conflicts: groves high school (class of 2019), wayne state university (class of 2023, secondary ed major w/ minors in public health & gender, sexuality, and women's studies), detroit country day high school

always put me on the email chain! Literally always! if you ask i will assume you haven't read this! legit always put me on the email chain! lukebagdondebate@gmail.com

pronouns: they/them.

the abridged version:

• do you, and do it well

• don't cheat in ways that require me to intervene

• don't misgender me, or your competitors

• do not assume i am going to vote for you because you say my name a lot

some general stuff:

the more and more i do debate the less i care about what's put in front of me. when i first started debating, i cared very deeply about norms, the resolution, all that jazz. now, if you're willing to read it i'm willing to judge it. i'd rather see an in depth debate with a lot of offense and clash than anything else, and i don't care whether you do that on a T flow vs. a k aff or a cap flow vs. a policy aff.

my least favorite word in the english language (of which is not a slur) is the word "basically." i would rather listen to everyone for the rest of time describe everything as "moist" than listen to you say the word "basically." i've hated this word for years, do not use it. make of that what you will.

it should be said i at one point read a parody aff that involved my partner and i roleplaying as doctor/patient during the 1ac. i care exceedingly little what you want to do with your 8 minute constructive, 3 minute cx, and 5 minute rebuttals - but those speech times are non-negotiable (unless the tournament says otherwise). play a game, eat a salad, ask me about my cat(s), color a picture, read some evidence; but do it within the constraint of a timer.

(this "time fetish" is less of a "respect my time" thing and more of a "i need to know when i can tell tab who i voted for" thing. i take a lot of pride in getting my decision in before repko, and i wish to continue that streak.)

stuff about me as a judge:

i do not follow along in the speech doc. i try not to look at cards. be clear, be concise, be cool. debate is first and foremost a communicative activity. i will only read y'alls ev if there is serious contention, or you tell me to. i HATE DOING THIS, and this very often does not go how people think it will.

if you say "insert re-highlighting" instead of reading the re-highlighting i WILL consider that argument uncarded

bolded for emphasis: people are also saying they can 'insert a caselist' for T flows. this is not a thing. and i will not consider them part of the debate if this occurs.

i do not play poker both because i am terrible at math and because i have a hard time concealing my emotions. i do have pretty bad rbf, but i still think you should look at me to tell what i'm thinking of your speeches/cx.

speaker points:

Misgendering is bad and a voting issue (at the very least I will give you exceptionally low speaks). due to my gender identity i am hyper aware of gender (im)balances in debate. stop being sexist/transphobic jerks, y'all. it's not that hard. additionally, don't be racist. don't be sexist. don't be ableist. don't be a bad person.

Assigning speaker points comes down to: are you memorable? are you funny? are you a bad person? Did you keep my flow neat? How did you use cross?

I usually give in the 28.2-29.9 range, for reference.

ethics violations:

i consider ethics violations clipping, evidence fabrication/omission of paragraphs between the beginning and end of the card, and violence (e.g. calling Black people the n word as a non-Black person, refusing to use correct pronouns).

for clipping: a recording must be presented if a debater brings forth the challenge. if i notice it but no one brings it up, your speaker points will suffer greatly.

for evidence miscutting (this is NOT power tagging): after a debater brings it forward the round will stop. if the evidence is miscut, the team who miscut the evidence will lose with lowest speaker points possible. if the evidence is not miscut, the team who brought forth the violation will lose with the lowest speaker points possible. i will not entertain a debate on the undebatable.

for violence: i will stop the debate and the offender will receive the lowest speaker points possible and will lose. the person who is on the receiving end of the violence is not expected to give input. if you misgender me i will not stop the debate, but your speaker points will suffer.

one of these, because i love getting caught in the hype

brad hombres ------------------------------------X--banana nut brad

generic disad w/ well developed links/uq------X------------------------------------ thing you cut 30 mins before the round that you claim is a disad

read a plan--------------------X---------------------don't read a plan

case turns--X----------------------------------------generic defense

t not fw--------------X-------------------------------fw not t

"basically"-------------------------------------------X-just explaining the argument

truth over tech------------------X--------------------tech over truth

being nice-X------------------------------------------being not nice

piper meloche--------------------X--------------------brad meloche

'can i take prep'----------------------------------------X-just taking prep

explaining the alt------X--------------------------------assuming i know what buzzwords mean

process cps are cheating--------------------------X-------sometimes cheating is good

fairness--------------------------------X----------------literally any other fw impact besides iteration

impact turn-X--------------------------------------------non impact turn

fw as an impact turn------X--------------------------------fw as a procedural

green highlighting-X----------------------------------------any other color

rep---------------------------X----------------i don't know who you are and frankly i don't care to find out

asking if everyone is ready -X-----------------------------------asking if anyone isn't ready

jeff miller --------------------------------------X--- abby schirmer

PUBLIC FORUM SPECIFIC THINGS:

i find myself judging this a lot more than any other activity, and therefore have a LOT of opinions.

• time yourself. this includes prep. i'm not your mom, and i don't plan on doing it for you. the term "running prep" is becoming very popular, and i don't know what that means. just take prep.
• don't call me judge. "what should we refer to you as?" nothing! i don't know who is teaching y'all to catch judges' attentions by referring to us directly, but it's horrible, doesn't work, annoys all of us, and wastes precious time. you should be grabbing my attention in other ways: tone, argumentation, flowability, humor, sarcasm, lighting something on fire (please do not actually do this). call me by my first name (luke) if you have to, but know if you overuse it, it has the exact same affect as calling me "judge."
• PLEASE don't assume i know community norms, and saying things like "this is a community norm" doesn't automatically give you that dub. i entered PF during covid, and have a very strong policy background. this influences how i view things like disclosure or paraphrase theory.
• even more so than in policy, "post-rounding" me after a decision is incredibly common. you're allowed to fight with me all you want. just know it doesn't change my ballot, and certainly won't change it the next time around.
• i will never understand this asking for evidence after speeches. why aren't we just sending speech docs? judges are on a very strict schedule, and watching y'all spend five minutes sending evidence is both annoying and time consuming - bolding, because i continue to not get and, honestly? actively hate it when everyone spend 5-10 minutes after each speech exchanging evidence. just sent the whole speech. i don't get why this isn't the norm
• i'm fine with speed and 'unconventional arguments.' in fact, i'm probably better for them because i've found PF aff/neg contentions to be vague and poorly cut.
• PFers have a tendency to call things that aren't turns "turns." it's very odd to me. please don't do it.
• i'm not going to delay the round so you can preflow. idk who told y'all you can do that but they're wrong
• if you are using ev sending time to argue, i will interrupt you and make you start and/or i will tank your speaks. stop doing this.
• i'm very split on the idea of trigger warnings. i don't think they're necessary for non-in-depth/graphic discussions of a topic (Thing Exists and Is Bad, for example, is not an in-depth discussion in my eyes). i'm fine with trigger warning theory as an argument as long as you understand it's not an automatic W.
• flex prep is at best annoying and at worst cheating. if you start flex prepping i will yell at you and doc your speaker points.
• PLEASE READ THIS IF YOU WANT TO READ THEORY:I hear some kind of theory (mostly disclosure) at least once a tournament. I usually end up voting for theory not because the theory is done well, but because the other team does not answer it properly. I do like theory an unfortunate amount, but I would prefer to watch a good "substance" debate than a poor theory debate

LINCOLN DOUGLAS SPECIFIC THINGS:

• please read my policy and pf paradigms. they have important information about me and my judging

• of all the speech activities, i know about lincoln douglas the least. this can either be to your advantage or your detriment

• apparently theory matters to a lot of y'all a lot more in this activity than in policy. i got a high threshold for voting on any sort of theory that isn't condo, and even then you're in for the uphill battle of the century. i like theory debates generally, but watching LDers run theory like RVIs has killed my confidence in LD theory debate.

• 'i'm gonna take X minutes of prep' isn't needed. just say you're taking prep and take prep. i'll never understand LD or PF judges who act as if they are parents and y'all are 5 year olds asking for cookies after dinner; if you can figure out how tabroom works and how to unmute yourself, i'm pretty sure you can time your own prep.

• going fast does not mean you are good at debate, please don't rely on speed for ethos

• i hate disclosure theory and will prob vote neg 99.9% of the time (the .001% is for new affs or particularly bad answers). just put your stuff on the wiki, i genuinely don't understand why this is a debate to be had. just disclose. what year are you people living in.

things i don't care about:

- whether you keep your camera on or off (if you wanna lose free speaker points, that's up to you)

• speed. however, you should never be prioritizing speed over clarity.

hidden at the bottom: if you read the kato k and call it the "oppenheimer k" in the roadmap for the whole round i will give you a 30

neda-specific:

please use all your time. my bar for civility is much lower than most neda judges, so make of that what you will. please also use evidence.

I am a psychology professor at Syracuse University. I competed in policy debate for Groves High School from 2003-2007 and coached for Ann Arbor Pioneer High School from 2007-2011. I have judged online debates sporadically in 2020-2022.

You can include me on email chains at sara.emily.burke@gmail.com.

---

I think of policy debate as an educational game that permits the players to contest most of its "rules." In order to make it possible to play the game in a reasonable way, however, there are a few rules that hold regardless of attempts to contest them. The most notable of these are the speech time limits and the order of speeches.

I vote based on arguments made by debaters during their speeches. I do not refute arguments on behalf of debaters. Even for arguments that are very obviously wrong, I believe that there is educational value in learning how to explain why they are wrong. In the context of the round, I accept every argument as true until it is answered, and I treat dropped arguments as completely true.

Framework, theory, and topicality

I vote based on arguments made during the speeches, including arguments about how I should decide who to vote for. I welcome and enjoy debates about framework, theory, and topicality. When in doubt, explain your proposed framework for adjudication rather than leaving it unstated.

A framework argument has to address the debate itself. If you just read a card about a larger philosophical issue without explaining how it relates to the best way to adjudicate a policy debate round, I will not make the connection for you.

I am open to just about any framework, but if teams fail to debate various aspects of how I should decide, I will resort to the following defaults. (These are only defaults and should not be construed as argument preferences.)

- The team whose stance, if implemented, would be expected to yield the best outcome wins. (I will treat the status quo as the negative team's default stance.)

- A "stance" does not necessarily require a governmental policy, but I will assume in the absence of argument that individuals are much less influential over outcomes than the government is.

- If the negative team has multiple conditional stances as of the 2NR, I will vote negative if any of them are better than the affirmative plan. It is acceptable for the status quo to be one of these stances. I strongly encourage teams to be specific about what their stances are rather than relying on defaults. However, if I have no relevant information except for the negative team saying that a CP/K is "conditional," then I will assume that they continue to advocate the status quo at the same time and that I should vote neg if the status quo is preferable to both the plan and the CP/K. If nobody ever asks and the neg never specifies, I will assume that a CP/K is conditional. If the bizarre circumstance arises that the aff wins a "conditionality bad" argument without any explanation of how I should vote, then I will vote aff if the plan is preferable to the combination of all stances the negative has taken in the round.

- It is almost always vital to give me a reason to support your stance (offense) rather than merely disputing the reasons the other team has given to support their stance (defense).

- It is very unusual for the outcomes of both teams' stances to be exactly equal. I have no problem voting for the "lesser of two evils." However, if the outcomes are somehow exactly equal, I will vote for whichever team is advocating the status quo. If the outcomes are equal and neither team is advocating the status quo, I will vote affirmative.

The "voter" on theory or topicality is an argument about how I should decide the round. As with other framework arguments, it is up for discussion. However, given an initial presentation of the idea that a theoretical objection or topicality violation constitutes a voting issue, I will default to the following way of thinking about it unless a team presents an argument advocating an alternative. (If the initial presentation of a theoretical objection does not present it as a voting issue, I will default to considering the objection as a reason to ignore the argument that inspired it.)

- By default, theoretical arguments precede other arguments.

- I evaluate theoretical arguments much like I evaluate the round as a whole (again, only by default). The team whose theoretical stance is expected to yield the best outcome (for example, for policy debate as an educational activity) wins the theory sub-debate.

- It is almost always vital to give me a reason to support your stance (offense) rather than merely disputing the reasons the other team has given to support their stance (defense).

- It is very unusual for the outcomes of both teams' stances to be exactly equal, but if they are, I will ignore the theoretical objection.

- Debaters should note that the above description is different from the way some judges look at theory and topicality. I have no default threshold of severity below which I will ignore a theoretical argument. Any amount of offense is sufficient to win the theory sub-debate -- and, if the team raising the objection wins the voter (e.g., the voter is dropped), any amount of offense justifies a ballot.

- When debating the voter, it is difficult to persuade me that there is an adequate resolution to a convincing topicality argument other than the ballot. In contrast, it is not especially difficult to present a compelling case that a successful theoretical objection should mean ignoring the offending argument rather than voting against the team.

New arguments in rebuttals

I keep track of all arguments made during the round. However, by default, I do not consider new arguments made in rebuttals while making my decision, unless they are 1AR answers (including theoretical objections) to new arguments made in the negative block.

Debaters are welcome to attempt to justify other new arguments made in the 1AR, or even new arguments made in the 2NR, because subsequent speeches have an opportunity to refute the justification for new arguments. I will always ignore new 2AR arguments because they provide no opportunity for refutation.

Reading evidence

I might read evidence from the round, but I prefer to come to a decision without explicitly revisiting the text of cards. If you ask me to read a specific card during the round, I am more likely to do so, but it is still not a guarantee. If there is a dispute over what a card actually says and the outcome of the dispute matters to my decision, I will read the card.

Argument preferences

I try not to let my personal preferences determine the outcome of the round. I often vote for arguments that I dislike. Nonetheless, debaters sometimes like to know how I feel about miscellaneous arguments.

- I like good topicality and theory debates.

- I like debates about the expected consequences of hypothetical policies.

- I like debates about reasonable ethical impacts. Please discuss the merits of giving different ethical claims different levels of priority.

- I like straightforward communication. If your strategy is to supply a string of incoherent jargon and then later "interpret" it in a novel way that decides the round, I am open to viewing that reinterpretation as a new argument warranting new responses.

- I'm not a fan of ASPEC, plan vagueness, nihilistic Ks, objectivism, or Malthus. Unfortunately, I have voted on each of these at one time or another.

Here are a few arguments that I dislike strongly enough to provide specific advice for answering them in front of me. As with all arguments, I accept these arguments as true until they are refuted, but I find the following refutations very persuasive.

- Constitutional convention counterplans. Fiat abuse: too many actors; too many steps; fiat denies best aff answer which should be implausibility; ratification is object fiat.

- Consultation counterplans. Perm. The time frame of the plan was not specified strictly enough to conflict with the time frame of the perm. Perm differs from CP only if consultant says no.

- Offsets counterplans. Perm. Only plan text has burden of topicality.

- State counterplans that involve simultaneous and cooperative action of all fifty states, and counterplans that use the Supreme Court to devolve authority to the states and then fiat state action. Fiat abuse: too many actors; fiat denies best aff answer which should be implausibility; lit doesn't assume simultaneity. For "Lopez," state action is object fiat.

- The framework argument that "fiat is imaginary." The K alt is also purely hypothetical.

She/her.

My name is pronounced Ka-trail not Ka-trel.

I am a graduate from Wayne State and I debated throughout HS and college.

I am open to all forms of debate. To be transparent, I was a policy debater throughout my years of competing. All arguments/methods being presented have to be well explained and impacted out for me to be persuaded; if I find myself asking "why?" to your arguments then you have not explained/impacted it out. I'm not going to vote on anything that I don't understand.

Generally I hated debating theory and didn't find it convincing unless there was clear in-round abuse (unfair, education, ect.). Not to say I won't vote on it, but it's probably an uphill battle. This doesn't mean don't include theory in your strategies. Debate is fun to me because of strategy, not the type of arguments. So, you can utilize theory to bolster other arguments/time skew.

If you want higher speaks then I want to reiterate how much I love a good strat in debate. Make flows connect. Use weird arguments from one flow to take out your opponents' arguments, connect the dots, scrap flows to save time, use impact calculus, etc. Anyone can cut decent cards (except probably me) or read blocks from last year so do the cool stuff.

Framework is fine.

I don't really have any strong feelings about arguments or styles besides the obvi:
1. I don't vote for offensive arguments - any racism, homophobia, ableism, etc. is going to get you an automatic L
2. I will dock your speaks for obnoxious behavior towards your opponents (which is ironic given my behavior in college debate) ...unless it's funny...which I find most HS debaters not to be so you have been warned

you can contact me at katrail14@gmail.com

I will listen to all arguments and am open to voting on any argument that you tell me I should vote for. Tell me why it is important and I will listen to both arguments. Please do not presume that I will implicitly understand the importance you are placing on an argument and how that bears on my decision. Mostly, I am open to anything so long as you explain it well. I will give much less credence and weight to arguments that are just left out there hanging rather than argued persuasively. as a frame of reference, I debated in HS and college in the 1990s, but am not constrained by those norms.

General:

My email is Benglick78@gmail.com, I'd like to be on the chain.

Please also add the email grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com to the email chain.

If I ever judge you and you have questions that you didn't ask after the round, please feel free to email me whatever your questions are.

I'm Ben Glick, a former policy debater at Groves High School. My pronouns are he/him.

I'm a normal person, so you can call me Ben, not judge, if you're comfortable.

I will very likely forget to include a lot of relevant information, so you can ask me anything about my paradigm before the debate.

Questions like where did you end or what cards did you read are cross ex questions. If you're gonna ask, do it in cross not before.

Ks:

I'm probably not the best judge if you plan on reading high theory or super complex Ks. Considering I haven't read a lot of K lit, if you plan on reading these types of Ks make sure you are explaining it. During my time debating and judging, I've become more familiar with several Ks: Death Drive, some queer theory, some reps Ks, set col, misc Ks. Point being, I can understand the K, and I really enjoy K debates. However, there is a lot of lit am unfamiliar with, so make sure you actually understand the K you are running the the point where you can clearly articulate the concept of your K, the alt, and the links to the aff. Historically, I have been more sympathetic to voting on f/w plus links than I think other judges are, so if you are clearly winning on f/w thats an option assuming you're reading the right type of f/w. I also really enjoy subject formation type arguments because I think they are generally true in the case of debate.

K affs:

My thoughts on this are very similar. My knowledge of the specific literature for K affs is also limited. I have read, helped make, and judged k affs before, so I am not clueless. The parts of the K aff that I have a weaker understanding of would be your specific solvency mechanism or specific K theory. I'm probably not a great judge to read a K aff in front of, but it's not something I will refuse to hear in a debate.

T:

One suggestion I will make is if you're extending T into the block, please don't just go full speed, monotone through the whole flow. T debates don't use a lot of cards, and it's hard to flow when I'm getting 18 unclear analytics per second. So just be clear and signpost between arguments on the flow.

Please have an interpretation that makes sense with your violation. I have seen too many rounds in the state of Michigan where a team just doesn't read a interpretation or reads a violation that doesn't make sense with the interpretation read. Think of it like a DA. You wouldn't read a politics DA without uniqueness, and you wouldn't read a plan saps PC link with a floor time uniqueness story.

Also, neg you don't need to formally concede T, and aff you don't need to inform me that the neg did not extend T

CPs and CP theory:

As a debater, I tended to lean neg on counterplan theory, the consequences of being a 2N. More recently, I think my opinions have began to move in the other direction. Really, I can be convinced of anything, just be able to defend whatever type of CP you're reading. I'm up for a theory debate. I love a smart PIC.

Case:

I think the case flows are a really underappreciated portion of debate. I really enjoy negatives that take advantage of 1AC rehighlights and creative offense on case. Honestly, creative arguments in general. They will go a long way. When we have to sit through 3 straight minutes of impact defense, no one wins.

I am open to new arguments, however, solvency is key in any argument presented to me. I am not a fan of conditional arguments and kicking what seems important at the moment until you can no longer support it. Be respectful of your opponent - debate the topic, not the person. It is imperative that you are organized and methodical in your speeches - I value clarity over speed. Be creative - the same boring arguments, tend to have my mind wander. Keep me engaged with your passion and your ingenuity!

She/Her/They

Wayne State University Debater

Email: fshdebate03@gmail.com

Fine with any args - win the flow, win the round. As far as persuasiveness goes, not the biggest fan of args defending power structures like imperialism for impacts that are lowkey dehumanizing. Debate is a game quote on quote, but if it comes down to voting between a policy 'uS cHiNa WaR sCenAriO' that positions America as a grand actor and accesses that through language that purposely paints POC/nations as in need of intervention v. a (properly ran) critical arg that addresses the in-round impact of that rhetoric, I will lean towards the latter. I wholly believe in the ballot being powerful in terms of transforming mindsets - while there is little room for a world where I'd vote on a K just because I don't like/agree with the premise of the opposing team, I also do give more weight to args that are contextualized to the debate space itself v. a grandiose fictional impact.

Organization, clear tagging, and generally 'good' debating on a tech and/or ethos level makes for better speaks. Will also bump you up .2 speaker points for incorporating languages other than English.

* Misogyny, bigotry, purposeful misgendering of opponents, etc. i.e. abusive use of the debate space is an automatic vote down. If I feel like there are racial biases embedded in your args depending on the severity I will either 1. Incorporate that into my ballot or 2. bring it up in the RFD. *

Tag teaming in CX is fine in moderation.

Name – Joe Kelly

Current institutional affiliation – Hired judge

Current role at institution – Hired per tournament

Previous institutional affiliations and role: East Kentwood, Michigan State University - debater. East Lansing High School, Waverly Middle School - director of debate.

Debating experience

High school and college debater – graduated college more than 10 years ago

If you debated what speech did you do most often? 1N/2A

What do you view your role as the judge in the debate? If you don’t put me in another paradigm, I will default to trying to choose the best policy option. That said, I'm familiar with policy and kritik debates.

Purpose of Philosophy

In what ways do you intend this judge philosophy to be helpful to debaters? In other words, what would you hope debaters would do with this philosophy?

It has been a few years since I debated, and I will recommend that students adapt in a couple ways:

1) Slow down. I believe the ink on my flow will be maximized if you speak at 85-90% of your top speed.

2) Look at me. I tend to be rather expressive. If I’m not writing something down or if I look confused, it may help you if you elaborate on your position.

Evaluative Practices and Views on Debate Round Logistics

Do you take flash time as prep time? In other words, when does prep begin and end with you? Do you expect debaters to keep track of their own prep time?

I don't count flashing /emailing as prep. I will keep track of time.

Do you have teams provide you speech documents throughout the debate by flashing or emailing them to you? Do you have teams provide speech documents throughout the debate by emailing them to you?

If you could email me, that would be great.

If you do, why have you adopted this practice? If you do not, have you made a conscious decision not to and if so why?

I think it provides greater transparency and clarity. I will try to flow your information during the round, and so, I won’t always be able to read your evidence while you are. This is still a speech activity.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

My normal range is 26-29.5. You can lose points by being rude, behaving unethically. You can earn points by speaking clearly, making good strategic choices and good arguments.

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clear. I will also give non-verbal cues. Debaters can check to see if I am flowing or if I look confused.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

I may read evidence if there is a question as to what the evidence says. If evidence is uncontested, I will probably not read it after the round.

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

I may provide commentary about it, but I will try not to let it affect my opinion of the round if it was not brought up.

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

If it is contested.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality

I generally think it is a voting issue, but I could be persuaded otherwise.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

Theory is great. I'm generally persuaded to reject the argument, not the team.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff

I think there are some pretty good arguments in favor of the aff having a stable advocacy.

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

Sounds good.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

Could you list out some situations here?

For example, “I prefer a DA and case debate.”

Counterplan, Disadvantage, Case is a pretty good debate. Line-by-line refutation is important. This is just what I’m most familiar with. I’m open to other debates as well.

I am the Co- Director of Debate at Wylie E. Groves HS in Beverly Hills, MI. I have coached high school debate for 49 years, debated at the University of Michigan for 3.5 years and coached at Michigan for one year (in the mid 1970s). I have coached at summer institutes for 48 years.

Please add me to your email chains at johnlawson666@gmail.com.

I am open to most types of argument but default to a policy making perspective on debate rounds. Speed is fine; if unintelligible I will warn several times, continue to flow but it's in the debater's ball park to communicate the content of arguments and evidence and their implication or importance. As of April 2023, I acquired my first set of hearing aids, so it would be a good idea to slow down a bit and make sure to clearly articulate. Quality of arguments is more important than sheer quantity. Traditional on- case debate, disads, counterplans and kritiks are fine. However, I am more familiar with the literature of so-called non mainstream political philosophies (Marxism, neoliberalism, libertarianism, objectivism) than with many post modern philosophers and psychoanalytic literature. If your kritik becomes an effort to obfuscate through mindless jargon, please note that your threshold for my ballot becomes substantially higher.

At the margins of critical debate, for example, if you like to engage in "semiotic insurrection," interface psychoanalysis with political action, defend the proposition that 'death is good,' advocate that debate must make a difference outside the "argument room" or just play games with Baudrilliard, it would be the better part of valor to not pref me. What you might perceive as flights of intellectual brilliance I am more likely to view as incoherent babble or antithetical to participation in a truly educational activity. Capitalism/neoliberalism, securitization, anthropocentrism, Taoism, anti-blackness, queer theory, IR feminism, ableism and ageism are all kritiks that I find more palatable for the most part than the arguments listed above. I have voted for "death good" and Schlag, escape the argument box/room, arguments more times than I would like to admit (on the college and HS levels)-though I think these arguments are either just plain silly or inapplicable to interscholastic debate respectively. Now, it is time to state that my threshold for voting for even these arguments has gotten much higher. For example, even a single, persuasive turn or solid defensive position against these arguments would very likely be enough for me to vote against them.

I am less likely to vote on theory, not necessarily because I dislike all theory debates, but because I am often confronted with competing lists of why something is legitimate or illegitimate, without any direct comparison or attempt to indicate why one position is superior to the other on the basis of fairness and/or education. In those cases, I default to voting to reject the argument and not the team, or not voting on theory at all.

Specifically regarding so-called 'trigger warning' argument, I will listen if based on specific, explicit narratives or stories that might produce trauma. However, oblique, short references to phenomena like 'nuclear war,' 'terrorism,' 'human trafficking,' various forms of violence, genocide and ethnic cleansing in the abstract are really never reasons to vote on the absence of trigger warnings. If that is the basis for your argument (theoretical, empirically-based references), please don't make the argument. I won't vote on it.

In T or framework debates regarding critical affirmatives or Ks on the negative, I often am confronted with competing impacts (often labeled disadvantages with a variety of "clever" names) without any direct comparison of their relative importance. Again, without the comparisons, you will never know how a judge will resolve the framework debate (likely with a fair amount of judge intervention).

Additionally, though I personally believe that the affirmative should present a topical plan or an advocacy reasonably related to the resolution, I am somewhat open to a good performance related debate based on a variety of cultural, sociological and philosophical concepts. My personal antipathy to judge intervention and willingness to change if persuaded make me at least open to this type of debate. Finally, I am definitely not averse to voting against the kritik on either the affirmative or negative on framework and topicality-like arguments. On face, I don't find framework arguments to be inherently exclusionary.

As to the use of gratuitous/unnecessary profanity in debate rounds: "It don't impress me much!" Using such terms doesn't increase your ethos. I am quite willing to deduct speaker points for their systemic use. The use of such terms is almost always unnecessary and often turns arguments into ad hominem attacks.

Disclosure and the wiki: I strongly believe in the value of pre-round disclosure and posting of affirmatives and major negative off-case positions on the NDCA's wiki. It's both educationally sound and provides a fair leveling effect between teams and programs. Groves teams always post on the wiki. I expect other teams/schools to do so. Failure to do so, and failure to disclose pre-round, should open the offending team to a theory argument on non-disclosure's educational failings. Winning such an argument can be a reason to reject the team. In any case, failure to disclose on the wiki or pre-round will likely result in lower speaker points. So, please use the wiki!

Finally, I am a fan of the least amount of judge intervention as possible. The line by line debate is very important; so don't embed your clash so much that the arguments can't be "unembedded" without substantial judge intervention. I'm not a "truth seeker" and would rather vote for arguments I don't like than intervene directly with my preferences as a judge. Generally, the check on so-called "bad" arguments and evidence should be provided by the teams in round, not by me as the judge. This also provides an educationally sound incentive to listen and flow carefully, and prepare answers/blocks to those particularly "bad" arguments so as not to lose to them. Phrasing this in terms of the "tech" v. "truth" dichotomy, I try to keep the "truth" part to as close to zero (%) as humanly possible in my decision making. "Truth" can sometimes be a fluid concept and you might not like my perspective on what is the "correct" side of a particular argument..

An additional word or two on paperless debate and new arguments. There are many benefits to paperless debate, as well as a few downsides. For debaters' purposes, I rarely take "flashing" time out of prep time, unless the delay seems very excessive. I do understand that technical glitches do occur. However, once electronic transmission begins, all prep by both teams must cease immediately. This would also be true if a paper team declares "end prep" but continues to prepare. I will deduct any prep time "stolen" from the team's prep and, if the problem continues, deduct speaker points. Prep includes writing, typing and consulting with partner about strategy, arguments, order, etc.
With respect to new arguments, I do not automatically disregard new arguments until the 2AR (since there is no 3NR). Prior to that time, the next speaker should act as a check on new arguments or cross applications by noting what is "new" and why it's unfair or antithetical to sound educational practice. I do not subscribe to the notion that "if it's true, it's not new" as what is "true" can be quite subjective.

PUBLIC FORUM ADDENDUM:

Although I have guest presented at public forum summer institutes and judged some public forum rounds, it is only these last few weeks that I have started coaching PF. This portion of my philosophy consists of a few general observations about how a long time policy coach and judge will likely approach judging public forum judging:

1. For each card/piece of evidence presented, there should, in the text, be a warrant as to why the author's conclusions are likely correct. Of course, it is up to the opponent(s) to note the lack of, or weakness, in the warrant(s).

2. Arguments presented in early stages of the round (constructives, crossfire) should be extended into the later speeches for them to "count." A devastating crossfire, for example, will count for little or nothing if not mentioned in a summary or final focus.

3. I don't mind and rather enjoy a fast, crisp and comprehensible round. I will very likely be able to flow you even if you speak at a substantially faster pace than conversational.

4. Don't try to extend all you constructive arguments in the final stages (summary, final focus) of the round. Narrow to the winners for your side while making sure to respond to your opponents' most threatening arguments. Explicitly "kick out" of arguments that you're not going for.

5. Using policy debate terminology is OK and may even bring a tear to my eye. I understand quite well what uniqueness, links/internal links, impacts, impact and link turns, offense and defense mean. Try to contextualize them to the arguments in the round rather than than merely tossing around jargon.

6. I will ultimately vote on the content/substance/flow rather than on generalized presentational/delivery skills. That means you should flow as well (rather than taking random notes, lecture style) for the entire round (even when you've finished your last speech).

7. I view PF overall as a contest between competing impacts and impact turns. Therefore specific impact calculus (magnitude, probability, time frame, whether solving for your impact captures or "turns" your opponents' impact(s)) is usually better than a general statement of framework like "vote for the team that saves more lives."

8. The last couple of topics are essentially narrow policy topics. Although I do NOT expect to hear a plan, I will generally consider the resolution to be the equivalent of a "plan" in policy debate. Anything which affirms or negates the whole resolution is fair game. I would accept the functional equivalent of a counterplan (or an "idea" which is better than the resolution), a "kritik" which questions the implicit assumptions of the resolution or even something akin to a "topicality" argument based on fairness, education or exclusion which argues that the pro's interpretation is not the resolution or goes beyond it. An example would be dealert, which might be a natural extension of no first use but might not. Specifically advocating dealert is arguably similar to an extratopical plan provision in policy debate.

9. I will do my level headed best to let you and your arguments and evidence decide the round and avoid intervention unless absolutely necessary to resolve an argument or the round.

10. I will also strive to NOT call for cards at the end of the round even if speech documents are rarely exchanged in PF debates.

11. I would appreciate a very brief road map at the beginning of your speeches.

12. Finally, with respect to the presentation of evidence, I much prefer the verbatim presentation of portions of card texts to brief and often self serving paraphrasing of evidence. That can be the basis of resolving an argument if one team argues that their argument(s) should be accepted because supporting evidence text is read verbatim as opposed to an opponent's paraphrasing of cards.

13. Although I'm willing to and vote for theory arguments in policy debate, I certainly am less inclined to do so in public forum. I will listen, flow and do my best not to intervene but often find myself listening to short lists of competing reasons why a particular theoretical position is valid or not. Without comparison and refutation of the other team's list, theory won't make it into my RFD. Usually theoretical arguments are, at most, a reason to reject a specific argument but not the team.

Overall, if there is something that I haven't covered, please ask me before the round begins. I'm happy to answer. Best wished for an enjoyable, educational debate.

Debated all 4 years in highschool mans did some debate at MSU I prefer policy options but if you decide to run a k just explain to me how the alt can solve and how the k is better than the aff I vote on topicality especially if it was dropped I’m really a laid back judge as long as everyone is having fun I think the round was successful

Piper Meloche [she/her, last name rhymes with "josh" not "brioche"]

Groves + MSU

pipermeloche@gmail.com [all email chains, questions]

grovesdebatedocs@gmail.com [high school only]

What I expect from you

1. Non-negotiables - Racism, misogyny, homophobia, transphobia, or other forms of discrimination will not be tolerated. Nor will cheating. Unless the tournament rules tell me otherwise, I will not let an ethics challenge be "debated out." If there is an instance of discrimination in a round I am judging, I will allow the impacted person to decide whether the debate continues. I cannot adjudicate what I did not directly witness.

2. Strong preferences - flow, keep your own time, and frame my ballot at the top of the late rebuttals. Whenever possible, prioritize evidence quality - good cards and smart re-highlights will be rewarded with high speaks.

3. Be nice to each other and have fun - the people we meet and the ideas we learn in debate are far more important than the result of any individual round, tournament, season, or career. I am very sensitive to condescending and rude cross-ex questions - especially when the two students have a power imbalance.

What to expect from me

1. Tech over truth - but the two are far more interwoven than many debaters think. I often grow frustrated when teams give their opponents' best arguments the same attention as their opponents' worst arguments. Truth exists and should determine how you execute tech. Arguments also must not be morally repugnant - death good, oppression good count as morally repugnant, and hot take, global warming good is pushing it. All below preferences assume equal debating.

2. Much better for policy arguments - I was a K debater in high school, but my research now exclusively focuses on the policy side of college and high school topics. The purpose of this paradigm is not to constrain what you do in front of me but to give you the most accurate understanding of my predispositions and how I try to judge debates.

Topic Things

College --

1. D4/5 will be my first time judging this semester. If some community norm about the coolest cards to read or the worst advantages has developed since then, please take the time to explain that to me.

2. Many debates on the college topic will be an assurance or deterrence disad against an aff claiming to solve these impacts. Love that for y'all, but you need to do more link comparison. Asserting that you clearly solve prolif, but your opponent clearly doesn't without warrants gives the same vibes as "I know you are, but what am I?" and almost forces me to intervene.

High School --

1. FSPEC...I don’t get it. SPEC arguments are likely only true if dropped unless you can convince me I’m missing something.

Whatever happened to strategically vague plan texts?! Funding mechanism advantages are whatever, but you are opening yourself up to annoying PICs and process counterplans that change one tiny thing about that funding mech you specified in your plan text or in cross ex! “Normal means” is the best answer to “how is the aff funded” because “Perm: do the counterplan” is the best answer to counterplans that change funding in a way that still results in a JG, BI, or social security expansion.

2. Love that people are going for T, but I think there are more convincing options than “taxes and transfers.” I am unconvinced that the word “and” can never mean “or.” Piper likes to eat chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic and mint chocolate chip ice cream. Did you read that as I like to put ice cream on my chicken shawarma sandwiches with extra garlic? I sure hope not. In this instance, “and” does mean “or.”

Policy v. Policy

1. The politics disad is good, actually. It's only "bad" if you're bad at storytelling. Know the major political figures and forces involved in the disad.

2. A smartly constructed advantage counterplan can solve most affs.

3. Counterplans should compete. Creative permutations can and should check counterplans that do not compete.

4. Conditionality is good, and all other theory is a reason to reject the argument. Conditionality ends after the 2NR if there is equal debating on judge kick or everyone is silent on the issue.

Clash

I'm far more familiar with identity Ks than Baudrillard and friends.

K affs v. Topicality --

1. Neg teams should answer case.

2. K affs should have a substantial tie to the topic.

3. Creative TVAs are an underrated part of the T debate - they should be something you actively research, not an afterthought.

4. I would prefer that aff teams provide and defend a clear counter-interpretation for the topic.

5. Everyone should avoid making gross exaggerations on the topicality page. K affs, for example, will not cause everyone to quit the activity.

Policy affs v. K --

1. Aff teams are most successful in these debates when they invest time in link comparison and flesh out the perm.

2. Neg teams are usually in a better spot when they prove that the aff is worse than the status quo and invest a substantial amount of time into the alternative.

K v. K

I have not judged enough of these rounds to give insight into how I evaluate them. Please prefer and provide judge instruction accordingly.

Random Hot Takes

1. The state of the high school and college wikis is disheartening. If you are scared that your entire strategy will collapse if others have your evidence, your evidence is probably not that good to begin with.

I think posting cites instead of Open Source is perfectly fine. BUT you have to check that you’re uploading complete cites! That includes the full tag, author, date, qualifications, a link to where we can access the text if available, and the first and last 3 words of your card.

2. Inserting rehighlights is *usually* good practice - read better evidence if this makes you sad. Rehighligted evidence will only be considered to the extent that it is explained. "Meloche goes neg" is not an explanation. At some point, introducing excessive rehighlights makes the level of explanation I need impossible.

3. A phenomenal 2AR cannot make up for a 2AC with sloppy mistakes - taking a few seconds of 2AC prep to make sure everything is in order is more valuable than saving those 15 seconds for the 2AR.

4. Your breath control sucks - easiest way to fix it is to try and take breaths at the end of sentences like we do in normal conversations. You'll sound and feel better.

5. After each tournament, I check how the points I gave compared to those received by the teams I judge throughout the weekend. This is my attempt to keep up with point inflation, but it doesn't always work.

6. Death by a Thousand Cuts is a fantastic Taylor Swift song - it is a mediocre neg strategy.

7. I am judging how easy to read, quickly sent, and aesthetically pleasing your judge doc is. Not in a win/loss way, but in a "I'm keeping a mental tier-list" way.

8. https://twitter.com/mcfuhrmann/status/1362452482165768193/photo/1

----

1. I've been trying to delete this numbered list for like 20 mins and gave up :(

Email: shannonnierman@gmail.com

I debated for Wylie E. Groves High School for four years, debated for 3 years at MSU, and currently coach at Groves.

Topicality: I’m not opposed to voting on T, but rereading T shells is insufficient. There needs to be substantial work on the interpretations debate from both teams, in addition to the standards and voters debate, i.e. education and fairness. As long as the aff is reasonably topical and it is proven so, T is probably not a voter. Also, if you are going for T in the 2NR, go for only T, and do so for all 5 minutes.

Counterplans: Any type of counterplan is fine; however, if it is abusive, do not leave it for me to decide this, make these arguments.

Disads: Any type of DA is fine. A generic link in the 1NC is okay, but I think that throughout the block the evidence should be link specific. When extending the DA in the block, an overview is a must. The first few words I should here on the DA flow is “DA outweighs and turns case for X and Y reasons.”

Kritiks: I will vote on the K, but I often find that in the K rounds people undercover the alternative debate. When getting to this part of the K, explain what the world of the alternative would look like, who does the alternative, if the aff can function in this world, etc. I am well versed in psychoanalytic literature i.e. Zizek and Lacan and I do know the basis of a plethora of other Ks. This being said, I should learn about the argumentation in the round through your explanation and extrapolation of the authors ideas; not use what I know about philosophy and philosophers or what like to read in my free time. Read specific links in the block and refrain from silly links of omission.

Theory: I am not opposed to voting on theory, but it would make my life a lot easier if it didn’t come down to this. This is not because I dislike the theory debate rather I just believe that it is hard to have an actual educational and clear theory debate from each side of the debate. Now, this said, if a theory argument is dropped, i.e. conditionality bad, by all means, go for it!

Performance: An interesting and unique type of debate that should still relate to the resolution. As long as there is substantive and legitimate argumentation through your rapping or dancing and whatever else you can come up with, I am willing to vote on it. Even if you are rapping, I would prefer to have a plan text to start.

*As technology is vital in our life, many of us have switched toward paperless debate. I do not use prep for flashing, because I have also debated both off of paper and paperlessly in debate and I understand that technology can sometimes be your opponent in the round, rather than the other team. I am being a nice and fair judge in doing this, so please do not abuse this by stealing prep, because I will most likely notice and take away that stolen prep.

FAQs: Speed – I’m okay with speed as long as you are clear!
Tag teaming - I’m okay with it as long as it’s not excessive.

Things not to do in rounds I’m judging: go for RVIs, go for everything in the 2NR, and be mean. Believe it or not, there is a distinction between being confident and having ethos vs. being rude and obnoxious when you don’t have the right to be.

Online Debate Updates:

Debate is still a speech and education activity. The following are things you should certainly read:

0. Cameras on during the debate.

1. Stop marking cards. Your speaks will tank if you mark more than a card (maybe two if the other team runs 8 off). If you aren't reading all the warrants in the card, you are effectively making an analytic, not an evidenced argument. And clipping cards without marking them is cheating. Don't do it.

2. Clarity is key in an online world - if I do not understand what you are saying I absolutely will not vote for it. This means that almost every team should be adapting and slowing down, on tags and analytics especially.

3. To get higher speaks and a higher chance of winning, don't just read your prewritten blocks back and forth. You need to do a line-by-line. Tell me what your 2AC or neg block card is responding too and why you are reading it. Warrant extraction and comparison is an effective way of making yourself more persuasive.

4. I don't kick your CP's, K's, DA's, etc for you. You need to do it yourself and do it properly.

5. Yes I want to be on the email chain. NO I WILL NOT READ YOUR CARDS, TAGS, OR EVIDENCE. Knowing when emails are sent etc helps me make sure that prep is accurately timed in an online world.

6. Prep ends when you hit send on the email (if there is one).

Background:

I debated at Dow High School in Midland, MI for 3 years. I did not debate in college, but have continued to work with the Dow High debate team.

Add me to the email chain: vikram@vikramshanker.com

I aim to be a tabula rasa judge. I will vote on whatever you tell me to vote on in the round. I am more likely to vote for you if you make me do very little work for you. However, you can do a number of things to improve the efficacy of your arguments. If you aren’t sure how I view things, looking at the paradigms of Nick Smith and Amanda Bishop ( from whom I copy/paste/edited my paradigm) might help. Please feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the debate.

Specifics:

- As a judge, I believe my default role is a policy maker. You can convince me otherwise in the round.

- I enjoy listening to arguments that people actually understand, rather than only reading your pre-written shells/frontlines/etc. I would rather hear fewer, well developed arguments than a lot of arguments that go under covered. I like things explained to me. Don’t assume because I’ve seen your argument before that I will automatically understand what you are saying.

- You need to signpost so I know where to flow things, when you are starting a new card, etc. At the bare minimum, make sure you say next in between cards/analytics etc. An organized speech, especially on the line by line, will get you a long way. Read your tags slower so I don’t miss things.

- I consider myself middle of the road with speed. I view spreading as a means to making more arguments in the round. Being faster or slower won’t impact your speaker points. If you are a crazy fast team, you might consider slowing down a little bit for me, especially on tags. If I don’t get it down on my flow, I won’t vote for it. I will say “clear” when I don’t understand what you are saying and will attempt to continue flowing.

- I think that in-round critical thinking, analytics, etc are under-valued in policy debates. Simple empirics can be more convincing than a random piece of evidence that is taken out of context.

- I will not call for evidence unless there are conflicting claims about what a piece of evidence says. My job is to judge the round and what the debaters said, not what the cards say. I do not want to intervene.

- The quality and relevancy of evidence is more important than the amount of evidence.

- I’m not a topic expert, please explain your arguments.

- I need to be told what to vote on at the end of the round and what my decision should be based off of/how it should be framed. When it comes to framework, you need to impact your framework. Why is your framework the best and why should I vote on it? If you don't frame the round I am left up to deciding who is best on my own. That being said, I need impact calc and weighing at the end of the round.

- I like T and think while it isn’t always the most fun thing, it is important. I went for T a number of times myself as a high school debater. While the neg needs to win all parts of the flow to win T, I judge it bottom up. The neg needs to win the voters for me to vote on it. Then I will evaluate the standards to decide which definition to use. I will then consider the top of the flow to see if the aff meets the better definition. If you go for T in the 2NR, it should likely be the only thing you are going for.

- I like a good counterplan debate. Make sure you slow down for the plan text. Case specific counterplans are probably my favorite kind of neg argument. For the neg to win the counterplan, they must prove the world of the CP is better than the world of the plan. Presumption will flip aff on the CP.

- While I am not familiar with most K’s, I am open to voting for them. Please know that if your K evidence has tags that are 50+ words long, I am probably going to miss at least part of the tag, so either really slow down or edit your tags. Signposting will also help you a lot (see above). Running K’s with specific links are more convincing. Explaining what the world of the alt is and how we get there is also very convincing. Alts that only say deconstruct or imagine are likely open themselves up for attack from the aff. However, the aff has to make these arguments in the round.

-I enjoy a good case debate. I mostly ran policy affs with some critical advantages. I think a lot of people don't use their case to their full advantage. Cross applying is important and the neg should not ignore the case. Case work is always good. The case needs to be extended for the entirety of the round. Disads are usually underutilized in my opinion.

-Tag teaming in cross is fine, as long as it isn't excessive. Tag teaming to add something to a partner's speech is okay as well. Just don't dominate. I've watched debaters give their partners speech and I won't flow it until the person whose speech it is actually says it.

- I default to believing the aff should be about the debate topic for the year. That being said, I’m open to listening to non-topical affs/performance affs/etc. But know that I am not familiar with your argument, and that you may need to adjust a bit to make sure that your arguments are best understood by me. If the neg runs T/theory on what debate is about/etc, I am willing to vote on that. Performance affs in particular should probably use FW to make sure that I understand why your form of performance is good for debate.

I debated for HH Dow for four years and now coach/judge for the high school. I attend Michigan State University, but I do not debate there. 

• Critical/non-topical aff's are fine as long as there's FW. 
• Dropped arguments are true arguments. 
• Tech > truth.
• I love topicality as an argument and will vote on it if explained well. I tend to believe the aff should be topical and will be receptive to these arguments. 
• Impact calc/weighing at the end of the round is important
• Counterplans, K's, DA's are all fine. 
• Theory arguments are okay. 

Sup, I'm Janai (if you're here you probably know that lol).

I debated in high school for Groves, in college for Wayne State University and coached High school policy and some middle school PF.

Basically, do what you do best and trust that will carry you!

Please try your very best not to say anything offensive: racist, sexist, transphobic, anti-queer, homophobic, ableist, xenophobic, classist, etc.

Im fine with every traditional and non-traditional thing we do in debate... dont be rude, debate the best you can, don't drop content if possible, have fun learning new ideas, do you with confidence!