Respectful, clearly articulated debates.

Note about LD theory/T: Read theory or T if it's making a reasonable point about a squirrely aff or a patently unfair practice. In that sense I default to reasonability, not in terms of intervention but rather my gut feeling that you have to meet a high bar for proving your opponent rigged the game. It's absurd to me that people rush to theory instead of doing topic research. I don't think any frameworks are unfair, I don't think the lack of an ‘explicit weighing mechanism’ is unfair, and I don't care if the aff's theory spikes didn't ‘take a stance on drop the debater or drop the argument’.

I will try to evaluate the flow as technically as I can. I care more about the debating that took place than what I think about the ultimate truth of your arguments or relative quality of your cards. I do think you should try to match your opponents cards with better cards, but you first have to convince me that your opponents have dropped crucial warrants and explain why those matter. For example, maybe none of the aff's advantages about space-based solar power come to grips with this one implementation problem; you have cards that speak to that issue, they do not. I'd rather you explain to me these comparative points than present dueling taglines and leave it up for me to wade through.

I am absolutely okay with non-traditional debate styles, but I believe that you should adopt a concrete political project, or explain why you shouldn't have one. This doesn't have to be state-based but I think you need to describe how your advocacy would, if adopted more widely, change things that happen outside of debate. Whether or not fiat is real, I still think you either need to make a normative claim about how other people--not just debaters--should act, or you have to be radically anti-normative (no demands, no future, no change is possible). I personally think it's vapid to just have debates about debate, and given the real-world impacts that people face I think that you either need to expand your vision to the world or explain why the world is irredeemable. In other words, I think that good Left thinking is optimistic unless you systematically justify your pessimism.

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

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

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

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

TLDR: my paradigm is intended to

a) facilitate a fair debate and actively intervene against slime like making new arguments in the last speech, forcing progressive debate on unprepared teams, and misconstruing evidence.

b) emphasize the importance of preparation, research, and evidence interpretation.

c) encourage pre-round agreements between debaters in order to improve the quality of the round.

I’ve debated a mix of public forum and policy in high school and have judged PF, LD, and CX (not recently tho so explain everything pls ty) for a long, long time. I will occasionally coach one really strong PF partnership. Please mention the credentials and methodology for your evidence! If you do not explain why your numbers are true, I will not grant you the statistic. I don't care what evidence is there, I care about causality, confidence, and proof beyond reasonable doubt. Without empirical proof, your warrants are just claims.

At National Tournaments: please flash or email chain your cards to me and your opponents:

frankielidc [at] gmail.com

In PF I value truth >= tech and am neither a tabula-rasa judge nor a traditional judge. As long as the opposing team agrees before round, read whatever you want. In LD and CX I am tabula-rasa (I don't prep the topics for these formats anyways) with exceptions: no RVIs unless it is frivolous, I'm not experienced judging non-topical affs, I don't like listening to extinction level impacts but will vote on it, and I evaluate Theory above Ks unless the K interacts with our concepts of debate, fairness, education, or competition.

I am impartial to speed in most cases but will say "Clear" if it is difficult to understand and "Louder" if it is too quiet. Please don't spread faster than 300 wpm, flash or email the doc and please slow down at important taglines.

PF Specific: Unless the rebuttal is a stomp, the round is almost always determined in summary. I will grant sticky defense in first summary, unless it’s terminal. Second summary needs to extend defense if they want it in FF. All offense arguments in FF must have already been in Summary. No need to extend cards for impacts in Summaries, but you must weigh. I like line-by-line. If for some reason the running late and flagged by Tabroom, I will evaluate the Summaries to determine the round. This implies that you aren't forced to frontline in second rebuttal.

If you read anything new in second FF, I will drop you with the lowest speaker points. If there was a new argument in first FF, I will drop them with the lowest speaker points. A quick "z is new in FF" will make it easier for me to identify it. If both teams do it, I'll judge based on other parts of the round and just dock speaks.

You can loosely abstract that out to the other speeches in other debate events for my preferences there--just ask a question anytime during the round if you are unsure!

Citing Cards: Citing the affiliated organization or academic journal > a random last name. If you aren't reading a peer-reviewed study from a journal, government agency, or educational institution, I'm probably not writing that card down. I don't mind paraphrasing, but you leave the interpretation of the evidence up to me. I will call cards out of interest and I will drop teams based on NSDA evidence rules.

Calling Cards: If you enter "it says x; no it says y" over the specifics of a piece of evidence, you're wasting time in the debate. Call the card, say the indictment in a speech and request that I call the card myself. After this is mentioned, the evidence should not be contested anymore in the round and I will consider it credible until I have looked over it after the round and decided for myself on the relevance of the evidence. In addition, unless you specify, I will choose whether the indict drops the argument, evidence, or team. Telling me how to vote off of subtleties in evidence makes it so much easier for me.

If a card is called during the round, please don’t prep until the other team receives the card. If you're giving the evidence, please don't stand by your opponents' desk awkwardly...

Please time yourself and use the honor system. Please don’t communicate with anyone outside the round or spread without letting everyone else know before the round.

I will disclose after round with an RFD if time allows. I can give individual feedback as well after the round by email or if you track me down.

TOC update: If you read disclosure or paraphrase theory [especially given what I said about consent between both teams] I will automatically drop you with lowest speaker points and end the round.

Less serious stuff:

PLEASE interrupt your opponent in crossfire when appropriate with a quick statement or brief question. It isn't a 3 minute speech, just don't be excessive and don't raise your volume.

If your opponent doesn't know an answer to your question in cx or crossfire, don't move on. Let them stew in silence >:)

Don't say "Outweigh on scope, we have the largest number in the round."

On topics where I am actually coaching a partnership, I will know every single study back-to-front on the topic.

If you read a turn, bonus speaks if you physically turn around during the speech.

No off-time roadmaps. We all know you're trying to compose yourself before the speech.

If you define every word in a resolution, your speaks will drop by the number of words in the resolution.

Bonus speaks if you show off mental math and it's correct. If you're incorrect, I'll deduct speaks.

Down to listen to fun cases if you know you're not advancing to out-rounds.

3 "Clears" and you're out!

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Contention 2 is Drowning in Debt:

In states without right-to-work laws, companies anticipate demands from union negotiations and naturally increase their financial leverage, which the Corporate Finance Institute ‘22 defines as the amount of debt used to pay for a company’s expenses. This happens for two reasons:

First is To Limit Union Demands. Deere of the Quarterly Journal of Economics warrants, a union can demand no more than the value of future revenues. By borrowing money, a firm must pay the creditors and shareholders a portion of future revenues first. That’s why shareholders prefer unionized firms that use financial leverage.

Second is To End The Negotiations. Bronars of the Quarterly Journal of Economics explains what happens when a union doesn’t back down. As debt rises, the firm declares bankruptcy, forcing the union to now bargain with the creditors, who could simply replace the union with nonunion labor and restart the firm.

For these two reasons, Dalia of ISU ‘15 empirically concludes, a 0.1 percent increase in the probability of unionization increases a company’s debt by one million dollars and increases its debt-to-equity ratio by 12.3 percent. This relationship only exists in states without right-to-work laws as Chava continues, firms immediately decrease leverage within one year of right-to-work’s implementation. Thus, Dalia furthers, firms in right-to-work states use 13 percent less leverage than firms in non-right-to-work states.

The impact is a financial catastrophe. Debt quickly piles up as Patti of the Italian Economic Journal ‘14 quantifies, a 10 percent increase in leverage raises the probability of default by 6 percent. Disastrously, Campello of the Review of Financial Studies ‘17 reports, each bankruptcy of a highly unionized firm costs an additional $343 million to the firm and $51 million to shareholders. After the dust settles, Dalia concludes, firms in non-right-to-work states underperform by 9.5 percent each year.

We urge a negative ballot.

I did LD in high school. I can flow. I'm not the best with speed but I'll tell you to slow down if I start to miss stuff. 

Beyond that, I'm unlikely to vote off dropped arguments and will probably vote off whatever clash there is.

In terms of what I like to see, try to say things that seem important and that you can back up as truth.

Debated LD from 2010-2013. Pretty much tab: Ks, speed, whatever else is fine. My only real ask for debaters is that you sign post everything in your speeches; please let me know where you are on the flow at all times. Overall though, I think debate should be fun and informative, so enjoy yourselves!

If you have any more specific questions before the round, please ask.

I expect to see an articulate, well reasoned debate.

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

Been associated as Judge and Volunteer for little over 2 years. I like to provide good learning opportunity, promote good education and experience for participants. As Judge, I look for clean speech, well articulated arguments with right data points supporting arguments, ability to counter the opponent team's data points, most importantly all with simplicity. Presenting themselves is key. I also promote the culture of learning the topic and presenting it with good understanding, rather just reading the materials prepared.

I also see this learning opportunity for myself, to learn from the kids. It is great platform for us, not be part of the debate rather stay outside and learn without emotions.

Encourage all to participate and learn. Happy learning!

Background: I have judged at states, Harvard, Yale, Wake Forest, and many times on the local circuit. I have over 10 years of judging experience, and have been able to judge every event during that time. I am a flow judge for debate, although I do not care for the intricacies of the debate.

LD: Though I can follow and understand theory, do not run it. Stick to the topic at hand and try to be as concise as possible. I understand that you may need to spread if you have a long case or have to address card dumping, but recognize that I cannot judge what I cannot understand. Also, I expect common courtesy throughout the round and it will affect my ballot. If you need to present evidence, do so in a clear and efficient way. Stick to your framework and don't debate the philosophical side of LD. Finally, do not be overaggressive if you are going against an unexperienced opponent.

PF: You can spread if need be, but keep in mind, I cannot flow or vote off of what I cannot understand. Keep the arguments simple enough with a link-chain that isn't too complex. During rebuttal, keep eye contact and try to extend your warranting. I will pay some attention to cross-fires; but if any major concessions occur you must bring it up in a separate speech. If your opponent drops a major point, mention it during your next speech, or I will not vote off of it. Do not bring up new points during final focus or second summary, for I will not take note of them. Have a clear weighing mechanism and do not leave it up to my interpretation/give me clear reasons why to vote for you. When presenting evidence, make sure it is clear where the information actually is.

All Other Debate Events: You can spread, though keep in mind I cannot vote off of what I cannot understand. Try to keep eye contact (if possible) and hold yourself to a high standard of oral presentation.

If I am judging a speech event, ask me for my preferences in person, as they change from time to time.

All debate styles - I do not read shared files until the end if I need to refer to a piece of evidence. Debate is supposed to be understood not read. I do not mind speed but make sure it is enunciated and intelligible. Watch my body language, if you have any questions if I am understanding you....Head down and flowing your speech...I understand you. Watching you without a pen in my hand....you are not making any sense to me and I can not follow your arguments.

Policy (CX) - I am a stock issue judge. Focus on the stock issues and why the AFF does or does not satisfy them. Spreading is okay but make sure your arguments make sense. Do not start a bunch of arguments in the 1 NC just to drop most of them by 2 NC or the 1NR. There are very few times an extinction argument truly works. Do not run one just to run it. Most of the time, it makes the NEG look desperate.

Lincoln - Douglas (LD) - Focus on your value and value criterion. Be clear on why your value criterion is better than your opponent's or why you satisfy your opponent's value criterion better than they do.

Public Forum (PF) - While it is easy to have most everything prepared and ready before the round, do not forget to address your opponents' argument and point out where you are different and why your side is the better choice.

If you have further questions please ask me before the round starts.