Tyler.anderson115@gmail.com

UMN Law '23 UMN PhD loading...

Dartmouth College '18

Acorn Community High School '14

2022 Notes: PREP TIME STOPS ONCE THE DOCUMENT HAS BEEN EMAILED OVER - NOT BEFORE

I haven't judged in a few years but I would like to think I still got it...everything I wrote below still applies...

Most important: The role of the negative is to articulate a disadvantage to the 1ac in some form or fashion.

Everything else: I've done policy debate every year of school. I think it has some value.

I've done a variety of styles of debating so I'm fine to judge any style. I've personally leaned more to the critical side in terms of how I debate but this doesn't mean I prefer K's or am more inclined to vote for them, it just means that I probably understand a lot of the words you're using.

I think the point of a debate round is persuasion. so what happens in debate rounds is important. I don't like disinterested presentations about important topics.

Every year I became a more technical debater. This means I evaluate the flow and one shouldn't casually drop arguments just because they think theirs is better. Still, I don't vote on arguments just because they weren't answered, I think work has to be done to explain why that concession was so damning or important. Also, if you want me to flow a particular way then you should just tell me.

Sounds cliche but arguments are claims plus warrants. Don't just yell a bunch of arguments with no explanation as to why they are true without any theoretical, statistical, or historical support.

"Cards" necessitate an argument but arguments don't necessitate a "card." Don't read 12 cards in the 2ac and expect me to do the analytic work for you. I rather you spend more time on the analytic word than card reading. But finding a good medium is best.

Tyler.anderson115@gmail.com

Pasting how I answered NAUDL paradigm for transparency:

"List 4 types of arguments that you prefer to listen to/debate. For example, do you like to debate disadvantages? Do you like disadvantages as long as the disads aren’t the politics DA?

1. Impact calc

2. If a framework debate, treat it as a competing method/hermeneutic

3. Creative things I haven’t heard before…I like to learn too.

4. Arguments of contemporary relevance

List 4 types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to/debate. For example, do you find theory debates difficult to adjudicate?

1. I don’t like hearing a topicality debate where the terminal impact is just fairness

2. If the 2nr is just theory, you better be pretty good at it

3. I don’t like any arguments that are rooted in attacking an individual person in debate or dedicated to marginalizing an intersection of identity

List 4 stylistics items you like to do or like watch other people do. For example, do you like debates that go line by line, meaning debaters use their flows to answer each argument that is presented in the order it was presented?

1. I like direct clash and teams answering each other’s arguments, not just pretending that work wasn’t done

2. Cards are great but explanation/analytics > evidence dumps

3. Ethos and clarity – can’t judge the round properly if no one understands what you’re saying

4. Pushing the bounds of arguments, getting creative and innovative

List 4 stylistics items you do not like to watch other people do. For example, do you dislike when other debaters answer their partner’s cross-x questions?

1. I don’t like unnecessary rudeness

2. I don’t like people talking over each other too much, including their partner

3. I don’t mind open cross-x but I think that’s different than your partner being unable to speak

4. I don’t like rhetorically violent assumptions or any type of marginalizing discourse that could harm anyone in the room, even spectators

In a short paragraph, describe the type of debate you would most like to hear debated.

I don’t have a type of debate I prefer to hear and I would like to believe my judging history proves that. I did tend to have my own style of debating while I competed but I don’t believe that’s a helpful guide for what you should read in front of me. I prefer to hear “great” debates where all debaters are developing deep and substantive arguments with a passionate display of all the hard work you have done over the course of your career/year. Read what you are best at reading but don’t assume I am an expert in what that is. "

E: nexus.cchang@gmail.com

experience: 4 years policy

...

Don't be rude. Have fun.

Ks are good. Be clear

Overall Paradigm:

Tabula Rasa judge:

• If the presented Plan is in a Stock Issues format, then I will vote as a stock-issues judge once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Comparative Advantage Plan is run, then I will shift to a policymaker framework and weigh Advantages against DAs (see the note on DAs below), once Kritiks and Topicality are won.
• If a Kritikal Aff is run, then all bets are off. Run framework and tell me why I should be voting for you.

Kritiks are a priori to Topicality, which in turn is a priori to the Plan.

Speed:

I enjoy spreading, but I dislike fast mumbling. If you’re not a proficient spreader, slow down. Reducing speed for tags, cites, and underviews helps your case immensely.

Theory:

Theory won’t win a debate on its own. Claiming in-round abuse or that your argument is better for education requires justification and strong links.

Kritiks:

I love Kritiks, but they must be strongly linked to the Plan. Otherwise, Kritiks are non-unique DAs.

Tell me the story of the Kritik. I want to hear persuasion and thought behind these arguments. A well-done K will make my weekend.

DAs:

It can be tough to weigh DAs against a Stock Issues case. If a Stock Issues case is given by AFF, I would appreciate NEG providing only DAs that diminish/turn the stock issues of the Plan.

Please, no politics DAs unless you can prove that the loss of political capital extends past enactment of the plan. I am a strong believer in Fiat.

Things that make my heart go pitter-pat:

• Confident, assured underviews
• Focusing on the claims above the evidence
• Teams that stay on the offense and show clear strategy
• TOPICALITY (as long as it is a well-structured T debate that is strongly linked to the Plan)

Things that make me cringe in my seat:

• Evidence battles
• Any kind of murky ethics (mis-claiming dropped contentions, falsely stating rules, overusing flash time for prep, etc.)
• Having to vote on a weakly supported, but crucial, argument that wasn't answered.

To begin with: please be respectful to your partner and your opponents. This is of paramount importance. While we understand that this is a competition and situations, especially during cross examination, can reach high levels of intensity, that is no excuse for showing disrespect to any party involved.

ANY reference to an opponent with the use of a derogatory or racist term (even under the guise of a performance piece or simulation in the debate space) will NOT be tolerated.

As a general note, I greatly prefer topicality in the debate round. If you are running an AFF that is far away from the topic of the year (i.e. performance pieces, poetry, voluntary silence), you will have to work very hard in the round to show relation to the resolution. If either team is running a KRITIK, you will have a high threshold for proving that the topic as given by the NSDA is not worthy of being debated.

As for Topicality arguments, I believe that they usually do not hold up over the long haul of a round. After a certain point, they just become, for lack of a better term, a time waste. As long as the AFF team can prove that they are topical if the NEG team calls it into question, it will leave my flow sheet after the 2AC.

Speed reading DOES NOT impress me. If anything, I find it to be distracting from the debate. If you want me to have a clean flow, make sure that I can understand that information that you are trying to relay. I much prefer being "explained to" vs. "read at". There is a difference. If I can't make sense of your arguments, it will be hard to pick a side.

During the final two speeches (2NR & 2AR) I will be listening for you to tell me why YOU should win the round.

For the most part, we are all here as a learning experience, and to enjoy the clash of policy debate.
During your speeches, I will greatly appreciate clarity and slow-speaking, especially when reciting taglines and making important points. This will make it easier for me to analyze and flow what you are saying instead of struggling to keep up with what you are saying.

Please include me on all e-mail chain: adeluca@longbranch.k12.nj.us

I don't care for:

Existential impacts, dont give me a million ways nuclear war will happen, high magnitude impacts are almost always unconvincing. If you're gonna run that kinda arg, make sure the impact story makes sense

Generic t arguments. I'll vote on it if it's carried well but if you can run off case and on case, then t really has no place in your 1nc. Time skews are just boring for everyone involved

Spreading tags and analytics, as that's the stuff I'll need to flow. If I dont get down something important because your spreading through it, dont be surprised if i have to make my own conclusions to write an rfd.

That aside, I'm fine with anything so long as it's thoroughly explained. I'm only partial to well run disads

Please include me in the email chain: lisacarlos@sbcglobal.net

Back in the day, I was a high school debater (Hutchinson Trinity Catholic). More recently, I coached high school debate (also at TC) for five years. I prefer the classic style of debating with weight given to speaking style and elegantly developed arguments with direct clash. I appreciate courteous manners.

I would categorize myself as a policymaker judge with expectations that all stock issues will be met.

I am a flow judge. I am ok with fast talking, but if I can't flow it is too fast (I will try to indicate this through the camera).

I don't like kritiks, so if you run one, please have a good reason and explain it well.

Stock issues are important to me, but not necessarily the sole issue of my ballot (BUT if something is glaring, I will vote on it).

I am fine with a good Topicality argument. I am ok with counterplans if they are run well and carefully explained.

I will not do any of the work for you. If there is an obvious contradiction, but it is not pointed out. I won't consider it.

I love a good disadvantage with a direct link to the affirmative case.

In rebuttals, I greatly appreciate impact calculus and weighing the round.

Things I don't like: redundancy, claiming that the other team "lied" about something, condescending remarks, generic arguments used as a timesuck.

I consider it an honor to be judging -- thank you for choosing to debate!

Short:

Debated 4 years PF in HS. 3 years of policy in college. Coached PF for 4 years.

Ridge 2014-201, NYU 2018-202, current MD/PhD student at Michigan

Contact info: Facebook (my name) or email (brandonluxiii@gmail.com). Please add me to the email chain if it exists.

Tech over truth. Policy and K both good. I can flow around 250 wpm without a doc. Favorite kind of debate is clash of civs.

If you don't extend I will vote neg on presumption unless it's LD where I'll vote aff on presumption. It makes me sad to have to say that I've voted on presumption in about 10% of rounds I've judged, although this number seems to be going down.

My name isn't judge, you can say my name if you want my attention.

If it takes you longer than 5 minutes to find a card, it doesn't exist. Very excessive card calling that makes me want to fall asleep: -0.2 speaks per card.

Please time yourselves.

Ask me if you have any questions about my RFD. Sometimes, I'm not the most thorough on the ballot or during my RFD because I'm lazy and forgetful. Postrounding is tolerated, but don't be annoying.

Please contact me if you feel unsafe during round.

Long:

PF Paradigm

I can handle speed but please keep things under 350 words per minute. Slow down on tags and author names and try not to paraphrase evidence if you're actually going to spread. If you go faster, you need to give me a speech doc or I will probably miss anything blippy which is not good. I will shout "clear" if I don't understand what you are saying. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow your arguments and you will likely lose.

Going heavy for the line by line is fine, but you must signpost or I will literally have an empty flow and won't know what to do. A good example of not signposting is the 2018 NSDA PF final. With that being said, the final focus should spend at least 30 seconds on the narrative/big picture. 2 minutes of line by line is a bit hard for me to judge and find things to vote off of if done poorly. The reverse is also true- the line by line is very important and should appear in every single speech. Losing the line by line probably makes it harder for me to vote for you. When going for the line by line, you must explain the implications for winning each part of the line by line. This comes from impacting your responses/evidence/analytics. I've seen some teams that aren't extending full arguments in summary and just frontlining responses. Extensions in all speeches need to extend a full argument or I will feel really bad voting on it.

Summary should not be the first time I see responses to case arguments and summary should respond to rebuttal arguments.

I used to say I wanted to see a theory debate about whether 2nd rebuttal should frontline, but no one is willing to do it. If someone does it well, I will give both teams 30 speaks. Meanwhile, I currently default to 2nd rebuttal should frontline everything (yes, defense too. Don't be lazy).

Since summaries are longer now, I think defense should be extended in summary. Any defense you want me to vote off should be in final focus even if they never touch it. I'll significantly dock points if I have to vote on arguments where both sides dropped defense. Turns you want me to vote on must be in summary. NOTHING IS STICKY.

In order for me to vote on arguments, I need to understand them so you need to explain them to me instead of blipping something and complaining that I screwed you by not voting off it. If I don't understand an argument until the middle of my rfd, it's probably on you. If something is important enough for me to vote off, you should spend more than 10 seconds on it in summary and final focus (exceptions are obvious game over moments).

How to win my ballot:

Win a link and impact that can outweigh your opponents' impacts. Weighing is important to keep me from thinking that everything is a wash and vote off presumption. I used to think weighing was really important, but most debates I've judged have not been weighing debates. If you can recognize this and drop weighing, I'll prob reward you with extra speaks. It's very rare that I actually vote off weighing because the most important part of the round is usually the link level.

I will vote off any argument that is properly warranted and impacted. I am truth before tech in terms of evidence and arguments that cause offense to people, but I will evaluate tech first everywhere else. Other arguments I will be truth over tech about will be stated at the top of my paradigm every topic (those are arguments I hate with a passion and will likely never vote off of).

I will only vote off defense if you give me a reason to and I will presume a side if you give me a reason to (normally I presume neg). I will also adapt my paradigm if arguments are made in the round about it (I can and will be lay if you want).

I evaluate framework first, then impacts on the framework, then links to the impacts, then other impacts, then defense. Strength of link is a very important weighing mechanism for me. Teams should use this to differentiate their arguments from their opponents'. If there are no impacts left I will default to the status quo. I highly enjoy voting this way, so if you don't want to lose because of this, you need to not drop terminal defense or your case. I will reward high speaks for a strategy that takes advantage of that if it works.

I will be forced to intervene if the debaters don't give me a way to evaluate the round as stated above. In egregious circumstances, I will flip a coin. I reserve the right to vote off eye contact.

Things I like:

Debating the line by line well.

Good warranting on nonstock arguments. I enjoy hearing unique arguments.

Clash. Opposing arguments need to be responded to.

Good extensions (please don't drop warrants or impacts during extensions. Voting off a nonextended warrant or impact is intervention).

Smart strategies that save time and allow you to win easily will make me award high speaks (laziness is rewarded if you can pull it off, like a 5-second summary if you are clearly winning). Debaters who already won by summary can do nothing for the rest of the round.

A good K that is explained well in the span of a PF round will make me very happy (high speaks 29+). If you read a K with a good link, impact, and alt, I will vote off of it.

Things I dislike: You will be able to tell if I'm annoyed by my expressions and gestures. These probably won't lose you the round but will make me dock speaks.

Case to final focus extensions- I will refuse to evaluate them whatsoever and I will dock speaks.

Excessively long roadmaps- Your order should just be the flows. At most the arguments. Weighing is not a flow

Frivolous theory- I will evaluate it but it's annoying and not nice. The more frivolous your theory is, the less speaks I will give and the lower threshold I give for responses.

Being obnoxious and mean in crossfire.

Double drop theory (Tab won't let me drop both debaters).

Obvious and excessive trolling. Trolling too hard will get you dropped with very low speaks and an angry ballot. Tacit trolling, though, will make a round fun.

Saying game over when it's not or on the wrong part of the flow. You need to be correct when you say it or at least be on the correct part of the flow. Being correct when you say game over will be awarded with higher speaks.

Things I hate:

New arguments in final focus (especially 2nd). If you aren't winning overwhelmingly I will drop you immediately with 26 speaks.

Making up or severely miscutting evidence. I have a habit of calling sketchy cards after round or looking up a sketchy fact.

How I award speaks:

30- One of the best debaters in the tournament, if you don't break you probably got screwed over.

29-29.9- You are a good debater. You go for the correct strategies and make me want to pick you up. I think you will almost definitely break.

28-28.9- You are above average. You do something to make me want to vote for you but you could do better.

27-27.9- You are below average. I think you can still break but probably won't go too far.

26-26.9- You did something to annoy me such as ignore my paradigm.

Below 26- You did something offensive or broke a rule (this includes racism, ableism, and sexism)

30 speaks theory: if you're reading this instead of a K to get 30 speaks in front of me, it won't work. I would much rather see a K of debate if you're trying to be an activist in round.

Miscellaneous things:

Please read dates and author qualifications. I will evaluate date theory. Quals are useful to know.

I will evaluate official evidence challenges. People really should do this more.

Theory- Frivolous theory is boring and annoying but I'll evaluate it. I default to reasonability. This is to prevent extremely frivolous theory. On T, I default to competing interpretations. When making topicality arguments, debaters need standards or net benefits for their interpretation. T and theory should be in shell format because it makes arguing and evaluating it much easier for everyone. Theory and T also need implications. I default to drop the arg for theory and drop the team for T.

If you disclose to your opponents and me before the round, I'll boost your speaks by 0.5. If you're going to send speech docs to me and your opponents, I'll also boost your speaks by another 0.5.

You can request my flow after the round. By doing so, you are releasing me of any liability regarding what's written on it.

If you convince me to change my paradigm after judging you, I will give you 30 speaks.

I won't be annoyed if you postround me, but I will probably complain about it to other people if you say something funny.

If you can make a reference to song I like, I'll boost your speaks. If you make a reference to a song I don't like, I'll dock speaks.

Write down things you did to boost speaks and remind me right when the round ends. If I forget, you can remind me the next time I judge you and I'll give you the extra speaks I owe.

Check out some of my debate experience on https://www.facebook.com/leekedludes/?fref=ts

TL:DR- do whatever you want. I'm tabula rasa enough that if you make the argument for it, I'll evaluate anything, including not at all. You can override my entire paradigm with enough justification. Ask me about what's not on here.

LD Paradigm

Please put me on the email chain. Best with Larp, then K. Bad with tricks/phil.

I'm not familiar with most philosophy. Phil rounds scare me and will make me vote in a way that will make debaters unhappy.

K: I like Ks. I need to know what the alt actually does and if that is explained well, I will easily vote off the K.

K affs: I like these, they make debate interesting.

Tricks: I'll still vote off tricks but I'm pretty bad at evaluating these debates.

Performance: As long as I know what the aff does, I'll be fine. If I don't know what the aff does or says by the end of the 1AC, I'll be a little annoyed.

Theory: I have no problems with frivolous theory. Please slow down for analytics. I can't type as fast as you speak.

I assign speaks the same way as listed on my PF paradigm.

Policy Paradigm

I'm good with any kind of argumentation. I've read policy and k affs and have read a mix of stuff on Neg. Please slow down on tags, interps, and plan texts.

Tech over truth but I like reading evidence so if the evidence is really bad, I might dock speaks. Rehighlightings are fun.

I really like good case debates. A lot of 1ACs do not have very good link stories and can easily be taken out by smart analytics. Cases with tricky advantages that don't have these problems will work well in front of me. If you win with 8 mins of case in the 1NC, I'll give 30 speaks.

DAs: I'm willing to vote on any DA scenario that has uniqueness, link, and impact. Unique case specific DAs will go very well in front of me. I do believe in zero risk and I'm more receptive to defense than most judges (applies to case defense too).

CPs: I'm pretty much ok with any kind of CP. I will evaluate and may vote on CP theory, but I usually lean neg- existence of literature is probably important. CPs must be competitive. I default to judge kicking if it makes my decision easier.

Ks: You must explain your K in a way that I will understand. Don't just keep reading cards in the block- explain the K and how it interacts with the Aff and what the alt does and how it solves. If I understand the way it works, I'm more than willing to vote off it. If you're reading 1 off K, it's probably a good idea to have a decent amount of responses on case that are both critical and policy. I'm the least familiar with high theory so I need more explanations than usual.

K affs: Not really a preference for plan text or no plan text. Good 2ACs need to explain to me why I should vote aff, what my ballot does, and respond to the line by line on the case page (you're obviously more prepared than them for the case debate so don't let it go to waste). Against framework, reading counterinterps that are specific could solve for a lot of their impacts. Presumption arguments are probably a decent response in the 1NC especially if the aff is vague or confusing.

Framework: Reading fw against a K aff works as long as you win the flow. Most of the time, I lean aff on Fw debates, but that's because neg teams think that they can get away with explaining things less than aff teams (tell me specifically why your model is better, examples are probably good). The impacts on framework and the line by line are the most important and I'll vote for whoever wins the tech. I've found that fairness is less important than most debaters think. Limits is probably not an impact. 1NC shells can get out of a lot of impact turn offense by reading a more specific shell instead of T-USFG. The easiest way the negative can win is accessing impacts that turn the case which probably also solve for the impact turns. I've found that I really enjoy clash debates (I've read K affs against framework and gone for framework against K affs).

T: For some reason, I'm a masochist and I like T debates. Teams read reasonability without telling me what it means and I don't know what to do with it.

Condo: Probably a good thing but how it's debated is most important. If the block is light on condo (or theory in general), it's probably a good idea to extend it in the 1AR to see if the 2NR drops it.