.

Presumption/zero risk of something based on it literally making no sense or garbage evidence is something I will vote on.

I don't think conditionality is the only plausible to reason to reject the team.

If an argument is particularly stupid -- you should just ignore it.

put me on the email chain laurenmcblain28@gmail.com

Lincoln Park (CDL) 2016-2020

University of Kentucky 2020-present

don't call me "judge," lauren is fine.

Accessibility

preferrable to reduce speed by about 15%

analytics in the doc are appreciated and will result in a .2 speaker point bump

Policy

No experience on the current topic so don't overrely on acronyms or buzz words

Read whatever you want to read - i'll do my best to evaluate all arguments without bias. I have done all kinds of debate.

Tech > truth (mostly) - I have a lower threshold for silly arguments and think a smart analytic can beat a bad card.

T is good, theory is good, disads are good, counterplans are good, abusive counterplans are good, saying abusive counterplans are bad is good, Ks are good, K affs are good, framework is good. Everything that is not racist/sexist/ableist/and/or homophobic is probably good.except for judge kick - do you want me to tell you what to go for too? no thanks. However, if the block says judge kick and the 1AR does not say no judge kick, i will begrudgingly judge kick. if the first i hear of judge kick is the 2nr - the 2ar just has to say 'no' and i will not judge kick.

my voting record on framework is split 50/50.

im biased towards the aff on fairness - i have a hard time believing the aff makes debates procedurally unfair as long as there is a strong connection to the topic. that being said, i'll still vote for it even if i think it's a little silly. best aff strat --- nuanced counter interp that solves limits and ground or just straight impact turns. best neg strat --- tva + switch side.

K v K debates are cool and you should probably still make a framework argument about how to evaluate the round. i do not care if perms exist or not in a methods debate. convince me.

LD

I AM A VERY BAD JUDGE FOR TRICKS --- READ AT YOUR OWN RISK

PF

get your opponents emails and send your case to them before your speech. if you do not do this, i will make you take prep time for anything that exceeds cross time to send evidence back and forth to each other.

Novice

do line by line, respond to all arguments, and extend all parts of your arguments, split the block on the neg, and narrow down what you go for in the final speeches and you will be golden.

Evidence

Sometimes I follow along, sometimes I don't. I tend to only read the evidence when the debate is close or convoluted. Other than that, I think the debating should be left to the debaters in the room, not authors or coaches who cut the cards.

If you read a great piece of evidence but can't explain the warrants and your opponent reads a mediocre piece of evidence and can, I'm more likely to side with your opponent.

my email is menokri@gmail.com

add me to the email chain if I'm about to judge your round.

Online debate note: having judged 35+ rounds of online debate at this point - please slow down if you're debating virtually. 70-80% of your normal max speed should be fine.

TLDR: Say whatever you want to say- if you are passionate and enthusiastic about your argumentation, I am more inclined to be an enthusiastic and active Judge. I have little to say about argumentative preference besides the fact that I am probably not the person to have in the back of a room for a policy-policy T debate given that I have little topic knowledge, and I also hate unresponsive theory debates.

I am here first and foremost to listen to the things you have woken up early in the morning to come tell me about. Do not be afraid to talk to me during your speeches, do not be afraid to tell me which way to vote and why to do it, and do not be afraid of the LBL!

Tech over truth always unless a substantive argument is made by either side as for why debate techné should be reconsidered.

People that have influenced the way I think abt competition and debate: Kevin Kuswa, Dr. Reid-Brinkley, Daryl Burch, Amber Kelsie, Taylor Brough, Ignacio Evans, Jack Lassiter, and Nick Lepp.

Do not call me judge, or ask me to go to the bathroom/start prep/etc. !!!

About me: I debated for Berkeley Preparatory School and as a hybrid team in HS. I had 5 bids my senior year, and 2 my junior year. My senior year, I went to 6 tournaments and got to finals of 4, and got to a bid round and a top 10 speaker award at all 6.

I debated on the 2018-2019 college topic (executive authority) at Wake Forest, cleared at a couple national tournaments and got to Octafinals of CEDA before transferring to Columbia and choosing to no longer pursue collegiate debate.

In both high school and college I was primarily a performance and K debater, but this by no means indicates I lean towards a particular side of the argumentative spectrum- if anything, it means I have a higher burden for both sides in clash of civ debates given that I have been on both sides of that debate several times. I have also read plans, extended disads, gone for Framework, etc.

Things I appreciate regardless of what side of the spectrum you fall on:

- comparative impact calc- do not explain your impacts in a vacuum, explain them in the context of the impacts your opponents are going for! Which impact and TYPE of impacts should I prioritize more?

- I LOVE impact turns. These are some of my fave debates to judge.

- creative strategies and passion

FW debates:

for the love of god, please have external impacts to your model and describe the limits and ground provided by the model of debate you are forwarding.

This means: negative teams going for framework, please isolate why your model of debate is GOOD and what it provides for the community, not just arguments as for why they make your model of debate worse/unplayable.

Aff teams- don't just talk about why their model is bad/harmful- please talk about the minutia of your own model- what can the aff say under your model? what is predictable ground the neg can say in response? Why is this model of debate preferable to theirs?

Generally default to debate being a game unless told otherwise

Aff against the K:

if you have a plan-

- if you say extinction and are good at the util debate, by all means, go for it.

- please defend your aff and why it's a good idea instead of relying on arbitrary FW arguments. I am v inclined to give the neg the K and the aff their aff unless an argument as for why either should be excluded is repeatedly extended and dropped.

- if you're going for the perm, please answer the LBL from the negative team as for why you get the perm instead of making a series of compelling, common-sense perm arguments in the 2AR that should've been in the 1ar.

if you don't-

- big fan of either the link turn or the perm in K v K debates.

- please have a theory of competition!!! that makes these debates so much easier to resolve from my end.

- please do impact calculus- it is unbelievably frustrating to have to determine on my own which nebulous impact matters more or impacts solvency- tell me what to evaluate first and why I should evaluate it first.

Going for the K:

- the primary theory bases I read during my career: afropessimism, queer pessimism, quare theory, anything involving gender, and psychoanalysis- if you are reading anything outside of these literature bases, please be comfortable giving me a greater degree of explanation instead of dropping buzzwords.

- do not be afraid to be creative- a creative, well-thought-out, and well-executed strategy is always more interesting to listen to early in the morning.

- if you're kicking out of the alt, please explain why your link arguments still have uniqueness, especially in a world where your alternative was the only thing generating uniqueness for the K as a whole.

- much better for alts that question/change epistemology in the round or result in some form of praxis than a nebulous alt that never claims to resolve any of the impacts of the Kritik.

- sucker for external impacts and links that turn case.

- answer fairness and reciprocity arguments on the framework flow please

Speaks

- If an argument is consistently extended and dropped as to why one team should get higher/lower speaks I will usually adjust speaks accordingly (assuming I feel comfortable w/ and understand the argument as for why that should be)

To get higher speaks in front of me:

- know what you're talking about

- package your arguments in a way that is both easy to flow and understand (this includes both short blippy theory args and 5 minute K overviews)

- make smart strategic decisions about what is going into your speeches and what you spend your time on

- drop relevant examples and explain/extend them consistently!

- make eye contact/be an engaging speaker that *pretends* to care what they're talking about

Notre Dame '21, NYU '25

Chain/questions: debate.nikhilnavare@gmail.com

1A/2N

Scroll to the bottom for LD specific things.

Very short version

- Ok for Ks

- Better for planless affs now that I don't have to debate them

- Impact turns make me happy

- Organization is good, line-by-line is better, both is best

- Condo good, yes judgekick are defaults

General biases

Truth is tech, and vice versa, given that a true argument is much easier to win technically, and technically debating meta-level framing issues is important to convince me of the truth of the arguments you are going for.

Debate is not about the arguments themselves, but rather the execution of those arguments. This does not mean arguments don’t matter; arguments have different burden of proofs, but every argument is valid until proven otherwise.

Presumption goes to the team that advocates less change. If teams don't debate what that means, and if the 2NR includes a competitive alternative, presumption flips aff.

Clipping and other ethics violations/accusations will result in an automatic zero and loss for the team that does it or falsely accuses the other team. These need an audio recording or I need to hear it. I won't intervene if it's not egregious or there isn't a significant difference in the quality of debaters.

I will not vote on things that occur before the 1AC starts.

The following is a list of predispositions I have — they go out the window if you make an argument otherwise (or at least I try).

Planless Affs

For the aff:

Have a connection to the resolution. Convince me your advocacy is good, better than the (competitive) alternative, and actually resolves your impacts. On that note, actually have an advocacy. If the voting for the advocacy is only an in-round affirmation, I am a lot more sympathetic to negative “burden of rejoinder” T arguments. 

I think debate is a game, but it might be more. Explain why the "more" part outweighs the "game" part. I don’t think debate is not a game.

Please do actual line-by-line, counter-define words in the resolution, don't go for counterinterps like "direction of the resolution," don't just read [Spanos, Lundberg, Antonio, other silly authors] but have aff specific impact turns to fairness, pedagogy, etc.

The perm is a convincing argument especially if your aff doesn’t defend anything.

For the aff and neg:

Disads can link! Planless affs must be ready to defend against all possible disadvantages to their advocacy, physical or metaphysical. The argument “no link - aff is not fiated” is nonresponsive because all affirmatives, by the nature of the thought experiment of debate, are “fiated”. If neg teams can out debate aff teams on the DA then I will vote for it.

For the neg:

T-USfg is a possible 2NR. Defend only what you have to. Impacts that are more persuasive to me: procedural fairness, clash. Less persuasive: advocacy skills, fun, movements. Fairness is probably an impact but you need to do work telling me why that is the case.

The argument that K affs don’t get a perm doesn’t make sense. Be sure you have a very, very good link to their theory of power or the way they actualize their advocacy.

Word PICs are ROFL.

Solvency takeouts/presumption are very convincing and underutilized.

Topicality

Precision frames debatability: big but precise limits probably outweighs good but imprecise limits. That being said, more precision comes with diminishing marginal returns.

Competing interps > Reasonability. You have to invest some time explaining how to determine what is reasonable.

”T - Embodiment” is absurd. Broadly, any neg nonresolutional theory argument has a higher burden of rejoinder. 

Kritiks

A prerequisite to voting for you is if I can explain the link and alt mechanism to the other team by the end of the debate.

Links to the plan are probably good, and most of the time the aff gets to weigh their aff, and the neg gets their links. Neg teams need to invest heavily to convince me to disregard the aff entirely, and aff teams similarly need to invest heavily to convince me to disregard the K entirely.

You can probably read whatever you want to in front of me, granted you understand and can explain it well.

Advantages/Disads

Zero risk exists when you prove the chance of the impact scenario is indistinguishable from statistical noise. For you, this means yes, there is always a risk, and yes, sometimes it is worth rounding the risk down to zero.

Make good arguments, even when you don’t have evidence to support your claims. Smart analytics are convincing.

Turns case is important but matters insofar as you win a relatively higher risk of the DA. 2NR/2AR impact calc is not a new argument.

The politics disad, done well, is a fun debate to watch. Most of the time the neg wins, it's because they sheer out-evidenced the aff. Keep in mind how insanely unlikely the disad is, and use that to your advantage.

Case-specific disads are best, but are never read.

I’ve grown more tired with teams that have framing pages with “probability first” type arguments that use them to completely dismiss the DA. You still need to answer it. I’m more fond of offensive framing arguments, i.e. critiques of DAs. If you’ve mostly ceded the evidence debate to the neg and you’re really in a tough spot cardwise, analytics are still convincing arguments! Use that to your advantage.

Counterplans

Evidence which says the counterplan solves the aff is best and can be used to justify its theoretical legitimacy.

If the status quo is a logical option, then a 2NR which goes for a counterplan is not forever bound to the counterplan. I will compare the aff to both the status quo and the counterplan. I can be convinced otherwise.

Textual and functional > Functional only > Textual only.

Theory

Condo is most likely good, is definitely good when there's a new aff, and is questionable if there are performative contradictions and those are used to the negative's advantage in round. Qualitative > quantitative interps, but I can be convinced of a number if there’s a good reason behind it.

Probably good — PICs, 50 state fiat, agent CPs, politics DAs, counterplans without a specific solvency advocate. Arguments about the presence of a solvency argument are more convincing as a solvency push than a theory push.

Might be good — International fiat, counterplans which compete off immediacy and certainty, 2NC CPs in response to new 2AC offense (impact turns, straight turns, add-ons)

Probably bad — Counterplans which are not policies (against policy affs), floating PIKs, affs/alternatives which fiat entire structures out of existence

I default to reject the argument and not the team for most theory except condo, but can be convinced otherwise.

I can see myself voting on procedural arguments such as spec/vagueness, given it's not like 2 seconds and there's substantial time invested in the debate, or it's dropped. New affs bad is :/

Miscellaneous

Stolen from Aron Berger’s paradigm — "Ethically repugnant arguments will not make me want to vote for you. At the same time, however, if you cannot defeat ostensibly “bad” arguments, then you are a bad advocate and you should lose."

If you have impact turns, run them. In the words of KHirn, “Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life here you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable.”

Speaks

Speaks have been, are, and always will be arbitrary. I will inflate or deflate speaks according to the tournament and division of that tournament that I am at. This means a varsity debater’s 27.8 could be a novices’ 29.2.

Make me laugh for better speaks.

No, you may not have a 30. The ballot is yours to take, but speaks are mine to give.

27.5 or more --- U probably get this

26 or less --- You clipped, were violent in some way, etc.

LD Version for UNLV

- If you exclusively go for skep and tricks or whatever you call them nowadays, strike me. I want to see good, quality, substantive debate that somehow resolves around the resolution.

- Conditionality is very much a voting issue in LD. Debate your interps; I can't tell you the amount of times teams just justify their own interp but never do comparative or framing work. Everything else is default reject the argument not the team, but I can be convinced otherwise. Theory is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. Don't even try to convince me otherwise. Neg theory is farce, and I'll give the aff a lot of leeway on dropped ASPEC spikes.

- Phil arguments are interesting, but never used in policy. I'd require more explanation than other judges to vote on these arguments, but please don't discount them just for that reason. Go for what you go for best.

jpark.debate@gmail.com

University of Kansas '23, Washburn Rural '19

he/him/his

Coaching for the Asian Debate League and Taipei American School

Based in Taiwan, so the time difference will affect my judging. This means you need to have more enunciation and clarity than usual.

TLDR:

---very low econ knowledge

---very bad for K AFFs, process counterplans, and technical T arguments

---decent for other policy arguments and Ks that are DAs

________________________________________________________________________________________

TLDR:

---Not the greatest flow, likes creativity, more likely to care about macro-issues than minor technical drops, avoid jargon/acronyms, will vote on args that promote sedition

---Fully-developed strategies that clash tend to perform better in front of me.

---I think have a higher bar for what constitutes a 'complete argument' than the average college-aged judge and some may say I care more about the "truth" side of "tech over truth." This is not necessarily about content, but about argument development/evidence/persuasion.

---My debate beliefs are malleable. This paradigm might make me seem like an old person (true, though), but good debating can remedy my predispositions. Good ev helps too.

---Largely persuaded that:

(1) incomplete args in the 1NC justify new responses

(2) net benefits should be verbally stated in the 1NC

The justification for both of these will be below.

________________________________________________________________________________________

General:

Positives

1---Respecting your opponents (CX, pronouns, don't mercilessly bludgeon less-experienced debaters), be ethical, etc.

2---Efficiency. In your speech, during prep, emailing, down-time. etc. If you don't need 10 minutes of prep for the 2NR/2AR, don't take it.

3---Taking debate seriously. Pay attention, flow, try. But also, have fun! We are all invested, so let's make our debates worthwhile. Ad-homs are bad and not arguments.

4---Research (evidence matters, but so could spin). Vertifical proliferation is better than horizontal proliferation of arguments. Also, likely won't vote for death good.

5---Ethos and Clarity. I am a bad judge for teams that just spit into their computer at 300 WPM at 65% clarity. Lowkey think that debaters that are slow (while being smart, technical, etc.) are *****chefs kiss***** I should hear every single word you say. Please enunciate and recognize that debate is also a communication activity instead of a block-perfecting competition in the 2NR and 2AR. If you are a team that has rebuttals prescripted without any plans of contextualization (such as asserting things happened when they didn't), then please email me your 2NR/2AR blocks, and I will assign your speaker points during the 1AC and vote against you.

6. Organization---speech docs, cards, wikis

Negatives

1---Lack of analysis. You should have framing arguments, judge instruction, contextualization, and argument development.

2---Debates that make me litigate things outside of the debate.

3---Vagueness. It should be clear what your AFF does, what the plan means, what the counterplan does, what your highlighting of evidence means, and what the tags of your cards are intended to communicate. I am likely more amenable to vagueness arguments than most judges.

Misc

I kicked the AFF in a decent chunk of debates I was in. I do not think this influences my judging but my AFF (and NEG) debates would sometimes look really different than a lot of people.

________________________________________________________________________________________

Policy:

Topicality vs. Policy AFFs

T versus policy AFFs was one of my least favorite arguments. It isn't ideological, but I spent most of my debate career debating with 2Ns who were obsessed with it, so I just never really thought about it. I find most T debates dry but I understand the strategic necessity of them. My aversion stems from 1NCs that lack a violation and then debate becoming late-breaking.

To improve my VTL when going for T, internal link explanation is important. 2Ns have seemed to forget that there ought to be a reasonable explanation about how we get from the violation to zero NEG ground ever. Both teams should have more debating about what the interp/counter-interp debates would look like. Assertions of topic biases or quality of generics should be explained with warrants. I am not the ideal judge for a technical T argument.

For some reason, I find ground arguments more compelling than limits/precision. Not sure if this will affect my judging, but I've always thought that limits arguments were hyperbolic. Big topics feel good if the NEG has robust strategies to counter them. When evenly debated, plan-text-in-a-vacuum is a tough sell for me.

Disadvantages

The optimal 2NR is a DA and the case. Counterplans are for cowards. I'm not as big on the modern Politics DA as most Kansas debaters but it's okay. I would prefer not to judge debates about intrinsicness tests.

AFFs teams should have offense on the DA. NEG teams should try to have real "turns case" arguments outside of "nuke war is bad."

Counterplans

I'm mostly AFF-leaning on theory arguments. I'm not wedded to these beliefs, but I have some predispositions. I am not a huge believer in conditionality. This is not a free invitation to go for condo in the 2AR, merely an observation that in-depth debates are better.

My least favorite genre of argument as a debater was the process counterplan. Again, I understand its strategic utility and will judge the debate neutrally. I'd prefer a 2NR that is about why the AFF's bad. Competition debates are dry. Comparative evidence between the AFF and the counterplan's process demonstrating functional competition could make me hate your counterplan a little less. I am also a less qualified judge for complex competition debates.

Case

I am a good judge for presumption and giving a low weight to the AFF advantages. The 2AC and 1AR get away with murder on the case, so the NEG teams should use that to their advantage. This is an area where good debating will be rewarded with nice speaker points.

Soft Left

I enjoy soft left AFFs but framing contentions need to contain offense. ________________________________________________________________________________________

Critiques:

Ks vs. Policy AFFs

I'm better for Ks on the NEG. I will award specificity, especially backed with evidence. I will have a hard time voting on critiques that lack interactions with the scholarship and thesis of the 1AC. If the NEG reads a K impact turn to the AFF's advantage, that is likely the best strategy in front of me. Or, have a robust framework justification with turns case arguments. I seem to care a little bit more about performative contradictions/linking to your own K than some (not for theory reasons). The closer your K is to a soft-left impact turn, the better. I am willing to vote on non-extinction impact-turns (example: heg is racist/causes violent interventions---bipolarity is preferable).

K AFF vs. T: USFG

I have voted both ways but am a bad judge for you/find most AFF offense not intrinsic to T. Explain what debates over the AFF interp would look like. I always thought framework debates were thought-provoking and helped me think about debate. Explain what debates over the NEG interp/TVA would look like. I am open to voting for either fairness or education. I am a believer in research about the topic, so the closer your AFF is to being about the topic, defending a theory of power, being a substantial shift from the status quo, and defending material action, the better. Any lit bases outside of bio power, colonialism, settler colonialism, capitalism, and IR need more explanation.

________________________________________________________________________________________

(1) Incomplete Arguments

I am mostly compelled that the 1AR should get whatever it wants in response to incomplete 1NCs. Debates are increasingly rewarding blippy 1NCs, causing debates that are worse to judge and I believe judges ought hold the line on what the debate community constitutes a complete argument. If a 1NC DA shell lacks uniqueness, then why should the 2AC be burdened to make link turn args as to how they reverse the deficiencies of the status quo. The logical conclusion of "you have to answer everything" would mean the AFF would have to read impact d to random floating impacts, which is absurd.

(2) Net Benefits

Whatever the net benefit of every advocacy is should be specified in the 1NC. This is low-cost for the NEG and would improve debates/AFF strategy. CX doesn't remedy this because NEG teams take forever to answer, which is unfair for the AFF because the 1A could be asking good, substantive questions. Instead, I have to listen to the 1N say "everything is a net benefit... wait... <>...then the 2N takes 15 seconds to decide and then lists net benefits to analytical con con, states, the one card Security K, a card-less 15 plank advantage counterplan, and a process counterplan. This take might seem extreme, but I believe it is the least arbitrary and most efficient way to resolve net benefit shenanigans (a time limit feels weird). For most counterplans, they are only complete arguments if they have arguments about solvency AND competition in the 1NC. Counterplans that rely on DAs to beat the perm and complete, so it seems logical that the NEG should be responsible for this. Lastly, I want to award bold strategies. The clearer the net benefits are, the better AFFs will be at straight-turning and NEGs will read better DA + CP combinations.

History: Did four years of debate at UC Lab and had success, did a tad of debate at Michigan, and I am currently a debate coach at Success Academy Harlem North Central.

Thoughts (tldr: Do whatever you want but do it well. I was raised on technical Midwest style debate)

1. Debaters have a debilitating tendency to fail to see the forest for the trees. Most debates can be resolved by 1 central issue, define that issue and tell me why you are winning on that question.

2. I am tabula rasa- I have a read a drilling aff, a Moby Dick aff, an Asian Identity aff, an encryption aff, went for Baudrillard ALOT, etc. In other words, do what you want!

3. The best way to win a K in front of me is to spend a lot ton of time on the link debate and give each link an impact and/or turns case args. Pull lines from the 1AC, go into their internal links or the structuring logic of the aff- don't just read your generic heg links to the K blocks.

4. Your final speech should always begin and end with the exact reason you think I should vote for you.

5. Nuance is always strategic and appreciated.

6. Im not the best for techy T and theory debates but I can most def handle it.

7. CrossX is a speech and it is super important.

8. After some personal experiences I have come to believe that death good arguments pose a serious real life threat to the mental health of high school debaters. If you read these arguments and the other team makes the argument that death good is detrimental to the community, I am very likely to vote on the argument. However, that does not mean that you shouldn't read arguments like fear of death bad in front of me.

I believe debate is primarily an educational activity to learn about the intricacies of policy matters on the current topic. Second, it is an intellectual game with real-world content as the basis. Third, it is a communication contest. I will vote in a way that upholds these priorities. Debaters impress me most who have a command of knowledge of the current topic, are astute at strategy in-round, and who communicate effectively.

As an old-timer policy debater who took a long break from debate and returned fairly recently, I can still flow (may be a bit rusty, so please focus on clarity over speed) and value clash on the flow where debaters think critically about the arguments of their opponents and evaluate them for me in light of their own arguments. I prefer a solid amount of in-round critical thinking based on the flow vs. overly relying on reading pre-prepared blocks. I also am impressed with debaters who HAVE a lot of pre-prepared blocks for specific arguments and who know the topic and their positions well enough to be prepared for most of what comes their way.

I am old-school with my preferences for arguments (DAs vs. case advantages, really thorough case debate, CPs, Topicality, etc.). I enjoy hearing clear explanations of impact scenarios and am a sucker for excellent storytelling in comparing policy outcomes in the 2NR/2AR. I vote frequently on which team more effectively explains the comparative benefit of the plan vs. the status quo/CP given all the arguments in the round, especially if the flow backs up the story. Your story should also make sense in the real world outside the debate round.

I need careful explanations for highly theoretical arguments. Feel free to run kritiks or performative arguments, but know that you are in an area that is less familiar and comfortable for me and it is your job to clarify how these arguments work and why I should vote on them. If I don't understand it, I won't vote on it. I will not vote in a way that rejects the personhood or identity of anyone in the round.

I will listen to any argument you introduce; however, morally repugnant arguments are not persuasive to me and I may vote against you on face for running them, even without being challenged by your opponents. We are discussing real-world life-or-death issues. Communicate in a way that regards the seriousness of the topic and treats all human beings, including those in the room and those discussed in your evidence, with respect.

arriqs@gmail.com

Pronouns = they/them.

Framework is not always policing, but it can be weaponized. Focus on framing central ideas and offense. I am not a super technical judge.

High School

Speed is fine, but go only as fast as you can handle. Conditionality is generally okay. Everyone in the debate should be timing.

Explain Ks through history and current events. Examples are the easiest way to make a complex concept simple enough to evaluate in the short span of time we have.

Email: a.sinsioco1@gmail.com

-Peninsula' 21 - USC' 25

Have fun. Be nice.

I have little specific topic knowledge, so don't take for granted that I understand any topic-specific jargon/am keeping up with the debate meta.

tech>truth

Very hard pressed to vote on presumption type arguments. Absent any offense, even the smallest chance that the aff does something positive for the world is enough reason to vote affirmative

Other than that, any opinion I have about arguments can be overcome by better debating.

Thoughts

The first 30 seconds of the final rebuttal should write my RFD.

K Affs:

Probably read a plan tbh, but I will enjoy K affs with a strong explanation of what the aff actually does clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework and clear articulation of how debate operates under their framework.

I often find defensive arguments weaker and think the counter interpretation solves little of the actual neg offense. impact turn framework standards and the neg's model of debate.

Fairness > Education/Skills > whatever else. Focus on using your framework arguments to engage the substance of the aff and the da's to framework. It's very easy to vote aff in these debates when the negative spreads through framework blocks and fails to directly address the often more developed affirmative case and da's to framework

I really enjoy and prefer judging substantive offense against the K itself. Don't be afraid to go for the heg da or cap good or whatever.

K:

If your K is able to disprove thesis of the aff and the assumptions it relies upon, I will love your K.

I will default to weighing the aff versus the K.

I have an aversion to strategies that solely rely upon winning framework and arbitrarily disregarding huge swaths of the debate. I will assign less weight to these arguments unless they are dropped. K debate is case debate. The kritik should engage with the affirmative and disprove its thesis.

Your links should reference a specific line/assumption which the affirmative's scenario relies upon, explain why that line/assumption is flawed, impact out why I should care/the material implications of that flawed assumption, and how the alternative resolves the link. The more specific the better.

Ideally, you should be leveraging your answers on case to bolster your argument otherwise I'm willing to grant the aff the truth of their scenario which makes it difficult to win that their assumptions are flawed.

CP: I dislike cp's that compete off immediacy and certainty and find them a bit harder to adjudicate personally.

DA's: Enjoy most flavors of disads, but generally dislike ones whose links are predicated on silly interpretations of fiat.

T: Clearly explain what debate looks like under each interpretation and the implications of your impacts, as well as how your interpretation solves your impacts. I generally feel predictability and precision often guides the way I adjudicate these debates on a top level. What I should prioritize is certainly debatable

Case: I find well-researched, dissections of the affirmative case to be the coolest things to judge and will reward the effort.

Theory: Condo is good, and I don't see value in interps that numerically limit the number of conditional advocacies. Either all condo or no condo

Most theory arguments are reject the argument unless you specifically explain otherwise

I debated in policy for The Blake School for four years (2009-2013) and then I debated for Rutgers University-Newark in college (2013-2017). I ran mostly policy based arguments in high school and mostly critical arguments in college. I was an assistant coach (policy and public forum) with the Blake School until 2019 and then coached policy and congress at Success Academy from 2019-2023. I currently coach LD and policy at the Delores Taylor Arthur School for Young Men in New Orleans.

Email - hannah.s.stafford@gmail.com - if its and LD round please also add: DTA.lddocs@gmail.com

--

Feel free to run any arguments you want whether it be critical or policy based. The only thing that will never win my ballot is any argument about why racism, sexism, etc. is good. Other than that do you. I really am open to any style or form of argumentation.

I do not have many specific preferences other than I hate long overviews - just make the arguments on the line-by-line.

I am not going to read your evidence unless there is a disagreement over a specific card or if you tell me to read a specific card. I am not going to just sit and do the work for you and read a speech doc.

Note on clash of civ debates - I tend to mostly only judge clash of civ debates - In these debates I find it more persuasive if you engage the aff rather than just read framework. But that being said I have voted on framework in the past.

PF - Please please please read real cards. If its not in the summary I won't evaluate it in the final focus. Do impact calculus. Stop calling for cards if you aren't going to do the evidence comparison. I will increase your speaker points if you do an email chain with your cards prior to your speech.

Stjsuben@gmail.com

Mamaroneck '20

Binghamton '24

assistant coach @ Berkeley Prep

As of fall 2021, I no longer actively debate. This was not by my own choice, but rather the result of partner scarcity/other people quitting at a small program, and is something I am sort of sad about. It does however, mean a few things:

1. My engagement with the activity entirely takes place through coaching/judging, thus, I will be especially committed to making these debates as good as possible in whatever ways I can.

2. Many of the views and/or biases (particularly concerning k debate) stated in this paradigm are far more weakly held than they were even a few months ago. You probably get away with anything if you do it well.

In high school I was flex but went for the K very often. I would typically go for topicality against critical affs. I have predispositions towards both sides of the clash of civs depending on issue. My closest mentors in the activity were/are "policy-leaning" and my brief college career was largely k-oriented. Do with all that what you will.

I read a great deal in my spare time and as part of my academic career. This mostly focuses on putatively "critical" bases of literature like world-systems analysis, Russian Studies, Marxism, and development economics. I strive to be neutral but I believe that judges who are highly engaged with scholarship outside of the activity should not try to pretend that it doesn't influence how they think about debates.

Basic predispositions:

+0.3 speaks if you opensource after the debate and tell me

tech determines the direction of truth

protecting the 2nr = yes

not your baudrillard

I will not evaluate arguments made outside of speech times and thus will stop flowing if you continue after the timer

don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc

an expressive judge, but tend to express my feelings about extremely irrelevant things and make difficult to discern expressions

horrible with eye contact

speed = good

I am extremely unlikely to vote in favor of mandating pref disclosure

Do not ask for high speaks

Moralizing is prohibited

I would frankly prefer not to hear fascist and genocidal arguments about "first striking" Russia or China or Iran

other than that, more general "death good" is fine

"kritik affs"/planless affs/t-usfg/framework:

Debate is a game. It is also 1) A game with potentially meaningful effects on the social/political consciousness of the participants and 2) A game with a community, culture, and history. This history may mean that even if an argument is narrowly true, the actual enforcement/implementation of a rule may have historically been used as a tool of exclusion. On the flipside, without rules to the game it might cease to function entirely, and then whatever benefits there are to it would be lost. I can be convinced of either of these things.

affs should not defend a moral truism

i will lean more strongly towards the policy side of these debates when affs do not clearly advocate for something and more strongly towards the critical side when negatives make very racist or orientalist arguments

critiques generally:

Critical debates are good when done well. As mentioned above, I am very knowledgeable about literature bases related to Marxism, critiques of imperialism, or orientalism. I am also conversant in baudrillard, foucault, wilderson, etc -- most of the literature that is conventionally read in debates.

links to the plan + alts that function as counterplans OR links that function as impact turns are the most enjoyable k debates for me. these debates produce the most interesting revolutionary research. this doesn't change at all that affs that can't justify weighing the plan will lose in front of me.

I think "weighing the aff" is not all-or-nothing, insofar as the aff is attached to a number of things (political and educational methodology, engagement with certain structures, goals, etc) besides its scenarios which these debates are almost entirely about

Impact turns when well explained and well carded are often a good strategy.

t vs policy affs

I default to competing interpretations.

reasonability is not a thing

not much else to say here

disads

I read most if not all evidence

uq + link + internal link + impact

counterplans:

I like well-researched, specific, techy, creative, etc counterplans. I am a big fan of the advantage cp. I especially enjoy cps that rely on a macroeconomic or ir theory to ground solvency (mmt, prolif good, etc). uniqueness cps are cool

Process counterplans become better the more they are grounded in topic literature. Process counterplans become worse the more they use neg fiat to manufacture an opportunity cost or lead to the aff. Theory will be covered below.

Sufficiency framing >>>>

Logical arguments or arguments based on obvious holes in the aff don't necessarily need solvency advocates

obviously you can kick specific planks

theory:

lean negative on: condo, pics (including plan-inclusive alts), no plan no perm

lean affirmative on: fifty state fiat, multi-actor fiat generally, agent counterplans generally, process counterplans that don't very obviously compete

i am open to intrinsic perms being okay to punish shitty process cps

LD:

Same views as in policy apply for the most part. Best for larp or structural k debates.

Biases in no plan debates significantly weaker in this activity

I do not know much about analytic phil. I know a decent amount about continental and political phil.

People who have influenced how I debate/judge/view debate:

Ronak Ahuja, Ken Karas, Atticus Glen, Daryl Burch

If you make (nice) jokes at the expense of someone from Mamaroneck chances are that I will laugh, especially if it is Sonia Suben

Всё идёт по плану - YouTube

Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)

Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist

Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University

I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.

Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.

Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.

Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.

For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.

Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.

Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.

Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.

Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.

Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences

--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards

--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.

--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX

I would like to be on the email chain – misty.tippets9@gmail.com

Hello! My name is Mackenzie and I am a sophomore at Penn. I've been debating for six years, coaching and judging for four years, and currently compete for Penn's parliamentary debate team. Here is a short list of things that you should know about me as a judge.

1) I'm a flow judge.

2) I'm fine with any type of argument, but I'm not the best at evaluating theory. If you're going to run theory, I'm fine with it as long as you're super clear. Also, feel free to run progressive arguments.

3) Please weigh! It's super important and something that I expect in a good debate.

4) I find it difficult to flow speed, and I'll yell "clear" if you need to adjust. If you're going over an important point, I recommend slowing down a bit so that I don't miss it.

5) Please don't be rude or overly aggressive. I will take it into account when deciding speaker points.

6) Warrant your arguments please! Good debates have good argument and good arguments have good warranting.

7) Signpost please. It helps me flow.

Dartmouth, Interlake. He/him.

Email Chain

Add me: ant981228 at gmail dot com

College people, add: debatedocs at googlegroups dot com

Please include the tournament, round, and teams debating in the subject line of the email.

Key Things to Know

I will flow and vote based on the things you said. NEGs can say whatever but the more it says the plan is bad the better. Conditionality and judge kick are good. AFFs should be T and are likely to lose if they aren't. If you say death good you lose. If you ask for a 30 you will get a 25.

Online

I STRONGLY prefer that all cameras be on whenever anyone in the debate is speaking, but I understand if internet or other considerations prevent this.

If my camera is off, assume I am away from my computer and don't start talking. If you start your speech while I am away from my computer you do not get to restart. That is on you.

Here is how to successfully adjust to the online setting:

1. Inflect more when you are talking.

2. Put your face in frame. Ideally, make it so you can see the judge.

3. Get a microphone, put it close to your face, talk into it, make sure there is an unobstructed line between it and your mouth.

4. Talk one at a time.

T/L

Tech determines truth unless it's death good. If you tell me to embrace death because life is bad I will vote against you even if you do not go for the argument. More broadly, all else being equal, I strongly prefer to solve problems without resorting to violence or force if possible.

Otherwise, unless my role as a judge is changed, I will attempt to make the least interventionary decision. This means:

1. I will identify the most important issues in the debate, decide them first based on the debating, then work outward.

2. What is conceded is absolutely true, but will only have the implications that you say it has. Unless something is explicitly said, conceded, and extended, or is an obvious and necessary corollary of something that is said, conceded, and extended, I will attempt to resolve it, rather than assuming it.

3. I will intervene if there is no non-interventionary decision.

4. I will attempt to minimize the scope of my intervention by simplifying the decision-making process. I would prefer to decide fewer issues. If an issue seems hard to resolve without intervening, I will prioritize evaluating ballots that don't require resolving that issue. Example: a DA is heavily and messily contested, and may be straight turned, but the case would outweigh the DA even if the DA was 100% NEG. I will likely not attempt to resolve the DA page. In complex debates, it would help you to instruct me on how I should do this, or instruct me not to do this if you would prefer that I resolve the debate a different way. You can also stop this from happening by debating in ways that don't require intervention to evaluate.

I am aware that this procedure can influence my assessment of substance. Given infinite decision time, I would not do this. However, decision times are shrinking. Post-round time is limited; minutes spent resolving complex or under-debated issues that are not outcome-determinative trade off with the quality of my assessment of issues that are. I believe this process net reduces error costs.

I have voted NEG 53% of the time.

I often vote quickly. This does not necessarily mean the debate was lopsided or bad; more likely, it is a sign that the teams clearly communicated the relationships between their arguments, allowing me to perform evaluations as the debate is happening. If I take a long time that means I was unable to do this, either because there was significant complexity in the debate or because communication was poor.

The following are my inclinations - if you don't like them you can change them.

DAs

The agenda DA is not a serious argument, but can be a strategic one.

"Framing pages" where you say "DAs are bad" are bad.

CP'ing in offense is underrated.

CPs

If no one says anything I will assume I can judge kick. It is very hard to use theory to stop me from thinking about the status quo. Nothing but conditionality is a voting issue. Pretty NEG on most theory, except fiating out of your own straight turned offense.

Competition is usually more impactful than theory. Theory arguments that logically presume you have won a competition argument ("CPs that steal the AFF are a voting issue" assumes you have demonstrated that the CP has stolen the AFF, which is a competition argument. "CPs that are not functionally and textually competitive are a voting issue"... come on, what are we doing here) are a waste of time. Just win the competition argument.

Functional competition + explaining what your plan does + definitions + reasons to prefer your definitions >>>>> anything involving the concept of textual competition. Textual competition is mind poison that corrupts any competition model it touches.

If I can't explain what a CP does and how it accomplishes whatever the NEG says it does, I am unlikely to vote for it. You can avoid this by writing a meaningful CP text AND explaining it in the speech.

T

I like judging good T debates. I really don't like judging bad ones. What sets these apart is specific application of broad offense to interpretations and impact debating that is specific to internal links, grounded in a vivid vision for debates under your topic.

I do not think the intrinsic value of being "factually correct" about your T argument is very high.

Many parts of a T argument can be enhanced with cards - e.g. link to limits, claims of AFF/NEG bias in the literature, predictability via prodicts/indicts.

Argue by analogy and comparison to other AFFs, especially in CX.

Ks / Planless AFFs

OK for specific Ks on the NEG, bad for random backfile slop, bad for K AFFs, death good = L.

If your K is secretly a DA, refer to the DA section. If your K is not a DA then yes, you need framework and you need an alternative. Whatever issue your framework says should determine the round should be what your link, impact, and ALT are about.

I do not judge many debates involving nontraditional AFFs. The biggest hurdles to voting AFF for me are usually: 1) why can't the AFF be read on the NEG, 2) why is the AFF's offense inherent to resolutional debate or to voting NEG on framework instead of some avoidable examples, and 3) how do I reconcile the AFF's vision of debate or the topic with debate's inherently (even if not exclusively) competitive nature.

I am open to different understandings of what it means for things to compete if there is no plan. However, "no plan, no perms" is nonsense.

The only effect of my ballot is to decide the winner.

Speaker Points

Strong strategy, being fun/engaging to watch, being smart, being classy, being clear = higher speaks.

Making wrong strategic choices, being underprepared or ignorant about substance, making CXs annoying/pointless, making bad arguments, being needlessly mean, being a mumbler... = lower speaks.

I do not view speaker points as divorced from substance.

My points are slightly below average.

Asking for a 30 will yield a 25.

Ethics and Conduct

If the tabroom tells me to do something, it is not up for debate. I will do that thing. The rest is what I will do if left to my own devices.

Evidence ethics (out of context? straw-person? lied about quals? cut in middle of paragraph?) should be debated out like any other theory argument. Alternative remedies short of an automatic loss could be more responsive or proportional to the harm: scratching the argument AND evidence, scratching only the evidence and treating the argument as if it is made analytically, assuming an author is absolutely unqualified, requiring the team to produce the full text of articles in question, requiring the violating team to establish a paper trail authenticating other important evidence and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, requiring a team to produce the full text of every article in the debate and presuming unauthenticated evidence to be fabricated, reducing speaker points, informing the team's coaches after the fact. They MAY be a reason to reject the team, but I will not treat them as such by default.

Clipping - claiming you read words from evidence that you did not read - is different, and a voting issue. It is a form of dishonesty that irreparably distorts teams' speech times, which affects every other issue in the debate, and which opponents are uniquely poorly positioned to police. If you are inexperienced or appear to have clipped by mistake, I will be lenient. Otherwise, it is non-negotiable.

Thoughts on stopping the debate early:

1. This is an exceptional measure to be avoided if possible.

2. Once the debate stops because of an ethics challenge, my first step is to consult the tabroom and do whatever they say.

3. Unless expressly instructed otherwise by the tabroom, the debate will not resume once stopped. The winner and loser will be determined solely by the ethics challenge.

4. An accusing team can stop the debate at any time except during a speech or a cross-ex. They win if they are correct, present compelling evidence that they are correct, and I agree that the conduct justifies a penalty loss. The winner will receive 28.5 and 28.6. Losers who have personally committed an ethics violation receive the lowest points allowed. Losers who have not personally committed an ethics violation - either due to an unsuccessful accusation, or because the partner committed the violation - receive a 27 and 27.1.

5. During the dispute, both teams must engage in good faith. The accusing team must submit evidence of their accusation as soon as possible. I will not consider evidence submitted within 20 minutes of decision time. Any filibustering or other unreasonable behavior by the accusing team will result in a win for the accused.

6. An accused team can stop the debate, even if the accusing team does not wish to do so, if the accusation concerns the fundamental academic integrity of the accused. This is a very high bar.

7. An accusing team may ask me if I believe certain conduct justifies a penalty loss without stopping the debate. I will take judge prep to answer. This answer is not an invitation to negotiate and obviously doesn't bind the tabroom.

8. I will proactively end the debate for clipping. I will not do this for other evidence ethics or academic integrity issues.

9. Basically none of this applies to novice or JV, where I will resolve the dispute as quickly and narrowly as possible with the aim of maximizing the number of speeches that can happen.

Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator outweighs my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. You should give this line a wide berth.

Add me to the email chain: gayathrideepak2008@gmail.com

Background

- Varsity Parli for 3 years at Dougherty Valley High School

Case

- I will default to evaluating a debate on net benefits and through the paradigm of a comparative world

- Please tagline your arguments and signpost

- Weigh your arguments. I don't have a clear preference between probability and magnitude, so just warrant out why I should prefer one over the other

Theory

- Frivolous theory will win you a round, but will cost you in speaks

- Repeat your interp twice

- I am open to hearing RVIs, especially if you feel theory was read as a time suck. However, please justify why theory should be an RVI and tagline your RVI as one

Kritiks

-Good with K's as long as you explain it thoroughly

-You can read them on either side, just clearly explain your advocacy

- Please read specific links.

- Explain why voting for the alternative is specifically key in this instance

Speaks

- Speaks will reflect efficient use of time, clarity of argumentation, and strategic decision making. If you're explaining the same argument 4 times or not making good use of the block by simply repeating the 2NC, I will dock speaks

- Enunciate clearly and have a good pace

- Off time roadmaps are encouraged for getting arguments in order

- I think teams should take 1-2 POIs per constructive speech.

Dowling Catholic 2020

University of Kentucky 2024

Do what you do best.

I care about responsiveness more than anything else. Don't just shotgun warrants/restate arguments, listen to what your opponent says, apply your warrants to what they are saying, and explain why your arguments subsume theirs.

Line by line is the most important part of debate for me.

I try to be more deterministic than probabilistic when evaluating arguments. Strong comparative analysis and argument resolution can turn 'risks' of things into decisive yes/no questions for one team.

Add me to the chain (weinhardtdash@gmail.com) however I try to look at speech docs as little as possible. I think the increasing card-docification of debate is an unhealthy trend. The value of cutting really good cards should be that you can explain and apply them advantageously and access a higher standard for ev comparison, as such, the purpose of me having access to the doc should be to verify if what you're saying your ev says is true in the event the other team disputes it, not to assess the quality of the cards in the abstract. This is also why slowing down and being clear helps since If I flow your arguments from hearing them first I feel less interventionist when granting you their weight.

Slow down for arguments that have a really dense concept-to-word ratio like T and theory.

I'm cool with inserting rehighlightings as long as you actually explain in depth what the rehighlighting says/why it matters rather than just exploiting it as a method to read cards faster - if this turns into a moral hazard for one team the other should call it out.

CP competition admittedly isn't my strong suit.

lesser stylistic things -

Pick your battles, especially in CX. Chances are, not every word that comes out of your opponents mouth is an F tier trash argument. I get that having conviction and passion is important, but sometimes knowing when to give certain opposing arguments a respectful level of credence can convey nuance and demonstrate to me that you're smart enough to be cognizant of the substantive difference between certain arguments in the round.

numbering arguments is always a plus.

I like when tags have the card's warrants in them.

PF - in all honesty I will probably judge this like a policy round, so most of the stuff above applies. if you're responsive and focus on developing less arguments more in depth and with more warrants you should be good.

LD - tricks suck. please don't pref me if this is your style.

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Email me if you have questions and please put me on the chain: dylan.willett8 at gmail dot com as well as taiwanheg@gmail.com. I coach for the Asian Debate League. I debated for UMKC. In college, I mostly went for framework, topic DAs, and an assortment of topic critiques. As a coach I mostly have spent the last year working on random policy stuff, but have spent a lot of time working with critical approaches to the topic as well.

Be bold, read something new, it will be rewarded if you do it well. Analysis of evidence is important. I have found that over the past few years I have grown my appreciation for more of the policy side of research not in an ideological lean, but rather I am not starting from negative with process counterplans, I appreciate clever disadvantages, etc. If you have good cards, I am more willing to reward that research and if you do something new, I will definitely be happy.

I begin my decisions by attempting to identify what the most important arguments are, who won them, and how they implicate the rest of the debate. The more judge instruction, including dictating where I should begin my decision by showing me what is most important will help determine the lens of how I read the rest of the arguments

I find that I am really annoyed by how frequently teams are asking major flow clarifications like sending a new file that removes the evidence that was skipped. Please just flow, if there is an actual issue that warrants a question its obviously ok, but in most situations it comes across as not paying attention to the speeches which is a bit frustrating.

I like good, strategic cross-ex. If you pay attention and prepare for your cx, it pays dividens in points and ballots. Have a plan. Separate yourself and your arguments here!

I am a big fan of case debates that consist of a lot of offense – impact turns or link turns are always better than just pulling from an impact d file.

I think that I mostly lean negative on theory arguments – I would be really sad if I had to parse through a huge theory debate like condo, but am willing. I think I start from a predisposition that condo, PICs, etc are okay, and change based off the theory debate as it develops. I think theory is an important part of an affirmative strategy versus good, and especially cheaty, counterplans. I don't think education is a super persuasive argument in theory debates I have found. Way easier to go for some type of fairness argument and compare internal links versus going for some abstract notion about how conditionality benefits or hurts "advocacy skills".

In framework debates, the best teams spend a lot of their speeches on these flows answering the nuanced developments of their opponents. AFF or NEG teams that just say a different wording of their original offense in each speech are setting themselves up to lose. I am interested in hearing what debates would look like under each model. I like education arguments that are contextual to the topic and clever TVAs and impact turns are good ways to get my ballot while making the debate less stale. I find the framework teams that lose my ballot most are those that refuse to turn (on the link level or impact level, in appropriate manner) AFF offense. I find the K AFF teams that lose my ballot most are those that don't double down on their offense and explain how the NEGs impacts fit in your depiction of how debate operates.

Ks, DAs, CPs, T, FW, etc are all fine to read and impact turn – as long as I am judging a round where there is some attention to strategy and arguments are being developed, I will be happy. Definitely willing to vote on zero risk of a link.

Introduction-

My name is Marcus Williams and i'm a senior at the University of Kentucky.

My email is marcusvwilliams.ii@gmail.com . You can email me with any questions you have. If you do email chains you can also add me to it before the round.

General -

I really enjoy debate and I think it should be a fun activity that everyone should be comfortable doing. With that being said, I am open to all arguments that teams make. I have NOT done any debating or research on this years high school/middle school topic, but that doesn't mean I am clueless to how things work. It just means you need more explanation.

Disads -

Do impact and framing work. I prefer specificity when it comes to link arguments. Generic link arguments can get it done with nuance, but I am lenient to aff no link arguments if they press your very general evidence.

Topicality -

Topicality should be treated as a disad, meaning that you should do similar impact calc. Violations should be aff specific. T debates can be kinda confusing if you are just repeating your arguments without answering the other teams, so make sure to do comparative work.

Counterplans -

Generic counterplans are fine. Ensure you isolate all 1AC internal links early on and how you resolve them in advance.

Theory -

I am persuaded by a lot of aff theory arguments however, I find I vote neg a lot more in theory debates because of a lack of impact comparison and technical drops. going for one liner theory arguments are fine if their dropped, but they have to be clearly communicated and substantiated with an impact.

Kritiks -

let em rip

Experience:

MS/HS-Crossings: Education, Immigration, Arms Sales, CJR, Water, and NATO

College-OU: Nukes

Coaching: Assistant Coach at Crossings (23-)

Coaches: Kaine Cherry, Jared Demunbrun, Gabby Knight, Dennis Savill, and Lindsey Shook

Email (please include me):

bycxdebate@gmail.com

General notes about me and my ideas:

do what you do best

traditional policy stuff is good - generics exist for a reason - obviously, specificity is better but making the topic generic cp/da work against a core of the topic aff will also make me happy - the way to win these debates is contextualization - if the link is just to the generic topic mechanism without mentioning the aff once I'll be sad

theory is something people need to remember how to do as it's a lost art - do it well and you'll make me very very happy

kritiks that make sense and are well applied to the aff make me happy - kritiks that are generic, generally unspecific, and noncontextualized make me sad - don't be afraid to defend things with the k either - people oftentimes get too floaty and wishy-washy - some k's are just bad though just like some cps and das are bad lol

counterplans and disads can be awesome - see above - but they can also reek to high hell - try to make sure the thing you're reading is competitive, makes some level of cogent sense, and isn't the most contrived idea I've ever heard of

topicality is good and people should go for it - t shouldn't be weaponized against one side of the aisle exclusively but instead should be a strategy that can be deployed in every 1nc - even if that thing is a core of the topic aff that every camp ever cut if you make a t interp that excludes it then feel free to go for it but just be willing to defend it because its probably an asinine interp

k teams should prioritize beating the tva and switch sides debate - that is the key piece of negative defense that takes out most of your offense - dropping it is almost always a death sentence

case neg is also a lost art and the best negative strategies include large amounts of case neg and quality case debating

Oklahoma LD/PF (everything above is for CX):

again do what you do best but just because I'm a policy bro doesn't mean you auto-win if you say something progressive in front of me - if you're better at doing the typical and traditional stuff then do it and win it - obviously, try new things out but just don't expect it to be an auto win

people also seem to have forgotten about offense/defense and impact calculus - p.t.m. is a good thing people and so is doing turns analysis

similar to what I said above but people have seemingly forgotten what solvency is too - make smart solvency arguments and win that that implicates solvency - if someone defends substantial is 25% and reads a US imperialism aff then a smart neg that says "lol that means 75% of the US is still there how does that hurt imperialism" would be reading my mind

Hi everyone who is reading my paradigm,

My email is eyoungquist@averycoonley.org for the email chains.

I’ve been coaching policy debate for six years at the Avery Coonley School in Downers Grove, IL (it's a middle school). I’ve also judged a few rounds of high school Public Forum. I kind of fell into the job as a debate coach- I didn’t have any debate experience in high school or college. I've taught Literacy for 16 years, and social studies for the last three.

That being said, please treat the debate room like a classroom in terms of behavior and decorum. If the way you are acting would not fly at your school, don't do it in front of me. Debate can get heated, the CX can get pointed, but outright rudeness, swearing, etc. will come with penalties.

In terns of judging-I always view debate through the lens of a solid analytical argument, just like I would in my classroom. I need a cohesive argument, solid support, analytics, and a breakdown of why your argument is superior to your opponents’ argument. An “A” debate should look like an “A” paper.

Two things I don’t like to hear are extremely fast talking and cards that don’t support their tags. It’s great that you got through a lot of evidence and tried to put a lot of things on the flow sheet, but if you are only reading a sentence or two from each card and it doesn’t add up, it’s not a real argument. I need depth. I need CLASH.

I am really against fast reading. If you words are jumbling together and I can't make it out, it's not going on my flow. If I can't make out what you are saying, I am going to give you a "clear." If it continues, I'll give you a second one. Beyond that, I will disregard it if I can't make it out.

The round is going to go to the group that clearly lays out their argument (love signposting) and advances their ideas clearly while pointing out the flaws in their opponents’ presentation.

I’ll take T’s and K attacks that are on topic and make a valid point, but don't try to shoehorn something in just because it's what you always do. If their case is barely hanging on to being topical, go for it. Can you make a legit critique with some SOLID links? Go for it. Just don't get too esoteric on me, and MAKE SURE THE LINK IS SOLID (yes, I said it again)!!! Blocks of jargon with no real tie to the case will not work.

Please don't run a "K" Aff on me.

Peninsula 24'

Plz put me on the email chain at Stevenyu0923@gmail.com

I judge very similarly to Scott Wheeler. If that means anything.

Tech over truth dropped arguments are presumed to be true, but I do believe that true arguments are easier to defend.

Simplicity is good.

Every argument needs a claim, warrant, impact.

If it takes more than 1 minute to send out a document I start running prep unless justified. ("My computer isn't loading for more than 1 whole minute is usually not a justified answer")

If you don't slow down after I clear you I will stop flowing.

Some degree of aggression is fine, love a heated clash heavy debate.

I take starting debates on time very seriously. When we read the time debate needs to start, it doesn't mean you start sending the 1AC. It means you have the 1AC sent, and you are ready to start the speech.

Don't advise you go for arguments like racism, extinction, suffering good or anything of those kind. But if you do, I will reluctantly evaluate it fairly.

For every min of prep you don't use I will give 0.1 of extra speaks to award going off the flow.

I am fine for any policy arguments, and extra speaks for teams who do detailed case debating. If you are reading a tricky argument then you should start your speech with an overview of how it operates. Otherwise, I only want to hear quick overviews of impact calculus.

I am usually fine for CP theory from both sides. If you are going for theory, please don't read blocks straight down. You need to actually clash with their specific arguments instead of reading generic answers. It is hard to convince me to vote on something that occurred outside of the round, but if you do plan on going for it make sure you have concrete evidence of what your opponents did and articulate specific impacts to it. Relatively good at understanding funky permutations against process CPs.

Nonetheless, here are my preferences below.

Familiar with majority of the literature, but I wouldn't try high theory in front of me though. K debate is case debate. The more you debate the case the more you convince me of the flaws in the 1AC's critical scholarship. Perf con most likely bad but generally not enough to reject the team. Going for the K successfully in front of me likely entails going for a competitive alternative with links that turn case. That being said, I will pull the trigger on mishandled framework arguments. Just know I personally believe a middle ground framework interpretation (weigh consequences of the plan against consequences of reps links with a solvent alternative) is most strategic.

T Framework is fine. Fairness is most likely an impact. Debate most likely shapes subjectivities to some degree.

K affs can be very successful in front of me. One should approach beating framework from the internal links not the impacts, meaning impact turning fairness likely isn't the way to go.

Middleschool:

Clarity > speed

Flow

Don't steal prep

Kinkaid ’21. Four years of policy debate as the 2a/1n.

I am not debating in college. I am extremely out of practice. I have not judged this year at all. UT will be my first tournament.

Please put me on the email chain if there is one and send the 1ac before the round starts: alison.jzhang@gmail.com

Please ask questions before round if you have them. I’m probably forgetting something.

TLDR

• Tech over truth. I try to be as least interventionist as I can and only care about what is on my flow when making decisions. Good debating overcomes any of my predispositions. That said, if I can’t explain it during my RFD I’m not voting for it.

• Doline by lineandjudge instruction. Clash is good. The top of the 2nr and 2ar should write my ballot.

• Quality is more important than quantity. Reading fewer, complete off case arguments is infinitely preferable to reading 12 off without an internal link or an impact. I give the 2ac a lot of leeway in answering incomplete 1nc arguments. Evidence quality matters.

• Don’t sacrifice clarity for speed.I flow on paper. I won't backflow your speeches off the doc, so if its not clear it won't be on my flow.

• New 1ar arguments need justification. I will do my best to protect the 2nr from new 2ar arguments.

• Do not be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc. Do not misgender your opponents.

• Effective line by line, smart arguments, and clear speaking gets you high points. Asking for high points gets you low points.

• Be nicer and have fun! Respect your partner and your opponents and make it seem like you actually want to be here

Topicality

• Default to competing interps, but affs can win reasonability
• Plan text in a vacuum is a bad standard.
• Predictability and debatability are both important, debating decides which one outweighs
• Impact calc matters

Kritiks

• have very basic knowledge and understanding Ks like gender, cap, setcol, biopolitics, antiblackness. Please don’t make me judge postmodern Ks I cannot understand or be prepared to explain them vigorously
• Framework decides how I filter offense. Have a clear idea of aff and neg offense under your model. Can be persuaded either way on whether or not the aff gets to weigh the consequences of the plan and whether the neg gets links to reps/justifications.
• I have a high standard for both aff and neg explanation in K debates. Do not just yell buzzwords at me.

Counterplans

• Condo is good within reason. Will definitely vote for condo bad if it is egregious
• Not a fan of entirely plan inclusive counter plans, like consult, reg neg, delay, or any other procedural counter plan that results in the aff
• Multi-actor international fiat is probably bad, 50 states fiat is probably good
• Smart permutations are persuasive and win counterplan debates

Disads

• Please do impact calc.
• The internal link matters

K affs / Framework

• No ideological predispositions either way. Very high bar for explanation and line by line on both sides of these debates.
• Fairness is an impact, but you still have to explain it properly. No preference between fairness and clash/skills.
• Line by line is important. Specificity is crucial -- Reading your generic blocks is not persuasive if they are not contextualized to the aff.
• A TVA is not necessary but it is very persuasive defense when applied properly
• Impact calc and judge instruction wins and loses these debates
• K v K debates require clear explanation from both teams. Not super experienced in KvK so walk me through it clearly. Can go either way on whether K affs get a perm.