Heart of Texas
2021 — Dallas, TX/US
JVCX Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
updated april ‘21
pronouns: they/them (call me Liz :3)
put me on the email chain: email@example.com
experience: debated 7 years in middle/high school policy for crossings in oklahoma city
1. be nice
2. have fun
3. do what you want, just do it well
i’m okay with speed, however, i can’t hear as well over a speaker, so either slow down a little bit or make sure to enunciate- i don’t want to miss anything!
K- Dislike -----------------------------------------X Like
CP- Dislike -------------------------------------X—-- Like
DA- Dislike -------------------------------------X--- Like
T- Dislike ----------------------X------------------- Like
FW- Dislike ------------------------------------X----- Like
Theory- Dislike ---X-------------------------------------- Like
Case Neg- Dislike ----------------------------------X------- Like
most experienced in antiblackness, settler colonialism, abolition and deleuze/guattari
familiar with baudrillard, psychoanalysis, most stock K's, most high theory K's
i will look at the framework debate first. however, i feel like it often gets muddled because both sides forget that they must impact out and do comparative analysis with their standards. keep your arguments consistent and clear.
the aff gets to weigh itself against the alternative. i default to choosing the best option- how i frame the ballot or the role of the judge is up to y’all. love a good link debate. lots of clash on the flow is appreciated.
explain the internal link, extend your impacts, and tell the story of how the alternative functions and you’ll be good on the general stuff in my book.
politics da’s are always cool. i’m not really picky about them except don’t read more than one with the same impact.
can’t go wrong with a solid advantage cp. i’m not that interested in hearing theory stuff but the cp shouldn’t be too wild. have a clear net benefit and explain mutual exclusivity.
t is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. impact comparison is super important.
it's okay. there has to be a tangible risk of abuse, a reasonable interpretation, and supporting evidence for me to want to vote on it. using it as a time suck just sucks!
i like policy affs. they should have solid internal link chains, doesn't matter how many advantages or the subject. make sure there's solvency extended throughout the round, and just explain what the aff actually does, who does it, who does it affect, etc.
cant go wrong w/ a good K aff tho. any subject. having an advocacy statement would be nice, just so it's easier to see what you're standing for. i have very high expectations for the internal link and solvency. explain what the aff does.
Freshman at the University of Texas at Austin '24
I used to debate for Hendrickson
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
LD stuff below
– I will evaluate anything that is said, except for interruptions by anyone who isn't supposed to be speaking. Unless it is a part of your performance, I won't evaluate it.
– Tech over Truth in most cases. I won't evaluate an argument without a warrant. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other arguments that you should know that aren’t impact turn-able.
– Unlike most judges, I flow cross-examination. That doesn’t mean that I evaluate cross-x as a speech, but it does mean that you don’t need to fully explain the cross-x moment for me to understand.
– I’m not the best for teams reading Kritikal arguments. I didn’t read a lot of Kritikal arguments in high school, which means that I don’t know the nuances between authors within critical literature.
– I make a lot of facial expressions. If I'm confused or I think an argument you're making is silly, I will give a reaction.
Topic Specific Thoughts
– I lean and vote neg more times than I think I should. This topic has a plethora of teams, so neg teams going for Topicality have my sympathy and, potentially, vote.
– The neg is allowed to get the States CP. No amount of time spent in the 2AR or subpoints in the 2AC on this issue will change my mind on this. Whether the neg gets to uniformly fiat all 50 states is a different question.
“Soft Left” Affs
– I hate 1ACs that have the following pre-empts on their framing contention: no war, their DAs have [x] probability, their politics DA is thumped, etc. The 1AC is not a speech to be reading answers to neg arguments that have not yet been read. I prefer "soft-left" affs that have reasons as to why your internal links and mechanism are key. If your 1AC doesn't have those things, I'll probably vote neg for an advantage CP with no solvency advocate and a politics DA.
– Arguments like “reject consequences” are inherently flawed and unpersuasive. Why should I evaluate your consequences but not your opponents? That just seems illogical. I’m more persuaded by arguments like “probability comes first.”
– For the neg, when explaining DA turns case, I don’t want hear “our impact turns structural violence” as a justification for why the DA accesses the aff’s impacts. The neg must explain how their impact scenario makes the aff’s specific instance of structural violence worse.
– I view topicality violations, such as "substantial," as time sucks, which means that I default aff on reasonability. Unless the aff drops or mishandles T-Substantial, I probably won’t vote neg.
– I tend to err neg when a coherent list of untopical affs under the aff's counter-interpretation is presented. Those type of case lists are coherent when the affs listed are ones that most teams would actually read and not some random idea you thought was dumb. Similarly, I err aff when the aff presents a coherent case list for affs that the neg's interpretation excludes is presented. Solvency advocates aren't required for either case list.
– Reasonability is about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not the aff. This means that if you kick the counter-interp, you can’t go for reasonability.
– The counter-interpretation is the most confusing part of the aff’s strategy on framework. If I don’t understand what your model of debate looks like and how it solves any of your offense, then I will have a hard time voting aff.
– I find myself unpersuaded by aff arguments like "your model of debate excludes us," "reading [x] standard is violent," or any other argument that equates the reading of Framework to legitimate violence. Those aren't true and are trivializing to actual experiences of violence. I'm more persuaded by arguments about how your model of debate is more educational, builds better activists, creates better subjects, etc. Similarly, neg teams that tell their opponents to "get out of debate" won't win my ballot.
– I view the topical version of the aff as a way for the neg’s model of debate to incorporate the aff’s education on the aff. Arguments like “the state can’t endorse our advocacy” or state bad offense is not a reason the topical version can’t include the aff’s discussion. That being said, the topical version must solve some of the aff’s impacts. A solvency advocate will make it more convincing that the topical version resolves some of the aff’s offense outlined in the 1AC.
– My views on framework and topicality are pretty similar, the only difference is that I view a framework debate as a question of competing interpretations. I’m unpersuaded by reasonability and will not vote on it.
– I already said it above, but I will say it again. I will not evaluate arguments like racism good, ableism good, and any other arguments that you should know that aren’t impact turn-able. If you are going to ask, don’t read it.
– These kinds of debates are fun to judge, but that doesn’t mean that I enjoy every impact turn debate. You should explain every impact turn as if it were a disad. What is happening now? How does the aff/disad change that? Why is that change bad? All of these questions need to be answered in order for me to vote for you.
– I keep hearing aff teams saying "their DA links are generic." I don't view that as a take out to the link. The aff needs to make the argument that they don't link for me to be persuaded that the generic link is insufficient for a link. The threshold for how good the "no link" argument decreases when the neg's link work is generic.
– I will discount any disad with relatively zero risk as background noise, unless a counterplan is involved. In which case, I will evaluate the disad.
– Disads that require multiple internal link chains are the worst disads and are easily answerable by the aff in my opinion. The aff doesn’t have to read a lot of evidence, but there should still be lots of evidence comparison and pointing out of flaws in their evidence.
– I absolutely love counterplans that come from re-cutting an internal link or solvency advocate of the 1AC. Even if your counterplan doesn’t come from their 1AC author, the more case specific it is, the more likely I am to reward you for it. In other words, I prefer advantage counterplans over PICs, agent CPs, process CPs, etc.
– Presumption flows aff when the counterplan does more than the aff but stays neg if it does less.
– Sufficiency framing is an argument, but it needs to be paired with a reason as to why that sort of framing is good. If the 1AR gives a decent reason as to why I should reject it and the block has not given a reason to prefer it, then the 2NR will have a hard time persuading me that sufficiency framing is good.
– I judge kick unless told otherwise.
– Like most judges, I prefer hearing buzzwords explained, case-specific links, and comprehensive alternative explanations. If you are lacking any of these parts after the block, the odds that I’ll vote neg is very low.
– I enjoy listening to 2NCs that focus more on the line-by-line rather than a long overview that implicitly answers 2AC arguments. In those debates, I begin to tune out and will miss arguments you are making even if you’re not going very fast. This also includes 2NCs that shotgun a myriad of links. Don’t expect me to catch every link and their explanations because I won’t. I don’t think there should be a limit as to how many links you make, but if you’re strategy is contingent off of the 1AR dropping a link and going for that link, then I’m not the right judge for you.
– “Link are a disad to the perm” is NOT a sufficient answer the permutations. Since most links are descriptions of broader structures and not the aff, the permutation is usually sufficient enough to solve the links if it combines the plan and alt. If the neg couples the links with a disad or severance/intrinsic-ness argument, then I’m less likely to vote aff on the perm.
– The most under-focused argument in a kritik debate is the 1AC. If you’re aff, weigh your impacts and explain how they outweigh the K’s impacts. Most aff teams lose because they choose not to weigh their impacts. If you’re neg, don’t forget to answer case. This is especially true for the neg when the security k, psychoanalysis, or any other argument that relies on the aff being wrong about the 1AC in anyway require a case debate in order for you to win your links. Conceding case means I heavily lean aff on the permutation. This doesn’t mean that I’ll auto-vote aff if you drop case, you just need to indict the 1ACs authors or theories in some way and make that clear in your speech. Even if your evidence directly indicts theirs, you need to do the work to explain why those indicts are true.
– After the block, I should know what your alternative does and how it solves the links. If you decide to kick the alt in the 2NR, then you need to explain how the links operate as linear disads to the aff and not the broader structures of power. A lack of explanation of how the links are resolved means I won’t be voting neg.
K v K Debate
– Kritik debates in general should have concrete examples to back up their theories, but this is especially true when two different theories are clashing. I have zero clue where to start if all I’m hearing are buzzwords and explanations of your theory with no idea what it looks like. These examples are extremely helpful for me to not only understand your theory, but also understand how it interacts with your opponent’s theory.
– A method debate does not mean a no-perm debate. The aff definitely gets a perm and the neg has to prove why combing the aff’s theory with the neg’s theory fails to accomplish something.
– A lot of these debates come down to the permutation or the link vs link turn. For the aff, you need to explain how the permutation solves the links or, at the very least, avoid them. If your strategy is contingent on the link turn, you need to do impact calculus between your link turn and the neg’s link. If I think the neg has a bigger link, then I will vote neg. The same is true if I think the link turn outweighs the link, then I vote aff. For the neg, your answer to the perm shouldn’t just be links are a disad, especially if your links are that “the aff doesn’t analyze [insert K impact].”
– Most theory arguments are just reasons to reject the argument, except for condo. This is especially true when there isn’t any in-round abuse. Theory arguments that such as counterplans without solvency advocates, vague alts, etc. are reasons to be skeptical of the solvency of the counterplan or alt. They are rarely reasons to reject the team. Other theory arguments like PICs bad, floating PIKs bad, agent CPs bad, etc. are reasons to reject the counterplan or alt. These arguments can be reasons to reject the team, but only if the neg severely mishandles these the theory debate and the 2AC is really good on them.
– I think the most reasonable amount of conditional world the neg should have is two. Three or four is pushing it. If the neg only reads advantage counterplans or kritiks specific to the 1ACs plan, then I lean neg on condo even if they counter-interpretation is an infinite number of worlds. So long as those worlds are specific to the aff, then I’m good with it. However, if the aff’s interpretation on condo is zero conditional worlds, one unconditional world, or [x number] of dispositional worlds, then I lean neg on condo. I’m hate 2ACs that say the neg can read dispositional worlds and not define what it means.
– I don't vote on shotty theory arguments like ASPEC, Disclosure Theory, New Affs Bad, etc. unless they are dropped.
– I default neg on theory if it’s a new aff.
– I don't judge a lot of LD, but I'm familiar with the format.
– Most of the Policy/CX stuff holds true for LD arguments.
– If the affirmative is going for an RVI, it needs to be the entirety of your last speech and you must prove in-round abuse. I won't reject arguments or the negative otherwise.
Yes, email chain. email@example.com
Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95
Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20
Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-
--Old School Policy.
--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff
--Truth is slightly >Tech. But silence is concession.
--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part.
--Not great with theory debates. Condo is okay. Other than that, see below.
--I love nuanced case debates.
--Prefer arguments that originate from Truth and Research. The more you respect the value of research in your round, the happier I will be.
--I am a better judge if the round is about substance rather than procedure or ethos.
Some CJR Topic Specific Things
--Very cool with a healthy dose of Condo
--Also cool with Agent CPs but solvency advocate or just some form of common sense is required. Have an impact to "the CP is illegal" in the form of a DA or strike down
--Limited Constitution Conventions are only okay if you have ev that supports it
--I highly doubt the National Governors Association can influence Supreme Court Decisions
--Courts can probably enact. Just debate the stupid models and get to the point. Not a fan of negs that make hyperbolic claims about limits: "literally thousands of affs"
--Annoyed but more lenient on stupid PTX DA’s than usual. Zero risk still a thing. I will reward link spin supported by…you know…reality
--PICS show me that you are engaging with the aff. I love that.
The Line by Line...
Advantage vs Disadvantage.
I will always give more credence to the team that has a more consistent narrative and better explains causality from A to B to C. I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read. Coherent and plausible stories with good evidence will always win out in my mind. You not understanding obvious political reality will cast a bit of a shadow over your credibility.
Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.
Run them. It is perfectly okay for Agents to be a part of the debate. No International Fiat and Object Fiat please. 50 State is iffy for me. Have a solvency advocate and I become flexible on theory debates.
PICs-- all good.
Process Counterplans-- I mostly hate them. You had better have a solvency advocate and a good one and you had better prove why your "process" is somehow valuable and/or educational. Absent that, I will err aff on CP theory debates.
Largely okay with lots of Condo.
If you lean on high theory or K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. If you can't do that...
I have voted for a lot of K-Affs and it is usually because the Aff effectively impact turned Framework and beat back a TVA. If you can do those things, you can get my ballot.
Topic relevance is important.
If your goal is to use the K-Aff as a means to teach an old white male who engages with both capitalism and the state for a living something valuable, then I am all ears. I love being taught things and you have done the Aff justice. If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.
I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.
Kritiks vs Policy Affs:
A K debater once told me they thought I got a bad rap against as a K judge. Not sure if that is true, but the record is leaning this way. Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT. I have even voted on Neg FW as Offense. I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. But I also do not feel that an Alt is always necessary, especially with Reps K.
When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.
I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.
I look at this argument differently than almost EVERY other judge on the circuit. Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. It has been pointed out to me that the requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.
Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense.
NEW RULE AS OF FEBRUARY 2020---I WILL DOCK YOU .3 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU HIDE ASPEC ON T. .5 SPEAKER POINTS IF YOU HIDE IT ANYWHERE ELSE. RUN THIS AS A SINGLE OFF CASE PROCEDURAL ARGUMENT. REALLY GETTING TIRED OF VOTING AGAINST DESERVING TEAMS BECAUSE OF THIS. IF ITS SO IMPORTANT TO YOUR STRATEGY, THEN DON'T RUN FROM THE DEBATE. IF YOU ARE JUST HOPING TO WIN CHEAP, THEN IT WON'T COME AS CHEAP AS YOU WOULD LIKE.
Some arguments I hate:
“Spark” (Russia/China/Iran/NoKo strikes good are okay and even encouraged)
"New Affs Bad"
A few additional notes:
I have yet to hear a debate about Floating PIKS or Intrinsic Perms that makes me understand them.
If you want to turn debate into games of Mario Kart or slam poetry, strike me. Respect the game.
Debate the evidence. It’s a lost art and, trust me, it’s a great skill to learn.
As I am a judge who likes to reward research, there is an argument that can solve many problems: Literature Checks Abuse. What I mean by this is that if you have a dubiously topical Aff, a seemingly abusive Process Counterplan, etc. I will tend to give a lot more leeway to the defense against theory claims. All you need to do is show me some evidence that your argument has a specific and valuable place in the debate and I am willing to overlook ‘PICS bad’ or other claims of this ilk because having a debate about X issue is educational.
I have romantic notions that well-reasoned assertions are good things. Feel free to think on your feet.
PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:
I judge about 1 PF Round for every 25-30 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.
I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.
Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.
Evidence quality is very important.
I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.
Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.
Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.
While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.
I reward debaters who think outside the box.
I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”
Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.
While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.
The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.
I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.
Relax. Have fun.
I debated for 4 years at Jesuit Dallas. I was the 2N/1A my first two years and the 2A/1N my second two years.
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Be nice, don't steal prep, clip, etc.
Well warranted extensions of qualified, warranted evidence = best way to win debates, no matter the argument.
Topic specific > generic.
Do the basics: get competition (I feel I could be persuaded that textual, functional, or both is the best standard), have a net benefit that links to the aff, explain how it solves the aff and/or mitigates the impact to the solvency deficit, etc.
If you do not have a net benefit that is a disad to the aff, smart permutations that prove the net benefit isn't an opportunity cost to the aff will be easier to vote on.
Read them, have specific link analysis to the aff, make turns case arguments.
Simple aff analytics like can significantly mitigate the disad - don't forget about them (either side).
I do think there can be zero risk of a disad.
Probably 50% of my 1NRs my last year were going for T. If you do it well, I'll be happy.
Have a caselist, maybe a TVA (especially if their offense is "education about our aff area is important"), and compare what the topic looks like under the aff's interp to what the topic looks like under your interp.
The more arbitrary the T violation, the more persuasive reasonability is.
Be sure to explain clearly an alt or a framework (or both). I can't stress this enough. Either demonstrate how the alt solves the links and all or part of the aff, or explain why the aff doesn't matter. The more clear your interp on framework, the easier it will be to distance from the aff's disads. If you are unclear about your interp, I will probably assume that it is "you don't get to weigh the aff;" you don't want that to happen. That means you should tell me how the aff wins the debate and how you win the debate, what I should consider as a link, etc.
Specific links to the aff are better than generic ones. I'll be particularly impressed if you can incorporate lines from their evidence or their explanation of the aff into the link.
Please, please, please, don't have a 4 minute overview then make cross applications all down the line by line. Please don't break my flow.
Debated for Caddo Magnet 2014-2018
Assistant Coach @ Caddo Magnet
Political Science major @ LA Tech, c/o '22
Email chain: email@example.com
Prep ends when the speech doc is saved/flashed.
Don't take too long while you're "sending the doc over" and still typing.
Don't call me "judge."
Evidence quality > evidence quantity.
Tech v. Truth is very much over-debated and over-theorized and I'm not sure why it is. If your evidence is correct/accurate about how things operate and your internal links are logical, then you're in the clear. Truth claims warrant a certain amount of technical skills to be won, just as technical arguments need a good deal of truth in reality to be won.
Debate's stressful. Don't be a jerk.
Play smart. Be scrappy.
A few of my debate coaches and people who helped shape how I approach everything: Neill Normand, Kasi & Jonathan McCartney, Sam Gustavson, Ian Dill, Darius White, Calen Martin, Cole Allen, Ethan Courtman, and Jake Crusan.
Frame your arguments:
If you can tell me what the central points of the debate are in the final rebuttals, make effective arguments and prove why you're winning, you will most likely win the debate. I think line by line is good, but that you also need to keep in mind the big picture/nexus question for the debate. Being wax poetic is especially good (but not necessary), but tell me what's most important and why, and explain it. "Even if" statements are also really useful in this situation, and be sure to use competing claims and why making the decision for you should be easy even if you're not winning the other/most important parts of the debate.
Embedded clash is important. For argument extensions, make sure you have a claim, warrant, and an impact. Make sure you use this to your advantage and point out interactions between different arguments, be smart in pointing out double turns, etc.
Clarity > speed:
I'd rather hear a very engaging 4-5 off debate that has a variety of winning 2NRs against a certain aff, rather than a team who reads 8-10 off just to scare the other team. Slow down on blocks and analytics, because they're going to be the point in the debate where I really start paying attention to the arguments at hand and seeing how they function (also the point in the debate where you should explain them as such). Being efficient and prepared rather than fast and blippy until the 2NR is better than not.
Line by line is important:
This is very important and I think some debaters sadly forget about. Answer arguments in the order in which they appear - if "they say (x), but (x)" statements are helpful in this instance. Clean flows = good flows = organized debates = good debates.
CX should be treated as another speech. Write down your questions beforehand and have a strategy. Some judges flow CX, I tend to stray away of that, but I may star an argument a team mentions something multiple times or if an argument seemed to be critical for any particular side during CX. If an important argument is an effective turning point for the debate in CX, point it out in later speeches.
I'll listen to it, but I'm finding myself frustrated with a lot of these types of affirmatives. The 1AC should ground itself with a foundational disagreement with resolutional action - meaning a solid, specific topic link - and go from there about debating it. Not doing so will likely result to me just voting negative on T. Debates where the affirmative identifies a problem with resolutional action and uses that as offense against framework/T-USfg are much more interesting than stale debates.
***I think for topics where the resolution mandates the USfg reduces something negative it does (like restrict immigration or reduce arms sales), reading an aff with a plan is much more legitimate than not reading a plan.
***If you're reading this before round and are unsure about what your strategy with your K aff would be with me judging you based on everything above, I'd suggest reading an aff with a plan.
I think this is the most legitimate strategy against planless affs. Though it's a legitimate claim that the aff not using the USfg as an agent is unfair, you need to explain why in terms of why it's bad for normative debate practices and why it's bad that you can't engage with the aff as well as you could with one that had a specific policy proposal.
Fairness is an impact in itself, but that should be explained in terms of what unfairness is, how the affirmative makes it worse, and then funnel into discussion of other "greatest hits" impacts on the flow.
Make sure your TVA is logical and at accesses the affirmative's offense, and the aff answers need to be logical and established in order for me to not vote on it.
Well-thought out aff impact turns to T/Framework are convincing to me if executed effectively.
Framework should also be debated in the context of every aff - don't just read the same overview you do for every K aff. Specific overviews + reasons to reject the aff = higher speaks and more of a chance I'll vote for you.
You NEED to engage case. Smart analytics on case are just as good as impact turns/no solvency arguments. Make sure to utilize it, it's there for a reason. Interact with it, don't forget it. Scrap the 2-3 card DA that you won't extend past the 1NC and put some of that time and effort on case.
Good case debates about the warrants of the aff, internal link strength, sensibility, etc. are good. Debating case makes you better.
I like impact turns. I like it when teams read impact turns specific to the aff.
Spark = silly. I won't even bother telling you how silly it is---I'll give you my professors' emails and let you take it up with them.
Caselists = good.
Don't get bogged down in the non-essential details.
Competing interps, when actually competitive = good.
Reasonability against arbitrary/asinine interps that are semi-ridiculous = 100% will vote on it.
Long text = slow down.
Specific PICs are good, I like them. Debate them well.
Consult and conditions counterplans are fine as long as you defend them as you're supposed to practically and theoretically. Don't get too carried away.
Make sure it's actually competitive---this means it needs to access not only the impacts of the advantage, but the rest of the advantage itself.
The DA should have specific links to what the aff is talking about, or at least a claim that what the aff is fiating will cause what you say it will because it's that large of a policy.
Your block work on the DA should be thorough explanation, as well as lots of cards that prove your argument(s). Specific links/analysis to the aff are highly appreciated.
Lots of cards + lots of analysis = extra good.
Being from a relatively small school, I understand their strategic value. If you think there may be a risk that I don't know what you mean, don't use buzz-words and be sure to explain your args well.
Couple of K things I value:
Link Contextualization---You absolutely need to win a link to the affirmative. Generic links rarely grab my attention, unless the aff just mishandles it completely. A K 1NC that has mechanism and content links to the aff (links to the aff's process, either K-based or state-based, depending on the type of aff) is better than a K 1NC that has the link arguments "state + scenario analysis bad," without mentioning the aff's advantages. A smart 2NR will go all-in on 1 or 2 solid links with clear impacts. Links should be able to turn case without winning the alternative (even though you should still win your alt), and should each have an impact-level claim that are distinct from the other links and that can independently win you the debate. But, you need to win the alternative to win the debate, tell my why it resolves your links specific to the aff and any other link you may read - this is where the links that fit the aff best come in. I'd rather hear the 2NR go for 2 solid links rather than 3-4 not-so-good links.
Framework---a decisive win on framework will make me much more likely to vote for you, regardless if you're aff or neg.
I'll consider theory only if it is severely mishandled/conceded by the other team. I think having it as your A-game strategy isn't as strategic, but don't be discouraged and think you can't go for it in front of me, just remember there are certain times and places for those debates.
Conditionality is bad if an absurd number of advocacies are in the 1NC (more than 4 is questionable, but I'm open to a debate on whether or not that is true), but make sure to contextualize your theory blocks to the debate at hand and tell me why what they did in round is bad and incentivizes worse debates for everyone else. Tell me more of a story about what they did, why they should lose, and what your model of debate looks like under a certain interpretation (that isn't just repeating your interpretation you read in the 2AC/2NC).
These should be used to write my ballot. Easy ways to do this are to do the "final review of the debate" at the top of the 2NR/2AR and then get into the substance/nuance of individual arguments you're winning on the flow.
If Debating In Louisiana:
Don't call me judge and don't waste your speech time for thanking me to judge you.
Don't waste time asking "judge ready? partner ready? opponent ready? audience ready?" That takes WAY too long and just asking if everyone is ready is better.
Explain your arguments well. Answer your opponents' arguments well. I judge LD sometimes in-state because of tab-based restraints and something I've noticed is a severe lack of clash in these debates, and I think forcing yourself to interact with the other team's arguments is generally a good thing in debate.
You don't need to shake my hand if I judge you. I'm anywhere from 1-5 years older than y'all and that's weird and you probably have the flu.
Good luck and have fun!
The best overall way that you should think about me as a judge is somewhere between Tim "Clarity is King" Mahoney and Eric Forslund
Speed: go at 70%, clarity applies to tags and text of evidence-- think Tim standards.
Impact turn: yes
K’s: eh — security and cap bad type are ok, baudrillard/bataille/etc not so much
K affs: ok
"Soft Left" affs: Yes
No plan affs: auto loss
Debated for 6 years at St. Mark’s. During that time I won Greenhill, Grapevine, and Stanford; finals of MBA and NDCA; and semis of Cal & GBX. The vast majority of my 2NR’s were topicality, DA’s (esp ptx), Impact turns, case D, adv CPs. So I have a good sense of debate as an activity, the theory, and the technicalities; however MBA will be my first time judging this topic -- so don't assume I know all the stuff discussed at camp, or that I have any background on a hypertechnical T argument or process aff/counter plan-- the most effective debaters will use Cross X to explain their arguments and catch me up to speed early on. Feel free to let me know key acronyms before the debate starts.
***Clarity Is King. Back when I debated, most kids seem to have a tendency of reading the tagline cards really clearly while blitzing through the body of their evidence unclearly. I will yell clear if I can’t understand, and if it continues, it will hurt your speaker points and I won’t call for any of your evidence that I can’t understand during the round. I would recommend you slow down to 70%. This is probably the most important part of this philosophy. I gave someone a 30 and was already psychologically inclined to vote for them from the outset because they had perfect 1AC clarity-- so I understood their arguments as they are being said, which matters for a judge who doesn't already have heavy background knowledge. Another team lost because they blitzed through extending a supposedly dropped argument so fast I couldn't understand what they said-- your clarity will win and lose you debates. This applies to more judges than me even if they may not say it it in their initial philosophy.
I’ll be a good judge for traditional policy arguments — counter plans, disads, impact turns, T etc. I will also do fine with theory such as conditionality. Process counterplans I'm not very good for unless there's a specific solvency advocate. If you have a big stick affirmative that defends the economy and American hegemony it will make me incredibly happy
Kritiks are very iffy — I usually beat back on these arguments by a combination of alt doesn’t solve+case outweighs/ impact turns the K and I would imagine I’d be quite persuaded by these today. I’ll be up front — if you have to run a K, it should probably be something based on security/IR studies or cap bad as those ones are most familiar with and able to judge more effectively and fairly. K affs fall under the same boat although these tend to be much better since they have a solvency mechanism.
"Soft Left affs" -- This is a little bit different from what I would call "K affs" -- by this I mean the affirmative's that basically say "our affirmative saves 20,000 lives" and then does a bunch of impact framing "probability comes first; nuclear war will not happen; predictions fail; structural violence is overlooked/Cuomo" -- I actually find these affirmative's to be pretty much as far on the "true" spectrum as it gets in terms of debate arguments so you really shouldn't be anxious about running these in front of me even though I historically had more fun running around with big stick hegemony/economy affs
No plan affs — an abomination. Don’t even try it. I believe that these affirmative’s are on the same level of rule breaking as ignoring speech times or tearing up your opponents flows. If the negative runs a framework argument and goes for it (thus stating that they do not find the no plan aff to be appropriate), the affirmative will lose. You also don't want to try to hide whether you're defending your plantext -- once you start being ambiguous on that, it won't be ambiguous who I'm voting for.
New Trier ‘16
firstname.lastname@example.org, add me to the email chain
Please keep in mind I am not very actively involved in the high school debate topic, and while I have judged at a couple of tournaments and have been involved in argument discussion with New Trier, I might have a slightly higher threshold for which claims require evidence than other judges.
I am not actively involved in college debate, but study Environmental Science and International Relations in college. For climate-based debates, this means I am going to be incredibly unpersuaded by environment impact defense, as well as extremely skeptical of any internal links that claim to solve the coming environmental catastrophe. For IR debates, I will reward teams that can explain holistic theories of state behavior and how that implicates their position in the debate, instead of taking ad hoc approaches depending on what flow they're on.
The following predispositions I have are basically uncontestable within a round, and if you disagree, feel free to strike me
Death/Sexism/Racism/Heteronormativity are all bad
Disclosure is good, and failure to correctly disclose previously read positions is considered cheating, and is a loss (of course, these debates can be impossible to evaluate as I am unable to evaluate things that occur outside of the round itself)
Line-by-line is good, and if you choose to ignore any sort of organizational structure to your speeches I won’t feel bad if I miss something
I reserve the right to vote down any argument that I don’t understand, and don’t feel obligated to read through all of your evidence to piece together what wasn’t sufficiently explained in the debate—if you rely on replacing explanation with jargon, proceed at your own peril
I have recently realized that I am growing more and more frustrated with hiding deliberately bad arguments with the hope opponents drop them. If you are willing to advance an argument in order to win the debate, it shouldn't be one 15-second undertagged card in the 2NC on the K that suddenly turns into death not real, or a three-second ASPEC shell in the 1NR on the perm, or C/I only our aff hidden in the middle of some other standards on T. I by no means want to disincentivize proper flowing and clash, but this shouldn't come at the expense of making strategic, well-reasoned arguments.
If you seem to not care about your debate, then I will care a lot less about judging you—as long as you are invested in the debate for two hours, I will do my best to match or exceed that level of commitment
My feelings about judging the K are directly related to the level of responsiveness to the 1AC—as long as your links are explained in terms of the action the 1AC takes/the assumptions that their specific authors make/the language in the 1AC evidence I’m perfectly content—I am much less persuaded by Ks that criticize structures that undergird the 1AC without explaining how the aff furthers the harms of that system. This also applies to being aff against the K, where I would hold the same burden of specificity—teams need to be much better at using the specifics of their case to make nuanced permutations, no link arguments, etc. etc.
If your K is based in any form of postmodernism, ESPECIALLY the aff’s relationship to death, you’re fighting an uphill battle. If you want to make the debate as difficult for yourself to win as possible, go for the fiat double-bind.
I’d prefer you read a plan. Having done a decent amount of work on “soft-left” (an imperfect term) affirmatives, I am very sympathetic to smart impact framing and feel no problem at all assigning zero risk to nonsensical DAs. I am much less sympathetic to affirmatives that don’t read plans, and VERY unsympathetic to affirmatives that don’t defend at least some interpretation of what a topical aff looks like (also, wtf does it mean to be "in the direction of the topic"). I’m not immovable on these questions by any means, as there are large portions of common negative framework arguments that are either nonsensical (looking at you, decision-making impact), or just regularly executed poorly. That being said, when two teams of equal skills execute both sides of the debate with similar quality, I would be surprised to find myself voting affirmative.
Overly vague plan texts not only annoy me, but will make me lean negative on almost every theoretical question, especially counterplan competition. I love specific PICs (with solvency advocates) and affirmative attempts to avoid those debates are upsetting, to say the least. I’m somewhat neutral about International or State counterplans, but am more neg-leaning when the topic is large enough to be considered unmanageable. I lean aff on most Process CPs, but find that aff teams rarely execute in these theoretical debates.
As for judge kick, I’ll default to it, but will be very frustrated if the debate comes down to whether or not I had to kick the counterplan for the 2NR with ZERO discussion of whether or not that’s theoretically legitimate in a debate. I don’t think it’s a particularly uphill battle to win that judge kick is bad, but would strongly prefer the argumentation over that question to begin prior to the final rebuttals.
The word “interpretation” matters to me quite a bit in theory debates, and I am often unconvinced that there is a large strategic difference between dispositionality and conditionality, so 2As need to be careful that their interpretation solves their own offense.
Like many judges, I’d prefer not to have to judge a theory debate, but understand the necessity of it. Aff teams will fare best when the language of the 2AR is clearly rooted in previous aff speeches. I will do my best to protect the 2NR, particularly when the 1AR fails to make an adequate investment in the argument, but am less sympathetic to the 2NR when it is clear the aff team wants to go for conditionality.
I am a good judge for the negative on topicality, provided the negative can win a clear violation (if I have to decide a debate based a we meet claim that neither side has fleshed out at all, I'm going to be upset). For me, we meet is largely a yes/no question, I've never understood how there could be a "risk" that you either do or don't meet. I am not a fan when people reduce limits to “number of affs under both interpretations”, and then arbitrarily argue whether or not their arbitrary number of affs is better or worse. T debates are best when they are specific and discuss specific affirmative and negative grounds and impact those arguments out. Reasonability, when articulated as “good is good enough” makes negative sense to me.
Nothing really novel here. Turns case is obviously super important. Uniqueness controls the direction of the link/link controls uniqueness arguments are incoherent at best. Zero risk (or, more accurately, low enough risk so as to be statistically insignificant) is most definitely a thing, and nothing frustrated me more as a debater when judges arbitrarily assigning risk to an advantage or DA when a defensive argument was decisively won. Terrible internal link chains that can be defeated with simple analytics are rarely made, please be the one to change that.
My goal is to reward teams that are kind, invested in the activity, clear (I cannot emphasize this enough, please, please, please be clear) and demonstrate specific research and content knowledge. Cross-x is an excellent opportunity to increase your points, and defaulting to your partner on every question is a excellent way to decrease your points.
I've realized I might be a little behind the curve on speaker point inflation and am trying to adjust accordingly.
If you are unnecessarily rude (and trust me, there is a clear difference between being a little bit overzealous in cross-x and genuinely mean—don’t cross that line), then I won’t feel bad at all for hurting your speaks.
I also tend to assign more low-point wins than most judges, simply because I award speaker points immediately after you have given your last speech, because I believe my process for deciding speaker points should be independent and prior to deciding who won the round. I still don’t give low-point wins very often, but I regularly had at least one per tournament.
University School of Nashville Class of 2015
Debated on national/TOC circuit for four years
Last updated 1/25/21 Prior to Golden Desert Add me to the e-mail chain so I can make sure you are not clipping: email@example.com
Rounds judged on CJR: 16. I have some knowledge of the topic because I judged at camp and at UK this year, but I am not an expert so avoid acronyms and explain terms of art.
CLIFF NOTES VERSION
Please slow down and be clearer than you would be in person. I find zoom makes flowing much harder than in person debate. I will reward clarity with better speaker points.
An argument is a claim and a warrant. "They conceded the disad is non intrinsic" is not an argument.
I don't like calling for evidence. When I do call for evidence, it is to resolve awesome comparison and spin over it. I filter my reading of ev through spin.
Be respectful to the wonderful people who take part in this activity at all times when I'm judging.
Don't make arguments that are offensive to any reasonable person like death good, racism good, etc because my threshold for voting against these arguments is extremely low and your speaker points will be terrible.
Good debaters make arguments, great debaters resolve arguments.
I love and flow crossx. I'm not a fan of people speaking out of turn in crossx.
Be funny if you are.
I think debaters should make more choices in rebuttals and impact arguments in a comparative way more.
The last tournaments I debated my 2NRs were an Egyptian Ports Economy DA and case, Afro-pessimism K, Advantage CP and DA, a T argument stemming from a counterplan competition debate, and the Neolib K. Rest assured I'm game to listen to pretty much any argument under the sun as long as you love it.
Clipping, scrolling ahead in speech doc, stealing prep, and other forms of cheating are frowned upon and will result in a loss or loss of speaker points depending on the severity of the crime.
Have fun or spontaneously combust.
Debate is an awesome, intellectually-challenging game. My role as a judge is to provide a respectful environment for competition and to, as objectively as possible, decide who won the debate based on the arguments verbally articulated by both teams. This means two things about the way I make decisions.
1. Tech over truth. As a debater, I hated two types of decision. The first type is the decision where the judge calls for all the ev and says something along the lines of "I read this one unhighlighted part of your card so I completely disregarded the fact that you were way ahead on evidence comparison on that issue." The second is where a judge's predisposed opinion on a particular argument influence their decision. In other words, I will rarely call for evidence and I have opinions, but I actively will strive to disregard them when making my decision.
2. I provide a respectful environment to all people in a debate. I have no tolerance for personal attacks or discrimination of any kind. As jon sharp says "We must love each other or die." Arguments like genocide good, death good, racism good fall under this standard. Also, don't steal prep, clip cards, etc.
If you follow the above stuff, you'll do fine. The rest of this is a rant about my thoughts on debate arguments that will likely not influence my decision if you make arguments countering my opinions.
I generally think limits are good. I can be convinced otherwise. Good neg teams will provide a comparative description of the aff and neg ground under their interpretation and why those are good for debate and why the counter-interpretation is worse for debate based on a similar description. Good aff teams will explain why the aff under their interpretation are necessary to good debate and why they provide sufficient neg ground for the other team or are sufficiently limiting. I hate hearing the terms "in round abuse" and "potential abuse". I don't think child services has ever had to be called to a debate round because someone read an untopical aff.
In the absence of argumentation, I view T in terms of competing interpretation unless arguments are advanced for reasonability. Reasonability is a question of whether the aff’s counter interpretation and not the aff itself gives the neg reasonable ground for negation or is sufficiently limiting. Debaters should do more impact calculus on topicality. Why does loss of topic education outweigh loss of aff ground? Why does education outweigh fairness?
I generally think that defending a plan is good, but will do my best not to let that influence my decision and evaluate framework debates in term of who won the arguments in the debate. Neg teams should go for fairness and less of the silly Steinberg and Freeley deliberation key solve extinction impacts because I think the link threshold for solving portable skills is absurdly low. Aff teams should explain why their type of debate is better and cannot be solved by the neg’s interpretation and why the neg has sufficient ground under their interpretation.
I think neg teams should read cps or ks against these affs or impact turn because more often than not that is the more strategic option. But if going for T is your thing, more power to you. If you are a K aff that defends a plan, then awesome.
Do you. I’ve gone for these a good bit because affs are terrible at answering them. Stop making silly framework arguments. “We get to Weigh the aff” vs a K that indicts the epistemology of the aff and thus reduces the weight of the aff is non-sensical. That’s like if I said your first card is from Dick Cheney who lies all the time and shot someone in the face and should be rejected, then you responded with “That’s unfair we get to weigh the aff”.
Instead, ditch the framework argument unless their framework is something self serving like “Judge=resistance to capitalism” . Don’t beat around the bush. If you’re aff against the security K and say heg is good, then defend why realism is an accurate understanding of the world and based in empirical social science which is a preferable epistemology to constructivism. Generally, win your aff is true and the K doesn’t solve it. I’m familiar with most types of Ks, but that doesn’t mean you should use a bunch of buzzwords without explaining anything because that makes me sad face and harms your speaker points.
I like these. I despise the politics disad generally, because I think that there is a better disad to basically every aff if you are willing to do the research, but again most people are bad at pointing out the logical fallacies in these so if this is your best option, I won’t hate you for making a good strategic choice. Turns case arguments are appreciated and are best when made farther up the internal link chain i.e. “Commercial crew is key to access to the International Space Station which is vital to disease research so the link turns the aff’s internal link into disease” is a better argument than “we can’t prevent disease if a nuke war happens”. Debaters should assess the magnitude of things other than the impact more. Assess the magnitude of the link. For example, “The plan costs 7 billion and the program on the chopping block costs 15 billion so the plan would cut half of the program’s budget which would make it impossible to complete, while the aff’s advantage is largely solved in squo (insert warrant here)”
There is a thing as zero risk of a disad. There is also a thing as zero risk of an advantage. Smart analytics against the politics disad like “No link—their PC key card for TPA is about Obama needing to lobby democrats and their link ev is about angering the republicans who ideologically support free trade anyway” will get you farther than “won’t pass—card”.
I enjoy smart case debating. This can be done with investing time in intelligent analytics or by picking a few key arguments and reading a ton of cards with different warrants to back up that claim and comparing evidence in the block.
They’re good. I’m pretty agnostic when it comes to theory except I think conditionality is pretty good. Aff’s going for conditionality should stop making arbitrary interpretations with no offense like 1 condo and just go for all conditionality is bad or dispositionality is good and have disads to conditionality.
Negs should do more than just explain why the solvency deficits aren’t solvency deficits and contextualize counterplan solvency to each of the aff’s solvency mechanisms for their advantages and explain why the cp accesses those internal links.
I enjoy multiplank weird monstrosities paired with innovative disads or case turns as net benefits.
Counterplans link to the net benefit more often than most would think, but the aff fails to point this out most of the time.
I tend to stay in the 27.5-29 range. 29 and above go to top 10 speakers at a tournament. 28.5-28.9 go to someone who is really good and will likely clear or I think should clear. 28-28.4 average will go 3-3 maybe 4-2 if a few breaks go their way, but will miss clearing by a little. 27.5-27.9 someone who showed some promise, but needs to improve to be in contention to clear. 27.4 and below—you were mean, cheated, or I was having a rough day.
Best of luck, have fun, and work hard!
put me on the email chain/if you have any questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
You can read whatever you want just make sure you can explain it well. I'm tabula rosa. Speed is ok but clarity is critical if you try to be fast. I can't flow what isn't clear.
email@example.com - Yes, I want to be on the email chain. -- please format the subject as "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs. Neg School NG." Example: "TOC -- Finals -- MBA BM vs. WY MM."
If you have any questions before the round starts, please don't hesitate to ask.
LD specific stuff is at the very bottom.
Hebron '20. Did CX debate all 4 years. Read K affs/negs sophomore-senior year. 2A Soph, 2N Junior, 2A Senior.
Debate at UT Austin. FYO.
Coach novices at Westwood HS.
Spreading - Yes
Open CX - Yes
No Plan Text (Varsity/JV)- Yes
No Plan Text (Novice) - No
Kritiks - Yes
Topicality - Yes
Disclosure Theory -- Ideally, you'll have some proof of mis/lack of disclosure to make things easier, but I'm willing to vote on it.
Cards in Body of the Email - You get 1 per speech given. Anything more, and you put it in a document.
If you open-source and do round reports with the details of the 1AC, 1NC, and 2NR, tell me right when the round ends, and I'll increase your speaks by .2 after checking.
I conceptualize much of debate as who is winning the "framing issue." How do I evaluate offense, what do I prioritize, post fiat or pre-fiat? Answer this question of debate for me, and it'll give you a strong cushion to supercharge your line by line and gives me very simple ways to conceptualize my RFD.
I'll vote on anything. K, DA, CP, T, Impact turns, theory, etc. My debate history was entirely Ks, but don't over adapt to me. Do what you do best.
Reconcile what impacts come first or how to weigh them relative to your opponent's.
Framing pages are really boring. Spark is entertaining. Give me more spark or dedev.
If you say *anything* that is construable as racist, I reserve the right to drop you and go on about my day.
Look, it's a DA; just extend it properly, please.
Ideally, do not read a soft left DA versus a plan text aff.
Clever counter-plans and PICS are fun. Generics are also fun if run well. I probably lean neg on most CP theory except for consult and solvency advocate.
I don't judge kick unless you tell me to.
4-minute overviews make me cry. Case-specific links are great. Generic links are fine and can definitely be won.
I have the most experience with Settler Colonialism, Afropess, Virilio, Heidegger, and Black Nihilism. However, I also have worked with Ks like Agamben, Baudrillard, Foucault, Security, Queer Theory, Psychoanalysis, etc. Pretty much, I won't be scared of whatever you decide to run. That does not mean I will do the work to fill in the analysis for you, though - explain your stuff.
Unfortunately, most framework debates in the 2NR/2AR often become meaningless with a lack of clash. At that point, I functionally default to weigh the aff, but the K gets its links in whatever form they are. If this isn't strategic for you, then put the work in and win FW by answering their stuff and not just extending yours.
I'm generally quite willing to vote on all the cheaty K tricks like floating PIKS or all in on FW. With being willing to vote on small techy tricks, I'm also fine with voting on the hard right approaches to answering Ks, whether that means going all-in on heg good/impact turning the K.
Identity K's Warning--- I'm not against people reading kritiks outside of their subject position. However, I think that debaters who choose to run these Kritiks are obligated to do the maximum amount of research and practice necessary to make sure they do not bastardize the literature or make a mockery of the argument. You don't get just to pick up the argument, know like 45% of the buzzwords, and call it a day.
Root cause arguments are not links. If your only link is just a root cause then I probably won't give it much weight.
I seem to judge a fair amount of Wilderson/Warren debates so here are a few things. On the state good side -- just winning a list of reforms isn't enough for me. I need to hear a clear counter-theorization of how the world operates and comparative claims to take out social death/equivalent claims. Reforms prove that counter-theorization but don't make a theory in and of itself. On the Wilderson/Warren side -- you need to be justifying your theory of the world way more than just the surface level claims. Saying "Jim crow to prison industrial complex" over and over again does not make a full argument. Ideally, for Wilderson, I'll hear some thesis-level explanation like a few seconds on social death or what the libidinal economy is rather than just "extend the conceded libidinal economy". To me, the "Jim Crow to PIC" explanation requires the thesis level explanation to precede it for it to be true. For both teams -- I've found that most debates are decided by who undercovers ontology/libidinal economy the most. Many arguments on the flow come secondary to winning this and applying it to those other things so identify what you can afford to give up to make my decision easier. You can still win ontology/metaphysics and lose the debate, but there are far fewer scenarios where that's true.
For the negative - I'm not the best judge for fairness as a terminal impact. I think it's tough to evaluate fairness versus K impacts, so I'll probably need some external benefit to fairness like clash. Don't read this as me being dogmatically against voting on fairness. Instead, I need an incredibly robust explanation of fairness with a large amount of case mitigation to vote on it. BUT - fairness is a great controlling IL to filter things, so definitely leverage it as a part of other impacts if you go that route.
The one caveat to the above fairness stuff -- hyper-personal affs that don't defend a "strategy" or "theory of power" make me more open to fairness as an impact because I genuinely can't see a role for the negative there. Note: this is not the same thing as like "Warren/Onto Terror - endurance strategies good." Affs of that nature are possible to negate.
Ks are often a great strategy versus a K aff if you do your HW to learn it. I default to the aff gets a perm, but feel free to win they don't. Just winning your theory of power isn't sufficient for me to vote negative, but it definitely supercharges link arguments.
Impacts turns are great and underutilized. Feel free just to drop a rack of offense and challenge the fundamental assumptions of the 1AC. A great debate here will likely get you more speaks than I would normally give just because it's interesting, and the very nature of the argument is that the clash between the teams is more robust.
DAs -- if a K team is trying to be tricky and give you topic DAs. Feel free to call them out on it and drop CP/DAs in the 1NC and GO FOR THEM (but have case answers) A) I think it's disingenuous when the Neg goes for FW and acts like there was zero way to engage when CX of the 1AC explains the aff as in line with the topic, just without a plan text (debate to be had, of course) and B) how many speeches do you think the Aff team has given versus FW and versus a DA?
For the aff -
You need to either win a) your model is better than theirs or b) their model is really, really bad if you don't have a c/i.
I find myself voting negative in these debates when the Aff fails to give me a framing argument to filter negative offense, so do that work for me.
Be ready to defend your solvency mechanism. I'm not necessarily holding you to an absurdly high burden, but I need a coherent story if pushed back against, about what my voting aff does. Do I signify a good political strategy, does my ballot literally break the system (lol), does it change mindsets, etc. Presumption is persuasive, so don't disrespect it by under covering it.
I'm not the judge for rounds where you and the opponent agree to have a "discussion" and talk about important issues outside the traditional speech times of debate. These things are likely important, but I really don't want to have to make a decision on something like that, especially since it doesn't follow traditional understandings of flowing and offense/defense and it effectively requires judge intervention.
I default to competing interpretations.
Give me a case list, especially if it's a weirder interp.
Go slower than you would with a DA/K/CP. I find it harder to flow T than other off-cases at high speed.
Weird and Random Technical Things:
Speech times are a rule, while things like topicality are a norm. What that means is that I'm willing to entertain a debate about the benefits of topicality/FW vs. a K aff. If you speak over the timer, I will not flow or evaluate what you are saying, even if it is a part of your argumentation.
No, the neg will never get a 3NR.
I greatly dislike completely new 1AR cards if the argument was made in the 1NC and dropped in the 2AC. There is a big gray area here for what it means to be "dropped," but you should be able to realize what is abusive or not.
Off-case positions should be clearly labeled in the 1NC. I don't like the awkward moments where people give the 2AC roadmap, and there's a silence or argument while the 2A tries to name the off-case themselves.
I'll generally evaluate inserted rehighlighting of the opponent's evidence. There is obviously a point where a team could abuse this -- don't do that. But, I think that teams should be punished for under highlighting/mis highlighting their evidence. Due to time trade-offs/competitive incentives, I think that forcing you to verbally re-read the evidence punishes you more. Essentially, one or two key inserted rehighlightings is fine, but if you're inserting the entire 1ac re-highlighted, that's not ok.
Don't say "brief off-time roadmap." Just say roadmap, please.
The only thing I want to hear in your roadmap is the name of off-case positions and specific case pages. If there's a large overview, then maybe add that to the roadmap. "Impact calculus" happens within one of those flows so just signpost in speech rather than making it a part of the roadmap.
I have never judged a trix round and I barely know what trix are. Do with that information as you will.
In order of args Im best suited to judge (best to worst) -- K, LARP, Phil, Trix.
I'm two years out of high school debate and do not have in-depth knowledge of the topic. I debated for Notre Dame for 4 years and went to the NDCA and TOC.
I do not have a bias between traditional policy arguments and newer critical ones
Tech determines truth but truer arguments are easier to win so the importance of technical skill doesn't mean all arguments are equally strategic
Feel free to ask any me any questions before the round
Bottom line I know debate but not the topic and you should just do what you do best instead of worrying about adapting
Debate History: St. Mark's '10/Trinity University '14
Currently the head policy debate coach at Hendrickson HS
I treat each debate round as an academic exercise in decision making. I leave many questions of framework and impact calculus to the teams debating, however if not otherwise explicitly stated I will default to a policy making framework and utilitarianism, respectively.
I typically evaluate this from a competing interpretations standpoint and an offense/defense framework but can be persuaded otherwise. When making these kinds of arguments, negative teams typically forget that their interpretation is of how the debate space should operate and thus must defend it as so. Negative teams MUST explain why their interpretation is better for the overall debate space in order to get my ballot. In round abuse arguments are compelling, however, they are nearly impossible to prove and I have a high threshold for voting on them.
I am a fairly firm believer that debate is a game and that structural fairness is an impact. However, this also means that fairness should be utilized as a lens or impact filter for all the other impacts in the framework debate.
Many of my thoughts in the above section apply to my thoughts on counterplan theory. I feel that 2 conditional advocacies is the most that the negative should run, much to the chagrin of most folks (new affs are an exception). That being said, I won't default certain ways in theory debates. I will be considerably more compelled to deem that a counterplan solves an affirmative if it is a specific CP than if it is your typical agent CP. Specific PICs that have functional impacts on plan implementation are so much better than your generic process counterplan. So, so, so much better.
Many kritik teams tend to focus more on tricks than substance. The most important portion of this debate for me is the link debate and I expect a clear explanation of why the specific affirmative links. It is the negative's task to explain why the permutation cannot possibly solve back/overcome the links. I will default affirmative in many of these debates. I feel that the best kritik debaters are the ones who are willing to adapt their strategy and link debate to the specific affirmative that they are debating.
Links of omission are functionally spotting the aff a uniqueness overwhelms the link argument to the net benefit to a very vacuous alternative. Please have link specificity.
I didn't think I had thoughts on this until recently. There are very good disads and very bad disads. If you are aff against a very bad disad, don't be afraid to point this out! I feel like I am more likely than most to say there is zero risk of a disadvantage when the uniqueness very clearly overwhelms the link or there is zero link specificity.
-Yes email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org. Every time a varsity debater forgets to hit "reply all" on an email chain, a kitten cries and you will lose 0.5 speaker points.
-Do not clip cards! If there is an ethics challenge, I will stop the debate and have the accused debater re-read their speech with either their speech document on my computer or standing over their shoulder. That being said, ethics challenges are serious, if you are making one, then you are willing to lose the debate if you are wrong. Strategic ethics challenges will result in horrific speaker points from me.
-I will call you out if you are blatantly stealing prep and it will hurt your speaker points.
-For paperless teams, I do not run prep time for saving/flashing the speech unless this time starts to become excessive or it becomes evident that prep is being stolen.
-It drives me crazy when debaters are disrespectful to each other. There is no reason why competitiveness needs to turn into aggression. Treat the debate space like a classroom.
-Another pet peeve: debaters who do not seem to legitimately enjoy what they are doing. Debaters who go through the motions are usually the ones that end up with the lowest speaker points from me. Even if you are not keeping up with the technical aspects of the debate, if you remain engaged and committed throughout the debate, I will definitely feel more comfortable with giving you higher speaker points.
Read a topical plan--------------x-----------------------------say anything
Usually some risk--------------------------------x----------Zero Risk
Conditionality Good----------------------x--------------------Conditionality Bad
States CP Good-------x------------------------------------States CP Bad
Process CPs--------------x-------------------------------Ew Process CPs
Competing off immediacy/certainty--------------------x------------------------No
CP linking less matters-------------------x-----------------------links are yes/no
Read every card--------------------x-----------------------Read no cards
Judge Kick------------x-------------------------------Stuck with the CP
Reject the Team---------------------------x----------------Reject the Arg
CPs need cards-----------------------------------x-------Smart CPs can be cardless
Fiat solves circumvention---------------x---------------------------Trump's President
K links about the plan-----------x--------------------------------K links about a broad worldview
Updated but time is irrelevant.
If there is an email chain please add me: nixdebate at gmail dot com.
About me: I was in debate for five years, qualified to the NDT twice, and broke to out rounds at CEDA and other national tournaments. I've been coaching college debate for over a year, and high school debate for several years. I've run policy and k affs, and coach both "styles" of debate.
I tend to consider myself leaning more towards the K than policy, but that does not mean that I will not vote on or are unfamiliar with traditional policy arguments. You should do what you are most comfortable doing within the round. You do you.
Random short notes follow, but feel free to ask me for more clarification before the round or email me before (or after) with questions.
Spreading is fine. If you are being unclear it will be hard for me to hear you and I'll ask you to clear. Sending the whole speech doc is very helpful to ensure that I catch everything you are saying, but I respect that not everyone is comfortable with that.
If you have a dis/ability that I can help you with, but you do not wish to disclose it to others in the room, feel free to pull me aside before the round to discuss it. Or, in these days of zoom, send an email.
You should be able to run a K on the aff. Or a policy affirmative. Just be ready to defend why your style of debate is good. I don't really care what you do.
I'll vote for a single disad, for a counterplan, on framework, on a k.... Again, you do you. But please, give me clear impact comparison. Explain why it's impossible to debate a dance aff and impact that. You know, stuff your coaches (should) tell you to do.
- If your partner has something to say in your speech, you don't have to repeat it for me. I will flow your partner. It's all cool.
- My face does odd things when I'm judging. That doesn't mean you are losing or winning an argument per say. I've finally chosen to just let my face do what it will, and encourage you to keep an eye on me for the purposes of judge adaptation.
- If you have questions after the round, email me.
- Have fun and don't attach yourself to the wins or losses. Debate is a wonderful activity, but it is just that - an activity. It does not and should not define who you are as a person.
- If you are in need of support during or after the round, or just in general, please email me or reach out to me. I want to be there for others in the activity as much as possible!!
Niles West High School '14
University of Kentucky '18
Coach at Northwestern University
Put me on the chain email@example.com
I decide debates by re-organizing my flow around the issues prioritized in the 2nr and 2ar, going back on my flow to chart the progression of the argument, reading the relevant evidence, then resolving that mini-debate. Tell me what I should care about in the final speeches. Use the earlier speeches to set up your final rebuttals.
I try not to consider personal biases when judging policy or k debates. Debates hinge on link, impact, and solvency questions that have to be argued whether its plan/cp, perm/alt, fw/advocacy.
I believe the most important skill a debater should have is the ability to do good comparative analysis.
I'll read evidence during and after the debate. Evidence quality influences my perception of the argument's strength. Bad evidence means there's a lower bar for answering the argument and vice versa.
When trying to resolve questions about how the world works, I defer to expert evidence introduced in the debate. When trying to resolve questions about how the debate in front of me should work, I defer to the arguments of the debaters.
The debates I enjoy the most are the ones where students demonstrate that they are active participants in the thinking through and construction of their arguments. Don't be on auto-pilot. Show me you know what's going on.
Have an appropriate level of respect for opponents and arguments.
I would strongly prefer not to judge debates about why death is good that may force an ethical debate about whether life is worth living.
There is a place in debate for affirmatives that don't affirm the resolution. I will not vote for or against framework in these situations based on ideological preferences alone. I wish we had clearer rules for what we considered fair game in terms of links to negative offense/competitive advocacies against affs that don't affirm the resolution/read a plan text because I enjoy debates over specifics more than rehashed abstractions. But I am sympathetic to neg arguments about how the aff precluded those good debates from occuring, depending on what the aff defends in the 1ac.
I would prefer neg teams only go for topicality when the aff is very clearly attempting to skirt the core premises of the resolution. Going for silly T arguments against super core affirmatives is a waste of everyone's time.
I feel similarly about theory. It's hard for me to take theory arguments seriously when they're not in response to some seriously problematic practice. Debate is supposed to be hard. People are way too quick to claim something made debate 'impossible'.
When the neg is going for a kritik, I find the framework debating from both sides largely unnecessary. The easiest and most common way I end up resolving framework debates is to allow the aff to weigh their advantages and the neg to weigh their kritik. You'd be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt.
When judging process counterplans, I'm most interested in whether there are cards a) tying the counterplan to the resolution b) tying the net benefit to the plan. This is what usually pushes me aff or neg on theory and perm arguments.
I usually think the link is the most important part of an argument
About Me: I am a former Open Debater at Cal State Fullerton. I had 3 years ~ debating in college and a year experience as a coach at CSUF. I have vast judging and coaching experience at the High School level. I spent a lot of my Career running mostly critiques including Settler Colonial K's, Antiblackness K's, Baudrillard K's, performance K's, as well as experience running Framework.
Aside from that my cases usually involved futurisms and storytelling.
Coaches: Toya Green, Romin Rajan, Lee Thach.
Me as a judge real talk: I can understand spreading, and I'm as good as anyone at getting this down. But Imma be honest, it is hard for me to stay organized. I joined debate in college, no high school experience.
In other words, framing is super important for me. Clarity is important to me, because I want to understand how you think we/you/ I should think, view and participate in the community, in this round, at this tournament, etc. Is debate a game? is the game good? why or why not? I'd like these question answered either implicitly or explicitly. I don't inherently work with the perception that debate is (just) a "game", but if given a good argument as to why I should take on that perspective (in this round, all the time, etc) I'll take on that perspective. I prefer not to feel like a worker in the debate factory who needs to take notes and produce a ballot, but idk maybe I should function in that way-just tell me why that's true.
Impact: Proximity and likelihood> magnitude and time frame
Clipping Cards is an auto DQ.
I really don't care what you do as far as tag teaming, changing format, playing music, using stands, seating placement, etc. Do you, just don't make the debate go longer than it needs to. Also feel free to talk to me before, after and during prep in rounds. I generally enjoy talking about debate and like helping young peeps. Just chit chat and such.
Policy- I think that a straight up policy plan is dope. MY biggest concern is the debaters ability to explain numbers to me. ITs hard for me to do the calculations and understand why specific stats are important and win you the debate. I am pretty line by line when it comes to a policy debate. Id say with me, focus on some impact calc because thats usually where my attention is mostly at. Liklihood and proximity are more important than severity, magnitude. Time-Frame is iffy but doable.
FW- Honestly, framework is pretty cool. I think its become kind of a meme at this point about my annoyance with whiney FW debaters, so make sure you are being real with your critique. Framework says that there is a structure which needs to be followed for this activity to run efficiently. This assumes that the game of debate is good, so explain why the game is good, or why your specific version of the game is good. When you run framework you are saying that the other team is debating in a way that lessens/nullifies the benefits of debate. That is a big claim, so treat it as such. If you are just using it strategically- more power to you buuuuuuut, it makes you hella less persuasive if thats how you are coming off. Also, Fairness is not inherently a terminal impact, lol. At least mention debate is a game and tell me why the games good.
K- I love k's, but they get hella sloppy. With k's, i need to know that you are solving your impacts. seems basic but im shocked at how often debaters dont explain how their "self abolishment" solves antiblackness. Acknowledging that there is a problem isn't a solution, or plan or anything. It's just a diagnosis. I need a prescription. HAving said that, Im pretty open minded when it comes to different strats. The more weird the more fun for me.
I'm way more truth than tech.
My preferred pronouns are they/them.
I debated in the NDT-CEDA policy circuit for 4 years.
I believe the topic is always being negotiated, not static. Much like a German Shepherd, framework is not always policing, but it may lend itself to such a service. Debates come equipped with norms, but those are not law.
High School 2020-21
Speed is fine, but go only as fast as you can handle. Conditionality is generally okay. Everyone in the debate should be timing. I have ADHD so I am terrible at remembering to press start. Rely on my timer at your own peril.
I like to hear critiques explained through history and current events. Examples are the easiest way to make a complex concept simple enough to evaluate in the short span of time we have together.
Police apologists whose arguments rely on the fear of the criminal will gain little traction on my ballot. Discussion of crime requires nuance as it easily becomes anti-black very quickly given the history of politicians using thinly veiled "tough on crime" platforms to wrestle over power. Read the links below and avoid an automatic L.
The Willie Horton Ad
Hi I'm Chris! Nice to meet you
online debate - If the internet lags momentarily and I'm unable to catch an argument, nothing I can really do about it. I'll try and let you know where in the speech the wifi cut out (but hopefully this isn't a problem in the first place). Also, please slow down. If you are wondering whether you're going too fast, you probably are, so take it down a notch. Thanks!
- email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
- Tech > Truth
- run and go for the arguments that you are good at
- arguments must have a claim and warrant (and evidence if applicable)
- spreading is a-ok BUT do NOT sacrifice clarity please
- will default to util/consequentialism as a framework for making decisions if no one tells me otherwise
- blocks are fine but contextualized arguments are better
- good things: debate, condo, line by line
- bad things: death, sexism, racism
There are probabilities in the game of debate, so no argument really has a 0% or 100% risk. Rather, some arguments, through warranted analysis and evidence can build a more robust case for a more probable scenario. If an argument is conceded it's not necessarily game over, but the risk that that warrants of the said argument are true increases significantly.
Debate is a game. Treat your opponents with respect and have fun! Please don't make racist, sexist, etc. arguments or personal attacks, they really skirt the educational value of debate.
How to increase speaker points: puns or give me food or something
Topicality - Go for it, especially if the Aff justifies a limitless topic. This necessitates that you have some form of caselist. Limits usually outweighs. Have pretty much no technical knowledge of the CJR topic, please explain acronyms and other terms of art on this topic that the average human doesn't know
Theory - have some kind of interpretation, slow down, do line by line, thanks
Disadvantages - Politics is great. Impact calculus/comparison is a must. Using words like "magnitude" and "time frame" are fine but should be contextualized to the impact that the Aff has. Smart turns case arguments are excellent. Uniqueness frames the direction of the link, but the specificity of the link is likely to be more valuable than the uniqueness itself. Aff teams should not forget about their case - case outweighs is far too underused/underrated. Coupled with some smart defensive arguments on the disad, case outweighs is usually enough.
Counterplans - Counterplans that are contextualized to the Aff will probably be substantively better than counterplans that work through a process. However, process/cheaty/uniform fiat cps are still totally fine and I'll lean neg on the theory debate (with the exception of object fiat). Of course, I can be swayed to adopt the opposite viewpoint of this theory debate. Advantage counterplans, smart PICs, and topic counterplans are fantastic. Won't judge kick unless you tell me to
Kritiks - I'll have a higher threshold for link specificity to the Affirmative, but if you can show a clear story, go for it. Familiar with biopower (agamben/foucault), cap, security, all the super basic stuff. Please explain buzzwords. I'm not a huge fan of long overviews, just put it on the line by line. If your main strat is to rant about how the 1ar dropped fiat is illusory or some other random trick, I'm not the judge for you. I need a clear explanation of what the alternative IS and what the world of the alternative looks like to feel remotely comfortable voting negative.
Non Traditional Affirmatives - I think the aff should defend hypothetical/instrumental/fiated action performed by the USfg. But! I'd be legitimately happy to hear your K Aff as long as you articulate clear pieces of offense, have a solid explanation of what the aff actually does, and maintain clean line by line. If argued well, fairness can certainly be an intrinsic impact, though it's probably better to have impacts that interact with the truth claims of the 1AC. Fairness as an internal link intuitively makes sense to me, I often went for impacts like deliberation/research/competition as a 2N
Case Debate - Is significantly underrated. Extra speaker points for those who can thoroughly and efficiently dismantle the case through smart case defense and flushed out case turns.
add me to the email chain - email@example.com
Notre Dame High School - 2018
WorldSchool stuff for harvard:
I will listen to whatever argument you want to make.
I have judged a few world school debates in my life.
resolve your arguments -everything bellow still applies.
I have not looked into the 2020-2021 topic extensively, but have been coaching/judging pretty regularly. take that as you will.
update 2021: the more i judge the more i think debate is an intellectual free for all, outside of speech time's/prep/ballots nothing is "illegal."
I am not a stone tablet, i have my preconceptions on how the world works and arguments that surround the nature of our reality. Those are based on the subject formation i have experienced in debate/school and the agency i developed outside of institutions.
Debate produces critical thinkers that are trapped, unable to apply their knowledge to the world around them and retreat into intellectual, spatial bubbles of comfort and superiority, are you one of them? Reflect on what debate means for you when you are describing your vision of the topic to me. Reflect on the application of knowledge, are you learning things that you can use in your life, are you able to change your reality with what you've learned from debate? Do you really have agency?
I think this is question of competing visions of both debate and how to operate within intellectual spaces. Procedural fairness is an internal link that needs to be impacted - on its own saying "but procedural fairness" is not responsive.
I love innovative arguments, ! impact turns !, and re-highlighted evidence. (they say terror da you say terrorism good, their cards are written by hack inst. bring it up)
I am pretty well read, I think the best arguments and debates happen when all parties are familiar with the ideas being discussed, that creates a depth based environment. Metabolization of information takes time and energy, but the skills gained from it is well worth it. I enjoy debates that make me critically think beyond weighing impacts or weigh causes of those impacts.
If your opponents don't know why they are losing the round you aren't debating well, if you're well read on the lit base you are debating you should be able to explain it to them during your speech while still making convincing arguments that i could vote on. I would rather hear less arguments explained, contextualized and debated in the round, than more bullet points on an overview that i am probably not going to be flowing.
I would prefer you resolve the debate substantively vs theoretically. I simultaneously believe in zero conditional advocacies and unlimited conditional advocacies. CounterPlans that compete off the certainty and immediacy of the plan are lame, y'all can do better. PIC's need to, and you guessed it, PIC out of a portion of the plan.
tech>truth but idk if i believe this bc of debate conditioning or because i believe technical concessions outweigh a big T truth. convince me one way or the other.
have a groovy round
Online judging :
please don't ask me if you can go to the bathroom at your own place, just tell me that you're going to go at a convenient time.
anyone with a chess.com account gets .1 higher speaker points (you gotta bring it up tho)
Updated February 2021
I debated policy and LD for four years (2013-2017) at Winston Churchill HS and qualified to the TOC senior year.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions before or after rounds. Also I would like to be on the email chain if there is one.
TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, affs should probably be topical/in the direction of the topic but I'm less convinced of the need for instrumental defense of the USFG. Everything below is insight into how I view/adjudicate debates, its questionably useful but will probably result in higher speaks.
Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments. Sure, some debates I may find more interesting than others, but honestly the most interesting rounds to judge are ones where teams are good at what they do and they strategically execute a well planned strategy.
-Truth v Tech: I more frequently decide close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. Super tech-y teams probably should be paying attention to overviews/nebulous arguments when debating teams who like to use a big overview to answer lots of arguments. I still vote on technical concessions/drops but am lenient to 2AR/2NR extrapolation of an argument made elsewhere on the flow answering a 'drop'. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, I am much more willing to vote on probability/link analysis than magnitude/timeframe; taking claims of "policy discussions good" seriously also means we need to give probability of impacts/solvency more weight.
-Evidence v Spin: Ultimately good evidence trumps good spin. I will accept a debater’s spin until it is contested by the opposing team. I will read evidence if said evidence is contested and/or if compared/contrasted to the oppositions evidence. I will first read it through the lens of the debater’s spin but if it is apparent that the evidence has been mis-characterized spin becomes largely irrelevant. This can be easily rectified by combining good evidence with good spin. I often find this to be the case with politics, internal link, and affirmative permutation evidence for kritiks, pointing this out gets you speaks. That being said, there is always a point in which reading more evidence should take a backseat to detailed analysis, I do not need to listen to you read 10 cards about political capital being low.
-Speed vs Clarity: If I have never judged you or it is an early morning/late evening round you should probably start slower and speed up through the speech so I can get used to you speaking. When in doubt err on the side of clarity over speed. If you think things like theory or topicality will be options in the final rebuttals give me pen time so I am able to flow more than just the 'taglines' of your theory blocks.
-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is an increasingly important issue that I am noticing with kritik debates. I find that permutations that lack any discussion of what the world of the permutation would mean to be incredibly unpersuasive and you will have trouble winning a permutation unless the negative just concedes the perm. This does not mean that the 2AC needs an detailed permutation analysis but you should be able to explain your permutations if asked to in cross-x and there definitely should be analysis for whatever permutations make their way into the 1AR. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation throughout the debate leaves the door wide open for the negative to justify strategic cross applications and the grouping of permutations since said grouping will still probably contain more analysis than the 1AR/2AR. That being said, well explained/specific permutations will earn you speaker points and often times the ballot. In the same way it benefits affirmatives to obtain alt/CP texts, it would behoove the negative to ask for permutation texts to prevent affirmatives shifting what the permutation means later in the debate.
The same goes for link/link-turn analysis I expect debaters to be able to explain the arguments that they are making beyond the taglines in their blocks. This ultimately means that on questions of permutations/links the team who is better explaining the warrants behind their argument will usually get more leeway than teams who spew multiple arguments but do not explain them.
Speaker points: average = 27.5, I generally adjust relative to the pool when considering how I rank speakers.
-Things that will earn you speaker points: being organized, confidence, well-placed humor, politeness, well executed strategies/arguments, efficiency.
-Things that will lose you speaker points: arrogance, rudeness, humor at the expense of your opponent, stealing prep, pointless cross examination, running things you don’t understand, mumbling insults about myself or other judges who saw the round differently from you.
Topicality/Theory: I tend to lean towards a competing interpretations framework for evaluating T, this does not mean I won't vote on reasonability but I DO think you need to have an interpretation of what is 'reasonable' otherwise it just becomes another competing interp debate. Aff teams should try and have some offense on the T flow, but I don't mean you should go for RVIs. I generally believe that affirmatives should try and be about the topic, this also applies to K affs, I think some of the best education in debate comes from learning to apply your favorite literature to the topic. This also means that I generally think that T is more strategic than FW when debating K affs. I've learned that I have a relatively high threshold for theory and that only goes up with "cheapshot" theory violations, especially in LD. Winning theory debates in front of me means picking a few solid arguments in the last rebuttal and doing some comparative analysis with the other teams arguments; a super tech-y condo 2AR where you go for 15 arguments is going to be a harder sell for me. Other default settings include: Topicality before theory, T before Aff impacts, T is probably not genocidal. These can be changed by a team making arguments, but in an effort for transparency, this is where my predispositions sit.
Kritiks: I have no problems with K's. I've read a decent amount of critical literature, there is also LOTS that I haven't read, it would be wise to not make assumptions and take the time to explain your argument; in general you should always err towards better explanation in front of me. I do not enjoy having to sift through unexplained cards after K v K rounds to find out where the actual tension is (you should be doing this work), as such I am more comfortable with not caring that I may not have understood whatever argument you were trying to go for, that lack of understanding is 9/10 times the debater's fault. Feel free to ask before the round how much I know about whatever author you may be reading, I'm generally pretty honest. I generally think that critical debates are more effective when I feel like things are explained clearly and in an academic way, blippy extensions or lack of warrants/explanation often results in me voting affirmative on permutations, framing, etc.
CP: I have no problems with counterplans, run whatever you want. I think that most counterplans are legitimate however I am pre-dispositioned to think that CP's like steal the funding, delay, and other sketchy counterplans are more suspect to theory debates. I have no preference on the textual/functional competition debate. On CP theory make sure to give me some pen time. If you are reading a multi-plank counterplan you need to either slow down or spend time in the block explaining exactly what the cp does.
DA: I dont have much to say here, disads are fine just give me a clear story on whats going on.
Performance/Other: I'm fine with these debates, I think my best advice is probably for those trying to answer these strats since those reading them already generally know whats up. I am very persuaded by two things 1) affs need to be intersectional with the topic (if we're talking about China your aff better be related to the conversation). 2) affirmatives need to be an affirmation of something, "affirming the negation of the resolution" is not what I mean by that either. These are not hard and fast rules but if you meet both of these things I will be less persuaded by framework/T arguments, if you do not meet these suggestions I will be much more persuaded by framework and topicality arguments. If you make a bunch of case arguments based on misreadings of their authors/theories I'm generally not super persuaded by those arguments.