Sophomore at GW, debated for Peninsula for 4 years
Affiliation: Peninsula

Add me to the email chain:

true.julian.anderson@gmail.com

General:
An argument requires a claim, warrant, and evidence to be considered. Partial arguments are not arguments.
Be nice.

Offense defense paradigm.

Tl;dr: I'm a younger, more naive version of this guy -

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml?judge_person_id=6854

Also, Shree Awsare's perspective on debate is something I firmly believe in and subscribe to, and is something I think all debaters should be aware of:

"My ideal debate involves two teams who read well-researched positions, engage in line-by-line refutation of their opponents’ arguments, and demonstrate strategic choice-making and vertical development of arguments. Not all debate is good debate. It is my firm belief that any model of debate (whatever the content) that disincentivizes any of the aforementioned qualities is an inferior product that is simultaneously less rigorous and less enjoyable."

Specific Arguments

Case:

I very much enjoy and privilege good case debating - something that I think is getting rarer to the detriment of the activity. When I see it, you will find it reflected in speaker points, and probably the ballot too. Note: the best case debating doesn't usually require a lot of evidence. Writers on the internet publish a lot of very questionable material that, given a little world knowledge and fast research skills, you should be able to easily dismantle. 1ACs are often constructed very poorly, so take advantage of this.

2As: I get it, I was there too - you have a lot to get through and very little time. Being clear and concise, though, will benefit you a lot more than reading the 17th card on the politics disad.

Counterplans:
My favorite kind of debate. Tricky or smart CPs earn extra points. Backfile CPs like consult NATO that don't require topic knowledge won't earn extra points.

"Sufficiency framing" against affs with linear impacts gets really annoying. Spend time explaining why the counterplan solves most or all of the aff, and why the risk of the DA outweighs the rest of the aff the CP might not solve.

Don't forget to explain why the counterplan solves the specific impacts of the aff (especially if it has a lot of planks), and explain why its a net benefit.
Condo is good. Like most theory, I have a high threshold for going for it in the 2AR (barring dropped theory, CPs that steal the aff, etc)

Default to judge kick.

Disads:

Disads with specific link evidence are great. Disads with mostly just spin are fine. Disads with evidence and spin are fantastic.
Turns case and solves the case are really important on DAs, especially if they are dropped.
Impact comparison wins debates. Please don't say: "magnitude - extinction! timeframe - its happening now! probability: its happening now!"

That's not to dis extinction impacts, I love them, I just have higher standards than the example above for impact calc.

Impacts and uniqueness don't matter so much to me when evaluating the probability of a DA as the link. If the link doesn't exist, the DA doesn't exist. Good debating on this part of the DA is crucial.


Kritiks:
I'm fine with any kritik as long as it indicts the thesis of the aff. If it doesn't, then it will be hard for you to get my ballot. Good links are really important - rehighlight evidence from the 1AC. The negative cannot just prove the world is bad, but that the aff is bad. Similarly, state bad is not a link.

Role of the ballot = roll of the eyes.

Too often, debaters assert that the kritik link exists without ever referencing a single piece of 1AC evidence or explicitly quoting lines from the affirmative. This is lazy debating. Asserting the link and then reexplaining it is not sufficient to demonstrate that the affirmative links to the kritik! (e.g., X evidence says we have a libidinal desire to do Y, therefore the aff also has a libidinal desire to do Y = lazy) You have to provide evidence. If you're extending a kritik, you should explicitly quote the aff, rehighlight aff evidence, or do explanatory work of equivalent evidentiary caliber, or I'll assume evidence for the link doesn't exist, and a simple aff response of "no link, they don't have any evidence, didn't say the aff is a bad idea" with an extended permutation explanation will be enough for me to vote affirmative.

Some may say this is a high burden, but you wouldn't vote for a disad if you didn't have evidence specific to the aff (or at least explained/spun in a way to demonstrate that the evidence does in fact describe the aff!), so it seems to me to be a good standard to filter out kritiks that aren't actually relevant to the debate. If the aff really does link to the kritik, you should be able to prove it.

The affirmative gets to weigh the aff - but needs to defend the assumptions of the 1AC. Its really easy to use framework to prove that the neg should get an alt, it is going to be really hard for you to prove the aff shouldn't get to weigh the consequences of hypothetical implementation.

Topicality:
I am fine with T. You should go for it like you would a CP and a DA, with standards as your offense. The aff needs offense and explanation as to why that turns the neg's standards. A strong argument that impacts out limits will go a long way to getting my ballot. Whatever side you are on you need to paint a picture of what the topic looks like, preferably with caselists, and a quick explanation as to why these cases matter.

Topicality v K affs:

First, you should probably read a plan.
Debate is a game and fairness is the best impact. I've come to think that some amount of debating about the norms of debate is alright, maybe even slightly good. Debaters need to understand and learn why the norms of policy debate are how they are.

What makes policy fundamentally different from other types of debate is 1) its depth of research and 2) its in-round and out-of-round strategic decisionmaking, which derives from the competing role-based obligations of the affirmative and negative. T vs K aff debating, I think, often misses this, and the value of policy debate as a game, and thus a kind of play that has rules, necessitates restrictions that guide the process of our research and hone our strategic thinking. If debaters focused more on how their vision of debate impacted those two fundamental parts of policy debate - on the impact and the internal link level - I think these debates would be a lot more interesting and engaging.

This is both for those who appreciate the movie Ratatouille and for those who are reading innovative and creative arguments:
"In many ways, the work of a critic is easy. We risk very little, yet enjoy a position over those who offer up their work and their selves to our judgment. We thrive on negative criticism, which is fun to write and to read. But the bitter truth we critics must face, is that in the grand scheme of things, the average piece of junk is probably more meaningful than our criticism designating it so. But there are times when a critic truly risks something, and that is in the discovery and defense of the *new*. The world is often unkind to new talent, new creations. The new needs friends."

Hi, I’m Kayla :)

current assistant speech and debate coach at wichita east

debated policy 3 years at shawnee heights (surveillance, china, education)

current policy debater at wichita state (executive powers, space, alliances)

please add me to the email chain: kaylab222@gmail.com

how to win my ballot:

I am a big fan of teams that engage in clash and warranted analysis. Nothing annoys me more is when teams merely extend claims, and do not go in depth as to why that claim is true and what impact it has in this round. I also am a big fan of when teams do big picture analysis, especially in the rebuttals. Framing the debate and telling me which arguments to evaluate helps make my decision a lot easier. I am mainly policy centric (with minimal k background) so please don't assume that I know all the in's and out's of your k. You can read a k in front of me, but please give some additional analysis as to how the k operates and functions (I have pretty good background knowledge about cap, security, and fem so I don't need as much explanation as to how it functions). I also reward teams that I can tell are having fun in round. Make jokes, read arguments you enjoy, and be nice to your opponents and judges. Debate is a fun activity. Last thing is in an online environment please slow down a tad. You can still spread, but don't go as fast as you would in round, especially on analytics that are not typed in the doc. Below is just a more detailed analysis as to how I evaluate certain arguments, but feel free to email me or ask me questions before the round about any of this information.

T

I think T debates are often underutilized in policy debates; it can be a strategic off case argument if executed properly. I usually default to competing interps; however, I am willing to vote on reasonability. Other things I like to see in T debates is, case lists, tva's, in-round abuse, etc. If you are wanting me to vote on T it has to be the entire 2NR.

da’s

they are cool, but they must have a comprehensive story. I am more willing to vote on a specific link rather than a generic one. A good way to win this flow is to have a clear story and provide examples as to how the disad interacts with the case. Also, impact calc is important, esp in the 2NR.

cp's

I'm fine with almost every type of CP (not a fan of plan plus CP's), and I'm open to listen to any theory argument you may have on why that CP is a bad model of debate. If you don't have a clear net ben, I probably won't vote for the CP. I would also prefer if your planks had some sort of a solvency advocate.

k’s

I have run kritiks in the past, however I am not that familiar with a large majority of K lit. I am most comfortable with K’s such as cap/neolib and security, please don’t assume I know all of the mechanics of your K because I probably don’t. Feel free to read your K in front of me; however, there needs to be extensive analysis as to how the alt solves and how the aff links. Alt solvency in my mind is one of the most important components of the K. Blippy extensions of Alt don’t fly for me. Framework is important to a good K debate. And just like a da there needs to be a clear story that stays consistent throughout the round.

theory

condo is almost always good, unless you can justify in-round abuse.

Brett Boelkens

TLDR

-Put me (brettboelkens@gmail.com) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)

-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool

-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.

-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space

-Signpost please

-I'll boost speaks for:

-Pre-round disclosure w/ round reports and cites

-Showing me quality flows for the round

Show me either AFTER the 2AR, but BEFORE I submit my ballot. Emailing required info is okay for online debate, but just tell me on Zoom that you wanted extra speaks

-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.

-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.

-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be

-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool

-Write prep down on Zoom chat

-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview

-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded

-Don't call me judge or sir

-Quote I stole from Gomez:

I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.

-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something

-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”

-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.

Background

Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-Present)

Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)

Varsity Policy / LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)

Disadvantages

-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense

-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp

-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more

Counterplans

-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun

-Its probably best to functional and textual competition

-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato

-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate

-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to

Kritiks

-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me

-Ks should have specific links to the aff

-Links of omission aren’t a thing

-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery

Theory / T

-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.

- Current thoughts on common theory issues

-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable

-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's

-Condo good

-PICS good

-International fiat good

-Consult Process CP bad

-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations

-PIKS bad

-Word PIKS bad

-RVIs bad

-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on

-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful

CX Specific Notes

-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that

-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate

LD Specific Notes

-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.

-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments

-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified

-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please

-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR

-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge

-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.

-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”

I AM NOT GOING TO VOTE ON PROCEDURAL ARGUMENTS ABOUT COVID/MASKS - DO NOT READ THEM IN FRONT OF ME - I WILL INTERVENE TO NOT VOTE FOR THEM

Short Version:

-yes email chain: nyu.bs.debate@gmail.com - feel free to reach me there before or after the round with any questions you have as well

-debated in high school @ Mill Valley and college @ NYU for 7 years total - mostly policy arguments in high school, mix of high theory and policy in college

-assistant coach at Blue Valley West, former assistant for Mill Valley and Mamaroneck

-spin > evidence quality, unless the evidence is completely inconsistent with the spin

-tech > truth as long as the tech has a claim, warrant, and impact

-great for impact turns

-fairness is more of an internal link or impact filter than an impact itself

-don't like to judge kick but if you give me reasons to I might

-personally think condo has gone way too far in recent years and more people should go for it, but I don't presume anything for theory questions

-most of the rounds I judge are clash debates, but I've been in policy v policy and k v k both as a debater and judge so I'm down for anything

-apparently, I take a long time with my decisions - often I go all the way to the decision time - this does not say anything about the debate, I am just trying to give the best feedback possible, so don't read into it

Overview:

Debate is for the debaters so do your thing and I'll do my best to provide a fair decision despite any preferences or experiences that I have. I have had the opportunity to judge and participate in debates of several different formats, circuits, and styles in my short career. What I've found is that all forms of debate are valuable in some way, though often for different reasons, whether it be policy, critical, performance, LD, PF, local circuit, national circuit, public debates, etc. Please have fun! Debating is fun for you I hope!

Rules of Thumb:

-Clarity: I fervently believe that debate is a communicative activity, and therefore insist that I can hear and understand every word that is being said. I will say clear at most twice during a speech, then give up flowing. Often debaters will have different levels of clarity during different parts of their speech, sometimes making it difficult to call out unclear speech if the moment passes. To avoid this, please just be clear in the first place. As I have just recently stopped debating and have judged a good number of high school and college debates, I'd like to think I have a pretty well-attuned ear, meaning that if I can't understand you it is probably because you are being genuinely unclear, not because you are going too fast.

COVID Update - Please try to be as clear as possible, but obviously tech issues are just going to get in the way sometimes. I can't say clear over Zoom, but you should generally know if you're being clear or not. I follow along in speech docs occasionally now if I need to, but I try not to make a habit out of it. If you're unclear during a later rebuttal speech, there's really not much I can do.

-Etiquette: I have a soft spot for debaters from smaller or underfunded programs. I despise arrogance from debaters with more experience and resources against those without. Confidence is fine, but there can be a fine line between it and meanness. Please recognize that everyone has different levels of access to the activity and refrain from disparaging other debaters implicitly or explicitly because of their background, or I will lower your speaks dramatically. Luckily, I have only seen a couple of serious examples of this, but I find it important to mention nonetheless.

-Cards: As a debater, I always hated when judges read cards to find arguments that weren't really present in a speech. I try to rely on the debate in front of me as much as I can, but I've found that I have to resort to reading evidence in a lot of debates I would rather not because the debaters do not do a good enough job explaining warrants or doing evidence comparison, leaving me to do these things on my own. I also find that I have a preference for longer cards with more highlighting and fleshed out warrants, even in straight-up policy debates. I dislike having to find warrants in un-underlined or un-highlighted portions of cards when I'm reading evidence after the debate, and may not consider them at all if I don't think they're consistent with the rest of the highlighting. I don't usually follow along in speech docs.

-The Clash of Civilizations: Since I started out reading policy args in a very k-heavy region, then transitioned to reading more k args against policy teams nationally, most of my college debate career has been clash debates. These are also the debates that I always excelled the most in, on either side of the spectrum. Trying to convince me that one side or the other is completely irredeemable is possible, but not something I am necessarily amenable to. I find arguments that X model of debate produces research/skills, but those are the wrong kinds of skills, and ours are better because of Y and Z to be more convincing.

Framework:

It seems this is the main reason most people read paradigms these days. I have voted both ways in these debates, and have been on both sides (2A reading a k aff & 1N going for fw in the block) of the framework debate in my career.

Neg --

I think negative teams here most often miss why things like fairness and education are important. Impact these claims out into some tangible benefit that I can compare against the impact turn. Writing a neg ballot only on procedural fairness is hard for me. I find a lot of these debates to end up pretty tautological - "fairness is an impact because debate is a game and games should have rules or else they'd be unfair," etc. These debates leave me wondering how to compare fairness to something tangible like psychological violence or political passivity in a traditional impact calc sense. I find fairness much more convincing to me as an impact filter, i.e. a reason to be skeptical of the case page, ensuring better clash, etc. This is considered a hot take by a lot of people, but I really don't understand why. Many teams in front of me will win that fairness is necessary to preserve the game, but never take the next step of explaining to me why preserving the game is good. In that scenario, what "impact" am I really voting on? Even if the other team agrees that the game of debate is good (which a lot of k affs contest anyways), you still have to quantify or qualify how important that is for me reasonably compare it to the impact turn. Perhaps if you read something like deontology arguments that say fairness is a virtue I must always preserve, I could vote on it alone, but in a utilitarian sense, I just don't know how to weigh it against anything. Fairness as a filter to some neg arguments and a more external impact like skills or topic-specific education is a much more convincing ballot for me. When I do vote on fairness alone, it is usually because the negative team has also forwarded substantial defensive arguments like a convincing TVA, read it on the neg, or c/i links to aff offense that mitigates the risk of the impact turn to nearly zero.

Aff --

I generally prefer aff strategies that just impact turn framework. I have seen and voted for predictable counter-interps, but a lot of the time it feels like an uphill battle. Most of the time, the neg is able to tie a good chunk of their offense to the predictability portion of the debate, which really hurts c/i solvency. That being said, a counter-interp can still mitigate a good amount of neg offense, so it may be still good to have one even if you are impact turning some of the neg's stuff. I just wouldn't recommend it as the focus of your strategy. Like the neg however, aff teams need to do more than make nebulous references to things like psychological violence. What kind of violence, and why is it more important than debating the topic? Explain to me in clear terms what the impact to your impact turn is. Be careful of large defensive arguments. I have dropped a number of teams who mishandle read it on the neg or who read impact turns that link to their own interp.

Everyone needs to compare their impacts to the other side's as well as relative solvency of the interps, and tell me why I should vote for them. For some reason, impact comparison just seems to disappear from debaters' repertoire when debating framework, which is really frustrating for me.

Other Argument Preferences:

-Kritiks: Both sides of these debates often involve a lot of people reading overviews at each other, especially in high school, which can make it hard to evaluate at the end of the round. Have a clear link story and a reason why the alternative resolves those links. Absent an alt, have a framework as to why your impacts matter/why you still win the round. For affs, pick either the impact turn strat or the perm strat and stick with it. I like impact turns better, but sometimes perms are more strategic. I'm not sure how useful this is, but the way I think about kritiks may also be a bit different than what you're used to. Rather than thinking about it as a non-unique disad with a counterplan, I think about the impacts as negative effects of the status quo, the alternative as a way of resolving the status quo, and the links as reasons why the aff prevents the alternative from happening, rather than something that directly causes the impacts. This framing helps me a lot when I'm thinking through permutations. This is of course when I'm evaluating something like fiat. Winning that the debate should only be about representations and that the affirmative's reps are bad for scholarship is also a convincing ballot for me.

Literature I am intimately familiar with (have run these arguments frequently and/or have done other research outside of debate into them): Cap, Psychoanalysis (more Lacan than Freud), Baudrillard, Foucault, DnG, Bataille, plant ontology (lol), Bifo, Edelman, Puar.

Literature I am somewhat familiar with (have run these arguments infrequently or done some coaching on them): Derrida, Wilderson, Warren, Set Col.

Anything else assume that I have little or no familiarity with.

-Affirmatives: I think all affs should have a clear impact story with a good solvency advocate explaining why the aff resolves the links to those impacts. I really enjoy affs that are creative and outside of what a lot of people are reading, but are still grounded in the resolution. If you can find a clever interpretation of the topic or policy idea that the community hasn't thought of yet, I'll probably bump your speaks a bit.

-Disads: Love 'em. Impact framing is very important in these debates. A lot of disads (especially politics) have pretty bad ev/internal link chains, so try to wow me with 1 good card rather than spitting out 10 bad ones. 0 risk of a disad is absolutely a thing. I don't automatically presume a 1% chance of the link for the whole debate just because you read 1 or 2 bad cards in the 1NC. You have to actually win the link debate for me to grant you a chance of a link.

-Counterplans: They should have solvency advocates and a clear story for competition. Exploit generic link chains in affs. I read some wonky process cps and pics in my career but if the aff wins theory then they win theory. I won't judge kick unless you tell me to in the 2NR, and preferably it should have some kind of justification.

-Topicality: I default to competing interps most of the time, but you can convince me that I should vote on reasonability. Be clear about what your interp includes and excludes and why that is a good thing. I view topicality like a disad most of the time, and vote for whoever's vision of the topic is best.

-Theory: Being a 2A I think makes more inherently sympathetic to affs on theory questions and the like. I think condo has gone way too far in recent years, especially with multi-plank counterplans that have dozens or hundreds of possible combinations that can all be kicked. If the aff wins new affs are good, it doesn't make sense to me why new affs would then justify unbridled conditionality. That being said, I do my best to evaluate theory arguments as well as I would any other argument in debate. I haven't thought too hard about other theory questions. If you're winning it as a reason to reject the team, feel free to go for it no matter how silly you think it is.

Random Things I Like:

-I love impact turns. Everything from prolif good and dedev to spark and wipeout.

-I think that intrinsicness vs. agenda politics disads is an underutilized argument. By that I mean if the affirmative can prove that both the agenda item and plan can happen at the same time then I will assign the da 0 risk. I think most political capital is finite ev is pretty bad and does not actually establish tradeoffs, but hey maybe you'll surprise me.

-I like numbering 2AC responses to off-case and 1NC responses to case arguments. If you can keep consistent numbering and substructure I will be a fan and it will help my flow.

-Jokes if you're funny. I'm not funny so I get it and you shouldn't feel obligated.

Speaker Points:

This is a pretty good scale that I like to use: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/uploads/4/2/0/5/42050991/point-scale-desc-6_orig.png

Extras (you get extra points for 1 reference per round): Brandon Sanderson novels (stormlight, mistborn, or warbreaker) +.3, AoT +.2, HxH through greed island arc +.2, Haikyuu +.1, jjk +.1, HxH after greed island arc -.2 (in the middle of chimera ant and would like to avoid spoilers).

Final thoughts:

I have a lot of personal political and philosophical beliefs, but I try my best to leave them at the door. Being funny or just doing things to make the debate more enjoyable will boost your speaker points. I think debate is a game, and I think it's a pretty fun one. So while winning or losing, always try to have fun. You don't need to always take things so seriously. I don't understand why someone would do this activity if they didn't enjoy it.

I am the debate coach at Blue Valley North. I previously coached at the University of Kansas. I was a policy debater at Wichita State University (2012). I have taught camp at Kansas or Michigan every year since I graduated and typically judge 50-80 policy rounds per year, plus some pfd/ld/speech.

email chain: brianbox4 @ gmail

To win the debate the affirmative team must demonstrate that their inherent proposal, which is an example of the resolution, can solve the significant harms they have identified, or challenge the desirability of doing so. The negative team must win that the affirmative has not met their burden in at least one of these areas to win the debate.

I care far more about your ability to send an email, speak clearly and refute arguments than the type of arguments you read. I do not care what kind of arguments you read. My most obvious and influential bias is that I am a neg judge.

Competing interpretations should guide your topicality debating. The aff needs an offensive justification for their vision of the topic. I find the arguments for why the aff should be topical to be better than the arguments against it. If you are reading an aff that is not topical, you are more likely to win my ballot on arguments about why your model of debate is good than you are on random impact turns to T.

Evidence matters a lot. I read lots of evidence and it heavily factors into my decision. Cross-ex is important and the best ones focus on the evidence. Author qualifications, histories, intentions, purpose, funding, etc. matter. Application of author indicts/epistemic arguments about evidence mean more to me than many judges. I find myself more than willing to ignore or discount poorly supported arguments.

Either get good or get good at going for theory. Judge kick is the logical extension of conditionality. I am far more likely to be convinced by a qualitative interpretation than a quantitative one. I am more likely to vote aff on an objection to counterplan competition than I am an argument limiting the scope of negative fiat. Obviously the two are not entirely separable. This is not me saying "don't go for theory," this is me saying that your theory argument needs to be more than simply describing what happened in the debate.

I cannot emphasize enough how much clarity matters to me. If you have dramatic tone changes between tag and card, where you can barely be heard when reading the text of evidence, you will get lower points from me. If I can't understand the argument, it doesn't count. There is no difference between being incoherent and clipping. Reading directly into the screen at top speed, no matter how clear you are, is still nearly impossible for me to understand.

The link usually matters the most. I typically care more about the link than other parts of the argument. Framework or alternative solvency do not reduce the salience of the link. Evidence is important here. When in competition, you should spend more time answering the link than reading impact defense.

Associate Director of Debate @ KU

Last Updated: Pre-GSU 2016

Quick pre-round notes:

I would prefer speech docs while I judge. Please email them to bricker312@gmail.com.

The affirmative should read and defend a topical example of the resolution and the negative should negate the affirmative's example.

I reward teams that demonstrate a robust knowledge of the topic and literature concerning the topic.

More info:

1. The word "interpretation" matters more to me than some. You must counterdefine words, or you will likely lose. You must meet your theory interpretation, or you will likely lose.
2. The words "voting issue" matter more to me than some. I am not searching for cheap shots, nor do I especially enjoy theory debates. However, I feel that I would be intervening if I applied "reject the argument not the team" to arguments that debaters did not explicitly apply the impact takeout to. That said, proliferation of empty voting issues will not only hurt your speaker points, but can be grouped and pretty easily disposed of by opponents.
3. "Turns the case" matters more to me than some. Is it offense? Does the link to the advantage/fiat outweigh or prevent turning the case? Does it mean the aff doesn't solve? Questions that should be answered by the 1ar.

I believe that debaters work hard, and I will work hard for them. The more debaters can show they have worked hard: good case debates, specific strategies, etc. the more likely it is I will reward debaters with speaker points and higher effort. In the same vain, debaters who make clear that they don’t work outside of debates won’t receive high speaker points.

Argument issues:

Topicality – It is a voting issue and not a reverse voting issue. I have not yet been persuaded by arguments in favor of reasonability; however, the reason for this usually lies with the fact that affirmatives fail to question the conventional wisdom that limits are good.

Kritiks – It will be difficult to convince me that I should completely disregard my conceptions of rationality, pragmatism and my aversion to unnecessary death. As a general rule, I think of Kritiks like a counterplan with net-benefits. The more aff specific the better.

Counterplans – I am up in the air about textual vs. functional competition – they both have their time and place, and are probably not universal rules. The cross-ex answer “for your DAs but not your counterplans” has always made negative sense to me. I understand that there are MANDATES of the plan and EFFECTS of the plan; I find this distinction more understandable than the usual c-x answer.

Rundown of general thoughts about counterplans:

Conditionality – it's feeling like a little bit much at the moment
PICs – Good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan
Consult/Condition – Up in the air and context specific. Solvency advocates, aff stances, etc. can change my feelings.
Delay – Aff leaning, but might be more competitive based on the structure of the affirmative, or a cross-ex answer. For example, if the affirmative has an advantage that takes the position the advantage can only be solved if it happens before "X" date, then the counterplan to do it after that date seems competitive.
Word PICs – Aff leaning
Alternate non-USFG actors – Aff leaning


Demeanor issues:

Be respectful of your opponent, partner and judge. All types of discrimination are prohibited. Don’t clip cards, don’t cut cards out of context, etc. Don't misclose.

Finally, our community relies on host tournaments with classroom space - don't steal, defame or destroy it.

Any questions, ask.

Benjamin Brody (He/Him)

First Year out of Winston Churchill HS

I did policy for 4 years, but have judged/coached/debated in LD.

Email chain pls - winstonchurchillbm@gmail.com

-Topicality-

Topicality is about competing interpretations unless I’m told otherwise and I think that the lit base determines reasonability. T interps should define both what IS and ISN’T topical. Intent to define is cool. Why is ur interp/counter-interp better for debate? Substantial is usually unpersuasive because I think it’s relatively arbitrary.

-Counterplans-

If you’re not cheating you’re not trying hard enough <3

Probably better if you have a solvency advocate for each part of the counterplan though.

Recut their evidence. I promise there's a counterplan hidden in their solvency advocate. Counterplans that are super specific to the aff are way more persuasive to me. Actor counterplans are boring.

I will judge kick the counterplan unless told not to.

I love good counterplan debates.

-Disadvantages-

Some of my favorite 2NRs were on the China disad so I really enjoy disad/case + disad/counterplan debates. I don’t think I’ve judged enough debates to know if winning a 0% risk is possible, but I won’t believe it till I see it. PLEASE do the framing debate (UTIL/structural violence/urgent bodies/whatever you want to call it), it is SO hard to judge a debate I don’t know how to evaluate.

Just as you would with a K, the block should be making more than one link argument.

Turns case arguments are underutilized (including link turns the case args).

-Kritiks-

SPECIFIC LINKS. I don’t enjoy K debates when they’re not about the aff. Explain your theory of power to me. I went for biopolitics a lot my junior year but I’m not gonna lie to y’all, I never read the lit, only the cards that we had in the file. In other words, explain to me either on the line by line or in an overview that does not require a different sheet of paper. The less I understand your theory, the less I want to vote for you, and the more persuaded I am by simple no link arguments. Make sure that before you initiate a big framework debate, that you actually need to do so. Like if you’re gonna let them weigh the aff and just impact turn it anyway, why do all the framework magic?

You don’t always need an alternative. But usually you do.

For aff teams: KNOW YOUR AFF AND DON’T MAKE EASY MISTAKES. Do they have a LINK? Did they extend an ALTERNATIVE? Have they explained an IMPACT? Did you remember to extend a PERM?

Almost every single time we debated the K my senior year, we went for framework and the aff outweighs. I will have a lot of respect for you if you have defense of your epistomology and a defense of what you do materially. You don’t have to defend that the state is GOOD, or even that it’s redeemable. Just win that it is an infrastructural unit capable of rectifying the issues that it creates. You’re never gonna win that the state doesn’t have a history or that the state is free from violence. But all the aff does is recognize violence (or the potential for it) in its most unmediated form, and use the state’s ability to regulate itself to unwrite that violence.

All that being said, sometimes going for framework is not the move. So answer specific links, turns case, disads to the perm, and severance. I find those arguments persuasive insofar as they are reasons to reject the permutation or as independent reasons to reject the aff.

Simple no link arguments will help you greatly.

-K Affs/Performance/Planless/Framework-

I will vote for framework. I will vote for the impact turn to framework. I feel like that's all you needed to hear.

Like most things, I enjoy judging these debates when they're done well. I prefer it when it's in the direction of the resolution, but also understand that sometimes that is not an option/not strategic. In any event, I think both the aff and negative team should have a reason why I give you my ballot. If you are the aff team, please explain what I am voting for/what your theory is/how you understand the world/the meaning of the 1AC. I prefer it if you can explain why my ballot actually has a causal influence as well. TVAs are underutilized. I probably think fairness is more of an internal link than a terminal impact but could be persuaded otherwise. What does your model of debate look like? Why is your model good not just for debates but also what we do once we leave debates?

-Theory-

(This is mostly for the LD folks) I did 4 years of policy. I have a hard time buying a lot of the theory stuff that y’all do in LD. I guess if you think you have a reason why you think that other team has made it structurally more difficult for you to win the round, then make the arg. Just make sure to explain it.

-Things I've Noticed About My Own Judging-

I find myself not voting for conceded arguments if they're not explained. Very cool that they dropped the counterplan in the 2AC, but "don't make me reinvent the wheel" is not an explanation as to why that conceded counterplan solves the aff.

I reward well thought out strategies.

-Things I Hate-

"See Pee"

"Dee Aye"

Needing a new page for the overview

Clipping

Being excessively rude/offensive

Death Good

Lansing High School – 2018

University of Kansas – 2022

Assistant Coach for New Trier High school, Shawnee Mission South High

Paradigm Last Updated – Winter 2021; 01/29

Email – azjabutler@gmail.com – Put me on the email chain :)

I was a policy debater in Kansas all four years of high school and am currently debating at the University of Kansas.

First & Foremost -

Do whatever you can to win the debate. I, obviously, have my opinions about certain arguments, but am competent enough to follow and adjudicate whatever. Spread, don’t spread, I have to listen to you regardless. Just know that I am comfortable “clearing” you if you're unclear. Disclosure is good and should be reciprocated. Clipping/cutting cards out of context is academic malpractice and will result in a loss.

General Debate Things -

I am always down for something new! Debate it a fun and inherently innovative activity whatever fun new arguments you have, BRING IT. I am pretty flexible with AFF's and what their relationship to the resolution should be. The AFF could be critiquing it, reading a plan, not reading a plan ... I don't really care. You should, however, warrant out why the way you're choosing to/not to engage the resolution is good etc. I am in a lot of clash debates, and am willing to listen to FW, but you should know there are other arguments you could be reading. I will vote on theory if impacted out well. I'm pretty indifferent towards PIKS/PICS - you could persuade me either way. Same for questions of conditionality. The less the AFF can be leveraged against the counter-plan to more cheating it probably is. I really struggle with people in this activity that think you can have substantive debates reading more than like 4/5 off... if you're NEG I would try and keep the off case # around there... if you're strat relies on just outspreading the other team then lol be better.

--Presumption--

UNDERRATED! I am always down for a presumption debate and go for this argument a ton. I have a pretty broad understanding of the way this arg can be explained and applied so if you're feeling it, let's see what you've got!

--Performance--

I have worked through my fair share of performative strategies... reading, coaching, and judging them. Like I said above, I'm always down for something new... I think a lot of people have been sleeping on the performative potential of online debate this year so do with that what you will. Judge instruction and strong defense of the performance is the best way to get me. I think the literature and the performative introduction of it into the debate go hand in hand and want that relationship or choice of lack there of to be fleshed out. At the end of the debate I shouldn't be left feeling that the performative aspects of the strategy were useless or disjointed from the chosen lit/ev base. I prioritize the educational aspects of the activity above all else, and am always willing to discuss strat development and new places you can look for arguments. My email is above for a reason.

--Framework--

I spend a lot of time thinking about this argument and really appreciate a good clash debate. This might be a hot take, but I think fairness is more of an internal link to education and other framework impacts. However, I think that if you win that debate is in fact a game and nothing less ... then, I could vote on fairness as an impact that must be preserved for the game's sake. Both teams need a solid defense of their model.

- Who is your model good for?

- What does your model center or teach us?

- Where can we see your model applied?

- Why your model?

- How do other access your model?

At the end of the debate I should be able to explain the model I voted for to the other team and why I thought it was better for debate and the people in it. It's not impossible to win my ballot saying debate is bad, you just need a robust defense of your physical presence in this space for this to be offense for you.

--Kritiks--

On either side of the debate, I am the most comfortable here. I am more knowledgeable and read on capitalism, anti-blackness, and alts/responses to those structures. However, that doesn't mean I am incapable of evaluating K's of security, bio-power, settler colonialism, queer theory and other K's of identity. Anything related to post-modern theory (i.e. baudrillard, dng, or nietzche) is up in the air, but I have read enough of the cards to say I can evaluate these arguments fine. If I don't understand the argument I have a hard time believing I'd be able to evaluate it to your standards, which means choosing to be strategically ambiguous (if not substantiated with ev) may be at your own risk. At the end of the debate there should be a clear link to the AFF, and an explanation of how the alt solves the links. I am willing to judge kick the alt and think going for the linear DA is always an option. I think links to the AFFs performance, subject formation, scholarship are fair game. For the AFF: Strategic framing of your permutation and your AFF is a good idea. Explain why you get to weigh your impacts against the K. You did read 8min of offense, USE IT. Solvency deficits/ DA's to the alternative are really persuasive and are underrated in my opinion. Vague ALTs being good or bad is definitely a debate to be had.

--Topicality--

I think the We Meets are hard to win I front of me, bc I think they require to some extent some judge intervention and often times don't get impacted out enough to avoid you just hoping I came to same conclusion you did. Counter Interpretations make more sense to me, because they functionally come to be about preferred models. I am willing to vote on reasonability... and am willing to vote on T.

--Disads--

I've worked most with politics, but don't cut a lot of these arguments nor do I judge them frequently. I stay up to date on the everyday shit so know I will read the ev and depend heavily on impact framing to make my decision. I think all parts of the DA are important and are required to win my ballot. Winning the uniqueness of the DA and its impacts are important when I am weighing the risks between the AFF and the NEG. Clear link and internal link explanation is a must and has the capacity to shape the uniqueness debate for sure. At the end of the debate ... ok fine this impact happens... why does it matter more than the AFF? Why should it be prevented first? These are questions I think need to be answered to win my ballot. If the DA is dropped then winning it becomes a lot easier, but doesn't necessarily mean an auto win.

--Counterplans--

My experience with counterplans is more in the realm of PICS and 'performative' counterplans more than anything else. This is my least favorite arg in debate, but I recognize not everyone like the same shit and will keep an open mind. As a result though, that probably makes me more receptive to well impacted out counterplan theory. I think the permutation and "counterplan links to the netben" arguments are probably the most persuasive to me when answering counterplans. I think the counterplan text should do something and probably gets fiat. However, I think a theory argument could be leveraged and persuade me otherwise. I probably default to sufficiency framing. I think the biggest thing here for me is I want to know what the counterplan would actually do and why it subsumes the AFF’s offense/resolves the AFF impacts. All of that being said... this is the area I work the least on so your debating of it must be FIRE.

Lexington High School 2020 - Went to the TOC

Cornell University 2024 - Currently debating

Add me onto the chain: david.cai2002@gmail.com

Update for Michigan - I don't know much about the High School topic. Please be aware of that when you might be going in-depth on CJR stuff.

I have ran nearly every argument that has existed on all spectrums throughout my four years of high school debate and a little bit of college debate. My goal as a judge is to evaluate any arguments that the debaters are comfortable running with as little intervention as possible. It goes without saying that racism, sexism, homophobia etc. are all unacceptable.

TLDR - I'm fine for anything. My personal preferences can easily be swayed by good debating.

Top issue - Framing arguments are the most important arguments in any debate. The team that does the best framing is likely going to win my ballot.

Policy Throwdown - I know a bit about government and politics, a little less so about international relations. Even so, try to be clear about which legislation or test case the argument is about, as well as clarify acronyms. I won't default to judge-kick if you don't explicitly mention it in the 2NR. Creating quantifiable impacts to solvency deficits against CPs will be extremely effective. I also really like sufficiency framing on CPs against soft-left affs. Please slow down on technical arguments like theory or CP competition (especially in online debate). Condo is probably okay but don't try to come close to my record (20 off).

T vs Policy Affs - Make numbers or percents really clear on the “we meet” debate, especially on quantitative definitions like “substantial.” Nuanced impact calc is super important, but also call out the internal links that the other team’s interpretation actually accesses. In terms of definitions proper, I think things like intent to define/exclude are important as well, but try to clarify as much legal jargon as possible. The TVA in these debates are super underrated.

K vs Policy Affs - There are cool tricks on both sides that I enjoy. A link that is to the action of the plan is very good, but all arguments need to be impacted. The way links are framed is probably the most important part of the debate, and generally leads to good debates. However, framework debates about epistemology can be just as effective if impacted well.

FW vs K affs - Fairness can be a good impact, but needs to be explained well. The more nuanced explanation of the impact, the more likely I am to vote for it. TVAs or other arguments that act as defense to the aff's impacts are useful. I tend to see that K affs lose when they make their impact turns to framework super small, as opposed to potentially connecting their impacts to a larger theory of power. The best impact turns to framework tend to have really good framing issues behind them. Counter-interpretations also have merit, and I think that there are a few interesting ones that could be strategic (your interp + our aff is NOT one of them). I also think other topicality violations beyond just "USfg" against K affs can be strategic as well.

Rev v Rev - Make the role of the judge and the role of the ballot really explicit. Presumption can be really convincing, especially by calling out double turns. I like scholarship consistency, but amalgamating strategies can be interesting. Other than that, I find that theory of power explanations that use less buzzwords and more application are more successful at winning their side of the debate when it comes to things like permutations and links. The less I understand the aff/alternative, the more frustrated I will be.

CP and/or DA vs K affs - Super underrated strategy. Certain well-researched CPs and smart DAs that impact turn the thesis of certain K affs can catch people off guard.

Other things - Debate is a speech activity, so I would prefer if you read rehighlighted evidence as opposed to just inserting them on the email chain. Especially for online debate, I have found that it is worth sacrificing speed for clarity. I will say "clear" twice and that's it. I would prefer to minimize the amount of time wasted in debates as much as possible when it comes to prep time. If I think you deserve to break, I'll probably give you at least a 28.8. Open source AND cites gets +.2 speaks if you bring it up.

Judge Evaluation Form - Fill this out to comment on my judging!

https://forms.gle/ftTUHmS2cHxuFrc88

Name: Conor Cameron

Current Affiliation: Solorio

If your affirmative strategy does not entail the defense of a topical plan OR if your primary negative strategy is not a reason to reject the affirmative's plan, then you should strike me.

Debate Experience: I debated for GBS in the early 2000s.  I have since started a debate program in one of the lower conferences in the Chicago UDL.  I am not intimately familiar with recent developments of the National Circuit. My first relevant exposure to the topic will be Round 1 of the first tournament of the year.

Summary – I am a policy-oriented judge. I’m a fan of neither performative debate nor the kritik. I do not mind speed, but clarity is key. You can tell if I can flow you by watching me. Failing a case specific strategy, my ideal negative strategy is a good topic generic: “Every topical affirmative must do [x]. [x] links to our topic-specific DA and/or generates competition for our topic-specific CP.” After that, I like classic debate disadvantages (politics, hegemony, e.g.) and counterplans (including Consult). I think it is difficult to beat most well-constructed affirmatives without a counterplan of some sort.

Disadvantages – I will not assign zero OR 100% weight to an advantage OR a disadvantage. Do your updates, but I tend to evaluate the direction of the link. While I try to keep it out of my decision, I am not oblivious to the ridiculousness of your scenario. I am more likely to spot ridiculousness in areas with which I am familiar. (I majored in economics)

Topicality – Affirmatives are topical until proven otherwise. That burden of proof is emphatically high. In order to win topicality, you need to compare what debating on this topic looks like under your interpretation vs the affirmative’s interpretation. It is insufficient to merely assert that the topic would be smaller under your interpretation. You need to talk about why the collection of affirmatives, disadvantages, and counterplans available under your interpretation would make for significantly better debate than the analogous collection available under the affirmative’s interpretation.

I give affirmatives a lot of leeway in characterizing the plan. In cross examination, the affirmative has the right to not take a stance on certain questions, e.g., whether Congress passes the plan. If a negative runs the XO CP, the affirmative has a right to say “Perm do the CP; that is how our plan passes; moving on.” I give the affirmative more leeway the less useful the counterplan is.

Counterplans – Are theoretically legitimate until proven otherwise. This burden of proof is also emphatically high. In debating counterplan theory, both sides need an interpretation of what a negative can and cannot do. An affirmative must prove that the negative’s interpretation significantly decreases the quality of the resulting debate. I like PICs, agent counterplans, consultation counterplans, etc.

Kritiks – Any acceptable framework should allow the affirmative to weigh the advantages of the plan against the implication of the kritik. Winning that “failure to solve the root cause means you do not solve” is a solvency question. I am unlikely to think that an affirmative has zero solvency in such case. I think affirmatives let negatives get away with a lot in terms of kritik links and alternatives. I am persuaded by “all other instances” permutations, because I think negatives very often do not have an explanation for why the plan in particular is key.

I do my best to avoid pulling the trigger on cheap shots, but if you failed to respond to a dumb argument, it makes you look disorganized and hurts your ethos.

Style – Keeping these notes in mind make you look more organized and “with it,” which will improve your speaker points. – Flowing and line by line are good. Referencing your opponents’ arguments in order and by number are good. Paperless debate is not an excuse to not flow. ALSO: Many theory debates in particular are super fast and super clear. Teams appear to be having a really good debate with each other. But they fail to realize that the only reason they can follow along is because they have immediate access to their opponent’s blocks / speech documents. The judge does not. We are in effect excluded from the conversation. If you want us to evaluate the argument, you need to make sure that we are flowing. It is your responsibility to make sure that your judge understands you. It is not your judge’s responsibility to call for all of your evidence OR try to recreate the entire debate from the fragments that did make it onto the page. Debate is, at its core, a communicative undertaking.

Finally, I do not give away free time, even for flashing. I keep a running clock: I stop a constructive after 8 minutes, cross examination after 11minutes, and just subtract out the 11 when you give me an order for the next speech. I start speech time after the order is given.  

please add me to the email chain: a.rae.chase@gmail.com

Broad things

I love debate and I will do my absolute best to make a decision that makes sense and give a helpful RFD.

I want to give you a sense of my decision making process, which I think is especially important for high school debaters since I am judging many more of those this year. I begin processing the debate with link/uniqueness in most cases. I do this because it is typically the more complex aspect of the debate and needs to be debated with the most care and detail. Ultimately I don't think this influences the outcome a ton but it does mean that I do not just compare the impacts and then vote. There are many features of any given argument that also influence how those impacts may or not play out. A lot of 2NR/2AR's start with impact comparison and that is awesome and I am not asking you to change that. Just make sure this does not trade off with robust explanation/comparison/synthesis of the other parts of the argument.

Topicality

Competing interpretations are easier to evaluate than reasonability. You need to explain to me how we determine what is "reasonable" if you are going for reasonability. I am typically more persuaded by arguments about limits and fairness but I do think the CJR topic presents the opportunity for more persuasive arguments about topic education. That being said, there still would need to be a "this is how our interp effects the negative" part of the strategy.

T-USFG

Affirmatives should be about the topic. I will be fairly sympathetic to T-USFG arguments if I do not know what the aff means re: the topic after the 1AC. I would feel much better if your specific critique was clear from the very beginning.

I think teams are meming a bit on both sides of T-USFG/Framework debates. Phrases like "third and fourth level testing" and "rev v rev debates are better" are kind of meaningless absent robust explanation. Fairness is an impact that I will vote on. Like any other impact, it needs to be explained and compared to the other team's impact. I have also voted on arguments about ethics, education, and pedagogy. I will try my best to decide who wins an impact and which impact matters more based on the debate that happens.

I do not think the neg has to win a TVA to win topicality; it can be helpful if it happens to make a lot of sense but I don't think the negative is under any obligation to provide a way to solve the aff.

DA’s

I would love to see you go for a disad and case in the 2NR. I do not find it persuasive when an affirmative team's only answer to a DA is impact framing. Impact framing is important but it is one of a number of arguments that can and should be made.

-CJR specific: I am aware the DA's aren't all great. I don't think that's a reason to give up on them. It just means you need a CP or a lot of really good case arguments.

K's

I really enjoy a sold k vs the aff debate. I think there are lots of interesting nuances available for the neg and the aff in this type of debate. Here are some specific thoughts that might be helpful when constructing your strategy:

1. Links of omission are not links. Links of “commission” will take a lot of explaining.

2. Debating the case matters unless there is a compelling framework argument for why I should not evaluate the case.

3. If you are reading a critique that pulls from a variety of literature bases, make sure I understand how they all tie to together. I am persuaded by aff arguments about how it's very difficult to answer the foundation of 3+ different bodies of critical literature because they often have different ontological, epistemological, psychoanalytic, etc assumptions.

4. Aff v. K: I have noticed affirmative teams saying "it's bad to die twice" on k's and I have no idea what that means. Aff framework arguments tend to be a statement that is said in the 2AC and repeated in the 1AR and 2AR - if you want fw to influence how I vote, you need to do more than this. Explain how it implicates how I assess the link and/or alternative solvency. Done well, I do think aff fw arguments can be really useful.

CP's

I see the utility in core topic counterplans. I think specific counterplans are even better. Counterplans that read evidence from the 1AC or an aff author - excellent! I don't have patience for overly complicated and convoluted counterplans.

I do not subscribe to (often camp-driven) groupthink about which cp's "definitely solve" which aff's. I strongly disagree with this approach to debate and will think through the arguments on both sides of the debate because that is what debate is about.

Solvency deficits are a thing and will be accounted for and weighed along with the risk of a DA, the size of the DA impact, the size of the solvency deficit, and other relevant factors.

I am generally neg leaning on cp theory but if you want to make an argument about why a certain cp is illegitimate (cough, con con) I will do my best to objectively evaluate that argument.

Other notes!

Some people think it is auto-true that politics disads and certain cp's are terrible for debate. I don't agree with that. I think there are benefits/drawbacks to most arguments. This matters for framework debates. A plan-less aff saying "their model results in politics DA's which is obviously the worst" will not persuade absent a warrant for that claim.

Love a good case debate. It's super under-utilized. I think it's really impressive when a 2N knows more about the aff evidence than the aff does.

Please don't be nasty to each other; don't be surprised if I interrupt you if you are.

I don't flow the 1AC and 1NC because I am reading your evidence. I have to do this because if I don't I won't get to read the evidence before decision time in a close debate.

For debating online:

-If you think clarity could even possibly be an issue, slow down a ton. More than ever clarity and quality are more important than quantity.

-Let's just try to have grace with each other. Sometimes online debates are smooth and other times they are not.

I have been coaching debate at the Liberal Arts and Science Academy in Austin, TX since 2005, where my focus is almost exclusively on policy debate. I was a three-year policy debater at Plano Senior High School in Plano, TX, and debated policy for one year at the University of Texas at Austin. I judge an average of 80-100 debates per season.

If there’s an email chain, please add me: yaosquared at gmail dot com

If you’re using a flash drive, prep stops when you pull the flash drive out of your computer. If you’re using an email chain, I won’t count attaching and emailing as prep time. Please do not steal prep.

If you have little time before the debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best. I try to be as unbiased as possible and I will defer to your analysis. I would rather listen to a politics+CP debate than a kritik debate, but I would also rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences. As long as you are clear, go as fast as you want.

Most judges give appalling decisions. Here's where I will try to be better than them:

• They intervene. Perhaps "tech over truth" doesn't mean what it used to. I will attempt to adjudicate and reach a decision purely on only the words you say. If that's insufficient to reach a decision either way--and it often isn't--I will add the minimum work necessary to come to a decision. The more work I have to do, the wider the range of uncertainty for you and the lower your speaks go.
• They aren't listening carefully. They're mentally checked out, flowing off the speech doc, distracted by social media, or have half their headphones off and are taking selfies during the 1AR. I will attempt to flow every single detail of your speeches. I will probably take notes during CX if I think it could affect my decision. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve a judge who works hard as well.
• They give poorly-reasoned decisions that rely on gut instincts and ignore arguments made in the 2NR/2AR. I will probably take my sweet time making and writing my decision. I will try to be as thorough and transparent as possible. If I intervene anywhere, I will explain why I had to intervene and how you could've prevented that intervention. If I didn't catch or evaluate an argument, I will explain why you under-explained or failed to extend it. I will try to anticipate your questions and preemptively answer them in my decision. I like answering questions and discussing debates, but if you take a hostile stance, I will gladly and enthusiastically explain to you why you just weren't good enough.

Meta Issues:

• I’m not a professional debate coach or even a teacher. I work as a finance analyst in the IT sector and I volunteer as a debate coach on evenings and weekends. I don’t teach at debate camp and my topic knowledge comes primarily from judging debates. My finance background means that, when left to my own devices, I err towards precision, logic, data, and concrete examples. However, I can be convinced otherwise in any particular debate, especially when it’s not challenged by the other team.
• Tech over truth in most instances. I will stick to my flow and minimize intervention as much as possible. I firmly believe that debates should be left to the debaters. I rarely make facial expressions because I don’t want my personal reactions to affect how a debate plays out. I will maintain a flow, even if you ask me not to. However, tech over truth has its limits. An argument must have sufficient explanation for it to matter to me, even if it’s dropped. You need a warrant and impact, not just a claim.
• Evidence comparison is under-utilized and is very important to me in close debates. I often call for evidence, but I’m much more likely to call for a card if it’s extended by author or cite.
• I’m now over a decade removed from my own debate career and I don’t judge or coach at the college level, which means I’m usually a year or two behind the latest argument trends that are first broken in college and eventually trickle down to high school. If you’re reading something that’s close to the cutting edge of debate arguments, you’ll need to explain it clearly. This doesn’t mean I don’t want to hear new arguments. On the contrary, a big reason why I continue coaching debate is because I enjoy listening to and learning about new arguments that challenge my existing ways of thinking.
• Please mark your own cards. No one is marking them for you.
• If I feel that you are deliberately evading answering a question or have straight up lied, and the question is important to the outcome of the debate, I will stop the timer and ask you to answer the question. Example: if you read condo bad, the neg asks in CX whether you read condo bad, and you say no, I’ll ask if you want me to cross-out condo on my flow.

Framework:

• Don't over-adapt to me in these debates. If you are most comfortable going for procedural fairness, do that. If you like going for advocacy skills, you do you. Like any other debate, framework debates hinge on impact calculus and comparison.
• When I vote neg, it’s usually because the aff team missed the boat on topical version, has made insufficient inroads into the neg’s limits disad, and/or is winning some exclusion disad but is not doing comparative impact calculus against the neg’s offense. The neg win rate goes up if the 2NR can turn or access the aff's primary impact (e.g. clash and argument testing is vital to ethical subject formation).
• When I vote aff, it’s usually because the 2NR is disorganized and goes for too many different impacts, there’s no topical version or other way to access the aff’s offense, and/or concedes an exclusion disad that is then impacted out by the 2AR. Without a credible counter-interpretation that the aff meets and that establishes some sufficient limits on the scope of debates, I lean negative.

Topicality:

• Over the years, “tech over truth” has led me to vote neg on some untruthful T violations. If you’re neg and you’ve done a lot of research and are ready to throw down on a very technical and carded T debate, I’m a good judge for you.
• I'm a stickler for the quality of a definition, especially if it's from a source that's contextual to the topic, has some intent to define, is exclusive and not just inclusive, etc.
• Reasonability is a debate about the aff’s counter-interpretation, not their aff. The size of the link to the limits disad usually determines how sympathetic I am towards this argument, i.e. if the link is small, then I’m more likely to conclude the aff’s C/I is reasonable even without other aff offense.

Kritiks:

• The kritik teams I've judged that have earned the highest speaker points give highly organized and structured speeches, are disciplined in line-by-line debating, and emphasize key moments in their speeches.
• Just like most judges, the more case-specific your link and the more comprehensive your alternative explanation, the more I’ll be persuaded by your kritik.
• I greatly prefer the 2NC structure where you have a short (or no) overview and do as much of your explanation on the line-by-line as possible. If your overview is 6 minutes, you make blippy cross-applications on the line-by-line, and then you drop the last three 2AC cards, I’m going to give the 1AR a lot of leeway on extending those concessions, even if they were somewhat implicitly answered in your overview.
• Framework debates on kritiks rarely factor into my decisions. Frequently, I conclude that there’s not a decisive win for either side here, or that it’s irrelevant because the neg is already allowing the aff to weigh their impacts. Usually, I find myself somewhere in the middle: the neg always has the right to read kritiks, but the aff should have the right to access their advantages. Kritiks that moot the entire 1AC are a tough sell.
• I’m not a good judge for “role of the ballot” arguments, as I usually find these to be self-serving for the team making them. I’m also not a good judge for “competing methods means the aff doesn’t have a right to a perm”. I think the aff always has a right to a perm, but the question is whether the perm is legitimate and desirable, which is a substantive issue to be debated out, not a gatekeeping issue for me to enforce.
• I’m an OK judge for K “tricks”. A conceded root cause explanation, value to life impact, or “alt solves the aff” claim is effective if it’s sufficiently explained. The floating PIK needs to be clearly made in the 2NC for me to evaluate it. If your K strategy hinges on hiding a floating PIK and suddenly busting it out in the 2NR, I’m not a good judge for you.

Counterplans:

• Just like most judges, I prefer case-specific over generic counterplans, but we can’t always get what we want.
• I lean neg on PICs. I lean aff on international fiat, 50 state fiat, condition, and consult. These preferences can change based on evidence or lack thereof. For example, if the neg has a state counterplan solvency advocate in the context of the aff, I’m less sympathetic to theory.
• I will not judge kick the CP unless explicitly told to do so by the 2NR, and it would not take much for the 2AR to persuade me to ignore the 2NR’s instructions on that issue.
• Presumption is in the direction of less change. If left to my own devices, I will probably conclude that most counterplans that are not explicitly PICs are a larger change than the aff.

Disadvantages:

• I’m a sucker for specific and comparative impact calculus. For example, most nuclear war impacts are probably not global nuclear war but some kind of regional scenario. I want to know why your specific regional scenario is faster and/or more probable. Reasonable impact calculus is much more persuasive to me than grandiose impact claims.
• I believe that in most cases, the link is more important for determining the direction of risk than uniqueness. The exceptions are when the uniqueness can be definitively determined rather than probabilistic.
• Zero risk is possible but difficult to prove by the aff. However, a miniscule neg risk of the disad is probably background noise.

Theory:

• I actually enjoy listening to a good theory debate, but these seem to be exceedingly rare. I think I can be persuaded that many theoretical objections require punishing the team and not simply rejecting the argument, but substantial work needs to be done on why setting a precedent on that particular issue is important. You're unlikely to win that a single intrinsic permutation is a round-winning voter, even if the other team drops it, unless you are investing significant time in explaining why it should be an independent voting issue.
• I think that I lean affirmative compared to the rest of the judging community on the legitimacy of counterplans. In my mind, a counterplan that is wholly plan-inclusive (consultation, condition, delay, etc.) is theoretically questionable. The legitimacy of agent counterplans, whether domestic or international, is also contestable. I think the negative has the right to read multiple planks to a counterplan, but reading each plank conditionally is theoretically suspect.

I would like to be included in email chains. Email: kellycodydebate@gmail.com

A little bit about me

I did policy debate at Colleyville Heritage High School (2010-2014). I have worked various debate camps over the years such as Mean Green Debate/DUDA and have been an assistant coach for Jesuit College Prep (2018-2019) and Greenhill (2019-2020).

On to debate stuff

Framing arguments in the context of the entire debate/connecting across flows is very important. Otherwise, I have to intervene and make assumptions, which puts you in a risky position.

Kritiks: Links need to be contextualized to the aff. If you win a link, you do not automatically win the debate. You also need to articulate the terminal impact to that link and how those impacts interact with the impacts of the affirmative. Performance/no rez affs are okay with me.

Framework: Framework is a debate to be had. Please use warrants when you defend your vision of debate- i.e. if you claim your world of debate is more inclusive, how?

Topicality: You need to articulate your violation and terminal impact quite clearly. I find it more persuasive when fairness is used as a terminal link into education/portable skills as opposed to the terminal impact itself. I default to competing interpretations unless you identify a reason otherwise (ex: the education their interpretation accesses is net bad, etc.). Examples of topical versions of the aff and examples of the types of absurd affs their interpretation would justify are useful when explaining these things.

Disadvantages: Agenda politics debates are my favorite, but I haven’t seen a good scenario in a while. Impact comparison will get you far in debate. You can win a zero risk of the aff (if you prove zero solvency of the aff I will also vote neg on presumption, but you better be pretty confident in this). I do not think there is always a risk of a disad if you win a link.

Counterplans: Your counterplan needs to be competitive with the affirmative (whether you establish this with textual competitiveness, etc. I do not care). I like PICs that are well researched.

Theory: While I do think that theory is important, I will not vote on a dropped theory argument that is very blippy just because it is dropped. The argument needs to be well impacted and articulated enough throughout prior speeches for it to be an option. I don’t like “new affs bad” or “no wiki bad” arguments, but any other theory argument is okay with me.

Miscellaneous

You should be nice to one another.

Spreading is fine, but you should be clear.

Open-CX is fine. However, the individuals who are supposed to be participating in the CX should be the ones primarily contributing to it.

Flowing is a big thing for me. I think by not doing it (or not doing it well), you actively sabotage your chances of winning the debate.

Stealing prep is cheating and annoying. I don’t like to have to constantly remind you to stop prepping when everyone is just waiting for a speech doc to be sent out.

If you have any questions for me, feel free to ask.

elyse.conklin@gmail.com

Please do not spread analytics as if they are cards in rebuttals.

My brain and my hands cannot keep up, I will miss warrants here and there, and I won't apologize for being human. I will only read cards and my flow after speeches, your analytics are the speech portion of this activity. Online debate makes persuasion difficult but I would like you to slow down and try a little if you can.

I graduated from the Comm Masters Program at Wake Forest where I coached for two years (2015-2017). I coached Whitney Young Magnet (2010-2014) and Walter Payton College Prep (2014-2018). I am not currently coaching and spent the last couple years working as a pastry chef. I’ve been furloughed and am enjoying this opportunity to judge the online era of debate. I have a good base knowledge of the topic, but I might need some clarity on more niche references to argument trends, particularly T if you want to talk about other team's affs as examples of good or bad education.

“Who did the better debating” will always be the last question I ask myself before hitting the Submit button unless there is an extremely pressing reason not to. This also means I'm hesitant to vote for a team that wins one argument but loses the rest, “cheap shots” have to be well-impacted.

I judged quite frequently when I coached and am well-versed in most areas and styles of debate. I tended to coach "high theory" teams (whatever that means), but I think in order to be good at debate you have to engage and understand what other people are saying. If someone described me as a "technical" judge, I would be pleased. Judges who say "Plan or GTFO" or the reverse are doing everyone a disservice.

I am more dispassionate than dogmatic when it comes to substance -- I try to reward quality, up to date research related to the topic, and to respect the work of debaters and coaches by giving my best effort to give a well-explained decision. At the same time, I'm very willing to vote on presumption if the other side has not given me a coherent, justifiable reason to vote for them. The most direct and creative impact turns from any ideological standpoint make for fun debates. Heg and cap good args are fine enough, but I need these positions to be contextualized within current political events and trends, not only theory and impacts. By the final rebuttals I tend to flow straight down and line them up the best I can, but I prioritize typing the content as much as I can during the speech.

Obligatory Framework vs. Plan-less aff section:

Ballot framing matters in the final rebuttals. Much like a Topicality debate, there needs to be a portion of each rebuttal where you frame something like "competing models of debate/FIAT good" vs. "evaluate the aff first/traditional policy debate bad." It is really hard to evaluate abstract policy debate impacts vs. specific aff impacts without this guidance. The ballot should always be the internal link to your terminal impact in a debate about debate - contextualize it.

If I hear a K aff and am left wondering "...to do what?" I'm happy to vote neg, but you have to outdebate the aff and should probably go to case in the 2nr if the impact turns implicate YOUR framework impacts (what a novel idea). I generally think affs should consider a role for the negative, but if neg can't win any offense on why traditional policy debate is good, that's on you. For me, debate itself is not automatically assumed to be a terminal impact, so I am better for ground impacts than fairness impacts, but if you do a good job with impact framing and think fairness is more strategic, whatever (don't change your preferred style of fw debating if this sentence scares you). The negative should generally be able to competitively say the opposite of the resolution as a response to the aff, but I'm fine with different styles of affirmatives.

K affs underestimate the value of “defense” and debate framing to win framework debates for the sake of impact turns (but don't change your preferred style of aff fw debating if this sentence scares you). I am willing to evaluate all styles of argument, and I welcome alternative interpretations of the resolution with justification. Varun Reddy told me to research for pockets of critical literature within the topic, and it’s more a question of innovative and warranted argument packaging for why your aff impacts matter and should be debated. Framework has had the benefit of years of argument refinement, while K affs require a more tailored strategy in their approach to both debate, theoretical construction, and impact calculus. It’s tough but rewarding. Original research and independent reading is a must. Have at it.

The other kind of Framework (impact calculus/methodology stuff):

I think of it as the portion of the debate where we establish what BETTER means when I vote for who did the better debating. Framework debates tend to be very muddled from all sides of the ideological coin. Why do your arguments make debate better, why your arguments make people better on a micropolitical level (day to day life), and why your arguments have better explanatory and predictive impacts at the macropolitical level (or why should we not care about the macro). From there, I can be persuaded more clearly by the specifics of each side's impacts.

Policy Stuff:

Few people "love" topicality debates, but I'm generally not mad about a 2NR on T if you've made it as painless as possible for me to parse out clear violations and impacts. Competing interps tends to make sense, but at the same time, if the aff can justifiably find a place for their affirmative through a creative 'we meet' which mitigates the negative's impacts, you might be in business.

I understand that going for counterplan theory requires a lot of chutzpah, but I am curmudgeonly enough to join in a well-warranted rebuke of some of the crazy 1NCs negatives can get away with. However, if you can win on substance, do that.

For all:

Make bold choices in the final rebuttals. Force my hand to vote on the argument you win on.
The words "I voted on the perm" only come out of my mouth if the 2AR spends a good amount of time on it. Either really win the perm, or win the aff. It's not fair to the 2NR if you make the perm blippy throughout the debate and I just happen to think they're not mutually exclusive. I need to know the function of the perm, how it solves the links, and if there is a net benefit to the perm. Not just that - hey - you could do both, next arg. I frequently find if I think an aff has won the perm, they've probably won the aff anyways. If you want me to center my decision on the perm, you have to center the perm in your speeches. K aff vs. K: I am skeptical of perms in methods debates unless the aff is really really similar or you have an interesting explanation.

Time your speech, your partner's speech, the other team, and prep. If suddenly it seems like you have given a 12 minute 2AC, I will become even grumpier than usual and dock everyone's speaks .1

I hope this helps you write my ballot!

Updated for TOC April 2021

The 30 second version: Read what you want. I have an okay breadth of knowledge of things in the world but will reward you for making it clear you have depth of knowledge. I'd recommend you read the section below on the arg you wanna go for. I will vote for theory and T. Smart DA / CP strats are fun. I judge a lot of policy v. K rounds and would appreciate if K folks would ground more in the literature and make more content args than K trick args. Fairness can be an impact but you must win debate is a game. K affs probably need to win debate is not just a game / impact turns to FW outweigh the value or truth of game framing. Write my RFD for me at the top of your 2NR / 2AR, but make args instead of grandstanding about how you're winning - you did it right if I repeat your words back to you in my RFD. Impact framing is a powerful tool. Cost benefit analysis is inevitable but it's your job to convince me how the round's cost benefit analysis should look.

Would appreciate if you add me to the email chain in advance - just let me know that you did so.
Email: larry [dot] dang2018 [at] gmail [dot] com

The Overview

I care quite a bit about being a good judge, but only if you're clearly here to bring your A-game. Do what you will with that information.

*In case this ever matters, this is a policy paradigm*

Read whatever you want - I really do mean it. As humans tend to do, I have my predispositions. They are evident in the rest of my paradigm, which I worked to make very clear on my positions. However, I like to believe that I am a fair judge who can evaluate whatever style of argument you bring to the table, be it very policy, very K, or something new altogether. With that said, see the two paragraphs below.

I seem to end up judging a lot of policy v. K debates and end up voting policy more than K. I think that as a big fan of critical literature and as someone who reads a lot, I have a high bar for explanation and content-based argumentation. I will vote for but am pretty tired of K tricks on framework or supposedly using sweeping claims to skirt points of clash. I like voting for smart K explanations, so if you're a K debater disappointed to hear about my voting for policy args more often, same here. By all means, I hope you can turn that record around, but by no means will I "hack for the K." Shallow K args make me mad and I won't reward it. One problem I feel like I see often is that K args don't become complete and coherent strategies by the end of the round cos the pieces are not tied together - don't let this happen. It seems like a missing the forest for the trees kind of issue.

I also seem to vote aff more often than I vote neg on this topic. I think that aff side bias is very real on this topic, and a lot of the aff literature is on the side of truth. T is a viable option in front of me, especially on this topic, and a good T debate will be rewarded in your speaks. I very much enjoy good neg args on this topic, but I just think it's an uphill (but winnable) battle in most cases.

You will benefit from reading the section of my paradigm on the arguments you plan to execute in front of me. I explain how I think arguments are best won. With that said, my suggestions are functional in nature. You should do what you do best. I will reward you for being smart, strategic, and hard-working.

*I'm really tired of plan texts on this topic being legally incorrect or overly vague. I will bump your speaks by 0.2 if you make and go for a smart plan flaw argument (probably in conjunction with another arg, either plan flaw as a reason why your DA/CP/K explanation is true or plan flaw to implicate a T debate).

Framing This Paradigm

I believe that reading paradigms is less a practice of learning how judges view specific arguments and more a practice of learning different ways to execute arguments. My debate knowledge has increased exponentially from reading paradigms, and I write this with that frame in mind.

A Note for the CJR Topic

I think that every argument on this topic fundamentally must ask itself what makes a criminal/crime, denotationally, legally, sociologically, psychologically. It must also ask itself what the role of the law is in the process of achieving justice and whom that justice serves. These two issues should be at the crux of any good discussion and debate about criminal justice, either implicitly or explicitly. I believe it will make you a much better scholar to take some time to critically think through all your arguments through these two lenses.

Background

Head-Royce 2018, Harvard 2022 Sociology and Global Health

I debated on the national policy circuit in high school and did decently well by traditional standards (blah blah TOC blah blah bids). Most of the arguments I read were critiques, on the AFF and the NEG, though I engaged with more traditional policy arguments a fair amount at camp and now in my time coaching. I believe that traditional policy genuinely has value - it just wasn't my focus as a debater. The Ks I read in rounds were mostly about capitalism, neoliberalism, sovereignty, biopolitics, critical security studies, and psychoanalysis. The K arguments I coach now are mostly in the vein of critical race theory and postmodernism. I have a good working knowledge of other common K authors/lit bases in debate like Baudrillard, Deleuze, queer pessimism, other queer theory, Spanos, critiques of death, disability studies, feminist critiques, and the likes. However, you should never take any of this as an excuse for lackluster explanation - shallow K debates are a big sad. All in all, do what you do best. That'll make for the best and most enjoyable debate.

General

Tech over truth - answer arguments and don’t drop stuff. However, what constitutes tech is up for debate. There are many different ways to be a skilled and technical debater that isn't always just following the line by line religiously or forcing opponents to drop an argument. Smart framing claims and innovative arguments can go a long way. With that said, please do try to do line by line when appropriate - it's not the only way to debate, but it definitely is an effective way that is tried and true. A few more quick thoughts.

Execution probably matters more than evidence, but good evidence/cards goes a long way + helps speaks.

Don't cheat - no clipping cards, falsifying evidence, or stealing prep.

Achieving 0% risk is difficult but not impossible.

Voting NEG on presumption exists - some AFFs don't say anything.

Cross-ex is binding - I will listen and flow notable parts.

Do some impact framing at the top of every final rebuttal.

Be kind to one another and by all means don't be bigoted.

K AFFs

I read K AFFs for most of high school, so they're generally what you might call my forte. Some thoughts:

- A lot of K AFFs don't seem to in any way clearly do anything. Please make sure the 2AR (and the rest of AFF speeches) does not forget to explain the AFF. It becomes hard to vote AFF when I don't know what I'm voting for, even if you did everything else right. Utilize CX to bring up examples that will concretize your method.

- When answering framework, make sure that you have a justification for why your K AFF must exist in debate. Even if you have forwarded a generally good idea, framework begs the question not of whether the K AFF should exist in general but why it should be presented in round. Make arguments about how your K AFF interacts with the status quo of debate arguments, or how debate is a platform, or how argumentative spaces are key. I think the easiest way to do this is usually to impact turn the notion of framework, which I'll note is different from impact turning limits.

- When answering Ks of your AFF, the winner will usually be the team who can concretize their argument better. Don't forget that. Keep it simple and keep it real. Don't get bogged down in theory.

Framework

Despite having read K AFFs most of high school and coaching K AFFs most of the time currently, I also read and really like framework. In many ways, I do believe it makes the game work.

- Some general agreement about what debate constitutes is probably necessary for debate to function, even with K debates. Your job reading FW is to convince the judge that that agreement should be the resolution. Don't forget that FW is T-USFG. You are fundamentally arguing for a model of debate, with limits that provides teams the ability to predict and prepare for arguments. You forward a way to organize a game. Don't let a K team force you into defending more than you need to.

- Game framing is very helpful in FW rounds. If you can win that debate is a game, then you hedge back against most of the offense the AFF will go for. You can best prove that debate is a game by giving empirics about the way that all debaters shift arguments to get a competitive advantage. Present the question of why the K AFF needs to occur in debate and strategically concede aspects of how the K literature might be useful while making it clear that that literature can be accessed outside of debate while your impacts to FW, such as policy education and advocacy skills, are best accessed in debate.

- There was a time when I think I had a decent predisposition against going for fairness as the only impact to framework, but I've since amended my belief to being that going for fairness alone is difficult but when done successfully is usually very dangerous and impressive. A few thoughts on how to make it good: 1) Win that debate is a game and that we do not become intrinsically tied to arguments in debate - make a game theory argument about the nature of competition. 2) Force the aff to make arguments about the value of the ballot. If the K team says they think the ballot is good, then they are in one way or another arguing that fairness in debate is somewhat necessary insofar as fairness maintains the value of the ballot. 3) Use #1 to then force the burden onto the aff to describe when fairness is good and bad, once you've pigeonholed them into defending that some fairness must be good. 4) Defend a dogma/switch side argument as offensive defense - I phrase it that way because I think dogma is a great way to internal link turn K affs without giving them education offense to impact turn (since the education offense then makes debate at least in some capacity more than a game / risks indicating that debate changes subjectivity).

- Go for your preferred FW impacts. Some will work better than others against different types of K AFFs, and I have some thoughts about that as a coach but enjoy hearing different takes on framework.

Plan AFFs

Do your thing. I think this is pretty straightforward. I will say, I'm not the biggest fan of when teams have a million impact scenarios and very little explanation of the AFF's solvency mechanism. I think that's a pretty abusive use of the tech over truth framing in debate, and I will in that instance grant the neg a chance to use framing to get their way (and vice versa with the neg reading a million off). With that said, I'll listen to what you have to say.

Critiques

I read Ks for most of my high school debate career. I think that they're a great way to think about the world and deepen our understandings of the world and problematize the mundane. Some thoughts on how to effectively execute.

- See paragraph 3 of the overview section of this paradigm.

- Overviews are good but not to be abused aka don't forget about line by line.

- The alt is usually the weakest part of the K, so I often find it effective to do things like take the link debate and make turns case arguments. These make the threshold for winning alt solvency much lower. Things about how your systemic critique complicates the way the AFF can solve or makes the AFF do more harm than good are very effective.

- The framework debate on the K is important - you should use it to your advantage to shift how the judge analyzes the round. Don't just throw it out there. You can use framework to make the judge think more deeply about whether or not it is ethical to take a policy action even if it solves the AFF's impacts, or you can use framework to have the judge consider implementation complications (e.g. the Trump regime) that the AFF doesn't factor in because of fiat.

Topicality

The biggest mistake NEGs make going for T is forgetting that at the end of the day, the impact debate is always still the most important, even with a procedural. Give me strong T impacts, limits and ground arguments that internal link to fairness and education - you can't win without it, even if you win that they violate and your interp is more predictable or precise.

I like to think about the meaning of the topic and what different models of the resolution look like. I'm okay with throwaway T 1NCs, but don't throw it away when there's opportunity. T can be a very good argument, as long as you remember to keep the impact debate in mind. Different models of the topic have different effects on people's education and fairness of debates. It's not sufficient to prove the AFF doesn't meet your interpretation.

Disadvantages

I like to hear nuanced DA debates, especially when they're contextualized well to the AFF's mechanism. Just don't take for granted the amount to which policy debaters are used to the idea that proving a link to the DA makes the DA true. At least make an attempt to explain the internal link between your link story and the impact scenario. Otherwise, I think this is an easy avenue for the AFF to win a no risk of DA argument.

Counterplans

Like with DAs, I really enjoy when CPs are related to the AFF's literature/mechanism. I will reward with speaker points a well-researched DA/CP strategy. Don't forget that in the 2NR, the CP is just a way for you to lower the threshold of DA/internal offense that you need to win. The CP is a very effective strategy, but it is not the offense that wins the debate.

Use theory against abusive CPs when you're AFF - I will take it into account. For the NEG, read smart CPs or be prepared to defend against theory. It will favor the NEG if a CP is maybe abusive (process, PIC, agent, etc.) but is core controversy in the literature.

Theory

I am willing to vote for theory to reject the team. Theory arguments with claims about how the violation specifically engages with the topic literature are especially convincing. My threshold to reject the team is high but winnable and I enjoy theory when it's done well. Don't forget to go for reject the arg strategically when things are really cheaty. Impact out reject the team and reject the arg differently when theory is a big part of the debate strategy.

Maybe this is a hot take, but my default assumption is that the status quo is always an option. Unless the 2AR tells me no judge kick / vote aff on presumption explicitly (and all the 2AR has to do is assert this - I’ll change my assumption if you tell me to assuming the 2NR has not made an issue of this), then my paradigm for evaluation involves judge kick, cos I think that just means the neg proved the status quo is better than the aff, and that’s enough for me to vote neg even if there was a CP and that CP doesn’t do anything.

I like conditionality debates.

Speaker Points

I consider 28.5 to be about decently average (not a bad thing). If it helps for context, I debated from 2014 to 2018, so that's my frame of reference for points. I follow this guide pretty religiously. Here's a breakdown:

29.7-30: You are one of the best speakers I've ever seen

29.3-29.6: You should get a speaker award, and I'm really quite impressed

28.9-29.2: You gave some really good speeches and maybe deserve a speaker award

28.7-28.8: You are a decently good speaker, are above average, and have a fair shot at breaking

28.3-28.6: You are probably squarely in the lower middle to middle of the pool (standard for circuit bid tournament)

27.8-28.2: This pool is probably tough for you, but you're getting there - keep trying!

27-27.7: This tournament was/is probably going to be rough for you, but don't give up!

Below 27: You almost certainly did something offensive to deserve this

Ways to increase speaks: have organized speeches, be friendly in round, have good evidence, know what your evidence says, be effective in cross ex, be funny (but don't force it)

Ways to decrease speaks: have disorganized speeches, be mean, make it clear that you are reading blocks you don't really get, treat the debate as a joke (don't waste our time)

Ways to get a 0 (or a 20 since that's usually the minimum): be blatantly racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or generally bigoted towards your opponents or people in the round in any way

Don't forget to have fun in debate. Good luck! :)

Tim Ellis
Head Coach - Washburn Rural High School, Topeka, KS
Debated at Manhattan High School
Updated 7/29/19
Email chain - ellistim@usd437.net

First thing is first, if anything in this paradigm isn't clear enough, feel free to ask me before the round, I'd be more than happy to clarify.

Tl;dr - I judge quite a bit, about 100 rounds last year, and am generally pretty familiar with the topic from coaching and working at camps. As a competitor I gravitated toward plan oriented affs and CP/DA strategies on the neg and have coached teams who debate similarly, but I am open to you debating however you would like to. I have literature deficiencies in some areas that make me less knowledgeable of certain strategies. I am also a teacher who believes in debate as an educational activity, so I am generally open to listening to you debate in whatever fashion you're the most comfortable.

If you would like to know more specifics, they are below.

Topicality: I feel like topicality is usually a question of competing interpretations, but just like anything else in debate, you can persuade me otherwise. I tend to think that debaters are not great at explaining the offense that they have on T flows, and particularly, how offensive arguments interact with one another. I have seen a lot of 2ARs recently where the aff doesn't extend a terminal impact to their counter interp. I pretty much always vote neg in these situations. All too often the neg will go for a limits DA and the aff will say precision, but no one will discuss which one has more value in creating a stable model for debate. Reasonability alone is not an argument that makes sense to me, absent an offensive argument. Good is good enough is nonsense - if you are close to beating a DA, I'm still going to vote neg. If you want to utilize a reasonability argument more persuasively, I would suggest that you frame it almost like sufficiency on the counterplan and have an offensive reason that inclusion of the aff is good. As far as spec debates, I usually find them quite dull. I am growing weary of affs that obviously defend a certain agent with their solvency advocate and advantages but will not defend that agent when debating an agent counterplan. Stop this and defend your arguments please.

Framework: I find that framework debates to me are usually an issue of fairness. I find myself generally not super persuaded by the value of topic education vs the value of whatever educational outlet the affirmative has chosen to discuss is. The aff usually has better evidence about the importance of their particular educational outlet anyway, especially given the fact that they know what it is and can adequately prepare for it. Fairness is a bit more contestable from the negative perspective, in my opinion. Central to convincing me to vote for a non-resolutionally based affirmative is their ability to describe to me what the role of the negative would be under their model of debate. K affs can gain a lot of leeway with me by being in the direction of the resolution and defending at least some links in the realm of topic literature. I am not a very good judge for affs that have no resolutional basis. Regardless, I also think that the aff has a better chance by focusing most of their time on impact turning framework and then using the directionality of the aff toward the topic in order to win some defense against the negs framework claims.

Theory: Most theory debates are people reading blocks back and forth and are totally useless. I usually default to rejecting the argument and not the team. Conditionality is a potential exception to that rule, but it has been a long time since I saw a team ready to debate condo very well.

Kritiks: I am not as familiar with the literature base for this style of argumentation. That doesn't mean I don't vote on the K, it simply means that you need a little more explanation for your argument than you otherwise might. I think that good K teams are able to contextualize their argument with the world of the affirmative. Recently I've judged a bunch of K debates where the links all seem to be descriptions of the status quo, but the affirmative is not very good at winning that the aff is in the direction of the alt. If the neg is going to try and go for just framework and a link/ethics argument, I think it is important that they focus a substantial amount of time on the framework debate, and try and have an interpretation of framework that is not completely arbitrary and should try and win that there is a unique link to the aff. If you are able to win framework and a unique link then you're probably good without an alt. If you are going to go for an alternative, it is probably important that you explain to me how the alternative functions and how the alt resolves the links to the K and probably portions of the affirmative, otherwise you will be susceptible to losing on the aff outweighs. Be descriptive of how the alt functions. I have also found myself recently voting for the aff in the vast majority of debates where the 2NR does not have a thorough contestation of the affirmative. You don't explicitly have to go to the case pages, but you should definitely be calling into question the truth of the 1ACs internal link chains or the efficacy of it to solve the problems that it seeks to solve.

Disads/Counterplans/Case: These are the types of debate I am most familiar with. I think the case debate is under utilized, and that the education topic may have been the worst thing in recent memory at teaching people to debate the case. I wish that more teams would focus on the internal links to the aff advantages instead of just reading impact defense and hoping that a DA outweighs. I think delay counterplans are cheating. Conditions and consult counterplans I can easily be convinced are cheating, but having a solvency advocate helps.

Things I like: Rebuttals that paint a clear picture of what an aff/neg ballot means. Evidence comparison. Debaters who don't read off their computer for the whole debate. Debaters who are funny/having fun. Warranted arguments/smart analytics. Well thought out strategies.

Things I dislike: Bluetooth speakers, must define all terms, running arguments you don't really understand, death good, topicality = genocide, general rudeness, stealing prep time, and clipping cards. If you enjoy doing these things, you probably don't want me to judge you.

Disclaimer: I love the activity of debate, and think that it is a place where all types of debate styles/debaters should be welcome. If you are excessively rude to the other team (laughing during speeches, being disrespectful in cross-x, etc) I will let you know. If the behavior continues, there is a strong chance that I will vote against you on principle.

I debated for 4 years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel High School and 2 years for K-State.

Email: benlengle@gmail.com

For LD thoughts look to the bottom of the paradigm.

Speed is fine, but clarity is more important. If I say "clear" and you don't become more clear I will put my pen down and stop flowing until you do so.

In the era of online debate I ask that you go 70-75% of your max speed.

Clipping is cheating. If a warranted ethics challenge is made, it will be an auto-loss. If not argument is made I will scratch any evidence that was clipped in a speech.

TLDR

Most of my argumentative style deals with the kritik. Policy is great but much like with the k, explain stuff and don't assume I know anything.

Theory

Don't waste your time reading theory arguments that intuitively don't make sense, you aren't prepared to go for, and/or are just a time suck. If you read conditionality you should explain what particular abuse they lead to or what they force you to choose between that results in strat skew. Bad theory arguments can only hurt your speaks. I need pen time or I won't flow your argument. I default to judge kick but making the argument as early as the block makes sleeping at night easier. "New affs bad" prolly isn't a voter.

DAs

They're great. Evidence comparison is important.

CPs

Your CP needs an internal or external net benefit that outweighs a solvency deficit if you want me to vote on it. "Solving the aff better" is not an offensive net benefit. People seem to make competition a very complicated issue. I don't think that textual competition matters that much. "Positional" competition does matter to me. I don't think there is such thing as a "cheating" CP as long as it has a solvency advocate and the affirmative gets to make solvency deficits.

Case

Case debates are good, woefully lacking right now, and can make other arguments easier to go for. I also think that people need to debate the case for K affs in most cases. Even if it's as basic as saying "ontology wrong" or "psychoanalysis bad", say something to mitigate their ability to weigh case against your off case arguments. If there is literally nothing you can say on case without being problematic, point that out on your framework page. I love analytics on case.

T

Your T argument needs to make sense in my mind if you want me to pull the trigger on it. If you see me looking confused in the back, make sure you explain your violation. I default to competing interps unless told otherwise. Aff teams need to explain what they mean by reasonability and how it implicates the rest of the neg's offense.

Ks vs Policy Affs

Don't assume I know the complex theory behind your criticism. I am most familiar with queer theory and settler colonial critiques, but do not assume that I am an expert on either. Your K needs uniqueness, or more specifically how the aff makes things worse than the direction the squo is going or the alt will go. I think the aff, in most instances, gets to weigh the aff. What that means (fiated implementation, research practices, etc.) is up to the debaters.

Additionally, since I primarily read the critique, I will hold debaters to a higher standard in terms of explaining alternative solvency and link stories. Don't think that just because your judge was a K debater that you can get away with just reading the K and winning.

T vs Non-traditional Affs

If you are not reading a plan text that says "USfg should" I generally think you are wasting your time trying to meet the neg's interps. You are much better off just impact turning their standards and telling me "maybe our interp is flawed but theirs sucks so much more". Not to say that you can't read redefine "USfg", "restrict", etc. but if you do you need to be ready to debate DAs and mechanism CPs. I do think a counter interp is necessary to win these debates, but I can be convinced otherwise.

I think a lot of policy teams tend to look at a k aff, see it doesn't say "USfg should" and determine framework is the only answer. I implore you to go to the other side of the library and find some good critique of their theory. That could be the cap k or any number of criticisms that impact turn the aff (queer optimism against queer pessimism), but just relying on FW only plays into the hands of these k aff 2As.

Fairness is only an internal link to clash and/or iterative education. On its own, I think the term is rather vacuous. Make sure your rebuttals do comparative impact work.

While my track record in college is only reading non-traditional affs, don't assume that I won't vote on framework. While I had my reasons for reading a critical affirmative, I probably think that policy affs have some educational value so just be real and tell me why you think your legal education/fairness arguments matter.

Method vs Method

The only question I think teams care about for rev v rev debates concerning judges is whether the aff get's a perm. While I can be persuaded by the argument "no plan = no perm", I generally think that permutations are logical in method debates. That being said if the aff is shifting their advocacy every speech, the argument "no perms in method debates" makes a whole lot more sense.

Here are some miscellaneous tips:

I'm displeased by the way cards are read these days. If you have fortune cookie highlighting and 3 word tags, expect lower speaks. Your tags should make a strong claim with a hint of the warrants in the card, which should be highlighted to include sentences that make sense. When highlighting is like, "heg...key...stop...isis...get...nuc", it shows how little you've invested into your evidence quality.

I generally prefer tech over truth when it comes to competing claims, but my ballot will never say I vote aff/neg because any form of bigotry is good.

Reading structural pessimism arguments (Edelman, Wilderson, etc.) when you not of the structural group your evidence talks about (queer, black, etc.) against someone of that subject position is risky in front of me and kind of uncomfortable. The threshold for commodification or paternalism arguments is really low in these debates.

If you disagree with my decision feel free to ask away after the round. Just be aware that if it isn't on my flow, I don't evaluate it. If I can't explain your arguments back to you/the other team, that's usually your fault and not mine.

LD Paradigm

Value/Criterion Debate- I prefer a simpler debate here and am not a fan of vacuous v/c's. In my experience judging these rounds, they tend to devolve into debates of semantics where people are saying the same things in different ways, or people are making assertions concerning the opponent's v/c without any logic or evidentiary proof. The v/c debate, much like the case debate needs to be warranted, impacted out, and comparative to your opponent's. Refrain from clear hyperbole (e.x. "They justify the Holocaust/slavery").

Case- Aside from problematic arguments (racism, homophobia, sexism good, etc.), I am fine with you reading whatever you please. Do comparative impact work across the AC and NC flows and connect your arguments with the v/c debate and you'll be fine.

He/Him

Minneapolis South/Occasional judging for Minnesota

My email is izakgm [at] gmail.com, add me to the email chain before the round, please and thank you.

Good debating overwhelms anything else on here. I've coached and judged teams of all styles. I will try my best to evaluate the round on your terms and not my own.

do whatever you gotta do for your internet quality. I'd like camera on but if you can't, you can't, and I won't hold it against you and you don't need to explain to me.

Some tweaks for the TOC based on things I've noticed judging this year.

How I judge - big picture > minutia.

I appreciate explicit impact comparison, judge instruction, and when the 2nr/2ar starts in a place that helps me resolve the rest of the debate. I don't mean "they dropped my role of the ballot!!!!!!". If you say "extinction outweighs" but don't tell me what it outweighs, I'll just assume you mean its important since you haven't made a comparative claim.

I'm flow centered, but not a fan of cheap shots or punishing small mistakes. I'm not a perfect flow. In fact I am certainly one of the worst flowers on the circuit and yet I use my flow to decide the round. If you want me to evaluate your argument its on you to make sure its on my flow. Late breaking and unforeseeable arguments may justify new responses. I do have 2n sympathyTM and will check the 2ar against arguments that weren't in the 1ar. 2nr line drawing or instruction remains helpful.

I think in terms of risks, including zero risk and presumption. Offense/defense works well a lot of the time, but I'm not a cultist. If internal links are missing and the other team points it out without reply, I'm not giving you 1% just for fun.

I think I used to be harder on the 1ar and 2nr. Now I give a bit more leeway if there was sufficient explanation earlier in the debate. I pay close attention to and often flow cross-x if its going somewhere.

I read less evidence than many judges at the end of the round. If your superior evidence quality is not explained, I might miss it. I will not reconstruct the round through the docs afterwards. I won't read along unless I suspect clipping. If you deliver the text of your evidence incomprehensibly fast I will not read the text of it later to figure out what you said. Again, the burden of communication is on you.

I love strategic concessions and rehighlightings. If you are right and you read it in the speech, I will prioritize your analysis. It makes sense to insert things like charts. If its "a stake the round on it" kind of issue, please do not insert a rehighlighting, I need you read it. If its just an FYI about a tertiary issue... go off I guess.

I'm pretty expressive and might intervene vocally to move you off a stale cx direction or motion to move on if you are repeating yourself in the speech. My resting face is rather stern, don't take it personally. I'm probably still vibing with you.

FW v K aff - Yes, I will vote either way. It comes down to links and impacts like any other debate and the best teams in these rounds have offense and defense.

Neg teams: I'll be honest, if you say debate is a game more than twice my eyes start to glaze over. Fairness can be an impact but it usually feels like a small one. By this I mean if the aff wins any impact at all it will be more important to me than fairness. If that's your approach you'll need to be playing great defense (lots of ways to do this) or really filtering out aff offense somehow. I say this and yet I think fairness/clash is by far the most strategic version of this argument. Y'all think I didn't notice you just ctrl-f'd your fairness blocks with clash? Ignoring the questions posed by the aff or repeatedly mischaracterizing the aff's claims will likely result in an aff ballot.

Aff teams: I'm open to whatever approach you want to take. I'm personally more interested in strategies built around a counter interpretation even if its not an intuitive (or predictable) one, will vote for impact turns alone and in many cases that is more strategic. Just FYI, I do not know what the symbolic economy is, so if you are the first one to explain it to me then kudos. I think I just learned what a psychoanalytic drive is last month but I still might not understand it. If the TVA is something I'm thinking about during my decision time, even if you dropped it, then you've written or explained your aff poorly If your model doesn't explain a role for negation, or your aff is so uncontroversial that it doesn't hold up to a basic inherency push, I can see myself voting neg easily.

Ks on the neg - Love these debates. Explanation is vital on both sides. Aff teams that explain their internal links and solvency have the most success against ks in front of me. Aff framework arguments that exclude kritiks entirely will be a tough sell. If the alt is cheating, you can point that out tho ;) I've yet to hear a persuasive explanation for judge choice - I will only vote on benefits of your plan that you explain. Neg teams do well with strong links that implicate the case. You don't always need an alt in the 2nr, but you might be better off defending an imperfect alt instead of just the squo, especially if the 2ar is on to you. Perms are a valuable tool but 90% of aff wins would be on case outweighs whether the perm was present or not.

Policy stuff - Yes. I like internal link and solvency presses. Impact defense can make sense, but "x doesn't cause extinction" might not get your there if the other team has a nuanced impact comparison. I have a loose attachment to the "link first" camp until you tell me otherwise. My time in Minnesota has left me with a love for impact turns, don't care how dumb it seems. If you can't beat stupid... I don't know what to tell you.

I struggled with Judge Kick for a while. I've come around. I still enjoy strategic and narrow 2nrs (i.e. not making me do this). If you explicitly (saying "squo is always an option" in 1nc cx counts) flag this as an option by the end of the block I'm game. I am open to affs that ask me to stick the 2nr to the cp.

Things it might be helpful to know about me/observations so far on CJR/carrots+sticks/hot takes inspired by OTT

- I'd love to be a judge that fully resolved framing first before substance. Unfortunately the quality of debating here is often such that I have to resolve some substance to figure out what to do.

- learning about the criminal justice system is nice. If you teach me something about the topic (yes critical knowledge is part of the topic get over yourself) over the course of the debate, boost to your points. If your aff is about cyberattacks strike me, I simply don't care. If your aff is about cyberattacks and you debate the internal link level well enough to convince me that you were actually talking about criminal justice reform,

- i understand why no one does this but if the aff team took a stance on something (like an actual explanation of how they solve not solely hedging against agent cps) and the neg fiats through a solvency deficit based in literature and the aff went for theory I might be more likely to vote aff than most. This obviously goes out the window if the aff says the phrase "for the purpose of counterplan competition" at any point in cx.

- i have some professional experience working on police reform. I live in Minneapolis and South high is blocks from where the 3rd precinct burned. My personal belief is ACAB. I feel familiar with many of the practical arguments for and against abolition, so I have a high threshold for link debating. aff teams, feel free to go for "abolition bad" instead of the perm...

- If your wiki is sparse your points are capped at 28.6 - its JV behavior, you get JV points.

- If you can't answer basic CX questions about a position you are asking for an L 27. If you think the round is over and you stop your rebuttal VERY early/invoke a TKO correctly, the baseline for your points is 29.4.

- I'm lukewarm for plan text in a vacuum. "Only non-arbitrary" blah blah blzh both teams should just debate about what the aff does. I will require some extra convincing before the 2ar and will heavily protect the 2nr here. I think this

- truly random defaults that have come up more than once in rounds that I want on the record: perms are tests of competition so I will jettison them if they would hurt the aff. you can implicitly answer a "ballot pic" by trying to win the round. you can implicitly answer the perm although its not recommended.

If you still have questions, please feel free to email or ask me before the round!

little rock central '20, harvard '24

add me to the email chain: gargsakshi506@gmail.com

TL;DR: I'm fine with anything as long as it is debated well. Good judge instruction, impact calculus, and contextualization will win my ballot. I also reward clarity (over speed, especially in online debate) and technical debating with high speaks. Full disclosure: I have little to no topic knowledge and have judged zero rounds on the CJR topic, so it would benefit you to explain acronyms and topic-specific jargon early on in the debate, rather than in the 2NR/2AR. Ultimately, if you win your argument (claim + warrant + impact + application), you will be fine.

Less important things: I love re-highlightings, case debate (even if it's just logical analytics), ev comparison, and presumption vs. k affs. Conversely, I'm not a huge fan of lengthy framing contentions, unexplained solvency mechanisms, >1 minute overviews, incomplete arguments in the 1NC, and general shiftiness. I think fairness is an impact when you've won an external reason that preserving debate as a fair game is desirable.

Joshua Gonzalez

Yes, add me to emailsm please: gonza310 at gmail

2021 - now includes me complaining about stuff:

1. Since I only judge K-T/FW debates anymore, it's increasingly becoming clear that I think that fairness is probably internal link....but it's an internal link to pretty long list of some really good stuff in debate, so just list out what you think that stuff *is* at some point, please.

2. Flow, or I will give you bad speaker points.

New for 2018-2019:

High School Debates:

0. I will, at my own discretion, treat evidence that is highlighted such that the remaining words still follow basic grammatical rules as necessarily superior to evidence that is not. If I have to read and/or search unhighlighted parts of the evidence to make sense of the parts that you *did* read, then *your* version of that evidence isn't very good, even if the full, un-highlighted card is quite good...

Older:

Rando stuff that I've added:

1. I will not automatically judge-kick conditional CPs. 2NR must signal to me to do it, in which case (absent a compelling aff response) I'm happy to do it, but I don't remember to do it every single time unless signaled, and it isn't fair for me to do it inconsistently.

The majority of what I've written below is of a positive/empirical nature, rather than normative/ideal. I obviously have opinions about debate, arguments, etc., but who doesn't? Every time a debate happens, the activity changes a little bit, as do my thoughts and opinions about it. If anything, what is below describes how I have voted in the past more than I how I intend to vote in the future.

That being said, there are a number of practices that have developed various degrees of normative force over time in our activity. Arguers who seek to overturn norms (not universally, obvi) are necessarily dealing with a task of overcoming presumption. I don't think that this is a particularly high bar (certainly not high enough that it should discourage you from trying); I just think it's the best explanation for my past voting behavior.

Speaker Points: who even knows anymore. I'll assign some.

Newest Complaint: 2NC/1NR - please don't group disparate parts of a flow and call it "the link debate" or "the uniqueness debate." While there are def. parts of flows that deserve grouping, this is a technique that is over-used and isn't very smart. There's a good chance you'll drop something the other team said.

Paperless addendum: Mark your cards during your speech. Save the speech doc from which you spoke, with marks. Be prepared to send it out after the speech if the other team requests that you do so. Regardless, I will expect to receive a post-round doc of all relevant cards WITH MARKS CLEARLY NOTED. If I don't, I will not consider the cards as part of my decision. If this document includes evidence that was not read in full (all portions that are highlighted) but is not marked as such, I will definitely blow up your speaker points and will may just vote for the other team on the spot. If you discover, after sending the document to me, that it is missing a mark, don't hesitate to correct it. Honesty and transparency are what we're aiming for here.

Clipping: Auto-loss, auto zero points for the debater. This is obvious.

SWEAR LESS: I didn't care about this nearly as much when I was younger, but as I've become older, I've increasingly become of the belief that all of you kids need to stay off my lawn. Let's try and cut down on the swearing during actual debate speeches, it's just not particularly becoming and it gets us in trouble with the higher ups. I'm sure there's any number of things you can say about this, but honestly, I probably disagree and this is one of those spots where I assign the speaker points and you'll just have to adapt. If this is a non-negotiable item for you, I take no offense to you moving me down the pref sheet, as is your perogative.

T/Framework/Etc. - I have rarely made the decision that topicality was not a voter. In all but the most extreme instances, I have typically decided that the affirmative should have to try and read a topical plan. I phrase this as an empirical statement rather than a normantive one, but I think it would be unfair of me to not let you know that I've been more likely than not to side with the negative when they make an argument to that effect. Here's the big catch: what the words that are configured into this “plan” (and the resolution) mean are significantly open to debate (or how they are best understood/interpreted) but it's plainly obvious what the directions of most topics are and what one would do to have some fidelity to that. I am inclined to think that people who claim that it is actually impossible to make arguments about social justice in the context of most any recent debate are, well, incorrect and really aren't trying very hard.

Theory – I don’t seem to vote on this much, but I’m probably just waiting to meet the right theory debater. I have an intuition that the multiplicity of worlds advanced in 1NCs these days are probably unfair, I just haven’t heard a team that has really made a good set of arguments as to why. Be careful with the words “logical policy maker”: logical policy makers might consider lots of different counterplans, but they probably think the politics disad is really, really stupid, too. I don’t have too much of a dog in the fight with regard to intrinsicness, etc. – I coach a lot of teams to go for politics, but I do also think that debate is probably worse off for it at the end of the day. I find most totalizing theories of CP competition pretty self-serving and stupid, particularly “textual competition.” I have not heard a compelling reason why it makes sense as a standard, rather than just something that conveniently excludes a number of undesirable counterplans. If those CPs are bad, there is likely plenty of good reasons to reject them on their own and we don’t need a counterintuitive competition standard to prevent them from being run.

ASPEC – this is my least favorite debate argument. New rule: 2ACs don’t have to spend any more time answering it than the 1NC spent reading it. If the block makes a big deal, I’m inclined to allow a TON of new 1AR argument—and you can still probably say “cross ex checks” and get out of Dodge. This is one of the only things I am actually willing to impose by judge fiat.

Consultation CPs – these are my second least favorite debate arguments. Any generic strategy that creates an incentive for the aff to read plans that would be vetoed by any relevant international actor is probably a bad argument. I still vote on them, just don’t expect great speaks, even if you think you gave the best speech of your life, which, by virtue of making it about a consultation CP, you have not.

Critiques – I used to be the guy that K teams struck. Now I seem to be a middle-of-the-road sort of fellow. Maybe even K-leaning. This is not because I think critiques are totally awesome and the past/present/future of debate. I actually think many, if not most of them are surprisingly shallow and silly, but most teams seem incapable of acquitting themselves as anything less than even more shallow and dumb. My research interests go vastly farther into the critical than do my debate interests, so there’s a good chance I know what you’re talking about. Don’t be afraid to make arguments that have some theoretical depth, but in so doing, do not fail to make them relevant to the question of the debate (theorizing biopower is totally fascinating, but you need to make it into a reason to not do the plan).

Decorum/Attitude/Behavior – ethos matters in a persuasive setting. Become comfortable with the fact that debate judges (this one in particular) are not logical robots. We are big, jiggly masses of flesh. This means that you should make some attempt at being likeable in debate rounds. I rarely find myself voting for teams that I do not like and yet I feel as if I make decisions on the basis of relatively objective criteria. This does not make much sense unless one understands that how judges feel about you effects (affect?) how they understand and evaluate every other facet of the debate. I have spent more than 20 years of my life in this activity and rarely regretted it (until recently). I still love almost every person I've met through debate, but I am having an increasingly hard time coming to grips with how many of us are behaving (myself included, from time to time). Make it the sort of place that other people want to be and not only will judges reward you, but you will likely reap an enormous number of other intangible benefits as well. Only one team wins the tournament – everybody else should have a pretty good reason that they came. Year after year, I find that the only good reason (and the best reason that I could imagine) is “everybody else.”

Coach at Kent Denver School and Rutgers University-Newark. HS Policy, NDT/CEDA, NPTE/NPDA Competitor.

> Please include me on email chains - nategraziano@gmail.com <

TL;DR - I like judge instruction. I'll vote for or against K 1ACs based on Framework. Clash of Civilization debates are the majority of rounds I watch. I vote frequently on dropped technical arguments, and will think more favorably of you if you play to your outs. The ballot is yours, your speaker points are mine. Your speech overview should be my RFD. Tell me what is important, why you win that, and why winning it means you get the ballot.

Note to coaches and debaters - I give my RFDs in list order on how I end up deciding the round, in order of how I resolved them. Because of this, I also upload my RFD word for word with the online ballot. I keep a pretty good record of rounds I've judged, so if anyone has any questions about any decision I've made on Tabroom please feel free to reach out at my email above.

1. Tech > Truth

The game of debate is lost if I intervene and weigh what I know to be "True." The ability to spin positions and make answers that fit within your side of the debate depend on a critic being objective to the content. That being said, arguments that are based in truth are typically more persuasive in the long run.

I'm very vigilant about intervening and will not make "logical conclusions" on arguments if you don't do the work to make them so. If you believe that the negative has the right to a "judge kick" if you're losing the counterplan and instead vote on the status quo in the 2NR, you need to make that explicitly clear in your speech.

More and more I've made decisions on evidence quality and the spin behind it. I like to reward knowledgeable debaters for doing research and in the event of a disputable, clashing claim I tend to default to card quality and spin.

I follow along in the speech doc when evidence is being read and make my own marks on what evidence and highlighting was read in the round.

2. Theory/Topicality/Framework

Most rounds I judge involve Framework. While I do like these debates please ensure they're clashing and not primarily block reading. If there are multiple theoretical frameworks (ex. RotB, RotJ, FW Interp) please tell me how to sort through them and if they interact. I tend to default to policy-making and evaluating consequences unless instructed otherwise.

For theory violations - I usually need more than "they did this thing and it was bad; that's a voter" for me to sign my ballot, unless it was cold conceded. If you're going for it in the 2NR/2AR, I'd say a good rule of thumb for "adequate time spent" is around 2:00, but I would almost prefer it be the whole 5:00.

In the event that both teams have multiple theoretical arguments and refuse to clash with each other, I try to resolve as much of the framework as I can on both sides. (Example - "The judge should be an anti-ethical decision maker" and "the affirmative should have to defend a topical plan" are not inherently contradicting claims until proven otherwise.)

Winning framework is not the same as winning the debate. It's possible for one team to win framework and the other to win in it.

Procedural Fairness can be both an impact and an internal link. I believe it's important to make debate as accessible of a place as possible, which means fairness can be both a justification as well as a result of good debate practices.

3. Debate is Story Telling

I'm fond of good overviews - round vision, and understanding how to write a singular winning ballot at the end, is something I tend to reward. To some extent, telling any argument as a chain of events with a result is the same process that we use when telling stories. Being able to implicate your argument as a clash of stories can be helpful for everyone involved.

I do not want to feel like I have to intervene to make a good decision. I will not vote on an argument that was not said or implied by one of the debaters in round. I feel best about the rounds where the overview was similar to my RFD.

4. Critical Arguments

I am familiar with most critical literature and it's history in debate. I also do a lot of topic specific research and love politics debates. Regardless of what it is, I prefer if arguments are specific, strategic, and well executed. Do not be afraid of pulling out your "off-the-wall" positions - I'll listen and vote on just about anything.

As a critic and someone who enjoys the activity, I would like to see your best strategy that you've prepared based on your opponent, rather than what you think I would like. Make the correct decision about what to read based on your opponent's weaknesses and your strengths.

Debate that includes narration, personal experience, or autobiographical accounts is fine. I've voted for it frequently in the past.

Don't hesitate to email me or ask my opinions on framework before the round if it's a concern of yours.

5. Speaker Points

I believe that the ballot is yours, but your speaker points are mine. If you won the arguments required to win the debate round, you will receive the ballot from me regardless of my personal opinion on execution or quality. Speaker points are a way for judges to reward good speaking and argumentation, and dissuade poor practice and technique. Here are some things that I tend to reward debaters for:

- Debate Sense. When you show you understand the central points in the debate. Phrases like "they completely dropped this page" only to respond to line by line for 3 minutes annoy me. If you're behind and think you're going to lose, your speaker points will be higher if you acknowledge what you're behind on and execute your "shot" at winning.

- Clarity and organization. Numbered flows, references to authors or tags on cards, and word economy are valued highly. I also like it when you know the internals and warrants of your arguments/evidence.

- Judge instruction. I know it sounds redundant at this point, but you can quite literally just look at me and say "Nate, I know we're behind but you're about to vote on this link turn."

I will disclose speaker points after the round if you ask me. The highest speaker points I've ever given out is a 29.7. A 28.5 is my standard for a serviceable speech, while a 27.5 is the bare minimum needed to continue the debate. My average for the last 3 seasons was around a 28.7-28.8.

Updated and Simplified Pre-St. Mark’s

jgriff22 at nd dot edu

Background

I debated for Jesuit from 2015 to 2019 (surveillance topic to immigration topic, always a 2A). I’m a part-time assistant coach for Jesuit, and I’ve judged a decent amount on this topic so far, including every round at a summer workshop tournament and 7 regular season tournaments.

General Thoughts

Clarity > speed. Dropped arguments should still be extended with warrants and impacted out. I’ll only evaluate arguments from the person who’s supposed to be speaking during a given speech. I prefer closed CXs.

Debating in “Unprecedented Times”

Slow down more than usual. If you have significant tech issues, please let me know immediately if you need to stop the debate to fix them. I keep my camera on during speeches, CXs, and the post-round discussion. I prefer that debaters keep theirs on during the entire debate and while I’m giving the RFD, but if there’s a legitimate reason why someone can’t have the camera on then that’s fine. I won't evaluate any arguments about what the debaters are doing in terms of COVID protocol because a) it's not pertinent to the substance of the debate and b) I will give people the benefit of the doubt and assume they're doing what they can to debate safely with the resources they have.

K Affs and Framework/T-USfg

I haven’t judged too many of these debates and don’t have a significant bias towards either side. A K aff can interpret and critique the resolution in interesting ways but should still, at its core, be about the general concept of criminal justice reform. Teams reading T or Framework should have some “CP-like” argument about some way they can access the affirmative’s offense (e.g. a TVA, switch-side debate solves, etc.). Research, clash, and topic education impacts are generally more compelling than procedural fairness.

Theory:

Not a huge fan but I’ll listen. Slow down more so I can hear the compressed analytics. More and pointed theory arguments that are contextualized to what has happened in a specific debate are better (e.g. “conditional consult CPs without solvency advocates are bad” is likely more compelling than just “conditionality bad”). I won’t vote on new affs bad.

Normal T Debates:

I don’t think anyone has gone for T in the 2NR (or even that often in the block) against a policy aff in front of me this year, and as a result I still don’t have strong feelings about which affs are or aren’t topical. So to persuade me to vote on a T violation, you should construct narratives—use specific examples of affs they allow and explain concretely what the inclusion of these affs would do to the topic. Reasonability is strictly about the counter interpretation. I default to competing interpretations if the affirmative doesn’t make any reasonability argument.

Ks:

They’re a lot of fun if done right. Rely on specific link narratives and pertinent historical examples, not on “K-tricks” or enthymemes. Something I’ve seen a lot on this topic (especially with abolition-type arguments) is a lack of external impact explanation, so if you’re negative, you should remember that “the aff doesn’t solve” isn’t a compelling argument on its own. Not super familiar with high theory so I would advise against reading those types of Ks in front of me.

CPs:

Need a solvency advocate or else you’re open to smart permutations and potential theory objections. I’m not a huge fan of process unless it’s specific to the aff. Amendments in the block are probably bad, especially if they're in the 1NR. If your CP text is incoherent (like if you literally said "The 50 states should do the plan" word-for-word in the 1NC because you forgot to edit the text before the round to apply to a specific affirmative), it'll be tough for me to vote for it.

DAs:

Zero risk is possible if the affirmative’s defensive arguments are very compelling, there’s conceded defensive arguments that are extended, and/or the disad is just that bad on its own.

SLOW DOWN. i'm serious.

---

i’m a biology & africana studies major at johns hopkins. my debate philosophy is profoundly influenced by michael koo and joseph barquin.

affirmconscientization@gmail.com

active affiliations: colleyville cz, little rock lp, baltimore city college, beacon high school

click for my old (but still true) and long paradigm

---

the speed at which y’all debate feels unnecessary in majority of rounds and makes everything harder than it needs to be – slow down.

tech determines truth, this is my general principle except for reading oppressive positions. i am not the judge for “x-ism good” or “the usfg should bomb (anywhere in the global south)” – you can do better than that. i like k debate (not like i can’t judge anything else, i just have a strong proclivity for these strategies). i don’t like framework, but i’ve thought “the 2nr should’ve been framework” too much for me to believe i hack against it. i don’t hack against “us heg good” either, but again, you can do better than that. at the end of the round, just collapse on the path of least resistance.

warrant and implicate your arguments. filter and frame the arguments in rebuttals, you need to do comparative analysis and layer. if you leave me with unresolved issues, you’ll probably hate the assumptions i make.

---

little important tidbits:

• if you are reading theory of any sort, please have a screenshot/proof of the violation (if applicable) available in the 1nc doc.

• if i am asked to look at cards, i will only check to see whose articulation of the evidence is more accurate, so you still need to make arguments about ev in your speeches.

• in rounds where the 2nr completely drops the 1ac, i have a hard time voting neg – please engage case, even if you’re going for 1 off k.

• implicate the ontology debate!! why do you win the round if your thesis is true? why does that mean i can’t vote aff?

• topicality and theory debates are the hardest for me to resolve – be clear, robust explanations please!

• lders – y’all should not be reading friv theory or tricks in front of me. i will not vote for something i don’t understand. no plans theory is also yucky.

• pfers – please have real cards and evidence formatted in such a way that i can verify its integrity, or i will discount the card and the argument it serves entirely.

• all – do not bother postrounding me if it’s not in good faith. i am not spending my weekends getting berated or yelled at. either learn or write me off as a bad judge.

C.E. Byrd HS class of 2014, Debated at Baylor University 2014-2016, University of Iowa 2017-2019

Currently coaching Glenbrook South and the University of Iowa

email chain - yes - dgustavson@glenbrook225.org

2020 Updates:

Treat each other with respect. No one wants to listen to you be passive aggressive over Zoom for 2 hours.

Clarity > Speed

Having Email Chain set up before round is supposed to start > being late sending the 1ac

Reading arguments you are best at going for > Reading arguments that you think will "like"

2NR that makes strategic decisions > 2NR that goes for everything

Using CX to ask a diversity of questions > asking the same question over and over

Starting last rebuttal out by explaining why your position outweighs and turns theirs > random overview

Simple well impacted arguments > trying to use as much complex jargon as you can

Having a reason your thing is competitive > no perms in a method debate

Framework 2NR that uses their impact to turn different parts of the aff > framework 2nr that doesn't engage the case

Deciding the debate based on arguments made in round > deciding a debate about things outside the debate for which I was not present

2019 updates:

Taking two lines from Khalid Shareef's paradigm that I profoundly agree with:

"1.Clarity of thought is paramount. I often find myself voting for teams that can make complex arguments sound like common sense.

2. Good evidence is secondary to what a debater does with it. I really appreciate evidence interrogation in speeches and cross-examination. I don't like reading cards after the debate, please put the important spin and quotations of the card "on the flow."

K on K debates when done well are the best debates to watch. When done poorly, easily the worst debates to have to watch. Take that however you will.

Being creative with topical versions of the aff and read-it-On-the-neg arguments on framework will get you a lot further in the debate than saying “you could read your K and defend a plan text”. That requires actually applying these things to the aff.

When answering framework, having a clear counter interpretation will help me filter your offense and defense. Not saying you have to redefine words in the resolution, but having an argument about what debate should look like is important.

No, you will not insert that re-highlighting into the debate. You will read it.

2018 Update: (Immigration): Saying an argument is conceded is not the same thing as extending a full argument. Additionally, asserting that arguments have been conceded when that is not the case is not persuasive. It shows that you either aren’t flowing or that you’re just missing arguments that your opponent is making.

Go slower when reading really long counter-plan texts if you want me to get it

2014 Paradigm:

I know most of the people who read these aren't looking to learn every thought I have about debate, most of you are reading this quickly before a debate or while doing prefs, so I'll keep this short.

Thesis: Say whatever you want in front of me. I think debate should be about the debaters. Don't debate differently in front of me, just do what you're best at. Of course I have biases that influence the way I evaluate debates, everyone does. But when judging, I will attempt to be objective and evaluate the round based on the arguments presented by both sides. Read a politics DA, an aff without a plan, topicality/framework, a large structural criticism, I don't care. If you debate it well, I will evaluate it as such. If you debate it poorly, I will evaluate it as such.

That said, here are some things I think:

Theory: I like most people would rather hear a debate about substance in most instances but also think theory is underutilized and that people aren't often great at answering it or going for it. I don't want to hear frivolous theory arguments but am fine with listening to things like condo, 50 state fiat, etc. I don't default one way or another, if you are going for theory you obviously have to impact out why it's a reason to reject the team.

Clipping: If sufficient proof is presented to me that someone is intentionally clipping in a debate I will promptly vote against the offender and the lowest points the tournament permits.

Speed: it's good unless argued otherwise. Be clear. I would like to hear the warrants in your evidence as they're presented. I'm not saying I need to be able to repeat you word for word, but if all I hear is a tag and cite and can't decipher the internals of a piece of evidence, I'll say clear. I will say clear up to three times to any given debater. If the problem persists I will just simply not be able to understand your arguments, and you will probably lose and not have very good speaker points. This activity is based on persuasion, and it's hard for me to be persuaded if I can't figure out what you're saying.

KRHAMRICK@GMAIL.COM

I've been judging debates for a long time. I prefer listening to debates wherein each team presents and executes a well-researched strategy for winning. The ideological flavor of your arguments matters less to me than how you establish clash with your opponents’ arguments. I am open to most anything, understanding that sometimes “you’ve got to do what you’ve got to do” to win the debate.

At the end of the debate, I vote for the team that defends the superior course of action. My ballot constitutes an endorsement of one course relative to another. To win the debate, the affirmative must prove their course is preferable when compared to the status quo or negative alternatives. That being said, I interpret broadly exactly what constitutes a plan/course of action. An alternative is proven a superior course of action when it is net beneficial compared to the entirety of the plan combined with part or parts of the alternative. Simply solving better than the affirmative is not enough: the alternative must force choice. Likewise, claiming a larger advantage than the affirmative is not enough to prove the alternative competitive. A legitimate permutation is defined as the entirety of the "plan" combined with parts or parts of the alternative. Mere avoidance of potential or "unknown" disadvantages, or a link of omission, is insufficient: the negative must read win a link and impact in order to evaluate the relative merits of the plan and the alternative. The 2AC saying something akin to "Perm - do the plan and all noncompetitive parts of the counterplan/alternative" is merely a template for generating permutation ideas, rather than a permutation in and of itself. It's your job to resolve the link, not mine.

I believe there is an inherent value to the topic/resolution, as the topic serves as the jumping off point for the year's discussion. The words of the topic should be examined as a whole. Ultimately, fairness and ground issues determine how strict an interpretation of the topic that I am willing to endorse. The most limiting interpretation of a topic rarely is the best interpretation of a topic for the purposes of our game. The topic is what it is: merely because the negative wishes the topic to be smaller (or the affirmative wishes it bigger, or worded a different way) does not mean that it should be so. An affirmative has to be at its most topical the first time it is run.

I don’t care about any of your SPEC arguments. The affirmative must use the agent specified in the topic wording; subsets are okay. Neither you nor your partner is the United States federal government. The affirmative is stuck with defending the resolutional statement, however I tend to give the affirmative significant leeway as to how they choose to define/defend it. The affirmative is unlikely to persuade me criticisms of advocacy of USFG action should be dismissed as irrelevant to an evaluation of policy efficacy. I believe that switch-side debating is good.

All theory arguments should be contextualized in terms of the topic and the resultant array of affirmative and negative strategies. Reciprocity is a big deal for me, i.e., more negative flex allows for more aff room to maneuver and vice versa). Conditional, topical, and plan inclusive alternatives are presumptively legitimate. A negative strategy reliant on a process counterplan, consultation counterplan, or a vague alternative produces an environment in which in which I am willing to allow greater maneuverability in terms of what I view as legitimate permutations for the affirmative. I’ve long been skeptical of the efficacy of fifty state uniform fiat. Not acting, i.e., the status quo, always remains an option.

Debate itself is up for interrogation within the confines of the round.

I tend to provide a lot of feedback while judging, verbal and otherwise. If you are not clear, I will not attempt to reconstruct what you said. I tend to privilege the cards identified in the last two rebuttals as establishing the critical nexus points of the debate and will read further for clarification and understanding when I feel it necessary. Reading qualifications for your evidence will be rewarded with more speaker points. Reading longer, more warranted evidence will be rewarded with significantly more consideration in the decision process. Clipping cards is cheating and cardclippers should lose.

I value clash and line-by-line debating. Rarely do I find the massive global last rebuttal overview appealing. Having your opponent's speech document doesn't alleviate the need for you to pay attention to what's actually been said in the debate. Flow and, for god's sake, learn how to efficiently save/jump/email/share your speech document. I generally don't follow the speech doc in real time.

"New affs bad" is dumb; don't waste your time or mine. When debating a new aff, the negative gets maximum flexibility.

I believe that both basic civil rights law as well as basic ethics requires that debaters and judges conduct themselves in rounds in a manner that protects the rights of all participants to an environment free of racial/sexual hostility or harassment.

Sonoma Academy '19

UCLA '23

Judges for: Sonoma Academy

Rounds on CJR: 35

Experience: 4 years of national circuit debate, 1 year of national circuit parliamentary debate. I cleared at most national tournaments and won a few local tournaments. I'm currently a sophomore at UCLA. I do not do college debate.

I have been a 2N and 2A and was a double 2.

Add me to the email chain: gibran.fridi@gmail.com

Online update: Speak around 80% speed than usual and please add your analytics to speech docs in case of internet issues. Lots of teams I've judged are actively stealing prep, so I will be lowering speaks if this becomes an issue in the round. Also, you don't have to turn on your camera during the round, but I would prefer it if you would turn it on during your speech.

Speed is fine, but clarity over speed! If I don't understand what you're saying, I won't flow it. Also please disclose on the wiki. Please let me know if there is anything I can do to make the debate more accessible for you. Emailing me or talking to me before the round totally works.

TLDR

Do what you do best. Trying to adapt to me as a judge is a waste of time. I don't necessarily have an argumentative preference, but I'm really not gonna enjoy sitting in a high theory k debate.

ask me as many questions before/after the round as you want.

Arguments are claims, warrants, and impacts -- means that "dropped" arguments are true only if you explain why they matter and the reasons they're true. I need more explanation than just "they dropped the DA- we win!"

Tech>Truth

Topicality

I'm down to see a good T debate! I think T is vastly underused by 2Ns (including me). If your 1N is a killer T debater, use it to your advantage. Most affs to some extent are untopical, so make them stop cheating. Have a good interp/counter interp and give me some good clash on the standards debate. I don't defer to reasonability or competing interps, so I will be convinced by both.

Theory

I've gone for condo twice in my four years of doing debate, and it's still one of my favorite rounds. That being said, if condo is a legit strat for you it should be a big part of the 1AR and all of the 2AR. I will vote on condo, but there has to be in round abuse. If they read states and neolib, I will not be very convinced to vote on condo. And I definitely believe that neg should definitely have condo to test the aff. Other theory args aren't as convincing to me unless the other team completely drops it. That's the only time I might vote on it.

DA

Probably my favorite debate argument. I love a good CP/DA neg start. If the DA turns case and squo solves the aff, neg doesn't really need much of a link to win the round. Especially if they have a sick counterplan. I love any and all DAs.

CP

Also love these. A good advantage CP with a sick DA can be a killer neg strat. But have some good evidence on how and why the CP solves. Usually, 1AC evidence can be used as solvency advocates for ADV CPs! Also, the CP better be competitive, cause then I have no reason to vote for it. Please don't mess up writing CP texts. (It's really embarrassing, speaking from experience).

K

Yes, most K's are cool and I will definitely still vote on the K even though I'm most familiar with policy arguments. I think Ks are very interesting and probably produce the most real-world change. But if you don't understand your K and can't explain it to your opponents, I will have a VERY hard time voting for it. Have some good links that you can explain. Also, the alt better solve or at least do something. If you can't explain what the alt does and what voting neg does, then please don't read that K. There's nothing more embarrassing than watching a K team not know what they are talking about in cross-ex. What K lit I know well (Cap, Set Col, Gnoseology, Security, Orientalism, Foucault). If you read any authors that start with a B (Bifo, Baudrillard, Battile etc, just don't pref me lol). Bad K debates are worse than bad policy debates.

Policy Affs

Do what you do best. Have solvency advocates, win the case solves something.

K Affs

ok funny enough I’ve voted for more k affs this year than for fw teams. I legit think FW teams have forgotten how to debate T because so many people are just not extending any impacts to the 2NR

Err neg in these debates. FW makes the game work!! I think these debates are interesting to watch, but I think FW is the only real option. This is where my judge bias comes in because I'm more likely to be lenient to neg teams in these debates. Make sure to impact it out. Like why should I prefer aff/neg FW? TVA is the negs best friend in these debates. But all that being said if you debate your k aff well I will DEFINITELY vote on it.

Case

Destroy them on case. Nothing makes the 1AR harder than amazing case debate in the block. circumvention is probably a true arg if you're neg.

also if you're aff - add-ons are your friend and a good way of making neg offense go away - why do I care about disads if you just solve the impact

Speaks

Don't steal prep. Flashing/emailing isn't prep unless it becomes an issue in the round. If you're very unclear, I will dock your speaks. Please don't clip. That's the last thing I want to deal with. You will lose the round, get a 0 and I will have to have a conversation with your coach. Also please don't make sexist, racist, homophobic, transphobic etc. comments. You will lose the round and get a 0. Don't be mean to the other team.

David Heidt

Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart

davidheidt@gmail.com

NDT 2021 note:

I just read the resolution for the first time a few days ago. I will put in as much work as I can when judging a debate, but I have no topic knowledge at all.

Some education topic specific thoughts:

1. I'm ambivalent about the states counterplan. I could easily see myself voting against it on theory, but I think there's a debate to be had and I could also easily see myself voting for it as well. I'm a lot more likely to vote against it the further it gets away from topic literature or a respectable solvency advocate, and a lot less likely to vote against it if the evidence defending it is of high quality.

2. I think critiques are decent on this topic largely because I see critiques as competing strategies for social change, and I think there's pretty good education-topic literature that supports criticism from this perspective and *defends alternatives*. If you can't go for a critique without making it a critique of fiat or saying the word Baudrillard, then I'm unlikely to be the judge for you. But if you research critiques of education policy and defend an alternative method, then I'm very likely to be receptive. My view of critiques depends heavily upon evidence quality, and there were several that were turned out at camps this year that I think were pretty good. How specific is your argument to education reform? If it's about the topic and you have an alternative, you're probably good to go. If it's about cybernetics, you're probably not.

3. While I would like to see a good federalism DA, I have yet to hear one that I did not start at 0% risk and I don't think the 2ac even requires evidence to answer it. It seems pretty bad on this topic, despite being one of the core objections to federal education policy. I don't think this DA is even runnable in the 1nc; at least not the versions I've heard.

4. I like the education topic quite a bit - I think the federal education reform literature is outstanding and I think affirmative teams should defend it. I'm aff-leaning towards my view of the topic as a whole - the literature is pretty heavily aff-biased and the quality of negative generics is much lower than in previous years. But that has two pretty important implications.

First, I'm pretty unsympathetic to aff claims along the lines of "this topic is terrible for the aff; we need an expansive topicality interpretation to be creative". Broad topics are the enemy of education. Broad topics mean the neg goes for garbage like consult. That's not what I want my students to get from debate.

Second, if you're reading an aff without solvency evidence or with internal links that you just made up by mistagging evidence - I'm probably going to think that you haven't met your burden of proof and I'm likely discount it entirely. I think that the risk of both advantages and disadvantages can be - and frequently is - zero. I don't think the judging philosophy that says there's always a small risk of something is very well thought out. Presumably, it would mean that if I carded my own judging philosophy, and flagrantly mistagged the cards to represent an education tradeoff DA, someone subscribing to the 'any risk' view would assign the DA some risk and vote neg on it if it was read as a net benefit to a CP that solved the whole case. While this example might seem absurd, it's not more absurd than some of the aff advantages that were broken at Greenhill this year. It's not more absurd than some politics DAs. Mistagged cards from this very paragraph would probably be of higher quality and represent the source material more accurately than some of the things that people have called advantages and disadvantages over the years.

I don't know why judges assume there's a risk of anything - the whole point of the burden of proof is that it's a BURDEN and the judge needs to be convinced that you're right - we don't just give you the benefit of the doubt. If the standard is merely "they presented some words verbally so there's a risk because the neg didn't have offense", then we've all really failed at our jobs. If you're going to win a risk of an advantage or disadvantage, the minimal burden is (1) it has to make sense, and (2) it must be supported with evidence reflects expertise, data or logic, and does not misrepresent the author.

******

Generally I try to evaluate arguments fairly and based upon the debaters' explanations of arguments, rather than injecting my own opinions. What follows are my opinions regarding several bad practices currently in debate, but just agreeing with me isn't sufficient to win a debate - you actually have to win the arguments relative to what your opponents said. There are some things I'll intervene about - death good, behavior meant to intimidate or harass your opponents, or any other practice that I think is negative for a high school student classroom setting - but just use some common sense.

Thoughts about critical affs and critiques:

Good debates require two prepared teams. Allowing the affirmative team to not advocate the resolution creates bad debates. There's a disconnect in a frighteningly large number of judging philosophies I've read where judges say their favorite debates are when the negative has a specific strategy against an affirmative, and yet they don't think the affirmative has to defend a plan. This does not seem very well thought out, and the consequence is that the quality of debates in the last few years has declined greatly as judges increasingly reward teams for not engaging the topic.

Fairness is the most important impact. Other judging philosophies that say it's just an internal link are poorly reasoned. In a competitive activity involving two teams, assuring fairness is one of the primary roles of the judge. The fundamental expectation is that judges evaluate the debate fairly; asking them to ignore fairness in that evaluation eliminates the condition that makes debate possible. If every debate came down to whoever the judge liked better, there would be no value to participating in this activity. The ballot doesn't do much other than create a win or a loss, but it can definitely remedy the harms of a fairness violation. The vast majority of other impacts in debate are by definition less important because they never depend upon the ballot to remedy the harm.

Fairness is also an internal link - but it's an internal link to establishing every other impact. Saying fairness is an internal link to other values is like saying nuclear war is an internal link to death impacts. A loss of fairness implies a significant, negative impact on the activity and judges that require a more formal elaboration of the impact are being pedantic.

Arguments along the lines of 'but policy debate is valueless' are a complete nonstarter in a voluntary activity, especially given the existence of multiple alternative forms of speech and debate. Policy debate is valuable to some people, even if you don't personally share those values. If your expectation is that you need a platform to talk about whatever personally matters to you rather than the assigned topic, I encourage you to try out a more effective form of speech activity, such as original oratory. Debate is probably not the right activity for you if the condition of your participation is that you need to avoid debating a prepared opponent.

The phrase "fiat double-bind" demonstrates a complete ignorance about the meaning of fiat, which, unfortunately, appears to be shared by some judges. Fiat is merely the statement that the government should do something, not that they would. The affirmative burden of proof in a debate is solely to demonstrate the government should take a topical action at a particular time. That the government would not actually take that action is not relevant to any judge's decision.

Framework arguments typically made by the negative for critiques are clash-avoidance devices, and therefore are counterproductive to education. There is no merit whatsoever in arguing that the affirmative does not get to weigh their plan. Critiques of representations can be relevant, but only in relation to evaluating the desirability of a policy action. Representations cannot be separated from the plan - the plan is also a part of the affirmative's representations. For example, the argument that apocalyptic representations of insecurity are used to justify militaristic solutions is asinine, given the plan includes a representation of a non-militaristic solution. The plan determines the context of representations included to justify it.

Thoughts about topicality:

Limited topics make for better topics. Enormous topics mean that it's much harder to be prepared, and that creates lower quality debates. The best debates are those that involve extensive topic research and preparation from both sides. Large topics undermine preparation and discourage cultivating expertise. Aff creativity and topic innovation are just appeals to avoid genuine debate.

Thoughts about evidence:

Evidence quality matters. A lot of evidence read by teams this year is underlined in such a way that it's out of context, and a lot of evidence is either badly mistagged or very unqualified. On the one hand, I want the other team to say this when it's true. On the other hand, if I'm genuinely shocked at how bad your evidence is, I will probably discount it.

Lexington Update 2021:

Everything below on form/content/argument familiarity is still true. I haven't had the opportunity to judge many debates on this topic, so please do a good job of explaining any topic-specific acronyms/arguments.

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

About me:

I debated for the University of Chicago Laboratory Schools from 2014-2018. For what it's worth, my senior year, I cleared at every major national tournament I attended and earned 7 bids to the TOC.

I would like to be on the email chain: michaelhellie@gmail.com

Top Level:

Debate is fundamentally a communicative activity. If, by the end of the debate, you have convinced me to vote on an argument, I will certainly do so, regardless of how I personally feel about the argument.

I don't believe that it is my prerogative as a judge to determine or influence the content of the debate. As such, I will do my best to fairly evaluate any and all arguments based solely on the flow of that particular round.

That said, please don't say anything offensive.

Thoughts on form:

The strongest final rebuttals will begin by writing my ballot and instructing me how to resolve the central question of the debate.

While I would certainly say that I am a tech over truth judge, it will be far easier for you to win my ballot with strong meta-level framing of the round than by assuming that I'll know that the block's concession of 2AC #12 is game over.

Thoughts on content:

I'll mostly discuss my thoughts on the Kritik because that's what I think most people are interested in:

If you believe in characterizing debaters by their argument preference, I would fall decidedly in the "k debater" camp. I spent my last two summers in the Michigan 7-week k lab and have not read a "policy aff" since my novice year.

However, this does not mean that I am any more likely to vote for kritiks or kritik affs. If anything, I will probably have a higher standard for these arguments to be executed properly.

Please add me to the email chain: J387h162@ku.edu

I have judged quite a few debates, but haven’t done much topic research. Lean on the side of more explanation for intricate topicality/counterplan competition arguments.

T-USFG

Impact weighing and comparisons are very important to how I decide these debates. If I think that both teams have some point of offense they are both winning, it makes it difficult to decide these debates if there isn’t any discussion of the other teams impact. If you solve their impacts, your impact turns them, or anything else related to that then please point that out. However, less is more when it comes to the number of impacts you are extending throughout the debate. One really well developed impact or impact turn is much better than three or four less well developed ones.

I also think it’s important for affirmative teams to have a clear tie or relationship with the topic. I find it harder to be persuaded to vote for affirmatives that I don’t think have a lot to do with the topic in some way. How you do this is up to you, but just make it clear to me.

In the past, I have voted on various impacts from and on framework. Personally I have been more of a fan of clash impacts than fairness, but I don’t think that should discourage you from going for whatever impact you feel most comfortable with.

Topicality

More explanation needed if you go for reasonability. Most of the debates I have judged where the aff goes for reasonability are very surface level extensions from the one sentence you said in the 2AC.

DA’s

Not much to say here. Read them and go for them when you can/want to. Where I start evaluating the debate for disad vs. case debates is very dependent on the disad and what arguments you are making a bigger deal about. If there is a lot of push back from the aff on the link and this is where you spend most of your time in the 2nr/2ar, I will probably start by evaluating the debate there. If impacts/their comparisons seem to be where a lot of time is spent, then I will start thinking about that first.

K’s

Debating case is very important. Having arguments that you think not only implicate the aff but also help your links are nice. Sometimes I feel like whenever a team goes for case arguments it feels detached from the rest of the debate on the K. IF you can make them connected somehow that would be good.

Have a reason for going for whatever framework arguments you are going for in the last speeches. This goes for the aff and the neg. So many times I have felt like people are just extending framework because their coaches told them to and not because they think there is reason why it is important for how the judge evaluates arguments at the end of the debate.

If you have a bunch of what seems to be conflicting theories in the cards you are going for and extending on the neg, please make it clear why what you are doing is okay. Alternatively, affirmative teams should be pointing out when they think the things the negative has said don’t make much sense.

CP’s

Again, read them and go for them when you can/want to. I don’t think I have very many predispositions about certain counterplans at this point in time. I think this just means that if you think a certain counterplan automatically beats an affirmative, I would prefer it if you showed it in the arguments you are making and the evidence you are reading. A counterplan that seems to be very solvent when explained, but lacking in evidence or that just generally has under highlighted cards will be harder to win in front of me.

A really good solvency deficit that aligns with whatever advantage you are going for in the 2ar is more important to me than you going for a bunch of different arguments that are less well developed.

Recently retired from the debate world but I still privately coach a few select debaters to keep a foot in the water. Experienced former debater. Previous coach for CK McClatchy, Rosemont, Davis Senior, and others. I am the former Executive Director and founder of the Sacramento Urban Debate League (SUDL). I've judged a ton of rounds on all levels of policy debate and feel in-depth and informative verbal RFD's are key to debate education.

I will adapt to you rather than you to me. It's not my place as a judge to exclude or marginalize any sort of argument or framework. On the neg, I will vote for K/K + case, T, CP + DA, DA + case, FW/FW + case, performance, theory.... whatever. I personally prefer hearing a good K or theory debate, not that I'm more inclined to vote on those genres of argumentation. I am down for the K, performance, or topical aff. Anything goes with me.

I'm big on organization. Hit the line by line hard. Don't just give me 3 min overviews or read a bunch of cards off the line, then expect me to conveniently find the best place on the flow for you. Do the work for me. I flow on paper OG style, so don't drop arguments. I don't flow off speech docs (neither should you), but put me on the email chain so I can read cards along with you and refer back to them. I can handle any level of speed, but please be clear and loud if possible.

I will work hard to make the debate accessible and a safe place for you and your arguments. If you have access needs during a debate, wish to inform me of your preferred gender pronoun, or if there is anything you wish to communicate privately, please let me know or send me an email.

My judging philosophy is very short for a reason. Its your debate, not mine. Do you. Just stay organized and tell me where and why to vote. Write my ballot in your 2NR/2AR.

Email: khirn10@gmail.com --- of course I want to be on the chain

Program Manager and Debate Coach, University of Michigan

Debate Coach, Whitney Young High School (2010-20), Caddo Magnet (2020-)

Last updated: April, 2021 (most relevant updates are in the topicality section, which has some pre-TOC assessments of T on CJR)

Philosophy: I attempt to judge rounds with the minimum amount of intervention required to answer the question, "Who has done the better debating?", using whatever rubrics for evaluating that question that debaters set up.

I work in debate full-time, so I attend a billion tournaments and judge a ton of debates, lead a seven week lab every summer, talk about debate virtually every day, and research fairly extensively. As a result, I'm familiar with the policy and critical literature bases on both the college alliances topic and the HS criminal justice reform topic.

I’ve coached my teams to deploy a diverse array of argument types and styles. Currently, I coach teams that primarily read policy arguments. But I was also the primary argument coach for Michigan KM from 2014-16. I’ve coached many successful teams in both high school and college that primarily read arguments influenced by "high theory", postmodernist thought, and/or critical race literature. I'm always excited to see debaters deploy new or innovative strategies across the argumentative spectrum.

Impact turns have a special place in my heart. There are few venues in academia or life where you will be as encouraged to challenge conventional wisdom as you are in policy debate, so please take this rare opportunity to persuasively defend the most counter-intuitive positions conceivable. I enjoy judging debaters with a sense of humor, and I hope to reward teams who make their debates fun and exciting (through engaging personalities and argument selection).

My philosophy is very long. I make no apology for it. In fact, I wish most philosophies were longer and more substantive. Frequently, judges espouse a series of predictable platitudes, but I have no idea why they believe whatever it is they've said (which can frequently leave me confused, frustrated, and little closer to understanding how debaters could better persuade them).

What follows is a series of thoughts that mediate my process for making decisions. I've tried to be as honest as possible, and I frequently update my philosophy to reflect perceived trends in my judging. That being said, self-disclosure is inevitably incomplete or misleading; if you're curious about whether or not I'd be good for you, feel free to look at my voting record or email me a specific question (reach me via email, although you may want to try in person because I'm not the greatest with quick responses).

0) Online debate

Online debate is a depressing travesty, although it's plainly much better than the alternative of no debate at all. I miss tournaments intensely and can't wait until this era is over and we can attend tournaments in-person once again. Do your best not to remind us constantly of what we're missing: please keep your camera on throughout the whole debate unless you have a pressing and genuine technical reason not to. I don't have meaningful preferences beyond that. Feel free to record me---IMO all debates should be public and free to record by all parties, especially in college.

1) Tech v. Truth

I attempt to be an extremely "technical" judge, although I am not sure that everyone means what everyone else means when they describe debating or judging as "technical." Here's what I mean by that: outside of card text, I attempt to flow everything that every speaker says in a speech. Even in extremely quick debates, I generally achieve this goal or come close to it. If a debater is going at max speed in a final rebuttal, it is virtually impossible to organize all of the words said by the rebuttalist into the argumentative structure they were intending. But overall I feel very confident in my flow: I will take Casey Harrigan up on his flowing gauntlet/challenge any day (he might be able to take me if we were both restricted to paper, but on our computers, it's a wrap).

In addition, being "technical" means that I line up arguments on my flow, and expect debaters to, in general, organize their speeches by answering the other team's arguments in the order they were presented. All other things being equal, I will prioritize an argument presented such that it maximizes clear and direct engagement with its counter-argument over an argument that floats in space unmoored to an adversarial argument structure.

I do have one caveat that pertains to what I'll term "standalone" voting issues. I'm not likely to decide an entire debate based on standalone issues explained or extended in five seconds or less. For example, If you have a standard on conditionality that asserts "also, men with curly unkempt hair are underrepresented in debate, vote neg to incentivize our participation," and the 1ar drops it, you're not going to win the debate on that argument (although you will win my sympathies, fellow comb dissident). I'm willing to vote on basically anything that's well-developed, but if your strategy relies on tricking the other team into dropping random nonsense unrelated to the rest of the debate entirely, I'm not really about that. This caveat only pertains to standalone arguments that are dropped once: if you've dropped a standalone voting issue presented as such in two speeches, you've lost all my sympathies to your claim to a ballot.

In most debates, so many arguments are made that obvious cross-applications ensure precious few allegedly "dropped" arguments really are accurately described as such. Dropped arguments most frequently win debates in the form of little subpoints making granular distinctions on important arguments that both final rebuttals exert time and energy trying to win. Further murkiness emerges when one realizes that all thresholds for what constitutes a "warrant" (and subsequently an "argument") are somewhat arbitrary and interventionist. Hence the mantra: Dropped arguments are true, but they're only as true as the dropped argument. "Argument" means claim, warrant, and implication. "Severance is a voting issue" lacks a warrant. "Severance is a voting issue - neg ground" also arguably lacks a warrant, since it hasn't been explained how or why severance destroys negative ground or why neg ground is worth caring about.

That might sound interventionist, but consider: we would clearly assess the statement "Severance is a voting issue -- purple sideways" as a claim lacking a warrant. So why does "severence is a voting issue - neg ground" constitute a warranted claim? Some people would say that the former is valid but not sound while the latter is neither valid nor sound, but both fail a formal test of validity. In my assessment, any distinction is somewhat interventionist. In the interest of minimizing intervention, here is what that means for your debating: If the 1ar drops a blippy theory argument and the 2nr explains it further, the 2nr is likely making new arguments... which then justifies 2ar answers to those arguments. In general, justify why you get to say what you're saying, and you'll probably be in good shape. By the 2nr or 2ar, I would much rather that you acknowledge previously dropped arguments and suggest reasonable workaround solutions than continue to pretend they don't exist or lie about previous answers.

Arguments aren't presumptively offensive or too stupid to require an answer. Genocide good, OSPEC, rocks are people, etc. are all terribly stupid, but if you can't explain why they're wrong, you don't deserve to win. If an argument is really stupid or really bad, don't complain about how wrong they are. After all, if the argument's as bad as you say it is, it should be easy. And if you can't deconstruct a stupid argument, either 1) the argument may not be as stupid as you say it is, or 2) it may be worthwhile for you to develop a more efficient and effective way of responding to that argument.

If both sides seem to assume that an impact is desirable/undesirable, and frame their rebuttals exclusively toward avoiding/causing that impact, I will work under that assumption. If a team read a 1AC saying that they had several ways their plan caused extinction, and the 1NC responded with solvency defense and alternative ways the plan prevented extincton, I would vote neg if I thought the plan was more likely to avoid extinction than cause it.

I'll read and evaluate Team A's rehighlightings of evidence "inserted" into the debate if Team B doesn't object to it, but when debated evenly this practice seems indefensible. An important part of debate is choosing how to use your valuable speech time, which entails selecting which pieces of your opponent's ev most clearly bolster your position(s).

2) General Philosophical Disposition

It is somewhat easy to persuade me that life is good, suffering is bad, and we should care about the consequences of our political strategies and advocacies. I would prefer that arguments to the contrary be grounded in specific articulations of alternative models of decision-making, not generalities, rhetoric, or metaphor. It's hard to convince me that extinction = nbd, and arguments like "the hypothetical consequences of your advocacy matter, and they would likely produce more suffering than our advocacy" are far more persuasive than "take a leap of faith" or "roll the dice" or "burn it down", because I can at least know what I'd be aligning myself with and why.

Important clarification: pragmatism is not synonymous with policymaking. On the contrary, one may argue that there is a more pragmatic way to frame judge decision-making in debates than traditional policymaking paradigms. Perhaps assessing debates about the outcome of hypothetical policies is useless, or worse, dangerous. Regardless of how you debate or what you debate about, you should be willing and able to mount a strong defense of why you're doing those things (which perhaps requires some thought about the overall purpose of this activity).

The brilliance and joy of policy debate is ultimately found in its intellectual freedom. What makes it so unlike other venues in academia and the vast majority of institutions of any sort is that, in theory, you are free to argue for positions and points of view never considered. Conversely, you will be required to defend EVERY level of your argument, even ones that would be taken for granted. Just so there's no confusion here: all arguments are on the table for me. Any line drawn on content is not only arbitrary and unpredictable, but does a profound disservice to debaters by instructing them not to bother thinking about how to defend a position. If you can't defend the desirability of avoiding your advantage's extinction impact against a wipeout or "death good" position, why are you trying to persuade me to vote for a policy to save the human race? Groupthink and collective biases against creative or disruptive thoughts are a common feature in most human societies, which is why I think we should encourage maximal intellectual freedom in one of the very few educational institutions that tries to militate against that trend.

3) Topicality and Specification

Overall, I'm a decent judge for the neg, provided that they have solid evidence supporting their interpretation.

Limits are probably desirable in the abstract, but if your interpretation is composed of contrived stupidity, it will be hard to convince me that affs should have predicted it. Conversely, affs that are debating solid topicality evidence without well-researched evidence of their own are gonna have a bad time. Naturally, of these issues are up for debate, but I think it's relatively easy to win that research/literature guides preparation, and the chips frequently fall into place for the team accessing that argument.

Competing interpretations is potentially less subjective and arbitrary than a reasonability standard, although reasonability isn't as meaningless as many believe. Reasonability seems to be modeled after the "reasonable doubt" burden required to prove guilt in a criminal case (as opposed to the "preponderence of evidence" standard used in civil cases, which seems similar to competing interps as a model). Reasonability basically is the same as saying "to win the debate, the neg needs to win an 80% risk of their DA instead of a 50% risk." The percentages are arbitrary, but what makes determining that a disad's risk is higher or lower than the risk of an aff advantage (i.e. the model used to decide the majority of debates) any less arbitrary or subjective? It's all ballpark estimation determined by judges using whatever analysis debaters provides that persuades them. With reasonability-style arguments, aff can certainly win that they don't need to meet the best of all possible interpretations of the topic, assuming that they meet an interpretation capable of providing a sufficient baseline of neg ground/research ability. Describing what threshold of desirability their interpretation should meet, and then describing why that threshold is a better model for deciding topicality debates, is typically necessary to make this argument persuasive.

Topicality on CJR: T - enact is persuasive. The ev is close, but in an evenly debated and closely contested round where both sides read all of the evidence I've seen this year, I'd be worried if I were aff. The debateability case is strong for the neg, given how unlimited the topic is, but there's a case to be made that courts affs aren't so bad and that ESR/politics is a strong enough generic to counter both agents.

Other T arguments are, generally speaking, uphill battles. Unless a plan text is extremely poorly written, most "T-Criminal" arguments are likely solvency takeouts, though depending on advantage construction they may be extremely strong and relevant solvency takeouts. Most (well, all) subsets arguments, regardless of which word they define, have no real answer to "we make XYZ new rule apply all throughout the area---all police are required to no longer enforce xyz criminal law." There are some better or worse variations for all of these violations (for example, Title 18 is a decent one for "T - criminal" style arguments, albeit one that's surprisingly easy to meet), and aff teams often screw these up in ways that make them completely viable. But none of them would be my A strat, unless you're packing new cards for the TOC (in which case, well done, and if you think your cards are objectively better than the aff cards, T is always a reasonable strat in front of me).

"Plan text in a vacuum" is a persuasive model for topicality in debates where no alternative model is presented. If you don't establish some standard for how one determines what the words in the pan mean, voting against "plan text in a vacuum" is indistinguishable from voting for "a random unhighlighted word in a 1ac card defines your plan." I do think setting a limiting standard is potentially quite defensible, but it needs to be done explicitly.

4) Risk Assessment

In front of me, teams would be well-served to explain their impact scenarios less in terms of brinks, and more in terms of probabilistic truth claims. When pressed with robust case defense, "Our aff is the only potential solution to a US-China war that's coming in a few months, which is the only scenario for a nuclear war that causes extinction" is far less winnable than "our aff meaningfully improves the East Asian security environment through building trust between the two great military powers in the region, which statistically decreases the propensity for inevitable miscalculations or standoffs to escalate to armed conflict." It may not be as fun, but that framing can allow you to generate persuasive solvency deficits that aren't grounded in empty rhetoric and cliche, or to persuasively defeat typical alt cause arguments, etc. Given that you decrease the initial "risk" (i.e. probability times magnitude) of your impact with this framing, this approach obviously requires winning substantial defense against whatever DA the neg goes for, but when most DA's have outlandishly silly brink arguments themselves, this shouldn't be too taxing.

There are times where investing lots of time in impact calculus is worthwhile (for example, if winning your impact means that none of the aff's impact claims reach extinction, or that any of the actors in the aff's miscalc/brinkmanship scenarios will be deterred from escalating a crisis to nuclear use). Most of the time, however, teams waste precious minutes of their final rebuttal on mediocre impact calculus. The cult of "turns case" has much to do with this. It's worth remembering that accessing an extinction impact is far more important than whether or not your extinction impact happens three months faster than theirs (particularly when both sides' warrant for their timeframe claim is baseless conjecture and ad hoc assertion), and that, in most cases, you need to win the substance of your DA/advantage to win that it turns the case.

Incidentally, phrasing arguments more moderately and conditionally is helpful for every argument genre: "all predictions fail" is not persuasive; "some specific type of prediction relying on their model of IR forecasting has little to no practical utility" can be. The only person who's VTL is killed when I hear someone say "there is no value to life in the world of the plan" is mine.

At least for me, try-or-die is often bizarrely intuitive based on argument selection (i.e. if the neg spots the aff that "extinction is inevitable if the judge votes neg, even if it's questionable whether or not the aff solves it", rationalizing an aff ballot becomes rather alluring and shockingly persuasive). You should combat this innate intuition by ensuring that you either have impact defense of some sort (anything from DA solves the case to a counterplan/alt solves the case argument to status quo checks resolve the terminal impact to actual impact defense can work) or invest time in arguing against try-or-die decision-making.

5) Counterplans

Counterplan theory is a lost art. Affirmatives let negative teams get away with murder. And it's getting worse and worse every year. Investing time in theory is daunting... it requires answering lots of blippy arguments with substance and depth and speaking clearly, and probably more slowly than you're used to. But, if you invest time, effort, and thought in a well-grounded theoretical objection, I'll be a receptive critic.

The best theory interpretations are clear, elegant, and minimally arbitrary. Here are some examples of args that I would not anticipate many contemporary 2N's defeating:

--counterplans should be policies. Perhaps executive orders, perhaps guidence memos, perhaps lower court decisions, perhaps Congressional resolutions. But this would exclude such travesties as "The Executive Branch should always take international law into account when making their decisions. Such is closer to a counterplan that says "The Executive Branch should make good decisions forever" than it is to a useful policy recommendation.

--counterplans should not be able to fiat both the federal government and additional actors outside of the federal government. It's utopian enough to fiat that Courts, the President, and Congress all act in concert in perpetuity on a given subject. It's absurd to fiat additional actors as well.

There are other theoretical objections that I might take more seriously than other judges, although I recognize them as arguments on which reasonable minds may disagree. For example, I am partial to the argument that solvency advocates for counterplans should have a level of specificity that matches the aff. I feel like that standard would reward aff specificity and incentivize debates that reflect the literature base, while punishing affs that are contrived nonsense by making them debate contrived process nonsense. This certainly seems debateable, but it seems like a relatively even debate (and it's at minimum a better argument than many of the contrived and desperate solvency deficits that flailing affs teams extend against counterplans).

Competition debates are a particularly lost art. I'm not a great judge for counterplans that compete off of certainty or immediacy based on "should"/"resolved" definitions. I'm somewhat easily persuaded that these interpretations lower the bar for how difficult it is to win a negative ballot to an undesirable degree. That being said, affs lose these debates all the time by failing to counter-define words or dropping stupid tricks, so make sure you invest the time you need in these debates to win them.

"CPs should be textually and functionally competitive" seems to me like a logical and defensible standard. Some don't realize that if CPs must be both functionally and textually competitive, permutations may be either. I like the "textual/functional" model of competition BECAUSE it incentives creative counterplan and permutation construction, and because it requires careful text-writing.

Offense-defense is intuitive to me, and so teams should always be advised to have offense even if their defense is very strong. If the aff says that the counterplan links to the net benefit but doesn't advance a solvency deficit or disadvantage to the CP, and the neg argues that the counterplan at least links less, I am not very likely to vote affirmative absent strong affirmative framing on this question (often the judge is left to their own devices on this question, or only given instruction in the 2AR, which is admittedly better than never but still often too late). At the end of the day I must reconcile these opposing claims, and if it's closely contested and at least somewhat logical, it's very difficult to win 100% of an argument. Even if I think the aff is generally correct, in a world where if I have literally any iota of doubt surrounding the aff position or am even remotely persuaded by the the negative's position, why would I remotely risk triggering the net benefit for the aff instead of just opting for the guaranteed safe choice of the counterplan?

Offense can come in multiple flavors: you can argue that the affirmative or perm is less likely to link to the net benefit than the counterplan, for example. You can also argue that the risk of a net benefit below a certain threshold is indistinguishable from statistical noise, and that the judge should reject to affirm a difference between the two options because it would encourage undesirable research practices and general decision-making. You can likely advance an analytic solvency deficit somewhat supported by one logical conjecture, and if you are generally winning the argument, have the risk of the impact to that outweigh the unique risk of aff triggering the DA relative to the counterplan. But in the absent of any offensive argument of any sort, the aff is facing an uphill battle. I have voted on "CP links to politics before" but typically that only happens if there is a severe flaw in negative execution (i.e. they drop it) or a significant skill descripancy between teams or a truly ill-conceived counterplan.

I'm a somewhat easy sell on conditionality good (at least 1 CP / 1 K is defensible), but I've probably voted aff slightly more frequently than not in conditionality debates. That's partly because of selection bias (affs go for it when they're winning it), but mainly because neg teams have gotten very sloppy in their defenses of conditionality, particularly in the 2NR. That being said, I've been growing more and more amenable to "conditionality bad" arguments over time.

However, large advantage counterplans with multiple planks, all of which can be kicked, are basically indefensible. Negative teams can fiat as many policies as it takes to solve whatever problems the aff has sought to tackle. It is unreasonable to the point of stupidity to expect the aff to contrive solvency deficits: the plan would literally have to be the only idea in the history of thought capable of solving a given problem. Every additional proposal introduced in the 1nc (in order to increase the chance of solving) can only be discouraged through the potential cost of a disad being read against it. In the old days, this is why counterplan files were hundreds of pages long and had answers to a wide variety of disads. But if you can kick the plank, what incentive does the aff have to even bother researching if the CP is a good idea? If they read a 2AC add-on, the neg gets as many no-risk 2NC counterplans to add to the fray as well (of course, they can also add unrelated 2nc counterplans for fun and profit). If you think you can defend the merit of that strategy vs. a "1 condo cp / 1 condo k" interp then you should pass debate and go directly to Trump's Department of Justice, because they have some legal puzzles for you to solve that desperately require your input.

I don't default to the status quo unless you explicitly flag it at some point during the debate (the cross-x or the 2nc is sufficient if the aff never contests it). I don't know why affs ask this question every cross-x and then never make a theory argument about it. It only hurts you, because it lets the neg get away with something they otherwise wouldn't have.

All that said, I don't have terribly strong convictions about any of these issues, and any theoretical predisposition is easily overcame by outdebating another team on the subject at hand.

6) Politics

Most theoretical objections to (and much sanctimonious indignation toward) the politics disadvantage have never made sense to me. Fiat is a convention about what it should be appropriate to assume for the sake of discussion, but there's no "logical" or "true" interpretation of what fiat descriptively means. It would be ludicrously unrealistic for basically any 1ac plan to pass immediately, with no prior discussion, in the contemporary political world. Any form of argument in which we imagine the consequences of passage is a fictive constraint on process argumentation. As a result, any normative justification for including the political process within the contours of permissible argument is a rational justification for a model of fiat that involves the politics DA (and a DA to a model of fiat that doesn't). Political salience is the reason most good ideas don't become policy, and it seems illogical for the negative to be robbed of this ground. The politics DA, then, represents the most pressing political cost caused by doing the plan in the contemporary political environment, which seems like a very reasonable for affs to have to defend against.

Obviously many politics DAs are contrived nonsense (especially during political periods during which there is no clear, top-level presidential priority). However, the reason that these DAs are bad isn't because they're theoretically illegitimate, and politics theory's blippiness and general underdevelopment further aggravate me (see the tech vs truth section).

Finally, re: intrinsicness, I don't understand why the judge should be the USFG. I typically assume the judge is just me, deciding which policy/proposal is the most desirable. I don't have control over the federal government, and no single entity does or ever will (barring that rights malthus transition). Maybe I'm missing something. If you think I am, feel free to try and be the first to show me the light...

All that being said - most political capital DAs are self-evidently nonsense in the Trump era. We no longer have a president that expends or exerts political capital as described by any of the canonical sources that theorized that term. Affs should be better at laundry listing thumpers and examples that empirically prove Trump's ability to shamelessly lie about whatever the aff does or why he supports the aff and have a conservative media environment that tirelessly promotes that lie as the new truth, but it's not hard to argue this point well. Sometimes, when there's an agenda (even if that agenda is just impeachment), focus links can be persuasive. I actually like the internal agency politics DA's more than others do, because they do seem to better analyze the present political situation. Our political agenda at the national level does seem driven at least as much by personality-driven palace intrigue as anything else; if we're going to assess the political consequences of our proposed policies, that seems as good a proxy for what's likely to happen as anything else.

7) Framework/Non-Traditional Affs

Despite some of the arguments I've read and coached, I'm sympathetic to the framework argument and fairness concerns. I don't think that topicality arguments are presumptively violent, and I think it's generally rather reasonable (and often strategic) to question the aff's relationship to the resolution. Although framework is often the best option, I would generally prefer to see a substantive strategy if one's available. This is simply because I have literally judged hundreds of framework debates and it has gotten mildly repetitive, to say the least (just scroll down if you think that I'm being remotely hyperbolic).

My voting record on framework is relatively even. In nearly every debate, I voted for the team I assessed as demonstrating superior technical debating in the final rebuttals, and that will continue in the future.

I typically think winning unique offense, in the rare scenario where a team invests substantial time in poking defensive holes in the other team's standards, is difficult for both sides in a framework debate. I think affs should think more about their answers to "switch side solves your offense" and "sufficient neg engagement key to meaningfully test the aff", while neg's should generally work harder to prepare persuasive and consistent impact explanations. The argument that "other policy debates solve your offense" can generally push back against skills claims, and the argument that "wiki/disclosure/contestable advocacy in the 1ac provides some degree of predictability/debateability" can often push back against "vote neg on presumption because truth-testing- we literally couldn't negate it" but for some reason in many debates neg's completely blow off these arguments.

I'm typically more persuaded by affirmative teams that answer framework by saying that the skills/methods inculcated by the 1ac produce more effective/ethical interactions with institutions than by teams that argue "all institutions are bad".

Fairness is not necessarily an impact; it certainly may implicate the education that the aff produces, but calling fairness "procedural" doesn't bestow upon it some mystical external impact without additional explanation (i.e. without an actual impact attached to that). Fairness is an abstract value. Like most values, it is difficult to explain beyond a certain point, and it can't be proven or disproven. It's hard to answer the question "why is fairness good?" for the same reason it's hard to answer the question "why is justice good?" It is pretty easy to demonstate why you should presume in favor of fairness in a debate context, given that everyone relies on essential fairness expectations in order to participate in the activity (for example, teams expect that I flow and give their arguments a fair hearing rather than voting against them because I don't like their choice in clothes). But as soon as neg teams start introducing additional standards to their framework argument that raise education concerns, they have said that the choice of framework has both fairness and education implications, and if it could change our educational experience, could the choice of framework change our social or intellectual experience in debate in other ways as well? Maybe not (I certainly think it's easy to win that an individual round's decision certainly couldn't be expected to) but if you said your FW is key to education it's easy to see how those kinds of questions come into play and now can potentially militate against fairness concerns.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to question the desirability of the activity: we should all ideally be self-reflexive and be able to articulate why it is we participate in the activities on which we choose to dedicate our time. After all, I think nearly everybody in the world does utterly indefensible things from time to time, and many people (billions of them, probably) make completely indefensible decisions all the time. The reason why these arguments can be unpersuasive is typically because saying that debate is bad may just link to the team saying "debate bad" because they're, you know, debating, and no credible solvency mechanism for altering the activity has been presented.

I know I just explained a rationale for potentially restricting your framework impacts to fairness concerns. But still it's nice and often more fulfilling from a judge's perspective to hear a defense of debate rather than a droll recitation of "who knows why debate's good but we're both here... so like... it must be." If that means "procedural fairness" is de-emphasized in favor of an explanation for why the particular fairness norms established by your topicality interpretation are crucial to a particular vision of the activity and a defense of that vision's benefits, that would be a positive development.

If you're looking for an external impact, there are two impacts to framework that I have consistently found more persuasive than most attempts to articulate one for fairness/skills/deliberation, but they're not unassailable: "switch-side debate good" (forcing people to defend things they don't believe is the only vehicle for truly shattering dogmatic ideological predispositions and fostering a skeptical worldview capable of ensuring that its participants, over time, develop more ethical and effective ideas than they otherwise would) and "agonism" (making debaters defend stuff that the other side is prepared to attack rewards debaters for pursuing clash; running from engagement by lecturing the neg and judge on a random topic of your choosing is a cowardly flight from battle; instead, the affirmative team with a strong will to power should actively strive to beat the best, most well-prepared negative teams from the biggest schools on their terms, which in turn provides the ultimate triumph; the life-affirming worldview facilitated by this disposition is ultimately necessary for personal fulfillment, and also provides a more effective strategy with which to confront the inevitable hardships of life).

Many aff "impact turns" to topicality are often rendered incoherent when met with gentle pushback. It's difficult to say "predictability bad" if you have a model of debate that makes debate more predictable from the perspective of the affirmative team. Exclusion and judgment are inevitable structural components of any debate activity that I can conceive of: any DA excludes affs that link to it and don't have an advantage that outweighs it. The act of reading that DA can be understood as judging the debaters who proposed that aff as too dull to think of a better idea. Both teams are bound to say the other is wrong and only one can win. Many aff teams may protest that their impact turns are much more sophisticated than this, and are more specific to some element of the topicality/FW structure that wouldn't apply to other types of debate arguments. Whatever explanation you have for why that above sentence true should be emphasized throughout the debate if you want your impact turns or DA's to T to be persuasive. In other words, set up your explanation of impact turns/disads to T in a way that makes clear why they are specific to something about T and wouldn't apply to basic structural requirements of debate from the outset of the debate.

I'm a fairly good judge for the capitalism kritik against K affs. Among my most prized possessions are signed copies of Jodi Dean books that I received as a gift from my debaters. Capitalism is persuasive for two reasons, both of which can be defeated, and both of which can be applied to other kritiks. First, having solutions (even ones that seem impractical or radical) entails position-taking, with clear political objectives and blueprints, and I often find myself more persuaded by a presentation of macro-political problems when coupled with corresponding presentation of macro-political solutions. Communism, or another alternative to capitalism, frequently ends up being the only solution of that type in the room. Second, analytic salience: The materialist and class interest theories often relatively more explanatory power for oppression than any other individual factor because they entail a robust and logically consistent analysis of the incentives behind various actors committing various actions over time. I'm certainly not unwinnable for the aff in these debates, particularly if they strongly press the alt's feasibility and explain what they are able to solve in the context of the neg's turns case arguments, and I obviously will try my hardest to avoid letting any predisposition overwhelm my assessment of the debating.

8) Kritiks (vs policy affs)

I'm okay for 'old-school' kritik's (security/cap/etc), but I'm also okay for the aff. When I vote for kritiks, most of my RFD's look like one of the following:

1) The neg has won that the implementation of the plan is undesirable relative to the status quo;

2) The neg has explicitly argued (and won) that the framework of the debate should be something other than "weigh the plan vs squo/alt" and won within that framework.

If you don't do either of those things while going for a kritik, I am likely to be persuaded by traditional aff presses (case outweighs, try-or-die, perm double-bind, alt fails etc). Despite sympathies for much poststructural thought, it's often hard to divorce my thinking from utilitarian cost-benefit analysis.

Kritik alternatives typically make no sense. They often have no way to meaningfully compete with the plan, usually because of a scale problem. Either they are comparing what one person/a small group should do to what the government should do, or what massive and sweeping international movements should do vs what a government should do. Both comparisons seem like futile exercises for reasons I hope are self-evident.

There are theory arguments that affs could introduce against alternatives that exploit common design flaws in critical arguments. "Vague alts" is not really one of them (ironically because the argument itself is too vague). Some examples: "Alternatives should have texts; otherwise the alternative could shift into an unpredictable series of actions throughout the debate we can't develop reasonable responses against." "Alternatives should have actors; otherwise there is no difference between this and fiating 'everyone should be really nice to each other'." Permutations are easy to justify: the plan would have to be the best idea in the history of thought if all the neg had to do was think of something better.

Most kritik frameworks presented to respond to plan focus are not really even frameworks, but a series of vague assertions that the 2N is hoping that the judge will interpret in a way that's favorable for them (because they certainly don't know exactly what they're arguing for). Many judges continually interpret these confusing framework debates by settling on some middle-ground compromise that neither team actually presented. I prefer to choose between options that debaters actually present.

My ideal critical arguments would negate the aff. For example, against a heg aff, I could be persuaded by security K alts that advocate for a strategy of unilateral miltary withdrawal. Perhaps the permutation severs rhetoric and argumentation in the 1ac that, while not in the plan text, is both central enough to their advocacy and important enough (from a pedagogical perspective) that we should have the opportunity to focus the debate around the geopolitical position taken by the 1ac. The only implication to to a "framework" argument like this would be that, assuming the neg wins a link to something beyond the plan text, the judge should reject, on severence grounds, permutations against alts that actually make radical proposals. In the old days, this was called philosophical competition. How else could we have genuine debates about how to change society or grand strategy? There are good aff defenses of the plan focus model from a fairness and education perspective with which to respond to this, but this very much seems like a debate worth having.

All this might sound pretty harsh for neg's, but affs should be warned that I think I'm more willing than most judges to abandon policymaking paradigms based on technical debating. If the negative successfully presents and defends an alternative model of decisionmaking, I will decide the debate from within it. The ballot is clay; mold it for me and I'll do whatever you win I should.

9) Kritiks (vs K affs)

Anything goes!

Seriously, I don't have strong presuppositions about what "new debate" is supposed to look like. For the most part, I'm happy to see any strategy that's well researched or well thought-out. Try something new! Even if it doesn't work out, it may lead to something that can radically innovate debate.

Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.

Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions).

Yes, I am one of those people who reads critical theory for fun, although I also read about domestic politics, theoretical and applied IR, and economics for fun. Yes, I am a huge nerd, but who's the nerd that that just read the end of a far-too-long judge philosophy in preparation for a debate tournament? Thought so.

10) Addendum: Random Thoughts from Random Topics

In the spirit of Bill Batterman, I thought to myself: How could I make this philosophy even longer and less useable than it already was? So instead of deleting topic-relevent material from previous years that no longer really fit into the above sections, I decided to archive all of that at the bottom of the paradigm if I still agreed with what I said (there were some bad takes that got thrown into the memory hole).

ESR debates on the executive powers topic --- I think the best theory arguments against ESR are probably just solvency advocate arguments. Seems like a tough sell to tell the neg there’s no executive CP at all. I've heard varied definitions of “object fiat” over the years: fiating an actor that's a direct object/recipient of the plan/resolution; fiating an enduring negative action (i.e. The President should not use designated trade authority, The US should not retaliate to terrorist attacks with nukes etc); fiating an actor whose behavior is affected by a 1ac internal link chain. But none of these definitions seem particularly clear nor any of these objections particularly persuasive.

States CP on the education and health insurance topics --- States-and-politics debates are not the most meaningful reflection of the topic literature, especially given that the nature of 50 state fiat distorts the arguments of most state action advocates, and they can be stale (although honestly anything that isn't a K debate will not feel stale to me these days). But I'm sympathetic to the neg on these questions, especially if they have good solvency evidence. There are a slew of policy analysts that have recommended as-uniform-as-possible state action in the wake of federal dysfunction. With a Trump administration and a Republican Congress, is the prospect of uniform state action on an education or healthcare policy really that much more unrealistic than a massive liberal policy? There are literally dozens of uniform policies that have been independently adopted by all or nearly all states. I'm open to counter-arguments, but they should all be as contextualized to the specific evidence and counter-interpretation presented by the negative as they would be in a topicality debate (the same goes for the neg in terms of answering aff theory pushes). It's hard to defend a states CP without meaningful evidentiary support against general aff predictability pushes, but if the evidence is there, it doesn't seem to unreasonable to require affs to debate it. Additionally, there does seem to be a persuasive case for the limiting condition that a "federal-key warrant" places on affirmatives.

Topicality on executive power: This topic is so strangely worded and verbose that it is difficult to win almost any topicality argument against strong affirmative answers, as powerful as the limits case may be. ESR makes being aff hard enough that I’m not sure how necessary the negative needs assistance in limiting down the scope of viable affs, but I suppose we shall see as the year moves forward. I’m certainly open to voting on topicality violations that are supported by quality evidence. “Restrictions in the area of” = all of that area (despite the fact that two of the areas have “all or nearly all” in their wordings, which would seem to imply the other three are NOT “all or nearly all”) does not seem to meet that standard.

Topicality on immigration: This is one of the best topics for neg teams trying to go for topicality in a long time... maybe since alternative energy in 2008-9. “Legal immigration” clearly means LPR – affs will have a tough time winning otherwise against competent negative teams. I can’t get over my feeling that the “Passel and Fix” / “Murphy 91” “humanitarian” violations that exclude refugee, asylums, etc, are somewhat arbitrary, but the evidence is extremely good for the negative (probably slightly better than it is for the affirmative, but it’s close), and the limits case for excluding these affs is extremely persuasive. Affs debating this argument in front of me should make their case that legal immigration includes asylum, refugees, etc by reading similarly high-quality evidence that says as much.

Topicality on arms sales: T - subs is persuasive if your argument is that "substantially" has to mean something, and the most reasonable assessment of what it should mean is the lowest contextual bound that either team can discover and use as a bulwark for guiding their preparation. If the aff can't produce a reasonably well-sourced card that says substantially = X amount of arms sales that their plan can feasibly meet, I think neg teams can win that it's more arbitrary to assume that substantially is in the topic for literally no reason than it is to assume the lowest plausible reading of what substantially could mean (especially given that every definition of substantially as a higher quantity would lead one to agree that substantially is at least as large as that lowest reading). If the aff can, however, produce this card, it will take a 2N's most stalwart defense of any one particular interpretation to push back against the most basic and intuitive accusations of arbitrariness/goalpost-shifting.

T - reduce seems conceptually fraught in almost every iteration. Every Saudi aff conditions its cessation of arms sales on the continued existence of Saudi Arabia. If the Saudi military was so inept that the Houthis suddenly not only won the war against Saleh but actually captured Saudi Arabia and annexed it as part of a new Houthi Empire, the plan would not prevent the US from selling all sorts of exciting PGMs to Saudi Arabia's new Houthi overlords. Other than hard capping the overall quantity of arms sales and saying every aff that doesn't do that isn't topical, (which incidentally is not in any plausible reading a clearly forwarded interpretation of the topic in that poorly-written Pearson chapter), it's not clear to me what the distinction is between affs that condition and affs that don't are for the purposes of T - Reduce

Topicality on space cooperation: Topicality is making a big comeback in college policy debates this year. Kiinda overdue. But also kinda surprising because the T evidence isn't that high quality relative to its outsized presence in 2NRs, but hey, we all make choices.

STM T debates have been underwhelming in my assessment. T - No ADR... well at least is a valid argument consisting of a clear interp and a clear violation. It goes downhill from there. It's by no means unwinnable, but not a great bet in an evenly matched ebate. But you can't even say that for most of the other STM interps I've seen so far. Interps that are like "STM are these 9 things" are not only silly, they frequently have no clear way of clearly excluding their hypothesized limits explosion... or the plan. And I get it - STM affs are the worst (and we're only at the tip of the iceberg for zany STM aff prolif). Because STM proposals are confusing, different advocates use the terms in wildly different ways, the proposals are all in the direction of uniqueness and are difficult to distinguish from similar policy structures presently in place, and the area lacks comprehensive neg ground outside of "screw those satellites, let em crash," STM affs producing annoying debates (which is why so many teams read STM). But find better and clearer T interps if you want to turn those complaints about topical affs into topicality arguments that exclude those affs. And I encourage you to do so quickly, as I will be the first to shamelessly steal them for my teams.

Ironically, the area of the topic that produces what seem to me the best debates (in terms of varied, high-quality, and evenly-matched argumentation) probably has the single highest-quality T angle for the neg to deploy against it. And that T angle just so happens to exclude nearly every arms control aff actually being ran. In my assessment, both the interp that "arms control = quantitative limit" and the interp that "arms control = militaries just like chilling with each other, hanging out, doing some casual TCBMs" are plausible readings of the resolution. The best aff predictability argument is clearly that arms control definitions established before the space age have some obvious difficulties remaining relevant in space. But it seems plausible that that's a reason the resolution should have been written differently, not that it should be read in an alternate way. That being said, the limits case seems weaker than usual for the neg (though not terrible) and in terms of defending an interp likely to result in high-quality debates, the aff has a better set of ground arguments at their disposal than usual.

they/them

i debated for four years in high school and am in my fourth year debating at kansas - rock chalk

please add me to chain - jackson.hoffmann77@gmail.com

please update your wikis. it won't affect my decision, but i will be really annoyed if you don't keep your wiki updated

tldr: do your thing and i'll listen. i will evaluate the arguments made in a debate as impartially as i can. good for policy v policy debates and clash debates. not great but not bad for a k v k debate

i have included my argumentative biases below. if you have questions that this paradigm doesn't answer, feel free to ask

i will not vote on an argument that i cannot coherently explain or that has been argued inconsistently

absent clear judge instruction, impact calculus, evidence comparison, etc. (those three things are very important to me) you should not be surprised by some degree of judge intervention. in those instances where my intervention seems necessary, my decision will most likely be guided by evidence quality on the debate's most relevant issues. to avoid frustrating decisions that involve my intervention, write my ballot for me so i only have to minimally sort through the debate

i generally think affs should read a topical plan and am neg-biased in t debates vs affs that do not defend a topical plan. however, my voting record in those debates is pretty even. fairness is an impact

k: it will be difficult to convince me that debate is not at least a game, although it is not difficult to convince me that debate is also other things / has other important purposes. it will also be difficult to convince me that my ballot will have an impact on anything outside of the round i am judging

theory: i've become pretty impartial about it because i've started to enjoy theory debates much more, but it's nearly always a reason to reject the argument rather than the team

da: they're cool. big fan of politics. pls read good ev, bonus if you read lots of good ev

cp: they're cool. big fan of cleverly worded cp texts and cleverly worded perms. by default, i will judge kick the cp if the aff does not make an argument about it

clipping = auto-loss. the other team does not have to call you out on it. if i recognize it, i will let the round finish but you will automatically lose with lowest speaks i am allowed to give

one last thing - an excerpt from Yao Yao Chen's paradigm that i think is really important:

"I believe judging debates is a privilege, not a paycheck. I strive to judge in the most open-minded, fair, and diligent way I can, and I aim to be as thorough and transparent as possible in my decisions. If you worked hard on debate, you deserve judging that matches the effort you put into this activity. Anything short of that is anti-educational and a disappointment."

Cat Jacob

Northwestern' 23

WY'19

Put me on the chain - catherinelynnjacob01@gmail.com

Used to debate for WY; tech > truth.

9/9/20 ---- Less sick of clash debates, but just do it well.

10/10/2019 ---- I am kind of sick of judging clash debates.

Topicality - I have been in a lot of T debates this year - the only thing I want here is good line by line and impacted out standards in the 2nr/2ar (e.g. and aff ground o/ws neg ground -but why?) *** its not a reverse voter issue/its not genocide (dont annoy me)

T-USFG - I hate judging these now but I still have a conscience, I'm just hostile to them - couple things - make the 2ar responses to the 2nr on FW clear, the 1ar is make or break in FW debates for me so beware technical concessions. I don't really have a preference between prioritizing fairness vs education arguments. For the aff in these debates - dont drop SSD, TVA, or a truth testing claim on your scholarship - with minimal mitigation that's an easy neg ballot to write.

Disadvantages - They're lit - do turns case analysis and have a link story (even if its non specific), have an external impact and you're golden. Stupid DAs are fine (ANWR, tradeoff etc), if they read a stupid DA produce an amusing CX from it to showcase the contrived link chain, it'll up your ethos (and your speaks)

Counterplans - Have a competitive counterplan text with a net benefit. I will vote on a CP flaw/whether or not a CP is feasibly possible, I will not judgekick unless I am told to. Theoretically illegit CPs are fine and the theory debate should be done well if you really want me to reject them. Unorthodox CPs are also cool w me - anarchy for example.

Conditionality - Explain it, go for it if you want - I don't consider myself having a high threshold for judging theory, unless condo is dropped it should be at least 45 seconds of the 1ar (if extended) or else I will be less lenient in a 2ar on theory. In the 1ar, if condo is extended in 10 seconds as an afterthought (e.g. YEAH condo ummm its abusive next) that's annoying and I won't vote on that if the 2nr spends 8 seconds there and is marginally less coherent than you.

Kritiks v Policy Affs - I'm down - just tell me the truth about about whether or not I will need a separate sheet for your O/v honestly - I have assuredly seen any K you're going to run in front of me and have a reasonable threshold for voting on K tricks. That being said - Reps are shaped by context I find that incredibly persuasive and useful when evaluating the K v case. In round links/impacts are fine .

--------things that will annoy me in these debates

- Claiming that I should give you leeway because they read a "K trick" a. no BL for a K trick, b. unless you're going for condo with an impact of in round abuse/some other theory arg stop whining to me.

- unresponsive answers to FW that lead to an interventionist decision

- an incoherent link story/alt solvency

- not being able to explain your K in CX

-not Cross applying FW if they read more than one K and instead spending twenty seconds reading the same FW again

-Claiming the role of the aff in debates is to "stfu" - I don't like voting for this model of debate because it is one sided and in debate as a competitive activity engagement is critical - but I can't make that argument for you.

That being said - go read Khirn's reasoning for why he votes for Kritiks most of the time, and what his RFDs look like. I agree with him.

Ks I have written files on/answering/into the lit for - spanos, psycho, cap, communist horizon, security, fem, mao, death cult, berlant, scranton, queerness, set col, *the thing you'll really need to do in high theory debates is be responsive to 2ac answers and break your prewritten block dependency, show me you know what you're doing and I won't use my background knowledge to help you.

Kritiks v K affs - Usually interesting. the RFD will most like be they did/didnt win the perm (that's usually how it goes).

Death Good - I'll vote on it but I'll have a high threshold.

Ethics Violations - Dont clip, it will annoy me. Ethics Violations as pertaining to evidence quality/evidence flaws are not usually a voter (these types of debates will also annoy the shit out of me)- it is not your role to persuade me that it was particularly abusive - if you introduce one of these into the round a. it is make or break - if i determine you're wrong, you lose and that is a decision I will make myself without consideration from either team by reading the ev, b. these are usually accidents and stupid to waste time doing, c. the appropriate thing is to tell the team to correct it and not weaponize it for a strategy - that's a bad model of debate for several reasons and doing so makes you a living representation of a moral hazard.

Impact Turns - They're funny and usually have questionable evidence quality, I think that good impact turn debates are underused and very threatening to a stupid team that reads both an ineq and hard impact adv.

Misc -

- don't shake my hand, don't try it's weird and i don't like it

- If you drop Antonio I will probably laugh at you.

- I'll vote on a floating PIK

- Dropped Aspec is a dropped ballot (MBA proves)

- There's a brightline between being argumentative and being a prick, everyone loses that line sometimes but it's important to be attentive and paying attention to the responses of your opponents.

- Ill be on the email chain but I usually won't be flowing off of it

- You get two clears - then I stop flowing

- Time your own prep

- do untopical policy things against K teams it is their fault they can't go for T

-counter-fiction/poetry is acceptable

*High speaker points with generally be determined based on how well you take this advice/the frequency at which you make smart logical arguments/the frequency at which your mentality irritates me

Feel free to message me w questions about my RFDs/comments - take notes during the RFD

Carl Jacobsen

[they/he] I debated for four years at Eisenhower High School. I'm attending the University of North Texas as a freshman, majoring in mathematics and minoring in linguistics. I tend to view debate rounds through a game-theory perspective and prioritize tech over truth (though every argument needs a justification and impact to matter). In high school, I ran policy affs and mostly went for policy strategies on the neg; though I feel comfortable with mostly every type of argumentation.

Add me to the e-mail chain: sneep23@gmail.com

Please no overviews! If you have them, make them very short. If I didn't understand your argument the first time, I'm not going to understand it from you speeding through a wall of text. Everything can and should be on line by line.

Graphs

These graphs will be about my preferences, while the rest of the paradigm will be about more specific thoughts on strategy.

Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt

Policy---------------X----------------K

Tech----X---------------------------Truth

(insert) Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun

Nothing competes-------------------------X------Summers 94

Conditionality good-------X------------------------Conditionality bad

Reasonability------------------X-------------Competing interpretations

Topicality

Topicality is a procedural. It primarily comes down to impact calculus, in terms of limits, or some other neg standard, against game-playing-esque impacts of the affirmative. Other aff arguments (including we meet & reasonability) are just defense to the neg's impacts.

A true we meet arg means the aff wins the page; reasonability can be won and is best framed as a question of interpretations rather than a literal "reasonability" of the case. Grammar is an a-priori standard and an intricate explanation of the other team's interpretation not being grammatical or legally precise will earn high speaks.

Additional interps in the block can be very strategic.

Case

A thorough case debate will result in higher speaks, as will a 2ac that's layered and efficient. A 1nc that spends a lot of time on case doesn't do much if all of their arguments are generic and answered well.

Collapsing the case debate in the block and reading the best literature for your arguments will usually put you far ahead of the aff, especially if you had a wide array of args on case in the 1nc. That being said, a 1ar (and often 2ar) collapse on case can also be very strategic.

Strategic concessions are underutilized on case, and can often take out entire disads.

Impact turns are fun, even large ones such as spark. "Oppression good" args are unacceptable. A block pivot to an impact turn will be rewarded.

Disads on case seem to be generally under-covered by the aff but have no less importance than a disad with a seperate sheet.

Disadvantages

"UQ/link controls link/UQ" args don't make sense to me, but links tend to be the most important component. DA turns case args are very powerful (especially so if you have multiple), and they are even better if they are UQ or Link turns case rather than "war causes their impact." Timeframe is underutilized by the negative.

New 1AR arguments are unacceptable, e.g. a non-uq arg when there were none in the 2ac, and a 2n who calls them out as new will be rewarded. But an additional justification for an argument that was in the 2ac, e.g. a "DIB collapse inevitable--reliance on Congress" card is fine if you have any UQ argument in the 2ac; answering new block arguments is always fine.

An impressive 1nr on a DA will earn high speaks. Extending multiple warrants from each card for every component, having case-specific link walls, having specific cards against individual 2ac warrants, and being knowledgeable about the institutions and topic of the DA make it very difficult for the 1a.

Politics DA's (particularly horsetrading) are good, but "fiat solves the link--bottom of docket"-esque arguments can be persuasive.

Counterplans

"Cheating" counterplans are fine, but always susceptible to theory. Permutations can beat them too, but few people tend to make the correct perms against them. Perm shields link arguments aren't usually answered well, so don't be afraid for going for a perm and one or two other args if you're aff.

I default to "sufficiency framing," solvency deficits have to have impacts to matter. Judge kick might be an extension of condo, but it doesn't often win rounds. I can also be persuaded that it's bad (this argument has to be in the 1ar unless the block makes no mention of judge kick, of course).

Kicking planks and even combining counterplan sheets are fine, but there can always be a debate.

Internal net benefits are fine.

Kritiks

Kritiks are very powerful arguments. I am most familiar with Baudrillard, kritiks of capitalism and security, and psychoanalysis. However, any kritik is fine if you have a consistent thesis and explanation.

Links should turn case and have independent impacts. Alt should solve links, and alt solves case arguments can be very good. Even if the alt doesn't solve case, going for it as a "uniqueness counterplan" for an extinction level impact to a link is good enough to win even with little case offense if you win the perm debate and that the alt solves the link completely.

You don't need to go for the alt if you're winning FW and/or a link well enough. Permutations need to solve every link and must be theoretically legitimate and possible, i.e. negs should argue the alt cannot be accomplished because the aff engages in institutions that the alt makes obsolete.

Aff FW interps are usually not ambitious enough and should include more that factors the intangible internal link chains of the K out of the decision-making process, since the neg team is doing such against the aff. Basically one should say more than "let us weigh the aff", as an interp, but including that phrase isn't a bad idea. You can still lose if you win your FW interp, but it's far more unlikely. Incorporating the substance of the K into your FW interp can make it more powerful.

Link uniqueness is a good thing for the aff to push on, but the neg can solve it with claims about discourse or their alt solving the link. The aff should always contest the thesis of the K and the solvency of the alt, at least in the 2ac.

Dropping K tricks will lose the round against a clever 2n.

Kritikal Affirmatives

I don't have any qualms with these affs, but I also don't have any issues with T-USFG. Use the case to leverage offense against T; impact turns are the best arguments against it. Winning debate is a game, a TVA, or switch-side makes a negative ballot much easier.

Cap K against K affs is always viable. Good links in the block and theory comparison is crucial.

Case debate on K affs is not used enough by either team.

Theory

Can always be a reason to reject the team. However, "reject the arg not the team" will almost always suffice for anything that isn't condo. However, if you're losing a debate badly and the other team drops a theory interpretation, this could be your best path to victory, provided you have reasons they should lose the round.

If you don't want to go for theory, going for a 'remedy' can be useful and possible: e.g. "stick them with the counterplan", "don't evaluate planks that violate the interp", etc.

Condo offense typically doesn't increase with the number of condo they run. Qualitative reasons condo is bad are more persuasive, and even one condo can be abusive in the right circumstances. If you're going for condo, the 1ar should be spending significant time answering every neg standard, and the 2ar should be entirely condo.

You can go quickly in theory, but signposting is especially important.

Finishing Thoughts

Speed is not a problem, but you must be comprehensible. Clarity is more important, and efficiency can more than make up for pure speed. Have fun, and making me smile is never a bad idea. 28.5 will be my average points awarded. Being rude makes it worse for everyone. Let me know if I can accommodate you in any way.

top level

hi. my name is ashwin. not judge. ashwin

i debate(d) at montgomery bell academy for 4(ish) years

add me to the chain pls - ashwin.jain21@montgomerybell.edu

i would like a card doc pls

tech > truth - i think winning a debate does not rely upon the truth of the arguments you read, but rather how you argue them, albeit a truthful argument is easier to argue

death is bad

debate is good

read a plan that defends a hypothetical implementation of the affirmative - i've thought about this every way i possibly can, and im still unable to come up with a compelling reason for why a model of debate where the affirmative is not topical is net better for either education or fairness than an affirmative that is topical - that being said, ig i classify myself in the "education" category of T - i didn't win a lot, but i did learn a lot

and feel free to post round me - this is debate, right? - if you dont agree with my decision, then tell me - unfortunately, im not tech savvy enough to edit the ballot(maybe if you are adamant enough, you could show me how?) - nevertheless, i was probably right the first time, but again, that's debatable

persuasiveness - i think speaking fast has severely diminished the art of ethos and being persuasive - i like a slower, more persuasive 2nr/2ar and your speaks will get a boost as well

the actual stuff

aside from the three arguments listed above, i do not have many predispositions about arguments. debate is not static, and therefore it would be ill-suited for me to tell you what to go for. if you think this cp is strategic against this affirmative, i encourage you to read it. my paradigm is not my ballot, rather your 2nr/2ar is. tell me why you think the cp is strategic and tell me why you think it wins you the debate. i will do my best to keep my opinions and experiences out of the round, and leave the debating up to the debaters.

i'm not the best k judge - reading philosophical literature at 300 words a minute isnt my cuppa tea - i need hours to understand these arguments, not minutes - i'm very comfortable voting against the k just because i dont understand it, just as i would do if i dont understand the nuance of a certain cp - i dont make decisions based on a misunderstanding of the facts

good things :)

framing the debate in the 2nr/2ar

thorough link analysis

impact calculus

well thought out impact turns

a damming cross ex

making fun of other mba debaters(+0.1 points)

depth over breadth

bad things :(((

unorganized speeches

meaningless arguments

kritiks that somewhat link at the mega metalevel

disads that somewhat link at the mega metalevel

lack of argument explanation

not knowing your evidence

asking me for my email before the round(-0.1 points)

pet peeves

taking an eternity and a half to send docs

being an ass, especially in cx - i hate it when people force a laugh during cx as a method of persuasion - it's extremely antagonising and i will likely dock points if it becomes excessive

speed demons - i get it, you can read cards fast - thats fine - but this is a speaking activity and i should be able to flow your speech, not your document - idc how fast you read cards, but slow tf down on analytics, especially if your doc is just cards - the average human can write 60 wpm - you are speaking >250 wpm - do you see the problem here?

not taking notes when i give comments

last words

good luck and have fun! debate is hard, so try your best and your speaker points will reflect your effort!

Do your thing. I am not here to limit you. I love debate and did it all four years in high school and a little in college. I ran a K aff on the national circuit in high school as a little background. But that doesn’t really matter. It is up to y’all on what you want the debate to be about. So please debate however you feel you will do best. I want to see debaters debating about what they know not what they think I would like.

On a side note go follow the Sacramento Urban Debate League on Twitter, Instagram and Facebook. It’s the UDL I am from. Also I want to be in the email chain. My email is smsj8756@gmail.com thanks!

1. Conflicts [as of 10/04/2020]

• No Univ of Chicago Lab
• No Iowa City

2. Short Version

• tech over truth
• strong analytics/analysis can beat carded evidence
• prioritize your impacts
• have fun!

3. Pandemic Social Distancing Related Technology Notes

• Please slow down 5-10%. Emphasize your warrants. Without a microphone stem, your quality fluctuates. Keep in mind that I still flow on paper.
• Please get explicit visual or audio confirmation from everyone in the debate before beginning your speech. I may use a thumbs up to indicate I am ready.
• If my camera is off, unless I explicitly have told you otherwise, assume I'm not at the computer.
• If the current speaker has significant tech problems, I'll try to interrupt your speech and mark the last argument and timestamp.

4. Some Detail

I've been meaning to do this for a while, but have not really had the time. My hope is that I end up judging better debates as a result of this updated philosophy. I am now changing to a more linear philosophy, it is my hope that you read this in its entirety before choosing where to place me on the pref sheet. I debated for four years at Homewood-Flossmoor High School in the south Chicago suburbs from 2007-2011. During that time I debated, Sub-Saharan Africa, Alternative Energy, Social services and substantial reductions in Military presence.

Nearing a decade ago, during would would have been the h.s. space topic. I started at the University of Northern Iowa, Where I debated NDT/CEDA Middle East/North Africa while judging a few debate rounds across the midwest. After my freshman year I transferred to the University of Iowa, where I started coaching at Iowa City High School. This year, I will continue to coach the City High Debate team.

Framing, Issue choice and impact calculus are in my opinion the most important aspects of argumentation, and you should make sure they are components in your speeches. Late rebuttals that lack this analysis are severely.

I preference tech over truth. Your in round performance is far more important to me, as it is what I hear. I greatly attempt to preference the speaking portion of the debate. Increasingly, I've found that my reading evidence is not necessarily an aspect of close debates, but rather results from poor argument explanation and clarification. The majority of 'close rounds' that I've judged fall into the category of closeness by lack of explanation. In some limited instances, I may call for evidence in order to satisfy my intellectual fascination with the activity. Anything other than that--which I will usually express during the RFD--probably falls upon inadequate explanation and should be treated as such.

I feel my role as a judge is split evenly between policymaker and 'referee' in that when called to resolve an issue of fairness. I will prioritize that first. Addressing inequities in side balance, ability to prepare and generate offense is something may at times find slightly more important than substance. In short, I consider myself a good judge for theory, THAT BEING SAID, rarely do I find theory debates resolved in a manner that satisfies my liking - I feel theoretical arguments should be challenged tantamount to their substance based counterparts. Simply reading the block isn't enough. Though I was a 2A[≈ High power LED current, peak 2.7 A] in high school I have since found myself sliding towards the negative on theoretical questions. I can be convinced, however, to limit the scope of negative offense quite easily, so long as the arguments are well explained and adjudicated.

I consider reasonability better than competing interpretations, with the caveat that I will vote on the best interpretation presented. But topicality questions shouldn't be a major concern if the team has answered.

I have a long and complicated relationship with the K. I have a level of familiarity with the mainstream literature, so go ahead and read Capitalism or Neolib. Less familiar arguments will require more depth/better explanation.

Add me to the email chain: aidankanedebate@gmail.com

Pronouns They/Them

Northside CP Class of 2018

University of Michigan Class of 2022

Currently Assistant Coach at Niles North

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

zoom debates: you should not be going maximum speed ever. microphones are weird and so is the internet. not 100% fast, u should be going like 80-85% fast.

TLDR

Third year university student studying philosophy and environmental sustainability.

If you care, I received multiple TOC bids throughout my career, and qualified my senior year. I've debated on the Umich debate team for two years to relative success. This is my third year judging varsity-level rounds of high school.

No major dispositions to any style of debate, though I typically find myself in the back of mostly clash of civs and K v K debates. That being said, I have judged over 40 rounds on the topic, and am confident in my ability to judge policy rounds as well. Contrary to belief, I did do some policy stuff in my high school days (I have read a soft left corporal punishment aff and a school searches aff senior year, big stick biotech aff junior year).

I'm comfortable with nearly all kritiks, so go wild. My personal strength in debate has been primarily queer and gender theory (I've run Preciado, Halberstam, Spade, Stanley, Irigaray, Puar, and Marquis Bey) and then also high theory (I've run Foucault, Deleuze, Guattari, Kroker, Negarestani, science fiction, a shit ton of misc. critiques about American imperialism, generic Ks like Cap and Security, and sadly Baudrillard).

My voting record has been relatively 50-50 in clash debates.

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

Clash of Civs

Aff (Policy) vs Neg (Kritikal)

Comfortable with mostly every K, identity or pomo are both fine in front of me.

I am a K debater myself, and typically go 1 off K at every tournament I compete at in college. This being said, this probably means I have a slightly higher expectation for K teams' explanation of their stuff.

If you are aff

[Big Stick Affs] I've seen a lot of debates of these types of affs just flubbing the round against the K. It makes me sad. In these rounds I judge, the 1AC rattles off a shit ton of democracy/hegemony/war impacts and then after the K is read they, rather than defending utilitarian ethics, realism, etc, choose to move the debate farther left, and as such they move the ball in the neg's court, by going for a perm or boring "reform possible" evidence that doesnt help the aff whatsoever. When this is done, I tend to find myself voting neg. If you're reading a big stick aff against a K, defend utilitarianism, realism, IR, extinction, security reps, and make a large case outweighs push and youre in a very good position in front of me.

[Soft Left Affs] These types of affs can be very good against K teams but I do think soft left affs need better defense than "just because we use the state doesnt mean we are the state". You are defending the state tho. Own it. I think the real strategy against Ks is severe mitigation of the alt, a robust permutation coupled with extremely well-developed, ideally carded, link turns.

Generally other thoughts for the aff: The bulk of the 2AC should not be bad outdated pragmatism good cards. I also think if you intend to be going for framework in the 2AR, your interpretation needs to be more than one sentence in the 2AC.

If you are neg

Like I said, I am comfortable with whatever you read. However, this is not an excuse for you not to define buzzwords, explain jargon, etc. Debate is still an educational activity, and if your intention is to just confuse your opponents with philosophy then I won't be happy.

Ks need an external impact that outweighs the aff, or must win a massive turns case scenario. The only case this is not true is if the neg massively wins framework (ie, dont weigh the aff), but that hasnt occurred in front of me very often. I obviously think the best way to win offense against the aff is to pull lines from 1AC evidence. However, I have been saddened not to see this very much in high school debate, so if I see it not only am I likely to give greater weight to the argument, but will also probably boost your speaks.

I would say the biggest weak-point I've observed in rounds where I vote against these teams are when there is extremely little impact calculus. I'm sort of just left weighing ressentiment or gratuitous violence against the aff impacts. If theres substantial time dedicated to impact framing in the 2NR the neg will be way ahead.

I default to expecting K teams to do line by line, etc. That being said, I'm all good for non-traditional strategies however there needs to be a defense of why I should be viewing/evaluating the debate differently than I otherwise would.

I've gone back and forth on how necessary the framework debate is. I used to think it was largely useless, until Kevin Hirn sort of convinced me the other way. Unless youre going for a tangible, potentially fiated alternative, I'd error on the side of trying to win framework.

Long overviews are fine in front of me, but are also probably unnecessary.

Aff (Kritikal) vs Neg (Policy)

Like I mentioned above, my voting record in these debates hovers around 50-50. I am very familiar with these rounds. I've only gone for framework on the neg a few times, but I defended my aff against it at nearly every tournament I went to in my most recent 4 seasons.

I'm fine with either a counter-interp/competing models of debate strategy or an impact turn strategy from the aff. I am also really fine with any style or impacts on framework, though I do have some personal thoughts (that I note in a bit).

Aff teams please...

I strongly prefer if the aff has some type of method/defends something. Anything. But make it clear. I really dislike it when affs so blatantly change what the aff is throughout the course of the debate. Pick something to defend as early as the 1AC and go with it. Affs that have zero advocacy and are just A2: Framework cards will probably make me more incentivized to vote on framework.

Have a clear and organized framework block that are not just clumps of analytics. Maybe some cards too would be nice. Numbered blocks will get a boost in points. If the block is not organized, don't blame me for not picking up random disad number 7 on the flow.

Counterdefining words is probably useful, but not always necessary in my view, especially if the A-strat is an impact turn strategy to the framework standards. If you want me to be far more convinced by a counterinterp strat though, then defining words will help a lot.

Just to reiterate -- Go for *either* a counterinterp strategy or an impact turn framework strategy. Both can and should be in the 2AC block, but you should be focusing on ONE of these options in the 2AR-- not going for both at once.

I don't vote on condo for K affs.

Do I vote neg on framework?...

Yes. Like I said, the voting record is pretty even.

I will vote on any type of standard if you win it on a technical level. Fairness could maybe be an impact, but I need a warrant for why it matters unpacked in the block and why it should a prerequisite to the aff. Theres a lot of debaters I've judged who just say the word fairness and presume its this instantly miraculous impact that automatically comes before all else without any additional explanation. As such, I've observed teams who go for this strategy answer the line-by-line with "but debate is a game so fairness" with no further explanation of what that means or why it implicates the aff's offense. If a framework team can explain to me why debate being a game means procedural fairness comes first, and strongly impacts fairness out, I will certainly vote on it as an impact in itself. However, I think it is still convincing worth the neg's time to attach an impact such as skills, education, agonism, etc as an impact to why fairness matters.

You should probably make either a good TVA (with a card ideally) or spend substantial time on a SSD claim. From experience, block strategies typically do a good job of reading and explaining a TVA, but don't spend nearly as much time on SSD arguments, which I think is a shame. "btw the aff could have been read on the neg" is not enough of an explanation in the block for me to consider it a full argument in the 2NR. The block should explain switch side in a way that says the aff could have been read on that neg, and explain why that still solves the aff's offense or solves some external impact of yours.

2NRs should be going to the case page and spending good time on it. Otherwise I am far more likely to weigh aff offense if the 2AR blows up on the aff.

I think it is strategic to read multiple off against K teams in the 1NC. Either they no link out of it and it makes framework a lot more convincing OR they completely blow it off and you can go for something they have no ink on!

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

Kritikal vs Kritikal

These debates are awesome and are super useful to have in the community. *Anything goes here!* These were some of my favorite debates to have in high school and they are certainly my favorite to watch.

I think debate is a constantly transforming activity that should be experimented on in new and innovative ways. I'm totally down to throw out all norms and having the debate round how you all want to have the debate round, just tell me what the best way to adjudicate it is.

Regardless of whether this is still a tech above all else debate or something different, I need both sides to frame the round. What do I evaluate first? How do I weigh impacts? What should my decision center around? The debates are messy and muddled if done wrong - if one team remedies this for me and another team does not, the former team probably wins 99% of the time.

Do whatever style you want. Any well researched strategy that is well thought out as well as personal narratives and forms of self-expression, including poetry, music, etc have worked well in front of me.

I'm personally apathetic to the question of whether the aff gets a perm in these debates. This will just come down to the flow.

Alts are very big in these debates, the more explanation the better.

Not afraid to pull the trigger on floating PIKs in these rounds.

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

Policy vs Policy

I feel pretty confident in the back of these debates. For me, a lot of these debates come down to nuanced explanation in which I can draw a line through my flow for not only arguments, but warrants. This seems like a very obvious rule in debate, but more often than not, I have either found myself evaluating debates where there are a ton of arguments "dropped" but those arguments aren't warranted by the team who made them OR having a slight neg bias because of how blatantly new a lot of 2AR explanation is.

In general, I hold policy debates to the same level of nuanced explanation as I would a K debate. Take that as you will. I think the best policy 1NCs are the ones that have one or two well developed strategies in them rather than throw 10 off at the wall and see what sticks. More explanation is better than a shitty dump of awful cards. A good analytic always beats a garbage piece of evidence.

In my experience, it is more often both sides in these types of debates try to go for a ton of arguments at once in the final rebuttals, even top level TOC teams, and as such, there are many claims without warrants on my flow. Narrow the debate down to one or two DA links, blow up on one big solvency deficit, etc.

Additionally, If you don't read a rehighlighted card in your speech, I won't consider it.

T

Heavy evidence comparison on the definitions is good in front of me.

I default to competing interps, unless I am told otherwise.

Slow down in the last two rebuttals.

I don't know random names of policy affs on this topic, so explain to me what debate looks like under your model instead of just labeling a bunch of affs I'm not familiar with

CPs

I only judge kick IF the neg team says I can/should. I won't do that work for you unless you say I should.

I'll just be real, I'm probably terrible for over-the-top long process multiplank CPs, I need to know how your CP works and how it competes before I vote on it, even if the other team doesnt press on those questions.

Aff teams shouldn't be afraid to go for counterplan theory, I'm very willing to vote on it, especially in the instance of process CPs.

DAs

Dumb DAs with long contrived internal link chains can definitely be beaten in cross-exs calling out their ridiculousness if done right.

Maybe I'm in the minority, but if your uniqueness evidence is "heres a chart", I will really really not be happy. You should read cards.

Please. Do. Impact Calc.

Impact Turns

These are hella fun. Go crazy. Spark, Warming Good, or Wipeout for all I care. Anything cool will get the neg a huge boost in points if they go for it in the 2NR.

Theory Things

I think I'm more likely to pull the trigger on theory than most judges. Whether it be condo, counterplan theory, or any spec arguments, I'm all for it. Put it in the doc.

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

Speaks

These are mostly in the context of around an octas level bid tournament. Speaks will be adjusted for smaller bid tournaments.

30-29.9 - probably within the top 5 speakers at the tournament

29.6-29.8 - probably within the top 20 speakers at the tournament

29.1-29.5 - will probably clear

28.6-29 - might barely miss clearing, but you still did something I liked

anything below 28.5 varies

Any racism/sexism/anti-queerness will make me give you the lowest points I can.

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

Want a 30?

So many debates I've judged are wayyy too serious and tense. Its been over two years and I've asked for a joke about the people listed below and haven't even gotten an attempt. If you can make one that makes me audibly laugh I'll genuinely GIVE the 30. No risk. Let's hear it.

Debate Inspirations

Wayne Tang, James Mollison, Aaron Davis, Pauline Esman, Adam Hausman, Robb Berry, Kylie Vera, and Luther Snagel have all mentored me and shaped how I think about debate.

Other people you can joke about include: Magi Ortiz, Talia Blatt, Kathy Martinez, KJ Reese, Hannah Wolfson, Allison Pujol, Joshua Harrington, Ben McGraw, Maria Sanchez, and Lukas Taylor.

But thats not fair! I don't know any of these people!

Fineeeee. Maybe not a 30 but definitely a point boost for any Drag Race, Parks and Rec, Office, or Pokemon (dont judge me) references.

Okay people, whats going on here.

I have now heard the "this debate should not take a Wayne Tang amount of decision time" joke TWELVE times this year. It is slowly becoming very tiring to hear. TWELVE TIMES!!! Get more original, you people. (There's so many more different Wayne jokes that can be made LOL)

:(

Yes email chain-- College: willkatz54@gmail.com and debatedocs@googlegroups.com

High School: willkatz54@gmail.com

4 years debating and 6 years coaching at Washburn Rural High School (1 of those also with Carrollton), 4 years debating and 2 year coaching at KU

March 2021 update

SLOW DOWN. Even the clearest debaters have moments of unclarity in online debate, slow down a little bit so that it's easier to recover from small lags in tech.

I have a 2-monitor setup, so if I look like I'm staring above my computer, I promise I'm paying attention

I would really prefer that you kept your camera on. I will not require it, but I would strongly request it.

I would strongly suggest recording your own speeches in case somebody's internet cuts out. Do not record other people's speeches without their consent.

I have been very involved with the college topic (judged roughly 40 rounds). I have been moderately involved in the high school topic (judged roughly 30 rounds).

Argument non-specific things

I vote neg a lot. I think a lot of that is circumstantial. However, I reward going deep on an argument and resolving/impacting every argument (rather than just extending/making arguments). The neg almost always does this, the aff (especially in the 1ar) not so much. Aff teams that win in front of me almost always forgo a strategy of extending a large quantity of arguments in favor of going very deep on a handful of arguments, almost always with additional evidence and comparisons.

Debate off your flow, don't just read scripts

I read a lot of evidence. I value evidence quality a lot, and that includes highlighting quality.

Argumentative narrative is very important to me. Packaging arguments effectively goes a long way with me.

I will not evaluate arguments about an individual's character or behavior that occurred outside of the debate.

I am not the best judge for run and gun strategies. I have a relatively high threshold for what counts as a complete argument, and am very receptive to teams that flippantly disregard incomplete arguments.

Policy arguments

Turns case has been relevant in a lot of rfd's I've given

Not the best judge for process cp's

Theory is a winnable 2ar. I think I am just as persuadable that the neg should get 0 conditional advocacies as I am that they should get infinite. To me, it is entirely up to the debaters, which these days makes me a good judge for a team going for theory.

"Conditional" means judge kick but I can definitely be convinced to stick the neg with the cp they went for without wholesale rejecting conditionality

I'm a tough sell on any theory argument outweighs T. It's not *impossible* to win it, but you should have a pretty robust and consistent argument.

I think a I could easily be persuaded to vote for a well-evidenced, thoughtful, complete vagueness argument (particularly on the CJR topic). I will easily dismiss warrantless, blippy vagueness arguments like "aspec- they didn't- voter for counterplan and disad ground." The fact that I am saying this shows my frustration with aff's on the high school CJR topic refusing to defend a mechanism, given my more general disregard for non-topicality procedurals.

Framework vs K affs

I am very good for the neg in these debates. I vote neg a lot because usually it is more clear to me how the negative team's model of debate produces a better season of debates. Aff's would be well served investing a lot of time into describing their model of debate as opposed to their own affirmative. I am unlikely to determine that debate is wholesale bad and/or that there is no value to debating. If you rely on those arguments to win framework debates, I am not your ideal judge.

Neg Kritik vs Policy aff

Framework is important. I very rarely vote neg if the neg doesn't win framework. It isn't impossible to win without winning framework/consequentialism, but as the neg it makes your job much harder

Negs that do impact calculus, change the framework of the debate, and actually challenge core assumptions of the aff are usually in a good spot

Please do impact comparison, don't just list your impacts in the overview.

Emory ‘24

Washburn Rural ‘20

Email chain: gkessler222@gmail.com

Tech > truth, but arguments need warrants

Being rude/condescending will earn you very low speaks

Disad, counterplan, and T debates “have my heart”

T USFG: I'm very good for T against K Affs. Fairness is the best impact. I also like clash style impacts.

Ks: I'm also very good for Affs with plans and extinction impacts against Ks. I generally believe Affs should get to weigh the plan.

T: I don’t have extensive topic knowledge so will need more explanation. I enjoy these debates more so when they include substantive engagement, and less so when they include a contrived, unpredictable interp.

CPs: Not a huge fan of generic process CPs but understand on this topic you’ll need them.

Theory: Conditionality is generally good, but I can be persuaded otherwise.

I do want to be on the email chain: rkezios@gmail.com

tl;dr version: Currently a GA at Baylor. I debated mostly policy argument for 4 years in high school at Notre Dame under Christina Phillips, and 5 years in college at UNLV under Jacob Thompson reading only critical arguments. My view of debate is heavily influenced by Tyler Snelling and Darrian Carroll. I have dabbled in most areas of critical literature, but tended to lean towards the postmodern. I also enjoy good framework debates, but if you have me in a policy v policy round you have done your prefs incorrectly. I was a 2N my entire career.

Long version:

I'm here to see good debates. I can't imagine ever giving a 30 to someone who followed my paradigm to the letter, and as such didn't change my view in some way. With that being said, these are the positions I find myself generally inserting myself most as a judge:

Framework in general - I think both sides are always cheating. I think debate is and has always been a game of who cheats best. If you are on either side of a K aff v framework debate do not assume I am your friend. To be clear I do draw the line of rhetorical cheating at the point at which you actively impede your opponent ability to debate that rise to the level of ethics challenges, such as but not limited to clipping.

Framework impacts. I think both fairness and education are things that can be articulated as impacts, but neither are in and of themselves. I tend to assume fairness is an internal link to education because I am more likely to buy education as an inherent impact. On the same note I think if the affirmative impact turns these questions it makes most of the flow irrelevant for me, and would expect a strategy to put substantial depth here.

Permutation debates. I don't know what a permutation is anymore when a K aff is involved, and I haven't for a long time. At this point I consider its existence in the 2ac a placeholder for a real argument that will come forth in the 1ar. Because of this I grant an amazing amount of leeway to the 2nr in answering it. I hate that this creates late breaking debates, so developing standards for competition and explicit definitions of the permutation early in the debate is more likely to earn you higher speaker points and make me more likely to hold the line on the later speeches.

I try to make sure I can draw lines between 2ar and 1ar arguments before submitting each decision.

I've probably both left out and unintentionally lied about things so definitely look at my actual judging record.

Ansh Khullar

St. Mark’s '16

Trinity University '20

UT Law '24

Put me on the email chain: ansh.debate@gmail.com AND be sure to put smdebatedocs@gmail.com on.

I've been a 2A and 2N. Me and my partner, Ian, got a First Round our senior year. I've cut soft left affs, heg affs, and process counterplans. Sometimes I read a planless aff. When I was a 2N, my most common 2NRs were politics/elections + states CP, the economy DA, the cap K, and Afropessimism. I don't care about what your strategy is so long as it engages the resolutional question/case and demonstrates a lot of research.

I love debate and I'm really happy to be judging.

TLDR

I'm tech inclined, but, when tech is close, truth (evidence quality) matters.

***Things I will never, ever vote for

- X team did __ that didn't happen in round (X team is bad, their coach is bad, their prefs are bad, etc). You can group this with anything that's non-falsifiable. If something heinous happens during the round, that's different.

- Circular reasoning or incomplete arguments. Saying something is a "voting issue" without warrants is an incomplete argument.

- Debate is bad - I'm referring to the post-modern flavor of "this is a waste of time" or "communication is impossible," not an argument about how the debate community is structurally exclusionary or flawed in some other way.

***Things I don't like voting for but will when you debate well

- Judge kick. My presumption is not to judge kick. The neg has to win the argument for me to do so.

- Planless affs vs topicality

- Cheating counterplans

My other argument thoughts are just to alert you to argument-specific things I'm partial to; they can all be overcome by better debating.

E-debate specific

Please keep your camera on. If mine's not on, then assume I'm not there.

You need to slow down ***significantly*** - I can't stress this enough.

Rules and process stuff

I only flow the debater giving the assigned speech; I don't care what speech it is. Do whatever you want in cross-ex.

New explanation merits new answers at any point. If you read a disgustingly underhighlighted 1NC shell only to then blow it up in the block, the 1AR obviously gets new answers.

I don't want a judge doc at the end of the debate. You should be clear about what your best cards are/reference them often; in close debates with evidence comparison, I almost always read cards.

Re-highlighting cards is a good practice. You get to re-insert their cards if you tell me why the card is bad - this is a good way to deter people from cutting bad cards. If you took something from a part of the article they didn't cut, then you have to read it.

DAs and risk

You can beat silly arguments without cards.

Yes zero risk.

Consequentialism bad is silly.

I'd rather you tell me more about why the DA is bad and do less (but not zero) framing.

Counterplans and theory

New affs don't justify all the bad theory things.

CP competition is swung by the strength of your solvency advocate (or the aff not having a good one).

Your plans should say things.

Process, consult, delay, anything that creates a functionally new FG - I don't like it. That includes "concon." The aff needs to invest time on theory to win it.

I don't think infinite, contradicting condo is good.

T (policy rounds)

I like T debates. Competing interpretations is my default, but I can be convinced that is a bad standard.

Caselists, evidence comparison, and t-versions are important. A more limited topic isn't automatically the best thing ever, especially if the neg's interp is contrived and not grounded in predictable literature.

The 1AR needs to do impact calc if the neg block is good - otherwise it's new in the 2AR and I protect the neg.

Staleness doesn't make sense as an aff impact on this big topic.

Framework Debates

I lean negative because most aff v framework arguments force me to suspend logic regarding the nature of debate as a voluntary, competitive activity. Disads to the topic aren't disads to debating about the topic. You have to resolve the following questions (provided the negative asks them when running an impact about fairness/clash/debatability):

First, I don't really know why my ballot does more than determine a winner and loser. If there is some sort of external activism tradeoff that comes from what we say in rounds, then you need to be really explicit about why. Second, I don't think what we say in debate rounds is subject formation. Plans are provisional opinions and we use them test ideas while we come to contingent truths, not absolute ones. Even if the government's irredeemable, I'm not sure why reading a plan disavows its problematic history. Third, I think the burden of proof is really high on the aff to tell me what their alternative form of debate looks like, how the neg wins, and why contesting the 1ac is valuable. So in sum, I think research is good, representational politics for the sake of purely representation is terrible and tokenizing, and there being the conditions for fair clash is a prerequisite to any substantive question.

K v Policy

Love it... if you heavily clash with core 1AC premises/advantages. Links to the plan, and how the advantages implicate the plan's implementation, are even better. I'm well-versed with everything structural (cap, afropess, setcol, etc) and representational (security)... my understanding of high theory arguments is close to zero, so do more explanation there.

Framework is usually a wash but can determine how I view the alt's importance (or lack thereof).

Ontology claims merit a very high level of scrutiny. The burden of proof is on the team making an ontology argument to disprove counter-examples, which, by definition, disprove ontology claims.

K v K

You'd be better off going for T... but, rest assured, I'm unlikely to vote for a perm if you have links to 1AC language, authors, theories of power, or any core premise you can point out. I think "when there's no plan, the entire 1AC is the plan" is the most fair standard. That being said, if the link doesn't rely on any of those things, and the 1AC is clearly written to dodge clash and link to nothing but T, then you're going to lose to the perm.

New Note - I'm totally uninterested in adjudicating arguments that endorse self harm, suicide, or purposeful death. I won't auto-vote against you but if someone you're debating asks me to stop the debate I will. If I end up voting for you, you will not like your points.

Things like wipeout/spark/other impact turns are a little different than this category for me and you can still read those types of hypothetical impact turns as they don't feel the same as [self harm good].

I am a coach at the University of Texas-Austin and Westwood High School. Conflicts: Texas, Westwood, Polytechnic, St Vincent de Paul, Bakersfield High School

Email Chain: yes, cardstealing@gmail.com

I judge around 100 debates a year or so, [I've been told I'm 126 so far this year as of Heart of Texas] I'll do my best to adapt to you and your style, whatever that might be.

Debate is an activity about persuasion and communication. If I can't understand what you are saying because you are unclear, haven't coherently explained it, or developed it into a full argument-claim, warrant, impact, it likely won't factor in my decision.

While there are some exceptions, most debaters I've judged the last few years are pretty unclear, so its likely I will miss some arguments. Zoom has magnified this issue for me (not necessarily the debaters fault). Final rebuttals offer you a space to retrace the part(s) of the debate you think are most relevant to the decision. This both makes it much more likely I will understand your argument and will likely improve your speaker points.

The winner will nearly always be the team able to identify the central question of the debate first and most clearly trace how the development of their argument means they're ahead on that central question.

Virtually nothing you can possibly say or do will offend me [with the new above caveat] if you can't beat a terrible argument you probably deserve to lose.

Everyone seems to have intense clashphobia these days - this isn't about policy or k debate, its across the board and going for the least covered option seems to be everyone's mantra. I get why you think that's strategic, but typically it results in shallow rebuttals, frustrating decisions, 1-1-1 panels and lower points. Specific AFF/NEG research that demonstrate the third and fourth level testing everyone seems to think is important wil be rewarded with higher points. All in on "not our ___" will not.

I flow CX, unless its some random clarification question you forgot I will stop flowing CX after 3 minutes. The "I'm going to ask a million questions while my partner preps their 2NC" has gotten ridiculous.

Framework-

newer - I don't judge many non-framework debates anymore. I tend to vote neg when the neg wins clash is the biggest/most portable impact + explanation for how it improves over the year as a result of their interp and access aff offense via TVA or SSD. I tend to vote AFF when they win an impact turn to the end result of clash alongside robust answers to the NEG ballot can't access that offense args. I think 2NCs that lack an explanation of how 2nd and 3rd level testing occurs under their interp and changes over the year, with examples, lacks credibility when going for only clash matters (you can maybe win the debate on a different terminal impact, but lately I haven't really voted on other ones). Fairness is both an internal link and an impact. Debate is a game but its also so much more. You can persuade me to think one way or the other in any given debate and I've learned to love judging these debates because I often learn new things about the activity and its potential.

older - but not un-true

I find myself voting negative a lot on procedural fairness a lot. K affs seem to have a lot of trouble deciding if they want to go for the middle ground or just impact turn--pick a strategy and stick to it 1AC-2AR and you're more likely to be in a good place. The block is almost always great on T, the 2NR almost always forgets to do terminal impact calculus. Testing arguments become much more persuasive to me when you give specific examples for how those would occur. What neg args would you be able to read against a potential TVA? Why is it good for the 2AC to research those positions, how would you researching answers to their answers be beneficial? A lot of this stuff just gets assumed and I think that a lot of repetitiveness from most framework 2NCs can be substituted for this kind of depth early in the debate. 2NRs sometimes seem to spend so much time on why they access AFF lit base/impacts that they don't end up extending a terminal impact or external offense at all. I think it's difficult to win a debate when you basically go for a CP w/o a net benefit.

I'm a lot better for framework that sounds closer to T with a limits and clash as the primary impacts then the soliloquy on the most superior model for debate. Clash as the most important internal link to education/fairness/skills/game etc. is usually more persuasive to me than other arguments on T.

Counter-plans-

-If your CP competes based on the certainty or immediacy of the plan, it doesn't take a ton on theory for me to reject the counter plan.

-I won't kick it for you unless you tell me to. Judge kick makes more sense to me than it used to, but I still think the AFF can win it shouldn't be allowed.

-"perm do both" or "perm do cp" with no explanation isn't a complete argument. I get that given negative off-case prolif sometimes this feels inevitable, but I'm confident results will improve if you give warrants for any permutation that you think it's likely will find its way into the 2AR.

Kritiks

-affs usually lose these by forgetting about the case, negs usually lose these when they don't contextualize links to the 1ac. If you're reading a policy aff that clearly links, I'll be pretty confused if you don't go impact turns/case outweighs.

-link specificity is important - I don't think this is necessarily an evidence thing, but an explanation thing - lines from 1AC, examples, specific scenarios are all things that will go a long way

Disads

-they should be intrinsic to the plan, with enough time investment affs can potentially win that agenda politics disads are not a logical opportunity cost.

-uniqueness controls the direction of the link typically makes the most sense to me, but you can probably convince me otherwise

Preferred Pronouns: She/her

Current Affiliation: Rufus King High School, Milwaukee Debate League

Conflicts: Rufus King High School

Debate Experience: 4 yrs policy in high school, 13 yrs policy coach

Rounds judged in 2020-21: 5 rounds, I primarily operate tournament tabrooms in Wisconsin

Email: stephak88@yahoo.com

I have not judged very much this season. Please keep this in mind. Do not assume I have seen your argument before or am up on how the argument has progressed over the season. Due to this, I would also recommend a more moderate speed - especially on theory args/analytics or I will likely miss something.

Argument stuff:

1. I dislike contradictory negative worlds in a big way. Totally fine with as many multiple worlds as the negative wants, but if they contradict each other, I am easily persuaded by this being an uneducational strat choice.
2. Topicality: If you want to win on T, you will have to invest time in it (this means EXPLAINING your standards/voters, not just rambling off "Fairness, Education, and Jurisdiction"). Show me concrete in round abuse.
3. I am fine with Counterplans but they need to compete with the aff. Also need to respond to theory or perms even if you kick the CP.
4. If you are running a K that is based upon rhetoric, and you engage in the rhetoric yourself, you will lose. IE-if you are running something like Ableism and use language that links to it, you will not win in front of me. I enjoy K rounds when the debaters demonstrate knowing the arguments and not that they can just read off some blocks.
5. If you are run a non-traditional affirmative, I would prefer it to be in the direction of the topic somehow & probably have some sort of advocacy statement/actionable item within the case that I could vote “for”. If there is a round of a traditional policy team vs a non-traditional team/in-round solvency args, I’d strongly encourage a fiat or framing debate of how I should evaluate impacts that occur in two totally different spaces.

Stylistic items:

1. Clash is good. Roadmaps are good. Signposting is good.
2. Last two rebuttals should be crystalizing the whole round down to the couple of main reasons why you win.
3. I do not flow cross ex. If you are making arguments in cross ex I will not have them down.
4. Tooling your partner to the point of scripting their speeches for them will mean lower speaks from me
5. Saying “this argument makes no sense, so I don’t need to answer it” is NOT an answer. Tell me why it makes no sense and why that means I disregard it.
6. Throwing jargon around, especially with regards to theory or critical debates. Most likely, I am familiar with your argument and completely understand what you are saying. However, that does not mean you can just throw around terms without demonstrating to me that you actually know what you’re saying.

I consider myself a policy judge, mostly because I think it is extremely unlikely a debate judge can be truly tabula rasa. I will listen and evaluate any argument presented in round, so long as it is not morally objectionable (e.g. no sexual violence good, racism good, etc.). I have coached teams across the spectrum of debate args- straight up policy arguments, one-off K teams, performance teams. At the end of the round, tell me why you should win. Give me the bigger picture beyond the scope of the round we are in and tell me how IT impacts the world/society-whatever “IT” may be (AFF plan, CP, K alternative, DA, Solvency Turn, whatever). Outside of debate, I was a substance abuse counselor for three years, have degrees in Psychology and am a Behavior Analyst working with individuals with special needs. I added this information a few years ago because some teams I've encountered have read arguments that misquote psychological theorists because these teams expect every judge to be pre-law. I will know that you are misquoting them.

Last update: 2/11/2020

TOP-LEVEL:

-TLDR: do what you do best, and if you do it well, I’ll try my best to be fair, receptive, and interested

-Add me to the email chain: gordon.kochman@gmail.com

-I try not to read evidence if I can help it, which means I won’t open your speech docs until the end of the round, and I’ll only do so if needed. I won't follow you in the speech doc, so if you're gonna blaze through your theory block, you might want to reconsider.

-I try to keep a straight face during speeches. If I'm being expressive, then something horrible/funny/important/etc. just happened.

-Please be kind to each other

-My last name is pronounced “coach-man,” but you can refer to me as Gordon. Whatever you do, PLEASE do not call me "judge."

ABOUT ME:

-My debate experience: I debated for four years at New Trier High School (2009-2013) and for two years at Whitman College (2013-2015) while the team existed during my tenure. I’m a former 2N/1A. I’ve been involved in coaching and judging since I graduated high school. I'm a lawyer in my day job.

-Affiliations: New Trier High School, Whitman College, University of Wisconsin, Homestead High School

-Co-founder of the Never Spark Society with Tim Freehan

-I mostly debated policy arguments and soft-left K arguments. I fully understand how these arguments are bad and boring in their own way, so simply because I debated these arguments in the past does not mean that I think they’re the best, most interesting, or correct arguments. I’m open enough to recognize there are multiple ways of debating and engaging with the resolution, both from my time as a debater and later as a judge and coach.

-Disclaimer: What is included in this paradigm is meant to help you decide where to put me on your pref sheets, strike from your strike card, or adjust your strategy before the round. Most of this paradigm includes my predispositions and (unless otherwise noted) NOT my closely-held beliefs that are firm and unshakable.

NON-NEGOTIABLES:

-Please be kind to each other and don’t be racist, sexist, ableist, or any other variation of rude/intentionally horrible.

-To the extent required, this is a communicative activity that encompasses speech. As a result, I will only flow what you say in your speech (open CX is fine). Unless provided a performative reason, I am not a fan of multiple people participating in a speech or playing a video/audio clip.

-Debate is a game, and I’ve had the pleasure to enjoy it as a game. However, I understand that debate is more than that for some people (it’s how they afford their education, it’s their job, it’s their community, etc.). I try to comport myself such that everyone can have the experience in this activity that is enjoyable. Simply because I have enjoyed debate in one way does not mean that other debaters need to conform to my experience.

-There are obvious formalities in a round that exist no matter what. These include: one team must win, speaker points must be awarded, etc.

GENERAL DEBATE PREDISPOSITIONS:

-Tech over truth in the abstract and to a point. Generally, the more “true” your claim is, the less tech you need to win it (and vice-versa). The same goes for how big of a claim you’re making. The bigger the claim, the more work that’s needed. It’s gonna take more than a one-liner to win a claim that a mindset shift occurs post-economic collapse. Arguments are claims with warrants. One-line conclusory statements aren’t gonna cut it if you don’t provide a warrant.

-Things I likely won’t vote for: I would recommend that you use your common sense here. If your argument is overtly and/or intentionally racist/sexist/homophobic/etc., then you might want to reconsider. Not only do I not want to be in those rounds, but I don’t think the team you’re opposing wants those arguments in the round, either. As a co-founder of the Never Spark Society, this might tip you off to some types of arguments I don't enjoy...

PREDISPOSITIONS REGARDING SPECIFIC AREAS OF DEBATE:

-My thoughts regarding "non-topical" affs are probably what most people want to know up-front. I never read these affs when I debated and would spend a large amount of time planning how to debate these affs, but as a judge, I don’t really harbor any animus towards these affs. I don’t think that my thoughts here should be dispositive one way or another in these rounds. If you win your argument and explain why that means you win the round, then you should win. Despite my following thoughts on topicality versus policy affs, I'm SIGNIFICANTLY less persuaded by procedural arguments on framework than by method-based arguments on framework. In other words, I'm less likely to vote on "fairness" than an argument about how we should engage with the state or try to produce change.

-Topicality (versus policy affs) is about competing interpretations of the topic. This also means that potential abuse is a sufficient reason to vote neg on T. I would extend T into the block in a majority of my rounds and think I have a relatively lower threshold for voting on T against policy affs than most judges.

-I tend to lean neg on most theory and default to rejecting the argument unless provided a reason to reject the team. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a winnable argument, and there are certainly theory arguments that are stronger than others (conditionality is significantly more viable than no neg fiat, for instance). Regardless, this shouldn’t deter you from using these arguments on the aff. As a former 2N I do have a proclivity to protect the 2NR, so be absolutely certain that your 2AR will be an extrapolation of 1AR arguments if this is your ultimate strategy.

-Most CPs are fine, with a few exceptions. Consult CPs, for instance, are probably bad. I'm fine with CPs that have internal net-benefits to generate competition. I can be persuaded by perm do the CP args on the aff.

-Is the politics DA a thing? Eh, probably not (RIP). Will I vote for it anyway? Absolutely.

-Regarding Ks, I would read soft-left Ks with a general policy strategy and go for them on occasion. I’m by no means an expert in any specific K literature. I’m not very familiar with a ton of high-theory or postmodern arguments, so your burden to explain them is relevant. The more “out there” K you plan to read, the more explanation you’ll need. I should be familiar with your argument at a basic level regardless of what you read, but it is unlikely that I understand the nuances of your specific argument unless you can explain them to me. If you’re curious if you should read your K this round or how much work you should put into your explanation/overview, I would recommend reading it with more explanation rather than less. If you can adequately explain why you should win as a result of the K, then you should win.

-I’m a huge proponent of impact turns, which unfortunately aren’t as utilized as I’d like. However, I’m not a fan of some impact turns like spark (lol), wipeout, etc.

Beomhak Lee

Updated March 2021

Affiliation - Dallas Jesuit.

If you have any concerns/questions/asking for email chain: lbh7746@gmail.com

CJR topic - Very interesting topic. I have pretty good exposure to the topic. Yet, this still does not justify teams in speaking jargons. Personally, I find DA and CP literature on this topic quite disappointing (unless the link narrative can be specific to the aff). So I believe this perhaps is a good opportunity for some teams to engage in critical literature deeper than before.

Stylistic Issues:

- Speed is fine. But clarity >>> speed. Especially given the virtual-ness of debating, I would suggest going a bit slower.

- Please line by line. If you don't even at least attempt to line by line, your speaks will suffer.

- Depth outweighs breadth. One well-warranted argument beats numerous poorly explained/constructed arguments. This applies to the cards too. Poorly and disjointedly highlighted cards are bad. Call them out on it.

- No I don't take prep for emailing/flashing unless it's excessive.

- Usually, it is tech > truth but not all the time.

- Stop being a jerk. There is a fine line between being passionate/competitive vs. being a total jerk.

- I am totally fine with any style of argument. You do you. I am here to listen. Obviously, this excludes arguments like racism or sexism good :)

- This is probably obvious but I think it's important. For me to vote on an argument, it has to make sense in my head. While I will probably understand the general thesis for most of your arguments myself, every argument (K, DA, CP, T, K aff, etc.) requires a nuanced explanation that is different, depending on the circumstances of the round. So, spend some time doing that in the round.

Topicality

Love them if done well. Personally think they are very underutilized in this topic. Will default to competing interpretations if not convinced otherwise. T is all about weighing your interpretation versus theirs. Specificity (i.e. examples of how the aff would explode limits or gut grounds) is good. Just saying meaningless phrases like 'they explode limits' won't be convincing at all.

Counterplans/Disadvantages

Most of my 2NRs were CP+DA or DA alone. More specific your evidence (solvency advocate or link) is to the aff, the better. I think solvency advocate for the CP should be a thing most of the time. If you don't, it's not really a theoretical reason to lose but rather a solvency question. Impact calculus on DAs usually is really really really important. Use the impact debate to frame the ballot and be comparative (especially if you are going for the DA without the CP with only the case defense, which by the way is heavily under-utilized). Good link narratives on DAs will be awarded. Smart analytics will be awarded as well.

Kritiks

Love them. But, if you start to talk in disjointed vocabularies without contextualizing the K to the aff, then the K is not so loving. I think that aff should generally get to weigh the action of the plan, though I can be convinced otherwise in many ways - so put in the work.

Winning a general explanation of the world is not enough. Use the specific link and internal link narratives to prove why the aff would make X worse. To do that, I think real-world manifestations or examples help a ton. Way too many teams just assume "if I win a link, then the impact happens" - welp, a good internal link work will be awarded. Long overviews are mostly useless. Line by line is good.

K/Non-traditional affirmative

Personally, I find these affs way more interesting than listening to generic process CP debates per say. Clarity on what the aff does (i.e. the mechanism of the aff) is the single most important thing to explain to me. Personal narrative, music, poetry - anything is fine with me. Just have a particular reason why you included those parts in 1AC. You need to have at least some relations to the topic, and some reason why you don't use governmental institutions. You still need a reason why your ROB is good, and for the neg teams going for FW, that must be challenged. As always, impact debates on FW must be comparative.

Theory

Chill for a second and SLOW DOWN

Don't run New Affs bad in front of me - I'm not gonna vote on it.

Conditionality is usually good - unless multiple conditional contradictory world is a thing (but is it a theoretical reason to reject the team? Eh - though I think it would benefit you substantive-wise if used well)

Other theory arguments (generally) probably are a reason to reject the argument, not the team UNLESS I'm convinced otherwise. If they drop theory, then the story is quite different (assuming that you invest some time into it).

ETC.

I really love this activity. There probably is a reason why I keep in touch with debate and the community even though I decided not to debate in college. If I happen to judge you, know that I will judge debates as fairly as I can Please respect each other and have fun.

Also, for more nitty-gritty judging philosophies on the style of arguments, look into these judges’ philosophies: Tracy McFarland, Ryan Gorman, and Dan Lingel. They introduced/influenced me a lot (like debate + life) that we almost have a similar "view of debate" if that makes sense. If three judges contradict in their judging philosophy, it would be on my therapy list.

-top-

tldr: read whatever you want but policy is my forte - feel free to email me if you have questions

put me on the email chain: d3lett@gmail.com

call me dom and use they/them pronouns

wichita state university: 2018-now

coach at maize high school

-o/v-

certain issues can and should supersede tech such as clipping cards or egregious ethics violations - however, most debates i judge don't involve those issues - i default to tech over truth - initially evaluating presented arguments at equal merit is the most consistent, impartial mechanism i've found to provide competitive equity - evidence matters a lot to me - i tend to think specificity and author qualification should act as a filter for claims/warrants

clash is crucial - how you prioritize arguments alters how i connect the dots to determine a decision - provide judge instruction and organization - the more you focus on explicitly characterizing the direction of the debate, the more my rfd will sound like your 2nr/2ar

i reward nuance and depth - more pages covered tends to mean less time developing substance/structure - narrowing the debate allows for greater engagement - impacting out warrants makes comparison for me much easier

insert graph joke here

-fw-

i tend to think resolutional action is good but i can be convinced otherwise - capacity to debate matters to me - it's why clash is possible - limits and grounds are good - they provide the foundation for clash - portable skills/subject formation are important, but i'm not sure i understand why it's unique to debate - the interp is your model of debate - defend it - definitions are vital in helping me understand your model's mandates/effects

for the aff: explaining how your counterinterp uniquely generates offense (e.g. explaining why affs under your interp are important) and generates defense (e.g. quantifying affs under your interp) help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model - i appreciate the "no perms and you get links to your disads" strategy - it seems to resolve a substantive portion of clash offense but becomes less convincing the more generic neg ground is eliminated

for the neg: explaining internal link turns are important - quantifying limits/grounds to demonstrate loss of clash is helpful - procedural fairness/switch side is often a compelling way to frame decision-making, but i'm not opposed to the mechanism education style fw if that's your expertise - the tva is a useful defensive resource but requires development and evidence

-t-

many of my preferences for fw apply here

reasonability makes little sense as an argument in and of itself - read it as a limits bad arg (argument diversity, topic development, research innovation, etc) - arguments for interp precision are often pretty compelling

-disad/case-

i like detailed link/impact explanations - focus on evidence comparison will be rewarded

-cp-

i like solvency advocates (someone who proposes a process of achieving an action to fix a problem) - read them - the more specific, the more legitimate and likely to solve

-k-

it's probably safe to assume i lack familiarity with the nuances of your chosen field of critical theory - do not read suffering/death good - specific link application (e.g. circumvention/internal link turns) and alt explanation will help guide my decision calculus - the aff should get to weigh the plan

-soft left affs-

the cohn card alone will likely never convince me disads should go away - it makes a lot of sense to me to go for critiques of da's/cp's - critical strategies (e.g. technocracy bad) and scenario planning indicts (e.g. tetlock and bernstein) are applicable - i have more experience with the latter

-theory-

actually engaging in their theory block results in better args, lends credibility, and will be rewarded - most theory doesn't justify rejecting the team - whatever your proposed remedy is, providing a justification for it will be appreciated

condo is maybe good - i like the idea of reciprocity, but aff variety makes being neg tough - if you're aff, i find substance args more compelling than advocacy stuff - if you're neg, i find strategic flex args more compelling than critical thinking stuff

-other thoughts-

misc - don't worry about visual feedback - i'm always tired - i will clear you however many times i feel necessary - please try to increase volume/clarity in front of me as much as you can - feel free to alert me of any concerns about structural impediments you experience that could implicate how i evaluate the round so i can accommodate accordingly

cross-ex - i think anything goes in cross-ex as long as it's the 'asking team' - reading cards, taking prep, bathroom break, whatever - i think the 'responding team' is generally obligated to answer questions if asked - if you ignore and it's not reasonable, you will lose speaks

inserting arguments - generally fine as long as you explain thoroughly - graphs/diagrams/screenshots are cool - i'm far more skeptical of rehighlighted evidence

new arguments - they're almost always justified in response to new args - i grant more leeway to 2nc shenanigans than the 1nr - i think that 1ar's get the most leeway bc of structural time disadvantages and inevitable block creativity

TL;DR

Add me to the email chain: caroline.li.debate@gmail.com

LD

I think I've judged about 3 tournaments of LD so far this year - careful line by line especially in your later speeches is helpful. I'm probably better for larp-ing or K debate than traditional cases.

Policy

I'm a current freshman at Penn, and I use she/her pronouns. I did policy debate for 4 years at Lexington High School. I ran mostly policy arguments on the neg, Cap and Security, but my partner ran some identity K affs so I have an idea of the topic. High theory, probably not. I've judged a decent number of rounds on CJR now.

Top 4 things you need to do to win in front of me:

1. Do impact calc.

2. Have numbered warrants.

3. Prioritize what you want me to vote on in your last speeches.

4. Be civil to your opponents!

K--------------------------x--------------Policy

Give me feedback! https://forms.gle/pEn5AVmApmm2nXTJ8

Advice

I find myself reading evidence at the end of a debate when I feel like a particular argument wasn't resolved well at the end of a round - read good cards

K v Policy

K affs

Aff

- buckle down on a few pieces of offense in your last speeches

- name your DAs

Neg

- Fairness is an impact, but obviously, you need to do enough work to convince me it is

Both

- Do impact calc

Ks on the neg

Aff

- Make specific well-considered perms and explain them

- Utilize your aff's offense!

Neg

- Win good impact stories to your links

- Read parts of the 1AC, make specific links to the affirmative

- Overview < 2 mins

Policy stuff

Case

Do the case debate. I tend to start on case when evaluating rounds, and that being light for your side doesn't look great

Kick advantages in the 1AR to save time! Depth>breadth on case

DAs

I do think it's possible for there to be 0% risk of the DA

Please have at least one high probability scenario, it's better than having multiple weak scenarios

CPs

Creative perms allowed

NBs weighed against solvency deficits

Topicality

Debate it like a DA, have a clear impact scenario and comparison on both sides. Fairness, limits, deliberation, etc all good impacts

New T in the neg block ok if they clarify how their aff works in the 2AC

Speaks scale:

28.0 needs some improvement

28.5 good

29.0 impressive

Novice speaks scale:

28.0 Missing some basics (lbl, impact calc, understanding of args)

28.5 Executes the basics

29.0 Can out-debate a second-year

Taking risks, debating slow and well, and intelligent argumentation generally rewarded

+.1 for sending me a cat picture with your first speech doc, valid once per round per team

Other thoughts

Yes judge kick

Neg strats responsive to their specific aff rewarded

Read your re-highlighting out loud

1-3 off in neg block >>>> 4+ off in neg block

Theory

1-3 condo ok, 4 condo no

Most types of CPs ok, feel free to call out cheaty process CPs

Zoey Lin

Lexington '20 - Policy Debater

Dartmouth '24 - Currently Debating

Please put me on and properly name the email chain! [lin.debate@gmail.com] [Tournament - Round X: Aff Team v Neg Team]

If this is a JV or Novice Policy round, please add this email to the chain alongside the previous one! lexnovies@gmail.com

I'm colorblind, so please highlight in green (or give me time to change your color)

tl;dr

Be genuine, be nice, just do what you’re good at because I will listen to anything and flow what you say!

This picture encapsulates both my personality and my judging philosophy

On Zoom, please be super clear. I can flow you, but I might not be able to flow you + mic + zoom + internet. If you're unclear and lose even though "but I say it in my speech", imma give you this look: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Also if you can please keep your camera on, it's so sad when it's just dark squares.

Policy Updated for Emory (1.23.21)

Top Level

Do what you're good at, don't adapt for me (yes I have biases, but if you debate I'll be persuaded more by what you say than what I think). In high school I read everything under the sun and to some degree I knew what was going on, which means yes I'll be ok listening to your tenth extinction card or your trans-humanist maoism kritik.

Framing arguments are the most important arguments in any debate. The team that does the best framing is likely going to win my ballot.

Unless told otherwise I am tech > truth, theory is a reason to reject the arg (but condo is a reason to reject the team), judges don't kick, and anything goes

I am a sucker for specific strategies. Even if you don't go for them I will reward case specific research (aff recuts, counterplans that solve the internal link, specific pics against k affs, etc)

CJR Topic Knowledge

I judged at DDI and I did a bit of research with Kamiak.

I've spent some (frankly, a frighteningly large amount of) time thinking and talking about CJR with Caddo Magnet and Lexington

Policy Throwdown (Aff):

I'm a sucker for case debate. Do it and do it well. If you don't? Expect the other team to weigh their case and make it count. I also think impact turning case is very strategic, a good "china war good" 2nr is devastating

If you read a big stick aff, make sure you try to get solid internal links. I know it'll be difficult but I prefer that to six terminal impact extinction cards on each advantage.

If you read a soft left aff (as I imagine most will on the CJR topic), make sure your framing page doesn't just look like an extension of your 1AC authors and that's it. You need to engage the other team... I've seen way too many debates come down to a wash on the framing page which is unfortunate since it guides so much of how I will evaluate the rest of the round.

Policy Throwdown (Neg):

Regardless of what happens, specificity is best!

More people should CP out of the aff (especially on this topic where DA's are scarce). Smart counter plan writing like multiplank advantage cp's or process cp's are always welcome! Good pics are amazing.

Do your best with this topic's "neg ground", but also that's not an excuse for awful ptx scenarios. Although I'm excited about possible Biden based politics DA's after this shortage under Trump.

Presumption will flip if there is a 2nr cp.

Negs, you should abuse fiat. Be ready to defend it though...

Condo is good but 4 or more is getting excessive. I don't think enough 2a's are willing to go for condo and I'm willing to vote on it.

K's v Policy Affs:

I was on both sides of this debate a lot.

I'm most familiar with and went for identity critiques (anti-blackness and queer theory) and security (fem ir, racial ir, and traditional ir). I'm pretty decent for psychoanalysis and various anti-capitalist lit bases (marxism, left accelerationism, semio-capitalism). I'm average for other white pomo, and pretty bad for death good.

The way to get my ballot is to have explanation and contextualization, especially with links. You don't need a "good k" you need a well applied k.

K Affs v FW:

Debate is definitely a game and clash is an intrinsic good for debate. and we went for framework in almost all of our 2nrs my high school career. That being said, I also read k affs in high school (psychoanalysis, queerness, wynter), and I think debate could be much more than a game even though we're here "playing" it.

The aff wins when they are able to frame the round well. By the end of the debate I want to clearly know what the stance of the 1ac is on the 2nr flow and why they're wrong. On framework, it's important to go all in on we-meet or all in on the counter interp because towing the line will only let neg teams win the TVA or win their impact outweighs. It's also important to tell what winning the aff/a part of the aff means in the context of the broader debate.

The neg wins when they are able to mitigate aff offense and win a concrete impact rather than nebulous appeals to buzzword impacts. I find myself particularly persuaded by switch-side debate arguments and well crafted TVAs. You should also have defense on case.

Rev v Rev:

Make the role of the judge and the role of the ballot really explicit. Presumption can be really convincing, especially by calling out double turns. I generally like scholarship consistency, but amalgamating strategies can be interesting and strategic if it works coherently. Other than that, I find that theory of power explanations that use fewer buzzwords and are more application heavy end up being more successful at winning their side of the debate when it comes to things like permutations and links. The less I understand the aff/alternative, the more frustrated I will be.

Gut checks/Reps Arguments:

Probably better than most on these questions. Card clipping is a one example, but also pronoun misuse and racism should be called out and I'm willing to end the round on it.

Update for LDers:

I'm a policy debater who doesn't care what you read. The only thing you should consider is that although I will flow your argument and its warrants, I might not fully understand it to your liking (i.e. just because you said permissibility doesn't mean I'll fill in the warrant for you).

If you want to know specifics though, I'm definitely better for k/larp compared to phil (beyond kant), and definitely questionable for theory and tricks*. I don't care if you defend the topic, but have some sort of grounded criticism, please.

Long LD Specific Paradigm: I think like Jeffrey Gu, I aspire to be Henry Curtis

*Caveat: Lexington Debater Brett Fortier told me "if you're willing to listen to tricks, you're a tricks judge." I really do not want to listen to RVI's, trick's, nebel t, a prioris and just LISTS of paradoxes. Much Thanks

Quirks I May Have While Judging You

1. I flow on a computer and sometimes look away. Don't worry I can type without looking, this just means I'm thinking

2. Notes about things you want to avoid while I'm in the back

a. Being condescending / rude

b. Cussing (excessively/not necessary)

c. Stealing prep (Oh my gosh, do I hate people who do this)

d. Expecting me to keep your time

4. When your subpoints become wacky. Like, PLEASE subpoint, but please make sure 7 follows 6 and e follows d.

f. Intimidating or talking over people when you’re a two male presenting team.

Bottom Line

Debate is a great place to challenge yourself and have fun while doing it... the first thing that I want to see is that everyone is enjoying themselves and having a good time. Some debaters think that they're too good or cool to afford their opponents respect and decency in-round: if this is you, I will not be a good judge to have in the back of your round. We are all here to have fun and get better, so if you are jeopardizing that in any way, don't expect me to be as willing to vote for you.

I really care about the participation of queer debaters, especially gender minorities and poc. It's really difficult to find queer spaces in general, never mind in debate and worst of all in an online debate environment. I will be extremely sensitive to the way people who are not cis white men are treated in the debate space.

If you have any questions, don't be afraid to shoot me an email or ask before the round starts. I'd be happy to clarify anything on this paradigm or offer you any other insight that I might have forgotten to include here.

Good luck!

Dan Lingel Jesuit College Prep—Dallas

danlingel@gmail.com for email chain purposes

dlingel@jesuitcp.org for school contact

Updated for 2020-2021 topic
27 years of high school coaching/6 years of college coaching
I will either judge or help in the tabroom at over 20+ tournaments

****read here first*****
I still really love to judge and I enjoy judging quick clear confident comparative passionate advocates that use qualified and structured argument and evidence to prove their arguments. I expect you to respect the game and the people that are playing it in every moment we are interacting.

***I believe that framing/labeling arguments and paper flowing is crucial to success in debate and maybe life so I will start your speaker points absurdly high and work my way up if you acknowledge and represent these elements: label your arguments (even use numbers and structure) and can demonstrate that you flowed the entire debate and that you used your flow to give your speeches and in particular demonstrate that you used your flow to actually clash with the other teams arguments directly.

Some things that influence my decision making process

1. Debate is first and foremost a persuasive activity that asks both teams to advocate something. Defend an advocacy/method and defend it with evidence and compare your advocacy/method to the advocacy of the other team. I understand that there are many ways to advocate and support your advocacy so be sure that you can defend your choices. I do prefer that the topic is an access point for your advocacy.

2. The negative should always have the option of defending the status quo (in other words, I assume the existence of some conditionality) unless argued otherwise.

3. The net benefits to a counterplan must be a reason to reject the affirmative advocacy (plan, both the plan and counterplan together, and/or the perm) not just be an advantage to the counterplan.

4. I enjoy a good link narrative since it is a critical component of all arguments in the arsenal—everything starts with the link. I think the negative should mention the specifics of the affirmative plan in their link narratives. A good link narrative is a combination of evidence, analytical arguments, and narrative.

5. Be sure to assess the uniqueness of offensive arguments using the arguments in the debate and the status quo. This is an area that is often left for judge intervention and I will.

6. I am not the biggest fan of topicality debates unless the interpretation is grounded by clear evidence and provides a version of the topic that will produce the best debates—those interpretations definitely exist this year. Generally speaking, I can be persuaded by potential for abuse arguments on topicality as they relate to other standards because I think in round abuse can be manufactured by a strategic negative team.

7. I believe that the links to the plan, the impact narratives, the interaction between the alternative and the affirmative harm, and/or the role of the ballot should be discussed more in most kritik debates. The more case and topic specific your kritik the more I enjoy the debate.

8. There has been a proliferation of theory arguments and decision rules, which has diluted the value of each. The impact to theory is rarely debating beyond trite phrases and catch words. My default is to reject the argument not the team on theory issues unless it is argued otherwise.

9. Speaker points--If you are not preferring me you are using old data and old perceptions. It is easy to get me to give very high points. Here is the method to my madness on this so do not be deterred just adapt. I award speaker points based on the following: strategic and argumentative decision-making, the challenge presented by the context of the debate, technical proficiency, persuasive personal and argumentative style, your use of the cross examination periods, and the overall enjoyment level of your speeches and the debate. If you devalue the nature of the game or its players or choose not to engage in either asking or answering questions, your speaker points will be impacted. If you turn me into a mere information processor then your points will be impacted. If you choose artificially created efficiency claims instead of making complete and persuasive arguments that relate to an actual victory path then your points will be impacted.

10. I believe in the value of debate as the greatest pedagogical tool on the planet. Reaching the highest levels of debate requires mastery of arguments from many disciplines including communication, argumentation, politics, philosophy, economics, and sociology to name a just a few. The organizational, research, persuasion and critical thinking skills are sought by every would-be admission counselor and employer. Throw in the competitive part and you have one wicked game. I have spent over twenty five years playing it at every level and from every angle and I try to make myself a better player everyday and through every interaction I have. I think that you can learn from everyone in the activity how to play the debate game better. The world needs debate and advocates/policymakers more now than at any other point in history. I believe that the debates that we have now can and will influence real people and institutions now and in the future—empirically it has happened. I believe that this passion influences how I coach and judge debates.


Logistical Notes--I prefer an email chain with me included whenever possible. I feel that each team should have accurate and equal access to the evidence that is read in the debate. I have noticed several things that worry me in debates. People have stopped flowing and paying attention to the flow and line-by-line which is really impacting my decision making; people are exchanging more evidence than is actually being read without concern for the other team, people are under highlighting their evidence and "making cards" out of large amounts of text, and the amount of prep time taken exchanging the information is becoming excessive. I reserve the right to request a copy of all things exchanged as verification. If three cards or less are being read in the speech then I prefer that the exchange in evidence occur after the speech. I don't understand why people exchange paperless speeches that do not contain evidence.

2020 Virtual Debate Update:

Anyone whose known me for a while in this community can tell you that I resisted the move to paperless debate years ago harder than anyone. However I have resolved to not fall behind on the move to virtual debate. Now with that being said this was the first summer I did not work at a camp and therefore have judged far less virtual debates than I feel I should have going into the season. Until I think I am fully acclimated to the audio differences of virtual debate I would prefer students to go at 85% of top speed. I know people hate hearing they gotta slow down but I think this will help me give the best RFD possible and will reduce me saying "not sure I got that down."

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

Put me on the chain: debate.emails@gmail.com, typically do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time. I still may ask for a card doc at the end of the debate to maximize decision time, I appreciate it in advance.

I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.

I flow on paper, which means I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments. If there is a specific way you would like me to flow give me that instruction and I will do my best to follow it.

The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not.

While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1ac’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level please don’t be those people.

Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both my decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.

Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.

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

Experience:

Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)

Assistant Coaching-- Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) University of Texas (2017-2020) Churchill (2019-Present)

Blue Valley Northwest '20

KU '24

Coaching @ Blue Valley Northwest

zmancity101@gmail.com

TOC Update:
1. Read whatever you want. Zero preference. Have ended up in clash debates recently which have been enjoyable. Also enjoy a good politics 1NR. Enjoy anything tbh. Go stupid.
2. If your fasting while debating lmk. You'll be rewarded

inspired/copied from arvind shankar himself

I care a lot more about the flow and technical execution than whatever style of arguments you make. You should read what you feel most comfortable with rather than catering your debating to me. I read primarly K arguments in highschool and read policy arguments in college. I have zero argumentative preference. I have included my voting record and common patterns I have noticed in my RFDs below but I have not judged that many rounds so this looks pretty weak.

Policy v Policy: 3(Aff) - 3(Neg) - I have voted on T a couple of times and am persuaded by limits arguments even if the interp was somewhat arbitrary. I have never voted on presumption or considered risk to be zero absent arguments resolved by fiat. I have voted on theory but absolutely did not enjoy it, and solely did it because it was not responded to. Framing contentions are best when they are not just dumped with random cards, rather ones that are specficic to the aff. Considering there arent any DA's on this topic, some politics argument should prob be in every 1NC. It would be beneficial for you to read complete arguments. I am sympathetic to 2A's shrugging off incomplete 2 card DA's and 1 card K's.

Policy v K: 1 (Aff) - 2 (Neg) - When I voted aff it was because the permutation solved the links and had multiple net benefits. Not saying multiple net benefits are necessary however they help outweigh any residual links of the K. When I voted neg, the neg had won a larger theory of power to explain how the world operated, and won framework offense. That being said I was very persuaded by aff arguments defending their specific method of discourse through carded evidence. Teams that read specific K's to the actual componenets of the 1AC will be rewarded, and in those debates Aff's doubling down and defending their reps as good with external impacts instead of wasting time with fwk will also be rewarded.

Planless v K: 0 (Aff) - 1 (Neg) - The negative won by creating clear competition and having a broader explanation of how the aff's violence operates with a clear external impact and materially explained alternative. Aff's should be able to sidestep alot of links with strong explanations of the permutation and their theory of power in general in order to win.

Planless v T: 3 (Aff) - 1 (Neg) - The affirmative won by generating impact turns based off the 1AC but also playing defense to alot of the negatives topicality claims. Another round the affirmative counter defined the words of the rez and had sufficient offense based around thier defs. I told the negative that they failed to explain why the affirmative's interpreation specifically is unlimting and lacked offense intrinsic to thier model of debate. It is tough for me to see a legitimate aff interp that solves the negs offense but its not impossible. Good responses to "debate has competitve incentives" and real answers to fairness should be priortized sufficiently by the aff because those on face value are convincing to me. That being said I enjoy these debates.

Speaker Points

heres a way for you to not be stressed out before the round and a way to get higher speaks

If you play music before the round starts and

- if the song is good +.2 speaker points for both of you (max 2 songs)

- if the song is bad -.1 speaker points for both of you (no max)

- I'll tell you if the song is good or bad

(idk how this will play out cuz of zoom tho)

I'll make a list of songs that I thought were good and put them in here so teams don't start repeating

Money Trees - Kendrick Lamar

Sundress - ASAP Rocky

Yes I want to be on the email chain: flashingisprep@gmail.com

**Please make the subject line of your email something that makes sense (ex: TFA State - Round 3 - Texas CM v MSU GS)**

All other things (questions, comments, speech doc requests, etc) should go to masonnmv[at]gmail[dot]com

[ONLINE DEBATE NOTES]

Please for the love of all that is good in this world update your wiki's. The community has paradoxically dramatically reduced it's wiki updating during a time of Zoom debate where it is more necessary than ever before. Seriously, what are you doing. Update your wiki. I will vote on disclosure theory.

Also please leave your camera on if possible. It's so awkward and alienating to stare at a blank screen for two hours by myself.

For other things see paradigm from last year below

----------------------------------------------------[2019-2020]-----------------------------------------------------

[Pre-TFA State UPDATE - 2/25/2020]

Still judging only clash debates so here is a more complete framework rant

• Ideologically I slightly lean aff for reasonability reasons. In the real debate world we actual live in, (some) K affs are predictable, and (most) K affs that are in the direction of the resolution are not hard to engage with. Not only that, but ideally we all have case negs to the best teams at the tournament anyway. That being said, framework is still absolutely negative ground, and K affs are (often) impossible to pin down. Also a lot of K affs require you to spot them solvency before you can win offense which is probably not something we should have to do. Two things you should take away from that
• On the aff, defense goes a long way. The negatives fairness and limits offense is often blown way out of proportion and you should stop letting them get away with that
• On the neg, negative engagement is the easiest standard to convince me of. The 2AR will probably say "our aff is contestable because XYZ" but framework debates are questions of models not just about the aff.
• I vote aff in these debates when:
• The 2AR wins that impositions of limits are bad. I don't often find myself voting that "limits in the abstract are always terrible" but re-framing that same argument as "imposing X limit on debate is bad for Y reason" is something that I find a lot more compelling, especially when the 2NR doesn't do impact comparison and instead just asserts "but I promise limits are super great"
• The 2AR wins that their interpretation solves limits with even a small net benefit of some kind. Mostly this happens when the the aff spends a lot of time on defense (an under-utilized component of framework debates, see above), or when the 2NR rants about impacts for 5 minutes without talking about internal links.
• I vote neg in these debates when:
• The 2NR does great internal link work. I would love for the 2NR to include a section that says "their interp is A which allows for B because C which doesn't solve D because E" Doing so will force you to clearly articulate an internal link differential which is a thing I care about, while also dramatically raising the threshold the aff has to meet to win any of their defense (again, a thing I care about)
• There isn't a role for the negative under the affs interp. I believe clash is great, and the negative often gets away with telling me that they are the only ones that allow for clash to occur. Not only that but the negative often is better at telling me why the types of clash that we have under their interp is good for XYZ reason.
• I think debate is great, I wouldn't devote 100% of my non-schoolwork time to it if I didn't, so you will have a hard time convincing me that "debate is terrible, we shouldn't do it, clash is always bad in every instance" and the negative will have an easy time winning "debate can be good, you don't even have to read a plan just say something at all please"
• I find it really hard to explain why the act of reading framework in and of itself is violent or bad. Specifically, I will have a really hard time voting on "you read framework you should lose" if the 2NR doesn't go for it, and I really don't care about framework linking to X other position that you read. If you don't put framework in the 1NC the aff gets to run wild in the 2AC, and fallback positions are a thing. If you're neg you still need to answer it but don't think you have to go for framework or you're screwed because as long as you answer it I don't care that much at all.

[MID SEASON UPDATE - 12/11/2019]

• I increasingly find myself saying something like this in the RFDs "I have you saying quote: *reads exactly what I have written on my flow* in the 2NR/2AR, to me that is not a complete argument nor does it answer the explanation the other team is doing" - this might be me being picky, but just know that I have a slightly higher threshold than average for what qualifies as extending a complete argument
• I have also done this a couple of times "I have you saying quote: *reads from flow* in the 1AR/block, while the 2NR/2AR explanation is very good you have not made this into an actual argument until then"
• This is not a tech over truth claim. Truth does come before tech, but there is a minimum threshold that your truthful argument has to meet for me to feel comfortable evaluating it
• For framework, some new thoughts
• To quote Bankey: there are two framework 2ARs: 1) limits are bad, or 2) we solve limits. While there are a plethora of winning 2ARs on framework, if you don't do either of those things you are going to be in a rough spot
• If the aff is going for the "we solve limits" 2AR, the 2NR would be greatly served by having a section which says "their interp is A which allows for B because C which doesn't solve D because E" Doing so will force you to clearly articulate an internal link differential between your interp and their interp. If you can't do that in the 2NR then maybe go for a different standard.
• I still continue to only judge clash debates. I've accepted that fate by now, but know that if for some reason I'm in a policy debate I will probably not be as educated as I should be.
• Specifically, I seem to end up judging a lot of *different flavor of anti-blackness* vs *state engagement and fiat are good* debates. I can almost promise that I've heard someone make a much better version of the argument you're making and I can also promise that I'll just wish I was watching that person debate and not you when you're making that mediocre argument.
• I enjoy these debates when:
• There are examples from both sides on the ontology portion of the debate
• Each side answers the specifics of the others examples
• I hear an example I haven't heard before (examples are a trend here if that wasn't clear enough)
• You clearly know what you're talking about/look like you've actually read a book - if you know your shit, make that clear, it makes me happy that students know things
• I DO NOT enjoy these debate when:
• You assume you're winning ontology true/not true without doing any explanation
• You sound like you're annoyed the other team exists/is making arguments (yes even if their arguments are bad you should still respect them)
• When there are only non-black people in the room and nobody talks about/seems to recognize/cares about that fact
• It's clear you are just reading blocks and don't actually know what your cards say - I will still vote for you, I'll just be upset about it and you're speaks will not be happy

[POST CAMP PARADIGM - SEPTEMBER-ISH 2019]

General Things:

• Tell me how to vote and why, hold my hand as much as possible and you will be rewarded
• Your evidence quality matters a lot to me, but I won't read evidence unless I need to. Use that to your advantage, compelling and in depth evidence comparison goes a loooong way.
• If/when I call for cards I will ask for "whatever you think is important" That is NOT an invitation to send me everything you read, nor is it a promise to read everything you send me. Instead it's an opportunity to do what you should have done in the speech and tell me which cards you think I should read (that does include opponent evidence if you so choose).
• Truth over tech, you should have a warrant to prove why your truth claim is true
• Take risks and have fun. When you're engaged and having fun it makes my job more enjoyable and a happy me = better speaks
• Always happy to answer specific questions you have before the debate. The question "do you have any specific paradigms judge" (or anything along those lines) will be answered with "do whatever you want"

Framework - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• State good isn't offense for a framework argument, and state bad isn't offense against it - unlikely you will tell me otherwise
• Your interp isn't just a model that dictates the way debates go down, but also a research model that dictates the way we prepare for debates - you should have reasons why both in and out of round their interp is bad and yours is good
• If the aff says arms sales are bad I do not understand why winning arms sales are good is not a reason to vote neg. On the aff that should help you answer fairness/ground, on the neg that should give you another 2NR option if you so choose.
• I am more than willing to vote for intervention/heg/cap/arms sales are good. Often times I think the aff is too flippant about answering the impact turns that get read on case and the negative fails to capitalize on that.
• Increasingly I am becoming less and less of a fan of arguments that say "framework is policing/the prison/any other actually bad thing" In fact, I think that it is very dangerous to equivocate the violence that happens in a prison to the "violence" that happens when teams read framework.
• Answering the aff is not a microaggression. Neither is reading generic evidence. Debaters make bad/non-responsive arguments all the time, that's not a reason to vote them down, just a reason you don't have to spend as much time answering the argument.

Until I judge more rounds on this topic I won't have as many topic specific things to say. Please consult the previous seasons paradigm for any additional information

----------------------------------------------------[2018-2019]-----------------------------------------------------

Yes I want to be on the email chain: flashingisprep@gmail.com

General things:

• Tell me how to vote and why, not only will this help your chances of winning, it will also help your speaks
• I will read your evidence after the debate, not during, so the more you do the ev comparison for me during the debate the more likely I am to believe you - that being said, your evidence quality matters a lot to me, and I will read the evidence that I think is relevant while making my decision, so make sure to tell me which evidence matters
• Take risks. It makes my job a lot more fun and often pays off big. Your speaks will be rewarded for it.
• Truth over tech, and you should have a warrant to prove why your truth claim is true
• I increasingly keep judge clash debates, I have judged maybe two high level disad/cp debates since the Greenhill tournament, that means two things
• First, in clash debates I find myself leaning aff on the internal link level but neg on the impact level, I think the 2NR impact explanation sounds pretty but the internal link is dramatically under explained, and the 2AR can often be very compelling on a "you don't solve your own impact" level. The topical versions that teams are reading (mostly the generic open borders stuff) is also only really ever compelling to me in a world where the aff goes for "our discussion good" which is increasingly not the way the aff is answering framework. If your aff defends restrictions are bad and provides a mechanism for resolving (whatever that means) that then I am a fan. If your aff is just "debate is bad, fairness and clash are bad" then I am not a fan
• IF you do have me in a policy v policy debate, make sure you explain which part of the debate matters and why, and do a little bit more handle holding me through the debate in the 2NR and 2AR than you would in front of your regular policy judges as I will need to shake the rust off

Policy things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• Uniqueness controls the direction of the link, you will be hard pressed to persuade me otherwise
• Undecided on indefinite parole good/bad - probably lean neg on this question but haven't seen it really debated out enough yet
• The topic is LPR - way more thoughts on this later, but unlikely you convince me your non-LPR aff is T
• If your CP has a solvency advocate (each plank, together) I think it's almost impossible to lose to any theory argument
• Presumption flips aff if the CP is a larger change from the status quo than the aff is (fully explained in the CPs section at the bottom)
• The 1AR is a constructive, you should probably read some cards

Clash of civ things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• Fairness is an internal link, but negative engagement and clash are very compelling impacts
• State good isn't offense for a FW argument, and state bad isn't offense against it - unlikely you will tell me otherwise
• If the aff says and defends that restrictions on immigration are bad I find it harder to win a limits impact but a little easier to win a topical version
• Your interp isn't just a model that dictates the way debates go down, but also a research model that dictates the way we prepare for debates - you should have reasons why both in and out of round their interp is bad and yours is good
• Ericson is descriptive of debate 15 years ago, not prescriptive of what debate should be. I think this makes it a little difficult to win a predictability internal link, you still can just make sure you do slightly more work than you normally would here for me
• Negative engagement/clash is an impact but probably doesn't solve the affs education offense because the neg wants to be able to go for the temporary CP and base, instead it is good as a critical thinking model

K v K things - these are my initial thoughts, all of these (unless otherwise stated) are things I think are true but I can be convinced otherwise if you out debate someone on it:

• I don't judge a lot of these debates, but when these debates are good, I highly enjoy them. The more specific you get with your links/alt explanation/link turns/alt offense the happier I will be
• The aff gets a perm - "this is a method debate" is not a real world thing to do, only way I really change my mind here is if the aff drops this argument
• You are not responsible for other things your author wrote that you haven't read, but you are responsible for other things/theories that the parts you have read rely on for their theorization (your psychoanalysis aff probably has to defend the Lack even if you don't make any of your arguments about it)
• Examples are the key to winning the link v link turn debate for me
• Just because you read a Zizek card doesn't mean you can just make any argument you want - your theory should be consistent and you should tie your arguments back to your evidence, I will read your evidence after the debate while making my decision

Feel free to email me with any questions - masonnmv[at]gmail[dot]com - yes this is different from the email above, please use each for its intended purpose.

After that quick and dirty, here is my rant about the topic as I've seen it so far. Increasingly on this topic I find myself becoming more and more frustrated with the trajectory of affirmatives who have decided to read a plan. Two large complaints that I have:

• Your aff should be LPR
• You should specify which restrictions you reduce

Let me unpack those two things

First, LPR. I feel very strongly that the aff has to be for the purpose of LPR and only for the purpose of LPR. I know that generally the community is moving in this direction but I feel like it’s worthwhile for me to talk about this because I find myself more ideological about this than others I’ve talked to. I think that “legal immigration” most clearly means “admission to the United States for the purpose of long term permanent residence” and anything that isn’t that is fairly clearly negative ground. There are two versions of the refugee/asylum/T/U visas affs that are mainly being read now.

The first type just makes it easier to get those visas. This is the “determine that environmentally-displaced persons constitute ‘refugees’” aff’s. Or the “remove the requirement to cooperate with law enforcement” aff. These affs, for me, and almost impossibly defensible. Those people that enter under those new expanded rules are not permanent residents, nor are they guaranteed to be permanent residents. The most popular counter-interp for these affs, “legal immigration is path to lpr” to me is poor at best. It begs the question of what a “path” is, which I have yet to find a good definition of. For example, H1-B’s might be considered a path to LPR because the majority of people here on H1-Bs apply for transfer of status and become LPR. Without a good definition of what a “path to LPR” means I have no idea how that interp can set a limit on the topic that excludes non-immigrant and temporary visas. With these affs they all have the similar we meet/reasonability story that happens in the 2AR which goes something like “but our visas end up with LPR and aren’t temporary because they eventually become permanent so please don’t vote neg” But this we meet argument is not even close to compelling. In my mind this is the negatives argument, and at best for you is just the same as saying “we are effectually topical so don’t vote neg” The plan doesn’t immediately give people LPR, and I don’t think that our model of debate is defensible.

The second type of that aff changes those visas and makes them LPR. These are the “for the purpose of long term permanent residence” affs. These are think are more defensible than the type above, and end up raising a lot of interesting T questions, but I would prefer it if they weren’t topical. The problem that I have with these affs is that they just make any non-topical group topical. I have no idea why the plan can fiat that they give refugees immediate LPR and why they would not be able to fiat that H1-Bs are LPR (I keep using H1-Bs because I feel like everyone agrees that those are by definition not topical). The problem that I run into when thinking about these types of affs though is that I don’t think that there is a good interp that clearly limits these types of affs out. I think that there are two ways you can try and limit out these affs. The first, is a definition of restrictions that would say that making a new LPR isn’t reducing a restriction. But I think that a compelling answer to that is probably that the restriction that exists on getting LPR is the 1 year requirement which the plan would eliminate. I think that this could go either way, but that’s the point of debate. The second way you can limit this out is to say that a reduction has to be pre-existing. The aff increases the cap from 0 to 200 LPR refugee visas, which is technically a reduction of a cap but it doesn’t increase a currently existing cap. That coupled with a literature argument about there not being any lit to contest reducing restrictions that don’t officially exist to me feels weak but doable. In general this is the debate the aff wants to have in front of me, because despite the fact I don’t want these affs to be topical I don’t know how to safely limit them out without just arbitrarily deciding that they shouldn’t be topical.

Second, specification. This one really gets me going but comes up in debates less. The topic is not immigration good/bad. The topic is restrictions good/bad. The number of affs with plan texts that resemble “Plan: The USfg should substantially reduce its restrictions on legal immigration for artificial intelligence professionals.” is sad but not surprising. Look I get it, you don’t want to debate PICs. But come on, you have to actually defend something. The best debates on this topic are not “should we let in AI professionals to the US?’ but instead centered around how we should do that. And unless you want every debate to be indefinite parole vs LPR then it would benefit everyone if you just specified. If you read a plan, and a solvency advocate that goes with it, that defends a specific restriction(s) then I am very comfortable inflating your speaks AND telling the neg that their generic CP/links don’t assume the specific mechanism of the aff. If you do not do that (read a real plan that is), I am very comfortable voting neg on a circumvention argument. Let’s be real, you are reading your plan like that because you think it has strategic value, and truthfully, it does. And with that in mind I think that there has to be some incentive for the aff to foster clash and read a real plan text so if you are aff in front of me and you don’t read a real plan, make sure you spend more time than you want to answering vagueness arguments/case circumvention arguments. I am also more comfortable with cheating CPs against affs with vague plans, and dramatically less comfortable with cheating CPs against affs that specify.

I understand that the two above statements might make you slightly uncomfortable but I feel like I should put that out there just so that everyone is on the same page.

------------------------------2016-17 Season-----------------------------------------

I am a first year out. I debated for four years at the Liberal Arts and Science academy and currently attend the University of Texas in Austin. I have always been a 2A so that does actively shape the way that I think about/approach debate.

Short and sweet – Yes put me on the email chain - flashingisprep@gmail.com. I lean more truth over tech in the sense that I will not vote on something that can't explain to the other team at the end of the debate, but that doesn’t mean you can just drop things and hope I ignore them. Do what you do best. Seriously. I would rather judge a good debate on something I am less familiar with than a bad debate any day. The more you can write my ballot in the 2NR/2AR, and tell me what I am voting on and why, the more likely you are to win but also the more likely I am to give you better speaks. Make my job easy and you will be rewarded. I will be somewhat/very expressive during the debate, and I will flow cross ex

Any specific questions feel free to email me: masonnmv [at] gmail [dot] com - yes I realize that this is a different email from the one above, please use each email for its intended purpose.

Now what you are probably here for:

K affs and Framework – I read mostly traditional affs throughout my career but I did read a variety of different K affs with moderate levels of success. I would like to think that I will do my very best to evaluate the debate in front of me but there are a couple of thoughts that I have about framework debates in general that will always be a part of my decision calculus no matter how hard I try and be objective.

First, my senior year my partner and I went for framework against every single K aff that we debated except for one, against which we went for the global/local K. I think that K affs tend to not meet their own interp more often than you would think, and get away with it, and in the instances in which they do meet their interp, it is often very easy to win a limits disad. I also think that a lot of the offense that K teams like to go for is often only a question of “our education is unique” which I feel is often resolved by switch side and maybe the topical version. Limits and clash are the negative standards that I find the most persuasive, and I most commonly went for clash as an impact that has intrinsic value. I am least persuaded by the topic education standards people like to go for, but I encourage you to do what you are the best at and if that’s topic education then go for it. I tend to think about switch side debate more than other people do when evaluating framework debates. I lean neg in general on framework that's for sure.

That being said, there is nothing intrinsic to me about debate that requires that you read a plan, nor do I think that not reading a plan means that no productive debate can occur. I think predictability is definitely a question of the lens through which you view the resolution (eg: on the China topic, even “policy” teams knew that people were going to read a Pan aff. Doing research in a particular area helps to guide what you and others are able to predict will be read during the year), which means that K on K debates can be highly productive/clash can occur. I think that the neg often gets away with way too much offense in terms of things like the limits disad etc as the aff often forgets to test the internal links of their impacts and instead just goes for the impact turn. To use the limits disad as an example, I think that the negs interp is not nearly as limiting as they often get to spin it as, and the world of the aff is often not as bad as the neg says it is. Don’t get me wrong, impact turning things is fantastic, but sometimes smart effective defense can be just as useful.

Other thoughts on framework debates

• One carded, smart, topical, topical version of the aff goes A LOT farther than 4 short generic ones. Specificity matters a lot in these topical version debates. Both the aff and the neg can exploit this to great effect

• If your aff has a solvency advocate that links your theory to the topic in the same way you claim to, you are in a MUCH better place. It cuts back against a lot of their offense and makes it substantially harder for them to win anything that isn’t limits

• I tend to think that both interps have some educational value, if you are winning reasons why the education that your interp provides is comparatively better than the education that their interp provides you are 75% of the way to winning these debates

• I think that debate is a game, but that doesn't mean that it can't have other intrinsic value, eg it can definitely be a home, or a place of individual expression, or even an academic space or educational training ground. I get this framing from my years playing soccer, which while being a game, also provides a lot of good to a lot of people. What that really means for y'all is that I am probably not the best judge for "it's a game cause some wins so vote neg because fairness"

• The more specific that each sides offense gets, the better. There is often a lot of offense happening on both sides of these debates so the more you are able to get ahead on the specifics of how your offense interacts with their offense the better.

I think it is very hard to win state good is a net benefit to framework, especially if you’re coupling it with a switch side debate argument.

Now the more specific things

Kritiks vs Plans –

• Buzzwords do NOT equal explanation. Just because I might be familiar with your author/argument doesn’t mean that you shouldn’t explain it.

• Specificity matters. Feel free to read your generic link cards but be prepared to explain them in the specific context of the aff. On the aff, read your generic K answer cards if you have to/want to but again, be prepared to explain them in the specific context of the aff

• I am better for the negative than most for frameworks that do not let the aff leverage its advantages – I generally think that the aff just assumes that obviously they get the aff and don’t spend enough time here. Yes you can go for framework as the alt/without the alt/whatever you want to call it. Especially if you have a link specific to the aff/something the aff did and not just a link to the squo this can be a very effective strategy.

• Link turns and “the aff is a good idea”/”our reps are true” are sufficient offense to vote aff, but mostly only when coupled with a perm, and you have to explain to me why the aforementioned statement is true. You don’t always have to have external offense against the alt but it would greatly increase your chances of winning. If they kick the alt you can sometimes still get the perm, but you have to do the work to tell me why you should

• On the aff, you should defend the aff and you shouldn’t forget about the aff. Often people get caught up in going for “psychoanalysis bad” instead of actually just answering the links and defending the aff. You should still have specific K offense but seriously, if the K is competitive, then the aff is offense in and of itself. Unless you don’t get to weigh it. See above

Kritiks vs No Plans –

• Just because this is a “method debate” does not mean the aff does not get a permutation. I definitely think that it is actually most real world to combine different methods and see how they interact. Just because we are in debate doesn’t mean that that same standard should apply. Now you can win specific reasons why in the context of your theory the perm still fails, but the aff probably gets the perm.

• See K vs plans stuff as well – specificity matters a ton. Especially in the link vs link turn debate. The aff will almost always have some chance at a link turn, so whoever is ahead on the spin and explanation game will probably win that part of the debate. Historical/contextual examples are super useful and super underutilized. Don’t just assume your truth claim is true, say words and explain why.

Disads –

• I have different thoughts about risk than most people do. Start at 0% risk and build up, NOT at 100% and work down. I think that it is the negatives burden to prove that their internal links are true and not necessarily the affs burden to disprove them. That being said, if the aff only reads a non-unique in the 2AC I think that the negative is going to have a very easy time proving that the rest of their disad is true. What this means is that I am a sucker for a 2AC that maybe reads one or two cards but mainly makes smart and true analytic arguments to answer the disad at each level. Especially if your disad is bad (if you have to ask then yes, yes it is), then I think that the 2AC probably doesn’t need to even read a card and can instead get away with talking about the disad in its entirety for about 45 seconds or less. This is the best example of where I am more truth over tech

• Yes disads can go away in cross ex if it is done correctly, but you still have to make those same arguments in your next speech. A well-executed cross ex on a disad in my opinion is more concerned about what the 1NC evidence says than what the 1N has to say about it.

• The 1AR is basically a constructive. Let’s be real, I got through A LOT of my high school career going for cards that were in the 1AR. As long as you have a similar analytic argument in the 2AC, you can often justify the card. I don’t think that it’s the 2A’s burden to start answering a disad before it becomes a real disad (see above about analytics being awesome). This does NOT mean you can just drop it. But I often don’t think that you need to read cards.

• I really enjoy a good impact turn debate. My senior year this was my bread and butter, and this is where I am more tech over truth. I think that sometimes the CP just solves the aff and so impact turning the net benefit is often an effective and useful answer to CPs. So on the negative just be prepared to defend your impact(s). This goes both ways, if you are ready to impact turn the aff then go for it. These debate are awesome and often involve a lot of strangely qualified evidence and if you do this well I can’t say that your speaker points wouldn’t see a small not-so-subconscious boost.

• On that note I should add: You will receive minimum speaker points and lose if you read racism good, sexism good, and a variety of other arguments where your moral compass should understand that thing is un-impact turn-able. If you have to ask, you shouldn’t go for it

Counterplans –

• I have thoughts about presumption that I think are different from others when it comes to counterplans. Presumption flips affirmative when the counterplan is more change from the status quo than the aff

• For example: Plan: USfg should feed Africa and go to the moon, CP: USfg should feed Africa, Presumption stays negative.

• Example two: Plan: USfg should invest in renewables, CP: USfg should sign the Law of the Sea, iron fertilize the ocean, build CCS, and instate a carbon tax, Presumption flips aff.

• Obviously there are instances where this is not a perfect standard which is why I think it is up to the debaters to explain which way presumption flips and why. This doesn’t come up a ton but when it does it matters.

• On CP theory in general – I am a 2A. Always have been. That being said, I think that you are much better off going for perm do the counterplan/the counterplan isn’t competitive, instead of trying to go for “delay CPs are a voting issue”. I have a hard time believing that I should reject the team because they read a [insert process] counterplan, but I can be persuaded if you have to go for it.

• Also while I am on theory: I have a lot of thoughts about conditionality, but I try my best to judge the debate that happened in front of me. I try to view and evaluate the condo debate the same way someone would evaluate a T debate: which interp have the debaters proved to me is best for a model of debate. I do subconsciously lean aff on this question, but if it's a new aff, do whatever you want.

• 2NC CPs/amendments to CP texts: they justify new 1AR arguments (perms, offense, solvency deficits, links to the net benefit, etc), they are very rarely a reason to reject the team, I could be persuaded that it’s a reason to reject the argument

• The solvency deficit just has to outweigh the risk of the net benefit. Both sides should be doing this comparative work for me please.

Case debate –

• Please do it. I view this the same way that I view disads, it’s the affs burden to prove that their internal links are true and not the negs burden to disprove them. So just like with disads, a smart 1NC on case can be devastating and the less generic your case work is the 1NC the higher the threshold will be for 2AC answers. Basically just read the stuff about disads but switch the aff and the neg

• I am not a fan of the fast, blippy, 2AC case answers, nor am I a fan of your 45 second long block of text that you are going to spread through and call an overview. The 2AC should actually answer case args and the block and 2NR will be given a lot of leeway if you don’t. “Yes war – their evidence doesn’t assume miscalc” is not an answer.

Topicality –

• T is and always will be a question of competing models of debate. That might sound to you like "competing interps" but there is a distinction. Competing interps for me is much more a question of how I should evaluate offense in a topicality debate. Reasonability just means that your interpretation is reasonable (not that the aff is reasonable)/your interp is sufficient to resolve a risk of their offense, competing interps just means that it should only be a question of offense/defense. But in both worlds I am still evaluating different, comparable models of debate.

• I am less concerned about your ability to read your five sub-points ground and fairness block and more concerned with your ability to outline what the world of the other teams interp looks like. Why is it bad for debate (both aff and neg ground) etc.

• That being said, I went for T a lot in high school. T QPQ and framework were our two most common 2nrs. So do what you have to do. And yes, T is a topic generic.

• Topicality is about the model of debate that you endorse, so have a defense of that. Case lists, and why the affs on that list are bad or good, are a must.

• For reference from the China topic – on a scale of Yes T-QPQ We Meet/Counter Interp double bind to No T-QPQ We Meet/Counter Interp double bind I’m a firm “no”.

To close I would like to quote Ezra Serrins, my high school debate partner, "I appreciate it when debaters take arguments seriously but you shouldn't take yourself too seriously"

Max McCarty

BVSW 18

KU 22

I debated for a year in college at UTD before going to KU

Currently coach at Lawrence Free State High school

Put me on the email chain maxwell[dot]mccarty[at]gmail[dot]com

*I did not think that this would ever have to be here, but in my experience,"tech" issues have become far to common in debates. Obviously things like wifi issues are not necessarily your fault but docs crashing, dropbox issues, and literally any other issue is probably due to you not resetting your computer before the round. If you know you have computer issues or are likely, restart your computer before the debate. My new rule of thumb is if tech time is not a thing I will make you start prep if it is anything not wifi related. If it is something reasonable I will be reasonable. But I think most of "tech issues" are preventable and I am increasingly losing patients for them. So please be respectful of my time as I am of yours.

Tech > Truth

Argument specific things

FW v K Aff: I think that affs should defend hypothetical government action. With that being said it is still a debate and I will vote for the team that wins the debate. I do think fairness is an impact in and of itself, I don't think it is a big impact but I don't think it needs to be. For affs to win my ballot you are better off to go for a larger impact turn to framework/T than to go for smaller args shotgunned in the 2ac. I also don't find T/FW to be inherently violent or exclusionary granted like every argument in debate it can be deployed in a violent way, ie the neg explicitly making arguments about x team should leave debate ect. however in a world where that has not been done I am unlikely to find those arguments persuasive. I have also struggled to understand arguments about "structural" fairness in the context of how it is offense for the aff. The most important thing a 2nr/2ar can do in these debates however is do impact calc and if done well you will probably end up with my ballot.

CP: They are great as long as they are competitive. Textual and functional competition both have a time and their place. I tend to be pretty lenient to accepting 2nc counterplans as long as you can defend it, to me its all just part of the condo debate.

T: It is a voting issue but never a reverse voting issue, competing interps make more sense to me than reasonability, along with limits arguments when your going for T.

DAs: they are fantastic, I’m fine with generic link ev as long as it gets contextualized at some point. Impact calc is great and should be a part of every 2nc/2nr.

Theory- I will have a very high threshold for rejecting the team with the exception of conditionality. with that being said I have an overwhelming bias that conditionality is good as long as it does not force contradictions in the block.

Ks: I think of Ks as a cp with a net benefit, the more specific it is to the aff the more likely I am to vote on it. I’m not well read in lit at all so explanation goes a long way. I think you should have a somewhat specific link to the aff. I do feel like at the end of the debate the aff should get to weigh the 1ac, in what context is up for debate but im very hard to convince otherwise. Link of omissions are nonstarters. My advice is go for what you are most comfortable with and I will do my best as a judge to leave my biases at the door and evaluate the debate.

Other things/pet peeves

-I think there is a fine line between being an ass and being competitive. If done well your speaks will be rewarded but if done wrong you will not be happy with them rule of thumb don’t be an ass, be respectful and have fun.

-physically mark your cards

- you must physically read the rehighlighting of the other teams cards simply saying “I have inserted a rehighlighting here” is not an argument in any sense please read the card. The only exception to this is if it is a small part of a card and you have explained the argument it makes in your speech.

-Clipping will result with a loss with 0 speaks. I do follow along in speech docs so if I see you doing it I won’t hesitate. If you call someone out for it you must have audio evidence of it.

Chris McDonald (He/Him) - chris.mcdonald@district196.org

Head Coach Eagan High School in Minnesota

While I mainly have coached and judged Policy Debate for the past 32 years I do judge my fair share of LD and Public Forum Debate Rounds.

Policy Update for St. Mark's Tournament - Please know that while I used to judge a lot of rounds throughout the season in policy debate it has been 3 years since I judged more than just a handful of policy rounds. I do work with my school's varsity policy team so i am pretty up to date on the positions and arguments being run on this year's criminal justice topic.

My philosophy has pretty much remained consistent throughout my career. I consider policy debate to be a test of policy based ideas between two teams. How those teams approach the topic and frame the debate is entirely up to them. Below are a few things to know about me on some specifics but please know my primary objective is for us to have an enjoyable round of debate.

Delivery Speed - Since it has been a few years for me since last judging lots of policy debate my ability to listen to really fast debate has faded. Please keep it to a slightly slower speed of delivery especially using the online platforms. I will let you know if you are unclear or going too fast by verbally indicating such during your speech. On a scale of 1 to 10 with 1 being oratory speed and 10 being approaching the sound barrier (only joking here) I would place myself as a 7 these days.

Topicality - I enjoy a good topicality debate but have found that over the years teams are taking too many shortcuts with the initial development of the topicality violation. I prefer topicality to have a clear definition, a clearly developed violation, standards for evaluating the violation and reasons why it is a voting issue. For the affirmative side you really need to engage with the topicality violation and provide a counter interpretation that supports your interpretation of the resolution. Topicality is distinct from framework.

Framework - I also enjoy evaluating a debate when framework is clearly articulated and argued by both the affirmative and negative sides. Framework is focused around how you would like me to evaluate the arguments in the round. Do you prefer a consequentialist framework, a deontological framework, etc..

Critiques - I am fine with critical approaches by the negative and the affirmative sides. For the affirmative please keep in mind that you will need to defend your critical affirmative as either a topical representation of criminal justice reform or why it is important for us to debate your affirmative even if it isn't necessarily within the boundaries of the topic.

Flow - Please label all arguments and positions clearly throughout the debate. Signposting has become a lost art. Debaters doing an effective job of signposting and labeling will be rewarded with higher speaker points.

Disadvantages - I am fine with pretty much any of the disadvantages I am seeing run on the topic this year. Please be certain to articulate your links clearly and having clear internal links helps a great deal.

Counter plans - Again I am fine with most of the counter plans being run on this year's topic. I think counter plans are an essential tool for negative teams. Please note that I am not a big fan of multiple conditional counter plans. Running a couple of well developed counter plans is better than running 4 or 5 underdeveloped counter plans. Counter plans should have a text to compete against the affirmative plan text.

Theory - General theory in debate rounds like conditionality and that are fine but have rarely been round winners without a lot of time devoted to why theory should be considered over substance.

If you have any questions please let me know and I will happily answer those questions.

Lincoln Douglas Update for Blake 2020 - This year I will be in the judge pool for the Blake Tournament so thought it would be fair if I put up some thoughts on how I evaluate LD Rounds.

1. I am not a fan of theory as it plays out in LD debate rounds. Most of the theory that is argued is pretty meaningless when it comes to the topics at hand. I will only consider topicality if the affirmative is presenting a plan text in the round. I ask that the debaters debate the topic as it is written and not as they would like it to be. Which means you are debating this topic: Resolved: States ought to ban lethal autonomous weapons.

2. Beyond my dislike for theory you are free to pretty much debate the round as you see fit. Please keep your speed to a level where you are clear especially considering buffering time with online platforms you should probably slow down from what you think you are capable of during in-person debates.

3. Evidence should be shared using an email chain. Please include me at chris.mcdonald@district196.org

4. If you have specific questions please ask. I will disclose at the end of the round but I will also respect the tournaments schedule and work to keep it on time.

1. Evidence is very important to me. I prefer direct quotation of evidence over paraphrasing but understand that paraphrasing is allowed in PF. Please make note of the new NSDA rule regarding paraphrasing. Source Citations: make sure that you present enough of a source citation that I should have no problem locating the evidence you present in the round. This would include the author or periodical name and date at a minimum. So we are clear Harvard in 2014 is not a source citation. Harvard is a really great University but has, to my knowledge never written a word without the assistance of some human that attends or works at Harvard.

2. There is to be no game playing with regards to evidence sharing during or after the round. If you are asked for evidence by your opponents you must produce it in a timely manner or I will discount the evidence and only treat the argument as an unsubstantiated assertion on your part. Even if it means handing over one of your laptops you must provide evidence for inspection by the other team so that they may evaluate it and respond to the evidence in subsequent speeches.

3. Prep Time - you are only provided with 3 minutes of prep time. Please use it wisely. I will only give a little latitude with regards to untimed evidence sharing or organizing your flows, but please be efficient and quick about it.

4. Argument choices are completely up to the debaters. I prefer a good substantive debate with clear clash and that the debaters compare and weigh the arguments they feel are important for their side to prevail as the debate comes into focus but the substance of those arguments is completely within the control of the teams debating.

5. Please respect your opponents and treat everyone involved in the debate round with the utmost respect. Speaker points will be effected by any rude behavior on the part of a debater.

6. I will disclose and discuss my decision at the end of the round so long as there is time and the tournament stays on schedule.

7. Finally, please remember to have fun and enjoy the experience.

Ryan McFarland
Debated at KCKCC and Wichita State

Two years of coaching at Wichita State, 3 years at Hutchinson High School in Kansas, two years at Kapaun Mt. Carmel, now at Blue Valley Southwest.

email chain: remcfarland043@gmail.com

***Virtual debate*** My rant below still applies, and is probably magnified in a world of online debating. Mic quality is bad. Internet connections fluctuate which could randomly drop the quality of the sound. Keep in the mind the format that you are debating in. This is not the time for going full speed. Slow down. Be clear. Enunciate. If you fail to do those things and I don't catch arguments because of the sound quality, you will likely lose.

I have become increasingly frustrated at the recent debate trend where debaters just read pre-prepared blocks straight from their laptop at full speed with little contextualization to the arguments the other team is making. That frustration is magnified when the 2AR/2NR re-reads things from earlier speeches, at the same speed, while still not contextualizing those arguments to the other team. I appreciate debaters who debate from their flow and use their computers for reading evidence. Three things you should take away from this;

1. you could technically be winning a debate, but if I don't believe that you have clashed with the arguments presented by the other team, I will likely vote against you. Clash is not "they said perm, so insert generic perm 2NC block here". Clash is directly answering the nuances made by the other team.

2. I'm fairly expressive. I'm not going to say clear or tell you to slow down. If you think reading full speed in the 2NR/2AR is how you can convince me to vote for you, you're mistaken. If I'm not able to process the arguments you are making because you are reading full, card speed during a rebuttal, I'm not going to vote for you. I will either miss important things you want me to vote on, or I will spend my energy trying to make sure I can keep up with everything and not think about the arguments.

3. When I've given low speaker points in the last two years, it was because the things that I have mentioned above.

K v. FW - I'm pretty open to most arguments in the debate, but I will be up front and say that I believe the topic is good and important. This is not to say that I will never vote for a critical affirmative, but I am ideologically on the side of debating the topic is a good idea. With that said, I'm probably split pretty much down the middle on my voting record when it comes to K aff vs Framework. Most of the time when I have voted negative its because the affirmative does not adequately deal with the topical version of the aff. When I vote affirmative its because the negative spends most of its time establishing a link, but very little impact explanation and comparison. I do think that fairness is an impact, and don't find arguments about framework creating actual violence against people persuasive.

I don't find "debate bad" arguments persuasive. I've coached teams to say these things, but still don't find them valuable.

DA v. soft left aff - I don't think I've ever voted on the framing page takes out 100% of the disad. I've seen plenty of teams think that because they've read a framing page they don't need to engage the components of the DA and that will always be a losing strategy. Having specific critiques of disadvantages is more compelling to me. Likewise, negative teams reading a bunch of extinction first, util cards and generically extending them does little for me.

K's on the neg - I'm better for K arguments on the negative than K affirmatives. I might expect more link contextualization than some judges. I don't have a problem voting affirmative if I don't believe you have explained a link that makes sense with the aff.

An affirmative saying "duh" to "fiat isn't real" is sufficient, but you still need to defend your method of policy making.

Other things - I default to competing interpretations on topicality and other theoretical arguments. Conditionality is good but will vote on theory if it's well developed. Read disadvantages and counterplans. Case debate is underutilized and will increase your speaker points.

Judge kick - no idea why affirmatives just let negative teams get away with this. It forces the affirmative to give two different 2ARs. I'm not saying I'll just wholesale reject this, but affirmatives should get smarter.

I appreciate multi-plank counterplans that have some evidentiary support for all planks. I don't appreciate multi-plank counterplans that are used to fiat out of solvency deficits or offensive arguments.

More than 5 off case arguments - bad strategy. Makes me grumpy. Lowers your speaker points. Reading a bunch of bad arguments for the sake of reading more arguments is a bad debate trend.

Stop being scared of going for theory against cheating arguments.

Clipping is cheating no matter the intent.

I won't read or flow your inserted re-highlighting.

Email: mjmcmahon3739@gmail.com

Debated 4 years at Blue Valley North, 2 years at Kansas

Please please please slow down in online debate. It's so hard to understand people over a mic. This doesn't mean go conversation speed (unless that's the style you prefer) but does mean don't go top speed.

Not a good judge for:

- postmodernism K’s

- queerness/identity arguments

- word PIKs

- K v K debates

Only a decent judge for:

- K’s generally

- soft-left framing arguments

I'm fine for everything else. ^That list doesn't mean those arguments are impossible to win in front of me, just that in a 50/50 debate my thoughts about those arguments in the abstract might better align with the other team.

Email chains are good. Include me ericmelin76@gmail.com

Debate Coach @ Coppell (9th Grade Center and Coppell High School)

*edited 2/11/2021 - I took out any objection to the 50 states CP.

I think debate operates in a unique place in the high school experience, where it serves as a crucible for the development of advocacy skills and critical engagement that is not replicated anywhere else. I love this activity and want each successive generation to be able to enjoy it. As such, be good to one another! Take care of our space and leave it better than the way you found it. Come back and give back if debate has given you a space to develop yourself.

Paradigm stuff:

These are some of my thoughts but I’m not dogmatic. Do what you do best.

1. Please forward a well-developed ballot story. Compare methods and offense

2. Tell me what you want me to vote on.

3. Compare evidence - this doesn’t happen enough and it’s usually what close debates depend on to resolve.

4. K aff’s - I default to believing that K aff's should still be affirmative arguments. I think switch-side debate is good and develops a portable skill that other activities do not. I think what you clash abilities is important. K aff's should forward counter-interpretations as needed. I am willing to vote on framework.

5. Counterplans are best when case-specific. PiCs are fine. The aff should have to defend their plan.

6. I prefer line-by-line debate more than long overviews. Too many rebuttals I’ve seen recently spend a ton of time explaining arguments in overviews that should just be done on the flow. Numbering arguments and following the order of your opponents is preferable or at least be explicit when re-grouping the flow.

7. I cannot flow a string of unending analytics with no time to type even if it's in perfect outline from in speech doc. Slow down just a bit, change your tone, and or pause for a moment when reading strings of long analytics.

8. I will be following along with the evidence read in the debate on my computer.

Updated 2/13/2020

Debated for UWG ’15 – ’17; Coaching: Notre Dame – ’19 – Present; Baylor – ’17 – ’19

email: joshuamichael59@gmail.com

Policy

I prefer K v K rounds, but I generally wind up in FW rounds.

K aff’s – 1) Generally have a high threshold for 1ar/2ar consistency. 2) Stop trying to solve stuff you could reasonably never affect. Often, teams want the entirety of X structure’s violence weighed yet resolve only a minimal portion of that violence. 3) v K’s, you are rarely always already a criticism of that same thing. Your articulation of the perm/link defense needs to demonstrate true interaction between literature bases. 4) Stop running from stuff. If you didn’t read the line/word in question, okay. But indicts of the author should be answered with more than “not our Baudrillard.”

K’s – 1) rarely win without substantial case debate. 2) ROJ arguments are generally underutilized. 3) I’m generally persuaded by aff answers that demonstrate certain people shouldn’t read certain lit bases, if warranted by that literature. 4) I have a higher threshold for generic “debate is bad, vote neg.” If debate is bad, how do you change those aspects of debate?

Special Note for Settler Colonialism: I simultaneously love these rounds and experience a lot of frustration when judging this argument. Often, debaters haven’t actually read the full text from which they are cutting cards and lack most of the historical knowledge to responsibly go for this argument. List of annoyances: there are 6 settler moves to innocence – you should know the differences/specifics rather than just reading pages 1-3 of Decol not a Metaphor; la paperson’s A Third University is Possible does not say “State reform good”; Reading “give back land” as an alt and then not defending against the impact turn is just lazy. Additionally, claiming “we don’t have to specify how this happens,” is only a viable answer for Indigenous debaters (the literature makes this fairly clear); Making a land acknowledgement in the first 5 seconds of the speech and then never mentioning it again is essentially worthless; Ethic of Incommensurability is not an alt, it’s an ideological frame for future alternative work (fight me JKS).

FW

General: 1) Fairness is either an impact or an internal link 2) the TVA doesn’t have to solve the entirety of the aff. 3) Your Interp + our aff is just bad.

Aff v FW: 1) can win with just impact turns, though the threshold is higher than when winning a CI with viable NB’s. 2) More persuaded by defenses of education/advocacy skills/movement building. 3) Less random DA’s that are basically the same, and more internal links to fully developed DA’s. Most of the time your DA’s to the TVA are the same offense you’ve already read elsewhere.

Reading FW: 1) Respect teams that demonstrate why state engagement is better in terms of movement building. 2) “If we can’t test the aff, presume it’s false” – no 3) Have to answer case at some point (more than the 10 seconds after the timer has already gone off) 4) You almost never have time to fully develop the sabotage tva (UGA RS deserves more respect than that). 5) Impact turns to the CI are generally underutilized. You’ll almost always win the internal link to limits, so spending all your time here is a waste. 6) Should defend the TVA in 1nc cx if asked. You don’t have a right to hide it until the block.

Theory - 1) I generally lean neg on questions of Conditionality/Random CP theory. 2) No one ever explains why dispo solves their interp. 3) Won’t judge kick unless instructed to.

T – 1) I’m not your best judge. 2) Seems like no matter how much debating is done over CI v Reasonability, I still have to evaluate most of the offense based on CI’s.

DA/CP – 1) No special feelings.

LD

All of my thoughts on policy apply, except for theory. More than 2 condo (or CP’s with different plank combinations) is probably abusive, but I can be convinced otherwise on a technical level.

Not voting on an RVI. I don’t care if it’s dropped.

Most LD theory is terrible Ex: Have to spec a ROB or I don’t know what I can read in the 1nc --- dumb argument.

Phil or Tricks (sp?) debating – I’m not your judge.

Maize High School (China, Education, Immigration, Arm Sales)

Wichita State (Alliances)

Cornell '24 (still debating)

Coach for Maize High School. Call me Connor. they/them

connormlldebate@gmail.com

---Top Level---

1. Do whatever you're best at and I'll be happy. I used to run Ks in high school, but by senior year I figured out I was way better debating policy. Last season, ~50% of my 2nrs were T; however, I find myself mostly in clash debates. I've voted for both fw and the K roughly equal amounts. Really, do whatever you want.

2. Disclosure is good. Preferably on the wiki. Plus .3 speaker points if you fully open source the round docs on the wiki (tell me before the RFD, I'm not going to check for you).

3. I really don't want to do a SpeechDrop or whatever. You can email me if you have pre or post-round questions, or need to alert me to something before the round. Prefered subject line: [Tournament] [round] [aff team] (aff) vs [neg team]. ex. Heritage Hall Rd 4 Little Rock Central GL (aff) v Maize LM.

4. Content warnings are also good.

5. Please number and label your arguments. Give your off names in the 1nc.

6. [insert joke about CDR here]

7. Please alert me to any concerns about structural impediments that might implicate how I evaluate the round so I can make accommodations.

8. Don't be mean or offensive. Please actively try to make the community inclusive. I will not hesitate to dock speaks, drop you, or report you to the tournament directors/your coach if you say or do anything offensive or unethical.

9. If you have any specific questions, please ask.

---Online Debate---

I'm a big fan of posting the roadmap in the chat. It at the very least shows me you read my paradigm and it makes everyone's lives a bit easier.

Please slow down. It's possible that I might miss things during the round due to tech errors. Most mics are also not great and so it can be harder to understand what you are saying at full speed

I have a multiple monitor setup so I might be looking around but I promise I'm paying attention.

Please be transparent as to when you are taking prep or when you're having tech problems so I know what's going on.

If my camera is ever off, please get some sort of confirmation from before you begin your speech. Not doing this has led to me missing a speech which is very awkward.

---Evidence---

Evidence is a major factor in my decision. I will read your evidence but I won't apply it for you.

Don't clip. That means keep track of where you mark cards. Clipping also includes being overtly unclear.

Inserting stuff is generally okay, especially if it's data/graph/etc. I also think you should be able to insert rehighliting of the other team's cards if they misrepresent their evidence. It doesn't make sense to me to punish one team for the other team's poor scholarship. I think this encourages teams to actually read each other's cards and engage in better research practices. Please don't abuse this, only insert clear cut examples of misrepresentations.

---Soft Left affs---

I'm probably not the best judge for these. I think too many impact framing debates get stale where arguments just don't get resolved. I think that these debates can be really interesting if debaters actually attempt to clash instead of spreading through blocks. Soft-left affs also can't answer disads with only impact framing. Obviously, leverage the 1ac against the other team as much as you can- but it can only go so far.

I think most of these affs are probably consequentialist (i.e. you're trying to create a better consequence through a policy) so I'm not sure how your consequentialism bad framing helps you.

I've voted for soft left affs in the past, but I think on balance I tend to vote neg more often than not.

---Theory---

Please don't get stuck in your blocks. Stepping away from your laptop and actually clashing will be rewarded.

If you're going to read multiple theory args in the 2ac, please space them out from each other, otherwise it's difficult to flow..

---Ks on the neg---

I've read some literature but I am no means an expert. Read whatever you want, but don't assume I inherently know everything about what you're talking about.

Specific link analysis is very good and I tend to be somewhat skeptical of links of omission or topic-wide links. I think really good K debaters spend more time contextualizing links to the 1ac than they do reading 60 new link cards or whatever.

Affs should utilize the 1ac to their advantage more effectively. I'd rather you didn't read the same AT:K's frontline that you read every round, but rather explain the ideological inconsistencies of the neg or utilize your 1ac as offense.

---K Affs---

I think affs should be in the general direction of the topic. That doesn't mean I'm going to outright not vote for you if you're extremely anti-topical, but rather that I'm more likely to buy negative framework arguments.

Negatives should engage with case more. This is often where negatives actually win debates since so many 1ac's these days are written to exclusively answer framework. Impact turns are often underrated in this aspect, and I'm very willing to vote on one so long as it isn't repulsive (i.e. racism good, etc).

---FW---

Affs should explain how their counterinterp generates offense/defense to help me conceptualize weighing clash vs your model. I do believe that affs need counter interps. I don't think shotgunning a bunch of underdeveloped framework DAs is a good or efficient use of your time. Most of them are usually the same argument anyways, and I'd rather you have 2-3 carded & impacted out disads.

Negs should explain internal link turns and quantify limits/grounds - procedural fairness/switch side is compelling, and TVAs often require a lot of work to be compelling.

Good negatives also contextualize their impacts to that of the aff's. That is to say, if you're reading a turn, debate the implications of that turn.

These debates often get bogged down in overviews and are overall very messy to flow. I will reward debaters who keep this debate organized.

---T---

A lot of the stuff on fw applies here

I lean competing interpretations. I think that reasonability makes way more sense as a limits bad arg more than like an alternative to competing interps.

Parker Mitchell Updated for: Berkeley (winter 2021)

park.ben.mitchell@gmail.com

He/They/She are all fine.

Quick version

Plz don't shake my hand

Yes email chain, no flash chain

Equal chances on framework

Fairness is an impact but not the only impact

Competing interps are best

There is NOT "always a risk"

I flow cx

Speed is good (except when accessibility/disability concerns)

Postround if you want

Online preface:

I have now judged a significant amount of online policy rounds. They mostly** went well.

I do not follow along with the doc -- debate is, in part, a speaking activity. Sending your analytics is nice for the other team, but will not help me flow. It's difficult unmute and say clear while flowing: if you're unclear I will simply not be able to flow you and have no way of warning you (although I will always try my best). This has impacted a couple debates especially in 2ACs. Be very careful about your transitions. You should make a note of the ability of your microphone and speed of your internet connection when you assess how fast you want to go.

I prefer, but do not require, your camera to be on. Watching you speak helps me with clarity and I don't allow myself to read along on docs so it helps to have visuals for focus. This is simply a preference: if you calculate that your internet/sound setup will interfere more with clarity if your camera is on (or you have another overriding reason for your camera to be off), I have no objection to your decision.

My camera will be on during speeches, RFD and probably most of prep/dead time, excepting unique circumstances. Unless I have notified you otherwise, if my camera is off I am not ready and may be away from the keyboard (getting water, going to the bathroom etc.) Please, don't start if my camera is off or if you see an empty chair. Sidenote: I'm using a dual screen setup. This won't require any adaptations from you but it may sometimes look as if i'm looking past the camera or to the side during cx and speeches because the debate is on a screen to the right of my camera. I am still paying attention.

** Tech issues - on your end: I'll consider tournament regulations. These usually have not been a big deal but recently due to tournaments with shorter decision times and strict tech time regulations combined with weather-induced tech problems and debaters competing from cars I've experienced more issues. I will do everything I can allowed by tournament rules to ensure a debate takes place - I know you've worked hard, paid your entry fees and deserve to debate, however it is also unfair to the other team if I'm unable to make a decision in time because their opponent was unable to be present. I understand that these issues are not your fault so I will not be any more restrictive than the tournament requires and will always consult with tab before assessing a forfeit.

on my end: I have experienced tech issues in only a small percentage of rounds from my end (wifi disconnection). I don't have access to a wired internet connection with my setup. In those instances I have been able to recover my flow by either resetting speech time or on a panel the 1AR repeated the last 2 minutes. Again, these issues have been uncommon.

OVERVIEW

Debate is a game, I'm open to almost* any of strategy that will help you win that game. My ballot will probably decide whether the proposition of the affirmative is better than the proposition of the negative.

*exceptions: blatant/unapologetic racism, sexism, transphobia, homophobia, ableism. I have only used this exception once because someone was defending George Zimmerman, I have not been close to using it again.

TOPIC SPECIFIC NOTE (HS only)

Very neg leaning on this topic - I suspect this is due to affs of all shapes overly concerned with defensive framing arguments and failing to develop nuanced and specific offense against neg positions. (I'm beginning to regress to the mean, but these notes are still helpful!)

Soft left debates (majority of topic): The best soft left affs develop a nuanced critique of the status quo and develop offensive routes to victory that are germane to their critique. The worst soft left affs offer a minor reform and read 7 minutes of generic framing cards. This is a spectrum with many affs on this topic leaning the wrong way.

I don't expect you to overhaul your aff for one judge - instead you should develop more offensive justifications for your framing contention. Against CP/DA, critique the logic of the CP, critique the DA impact, what it justifies etc. Most framing arguments become far too defensive, even if well developed. Against Ks, non-reformist reform should mean something beyond negative state action - non-reformist reforms are radical (offensive, in your case) because they make the revolutionary act of the alt possible (coupled with an alt fails now argument).

K Aff Debates: Be offensive, not conciliatory to framework. IDC if you are in the direction of the topic, that's just defense. Develop offensive arguments that are germane to your K, not just generic retorts to SSD/TVAs.

KvK and Big Stick Debates: I haven't judged a significant amount of these debates (about 1-2 of each). I can't determine where my biases lie on these yet.

EXPERIENCE

4 years of debate for Shawnee Mission East high school in Kansas, 5 years for the University of Missouri-Kansas City. Currently assistant coach at Shawnee Mission East (5 years), occasionally assist for the Asian Debate League (ADL). Also worked with DKC and Turner HS.

Topic Experience (HS): 50+ rounds on the CJR topic, I did not coach at a camp this year but I have coached significantly during the fall semester. I have a fairly broad familiarity with the topic.

Topic Experience (College): 2 rounds on the Alliance topic. I don't coach for a college team and I mostly judge HS, so I will be behind on specifics, acronyms and community norms on the topic.

SPECIFIC ARGS

T: Often an underrated strategic option. RVIs are bad, but I'm open to impact turns from K affs. Both sides should have an interp. I (almost always) evaluate under competing interpretations. I (almost never) consider precision separately from limits and ground debates, it strikes me closer to an impact framing argument than an impact or internal link in and of itself.

CPs: "Cheating" CPs are "fine", win theoretical justifications+substance and you will win, probably not going to reject the team unless the neg fails to forward a "reject the arg" claim.

Statuses: I lean that Condo is good, dispo/uncondo is bad. Status theory is winnable, you need an interp and remember to ask. (n-x) interps are unpersuasive.

DAs: I've sat against the negative in a couple close debates with DA/Case strategies. I have difficulty assigning "minute risk" on disads if significant defense is persuasive and/or conceded. Winning requires a clean 2nr or significant defense.

Ks: The neg can critique both plan and non-plan parts of the aff. The aff can weigh itself. Work out nuances. I think I have a pretty good, but not universal, grasp on most critical literature in debate. Structural Ks are common for a reason (strategic) and (although I have IRL issues with his theory) Baudrillard in debate is misunderstood and unfairly maligned. DnG-based Ks are certainly winnable but test my personal patience. Cap (Marx) is a double edged sword as it was my favorite argument to debate but I also have a lot of opinions on it.

I don't know why most "Death Good" arguments are maligned as uniquely more messed up than many "big stick" policy arguments (First Strike, Drones Good etc). However, you should always be careful with any of these arguments. As an educator working with high school age students I do have a concern for safety and mental health. Ask yourself, is your argument about ethics, the spectacle of extinction/death, the value of life OR is it something that may raise concerns about your mental health like calling for self harm of any form? The first category is ok, the second is not. Additionally, reading drones good against someone whose family immigrated from an area that is affected by American imperial violence also raises ethical concerns about your argumentation. I like arguments that push and question boundaries in our activity, but you should still have an ethical framework in mind.

K Affs: They can be good. Framework can also be a good strategy against them. I find framework debates to be extremely interesting, although they make my hand hurt afterwards. I usually take a lot of time deciding in both Framework debates and KvK debates because they tend to have a lot of nuance and/or moving parts.

STYLE PREFERENCE

Flowing: One sheet in the 1nc will remain that way. Each individual sheet will be straight down, overviews will not separate. Preferably don't give sub-orders before the speech ("I'm doing framework, interp first, then tva, limits da..." etc), they confuse me/are irrelevant because I am flowing straight down.

Speed: Speed is generally good. Maintain clarity. I may "clear" you a few times. I should hear the full body of the card, I want to listen to every word, you shouldn't be able to get away with slurring during the body.

CX: I flow cross-x. It's binding. Open > Closed. Won't pay attention to "flex prep." Try to ask all of your questions during CX because I can't hold the other side accountable during "flex prep."

Language: The use of racial/sexist/homophobic/transphobic slurs, in any way other than as used by individuals who are affected by those slurs, results in 0 speaks and a loss. Be mindful of problematic (non-slur) language. Mistakes happen, but so must sincere apologies.

Postrounding: you are welcome to.

ADMINISTRATION

Ethics: Ethics challenges stop the round immediately and require proof. If the accused party did violate a legitimate challenge they will receive the loss and 0 speaks, the reverse is true if the challenge is illegitimate. Clipping is definitively a violation. I will surrender to tournament regulations.

Disclosure: I will orally disclose provided the tournament allows it. Please disclose pre-debate. It's good.

Prep: Flashing is not prep.

Speaks: I use CDR's points rubric, adjusting for estimated pool skill.

APPENDICES

LD

I have limited LD experience, I debated it for a couple of years in KS and went to NSDA nationals.

Traditional LD makes little sense to me. I really don't get Value/Criterion, they simply read as impact framing args to me, so you should probably treat them as such. I'm more attracted to LARP/Phil and the wild west of progressive LD than traditional LD as these are more familiar to me.

Speed, Ks, plans are fine, LD theory is intriguing but somewhat new to me. Please, roadmap and signpost I will flow.

Default to deciding whether the resolution is true or good unless presented with different ballot framing. Get creative: i find many LD topics are one sided and dull when played traditionally. T really can help out here.

PFD

I get a bit lost in this event. I will evaluate the debate technically using an offense defense paradigm unless persuaded otherwise. I will attempt to flow on two sheets (AC/NC). Your case should include offensive reasons to vote for your side, not just defense.

All debate events require clash or they are just oratory: That means whichever team goes second should explicitly answer the other team's case. The second round of speeches need to both extend arguments and answer opponents. Final speeches should include a brief overview with ballot instruction and also continue LBL work. Do not eschew clash for the sake of speaking pretty, that is a quick way to lose my ballot.

My name is Josh. I am a college Debater at the University of Missouri Kansas City and previously at Johnson County Community College. I have been to the NDT and as far as Octafinals at CEDA.

Debate is a game. Everything else is up to interpretation. I had a heavy inclination towards Kritikal arguments and specifically antiblackness arguments.

Impact turning framework is not only alright but probably a smart move if you are clearly not topical.

If you have that spicy shit in your back pocket that you haven’t broken yet but think is low-key genius or you think it is too trolly to read then I am the judge for you. I will vote on anything as long as you win the argument.

I don’t default to reasonability or competing interpretations. Debate it out.

I will vote on theory if you impact it out correctly and persuasively.

I am looking to be persuaded. I think persuasion is a art that is being lost in debate and shouldn’t be ignored from the position of the critic as much as it is.

Don't read the crime DA it's anti-black.

Email: moncurejoshua@gmail.com

Jack Moore

Updated: 1/23/21

Affiliation: 4 years at Jesuit Dallas, currently at Trinity University

Email: mojack221.goo@gmail.com

Top Level Stuffs

- I will have my camera on at all times I'm at my computer, if it's not on, assume I'm not present. I request that you leave your cameras on if you can, but obviously if that's not an option then no problem.

- Do line by line or get a 27

- Disclosure and updating the wiki has been awful this year. I won't vote on disclosure theory, but if you update the wiki after the round to include at least 1ac/1nc cites (offcase and case offense) and round report, you get +0.3 speaks (unless you don't do line by line)

- Sending email is prep

- SLOW DOWN!!!. I write a lot when I flow and I flow on paper so I need pen time. This doesn’t mean don’t go fast, I regularly judge and enjoy high speed technical debating, but don't enjoy incomprehensible reading competitions. Online debate makes it harder to comprehend and most of y'all still aren't adapting to the need to go slower so everyone can understand.

- I don’t care what kind of argument you run so long as it’s well warranted, and you clash with the other teams’ arguments. I evaluate what I flow and believe that technical execution of an argument is more important than the Truth. Part of tech should be supporting your argument with quality research.

- Flowing, line by line, and organization is really important. I would prefer that you number arguments (at least case args in the 1NC and off case args in the 2AC) If you are consistently messing up the line by line, I will assume you don’t respect the flow and you get lower points.

- Respect your opponents. This means be nice to each other. Hostile debates are fun for nobody. It also means send analytics you have in your doc, especially in an online format where connectivity issues may prevent others from hearing everything you say.

- Evidence quality > quantity. Part of this includes highlighting full sentences/making your cards comprehensible. If I look at cards, I only look at the highlighting and will discount incomprehensible highlighting.

- The best debate involves well researched literature based controversies

- Inserting Evidence: If it’s part of the text that the other team put into the debate, I’m fine with it because that, to me, just seems like an analytical argument about their evidence. If the highlighting is from a different part of the article, you must read it out loud. If you find this confusing, your presumption should be to read the card.

Case:

- It's underutilized - specific internal link and solvency arguments go a long way in front of me. Strategically, a good case press in the block and 2nr makes all substantive arguments better

- The aff should use the case more. 1AC ev usually has a lot of answers to neg args that people just forget about.

Topicality:

- CJR specific – you are wrong if you believe the USFG abolishing the criminal justice system isn’t topical. Don’t waste our time by going for T. If the abolish aff doesn’t have a plan/USFG actor, that’s a different story and I’ll be more willing to vote on T/Framework

- I evaluate Topicality like a CP and DA. You must do impact calc and have offense and defense to the other team’s stuff.

- I care about predictable limits, topic education, precision, ground more than I care about jurisdiction, grammar

- T substantial is more persuasive to me than most

DA:

- CJR Specific: I’m sorry neg teams that most DAs on this topic are really bad. If you win the bad DA, I’ll still vote for you so don’t be discouraged. However, I think this is a great opportunity to engage in some critical arguments because this seems like a bad topic to stick to the hard-core policy style of debate. One way to make me less skeptical of your DA is to recognize that not every DA is going to end in extinction or great power war.

- Links are also important – put specific ones in the 1NC if you have them

- I will vote on defense against a DA

- Politics/Elections: I now believe politics is a thing and a version of it might be the best DA on the topic even if that's not saying much. Having recent link and internal link evidence will be key. I prefer explanation to be mixed in with the cards and hope the block will do more than read 30 cards at me.

CP:

- CP should have a solvency advocate - what that constitutes one is debatable.

- I think the Net benefit should be a DA to the plan and not just an advantage to the CP

- CP that compete off certainty and immediacy with artificial net benefits are a hard sell. However, I understand these strats often become necessary for the neg. If you're going for one of these CPs, prioritize winning the competition debate and give me a lot of judge instruction on how to evaluate different definitions or competition standards.

- 2NC CPs are legit for dealing with Add ons and Solvency Stuff the 2AC reclarifies. They are less legit for amending the CP text because you messed up and dealing with strategy things such as the aff straight turning a DA that you didn't want to go for.

Theory:

- I don't think I lean aff or neg because I haven't participated in or judged a lot of debates that came down to theory. If you articulate an impact to why what they’ve done is bad and provide an interpretation of what debate should look like instead, you’ll be good.

Conditionality is debatable – probably more good than bad, but I’m not sure. If you’re aff and crushing the conditionality is evil debate, just go for it. Interpretations based on number of advocacies don’t make sense to me because the aff always says one less than the number the neg did and the neg says we get what they did. I would be more easily convinced of dispositionality as an interpretation.

- Slow down!!! I need pen time.

- New affs bad is a silly argument and I won't vote on it - don't waste my time or your time. Negs get more leeway against new affs in terms of theory and ev specificity.

- My default is to reject the argument for all things except conditionality. This shouldn't deter you from going for theory. Reject the argument still helps the CP go away and the DA is probably too low quality to survive without it

K:

- The majority of my 2NRs my senior year were on the K and I think it's one of the more strategic types of arguments in debate.

- Links should be specific to the aff and more in-dpeth than the state is bad or debate is bad. If I could look at your speech in isolation and not know what aff you’re debating, you won’t be in a good spot. Gut check – if you could read the same link extension in every debate, we’re going to have a problem.

- I'm familiar with a good amount of critical literature but err on the side of explaining everything without excessive buzzwords.

- Slow down on big stream of conscious explanations of the world I like to flow your and find I have less abbreviations or symbols for some K stuff.

- I really dislike the way framework evolves in policy aff vs K debates. It's often pointless and the 2nr/2ar never tell me what to do with framework. I'm extremely unlikely to not weigh the case or the K. If framework is going to be part of your strategy, your best option is to use it for impact comparison such as: consequences, discourse, ontology, epistemology first, something topic specific. None of those require me to completely disregard the other teams arguments. You're better off developing and defending your substantive arguments than trying to get me to wish away the fact that you have to debate.

- I prefer alts that prioritize rejecting the aff or critique assumptions, representations, etc. I don't like revolution or movement alts because they should get destroyed by any feasibility or implementation questions. If I'm honest, I don't really find myself caring too much about the alt unless theirs specific solves case warrants or the aff has some specific offense. The link and impact is what I care about most.

- Overviews aren’t necessary and shouldn't be longer than 45 seconds to explain something important that can’t be done on the line by line.

- Winning some theory of how the world operates doesn't mean anything unless you apply it to the aff. I don't care if somethings ontological if you don't have a link to the aff.

K affs:

- Go for it. They should have some connection to the topic and some statement of advocacy. If you can read your aff on every topic without changing cards or tags, I’ll enjoy the debate less. If you can’t find an aspect of critical literature that talks about criminal justice, that’s on you.

Framework/T USFG:

- Like T, impact calc is extremely important. These debate through competing come down to who has the better vision of debate/the topic. Describe in great detail what those visions look like and how a debate would go down or how the season goes down.

- While I will vote on procedural fairness, I prefer arguments about substantive engagement and clash. I think clash based impacts still have the benefit of focusing on the competitiveness of the activity, but also have better inroads to educations claims the aff usually makes. If you do say procedural fairness, you should only say procedural fairness.

- Topical versions are less important to me. I find them super defensive and often create trouble for the neg (because they’re not actually topical or because if the neg can prepare for the TVA, they usually could prepare for the original aff). If you do read TVA, don't treat it like a CP. Explain the types of debates that would go down (what would aff’s look like, what would negs say, how would debates evolve over the season) and why those debate access the education or telos of the aff

- Overviews aren’t necessary and shouldn't be longer than 45 seconds to explain something important that can’t be done on the line by line.

Edit 3/18 - this was way too long, so I shortened and simplified as much as I could.

I mostly judge policy - PF / LD considerations are at the bottom.

Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com for the email chain.

About me

I did policy debate in college and high school (03-08) for Auburn HS in WA and Augustana/UNLV. I ran big stick policy affs, soft-left affs, and a performance argument or two.

What you can run in front of me

You can run just about whatever you want in front of me. Ks, DAs, CPs, T, plan flaw, and custom theory arguments are all fine.

Though I largely did "policy" debate, I try to avoid any ideological lean.

That means I won't reject the crime DA as inherently racist (unless you make and win that argument), and I'll entertain "heg good" as a DA to a K aff. On the other hand, it means I'm willing to vote for non-topical affs, including those that critique the practices of debate itself.

Speed / online debate

If this is a local or regional tournament, you can probably safely go as fast as you want as long as it is clear.

If this is an elim of a major and you're going for theory, you should probably slow down a little in the block, and then even more in the 1AR/2NR/2AR.

I'm far more likely to have a hard time following you because your tech/microphone set up isn't super clear, than not being able to follow you because you actually went too fast. So its always good to do a check with your partner or coach and make sure your microphone allows you to be heard clearly.

Speaker points

The things that will earn you better points in front of me include:

• Outstanding research / preparation - if you're reading a well-researched case-specific K or CP, you're on your way to good points. I will give you the W if you read cap or set col and win the debate, but don't expect more than 29.3. However, if you deploy 3 case-specific PICs and a dump of incredible case turns, or went out and did a ton of research to justify a plan flaw arg, that's where I'm going to award a 29.5 or higher.
• Being a good citizen of the debate community - don't be rude, and if you're crushing the other team, slow down and make the debate a learning experience for them.
• Making big strategic decisions, as opposing to trying to just out-tech your opponent or win on cheap tricks.

Texts

There is an epidemic of bad, lazy, and/or vague text writing in debate. That includes plans, counterplans, K alts, advocacy statements, and so on.

I think it was probably always this way, but anyways, I'll happily vote on plan flaw, as well as smart vagueness arguments, to try to correct this trend.

You shouldn't need to read any further.

The sections below are just me trying to cover the debates I see most often. If a section doesn't apply to the debate you are going to have in front of me, move on.

___________________________

Non-topical affs

As explained above, I'll vote for these and have done so in the past.

Non-topical affs that lose in front of me usually make one of the following mistakes:

• Their argument just isn't very interesting, unique, or cohesive. I tend to dislike affs that just retread some generic criticisms of debate, talk about identity, and then fail to unify any of that into an interesting or effective piece of activism.
• They fail to offer any kind of alternative vision for debate to resolve the issues they are criticizing
• They get beat on the line by line of T, typically because they are either just out-teched or do a worse job of weighing impacts.
• Their argument either falls apart or mutates radically when scrutinized with basic questions about its internal logic

Winning non-topical affs usually offer me something interesting and unique I'll think about after the debate, and don't do the above.

Neg teams should feel free to engage these affs however they want. I'll vote for T. I'll vote for smart indicts, PICs (language ones are fine), case turns, alternative advocacies, etc.

I normally view framework as a very binary thing against these affs. If the aff isn't topical, and responds with framework along the lines of "we're impact turning T, sorry" - I usually tend to think framework doesn't matter a whole lot.

But I judged a debate recently where the neg went for extinction impacts, but didn't go for framework, and I don't blame them because I'm not sure they needed to, because of how the debate shook out.

I think in those sort of situations, impact analysis is super helpful. Like, we've all agreed that all in and out-of-round impacts count and matter, but how do I evaluate the neg's extinction impact against the aff's in-round impacts of exclusion/topicality is bad.

Soft-left affs vs. generic Ks (cap, set col, etc.)

I keep seeing these debates, and think that between two great teams, the aff should usually win, barring a huge mistake in the 1AR like dropping the perm.

That's not to say I haven't voted neg in these debates, I have. I just think that the neg usually has a hard time explaining why their link arguments matter in the context of the perm. I don't think I'm alone on this - seems like basically every great elim fitting this description I've judged this year ended in a 3-0 for the aff on the perm.

Theory

I have noticed that 2ACs these days sandbag a lot of theory arguments in the hopes that they'll be missed. I really dislike that, honestly, but that doesn't mean I'll reject your argument by any means.

What it does mean is that I endeavor to err neg on theory questions if the aff waits until the 2AR to actually develop the argument. If you think you're going to go for theory in the 2AR, it will help you to just pull the trigger in the 1AR.

Some other thoughts:

• Functional and textual competition are both good and bad, but it depends on the context of the specific counterplan.
• Counterplans like delay or consult shouldn't be competitive, but I find myself voting on them when the aff simply fails to execute and make the common-sense args that drive these debates.

I do NOT have any particularly well-developed opinions on disclosure theory. I've voted on it, and I've laughed it off as ridiculous, depending on the context.

"Stock issues" DA / Case / CP debates

I've been seeing a lot of debates where the negative goes for a strategy right out of the 1980s - 1 generic DA, an agent CP, and lots of defense on the advantages and solvency.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with this strategy, but you should be aware that absent some other framework argument, I will evaluate the debate in an "offense/defense" paradigm.

That means even if I think the case only has a 1% chance of solving, I'll vote aff unless there is an offensive (e.g. turn or DA) reason not to.

Related to this, if the CP solves the entire aff, even a 1% risk of the DA is enough for me to vote negative.

Important to keep this in mind in the 2NR/2AR - I've seen teams go for arguments that probably win the debate in front of a more traditional judge, but not for me.

_____________________

Public Forum:

Because I usually judge policy debate, I'm generally open as far as argument selection and speed are concerned. In the five public forum debates I have judged, I voted on a disclosure theory argument in one of them.

I will flow the debate similarly to how I would flow a policy debate.

I've noticed that my persistent feedback, even after watching a fantastic PF debate, is "both teams need more impact analysis." Tell me which impacts come first, and why, ideally in terms of magnitude, timeframe, and probability. It's ok to go for one impact in the final focus, if you've got a compelling reason why none of the other impacts can match it.

LD:

I've judged 1 LD debate in the last decade. I will have more familiarity with the general conventions of the event if you filter the debate down to the question of two competing value-criterion chains.

But if you want to run a K, theory, CP, or something like that, I'm certainly open to it. I just won't know the "LD" way to evaluate these sort of arguments, so you should expect a decision that comes in more "policy" terms.

I do remember when I last judged LD, I often got lost in very technical "burden" discussions - so if your argument hinges on a very specific interpretation of the resolution, make sure to slow down so I understand it.

Yes, I want to be on the email chain, please put both emails on the chain.

codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

smdebatedocs@gmail.com

Speaker Points

I attempted to resist the point inflation that seems to happen everywhere these days, but I decided that was not fair to the teams/debaters that performed impressively in front of me.

27.7 to 28.2 - Average

28.3 to 28.6 - Good job

28.7 to 29.2 - Well above average

29.3 to 29.7 - Great job/ impressive job

29.8 to 29.9 - Outstanding performance, better than I have seen in a long time. Zero mistakes and you excelled in every facet of the debate.

30 - I have not given a 30 in years and years, true perfection.

I am willing to listen to most arguments. There are very few debates where one team wins all of the arguments so each of you must identify what you are winning and make the necessary comparisons between your arguments and the other team's arguments/positions. Speed is not a problem although clarity is essential. If I think that you are unclear I will say clearer and if you don't clear up I will assign speaker points accordingly. Try to be nice to each other and enjoy yourself. Good cross-examinations are enjoyable and typically illuminates particular arguments that are relevant throughout the debate. Please, don't steal prep time. I do not consider e-mailing evidence as part of your prep time nonetheless use e-mailing time efficiently.

I enjoy substantive debates as well as debates of a critical tint. If you run a critical affirmative you should still be able to demonstrate that you are Topical/predictable. I hold Topicality debates to a high standard so please be aware that you need to isolate well-developed reasons as to why you should win the debate (ground, education, predictability, fairness, etc.). If you are engaged in a substantive debate, then well-developed impact comparisons are essential (things like magnitude, time frame, probability, etc.). Also, identifying solvency deficits on counter-plans is typically very important.

Theory debates need to be well developed including numerous reasons a particular argument/position is illegitimate. I have judged many debates where the 2NR or 2AR are filled with new reasons an argument is illegitimate. I will do my best to protect teams from new arguments, however, you can further insulate yourself from this risk by identifying the arguments extended/dropped in the 1AR or Negative Bloc.

GOOD LUCK! HAVE FUN!

Yes, I want to be on the email chain. Codymorrowtx1@gmail.com

University of Michigan '24

ethanmusestudios@gmail.com

Meadows '17 

UCLA '21

email: abdusnajmi7@gmail.com 

Specific arguments: 

Kritiks -- This is where most people go first when they look at paradigms so I'll just put it at the top. The best debates I've seen are the ones where the neg has a super specific link story against an aff. The reason I get so frustrated with aff teams is because the aff never really utilizes any of their aff against the K, they just read stuff like "realism inev" or "neolib good" or "who the hell is baudrillard (Balsas 2006)." There is nothing wrong with these arguments in a vacuum -- they are necessary to win debates (you need indicts, impact turns, etc.) -- but my point is that you have to make a story about how your aff RELATES to those arguments and why that means your aff is NOT what the K describes. And what that means is READ the link evidence. A lot of the time the neg's link cards aren't about the aff at all, they are about random reasons why hegemony might be bad.

I don't think "framework - you don't get a K" is a good argument at all, but framework is important for both teams to explain why the judge should view a debate in a certain way. 

Please do not make a million permutations without any explanation/warrant -- saying "perm do both,  perm do the aff and non-mutually exclusive parts of the alt, perm do the aff and then the alt" doesn't really get you anywhere -- the neg could stand up and say "perm do both fails" and i'd be totally fine. You didn't explain what perm do both means or why it would work, so why should the negative explain why it fails? I just don't really think it's fair for the 2AC to say "perm do both" and then the neg has to read a 4 minute perm block just to answer 3 words. So neg -- take advantage of this. Obviously explain why the perm fails, but know that I will cut you some slack if there is legit 0 explanation of any of the perms. This also avoids those debates where no one knows what perm was extended in the 2AR and which perm the 2NR was answering.

The reason this section's explanation is so long is because K debates can either be the worst debates or the best debates. If both sides are knowledgeable about their authors and arguments, it's extremely fun to watch and both sides will get great speaker points -- but if both sides are just going through the motions and reading generic stuff, it's kind of terrible and boring.

Topicality -- literally was like 60% of my 1NRs, I think it's really effective when the negative paints a scary version of the topic under the aff's interpretation. Impact comparison is really important for both sides; limits is an impact in my opinion, but obviously it can also be an internal link to ground. Explanation o/w evidence -- but having the best/qualified definition will probably make the debate easier for you to win.  I think reasonability is a question of ground -- i.e. is there enough stuff the negative could read against the aff based on topic generics released at camps? It doesn't make sense for reasonability to be like "gut check am i reasonable" because that's arbitrary and based on someone's thoughts -- it's not debatable. That being said, you can obviously argue a different interpretation of what reasonability is and i'd be happy to hear it/vote for it!

No Plan Affs/Framework --  Enjoy them, and am totally open to listening to them. The closer the aff is to the topic, the less of a threat framework should be. Just saying I mainly read policy affs in high school, except once at the TOC and that aff still had a plan. I think fairness is an impact for framework, but most people think it's an internal link to limits (which i also think is an impact, it's just a separate one). I don't really think it's smart to go for education on framework -- kritik teams will always have more game on education-type arguments. 

Disads -- topic specific DA's > generic ones. don't really think politics DA is that cool/hipster, but aff teams don't know how to point out how stupid it is so neg teams end up winning a lot of these debates for some reason. Pls pls pls pls do impact turn debates. these are SO FUN to watch and if u just drop a million, quality arguments and do awesome case defense it's like sooo hard for the 1ar to come back. but this means u have to have a decent sized 1nc shell! reading 1 card on case that impact turns econ decline does not cut it. the 2ac has to be able to slightly predict it, i'll give them leeway if you only read 1 impact turn card in the 1nc. that being said!!! Aff teams -- it's really cool and i will reward u with speaker points if u kick out of the aff in the 1ar and go for straight impact turns -- i LOVED doing that and we won a ton of debates bc of it (@ jaden lessnick). but that doesn't mean always do it front of me -- u should always protect your aff and don't kick out of it if you don't need to.

CP's -- they are great, i like case specific pics, i think theory needs to be a bigger deal though. so many cp's are illegit and i went for "reject the team" a lot -- (especially on things like agent cp's) -- only if the 2nr goes for it. but you have to say WHY i should reject the team. but obviously keep in mind (neg) i will still vote for these arguments if you debate it well -- that's the point of debate. it's just my personal preference. if you debate it really well i'll higher your speaks and stuff, don't just not read an argument cuz i'm not the biggest fan of it.  i don't think "rejecting the argument" solves anything and is kind of unfair to the aff. states cp is probs cheating so just have a fed key warrant or just go for theory lmao 

Theory -- I don't have a specific threshold for how many condo advocacies are allowed/not allowed -- having 2 that are inconsistent is probs worse than having 3 that totally are. Plz do impact comparsion, this is what wins theory debates. no one really does it which is why theory debates get a bad rep. every theory argument is a reason to reject the team unless told otherwise, but if the 2nr doesn't go for it, it's an uphill battle for "rejecting the team." 

Saint Vincent de Paul '19

Judge for Sonoma Academy

Hey there, my name is Emma but I do go by Tony as well(she/her), feel free to call me whatever in round. (If you can naturally call me Captain I will give you a speaks boost. If it is not natural, I will know) I qualified for the TOC my sophomore and senior year and broke at most national tournaments during those two years. I have read K Affs for three of my seven years in debate but don't think that it means I am biased towards one type of argument but I am definitely more K friendly. I am a pretty basic judge, you do you and I will be happy to judge the round fairly. I get that judges might be intimidating, but I'm pretty nice. Feel free to ask me questions, we're all here to have fun.

Please strike me if you read an argument that is - racist, sexist, homophobic or anything that inherently violates someone as a person or their identity. I work on a three strike policy, if you say something that I believe comes close to crossing the line, I will tell you in the round, thats strike one. If you continue, I will warn you once more and you have docked your speaks. Strike three, I will drop you and make sure to sit you and your coach down to talk about your actions. This is not a norm that I am enforcing based on my own biases, it's based on the actions of debaters that have been left unchecked. Due to recent events in high school policy debate, if you come from a well cemented policy program you will have a higher standard to reach in general.

A note for large squads: I will hold you to a higher standard in general especially about my three strike policy. I am not a fan of a whole squad reading the same aff but I do understand it can be beneficial for debaters. That being said, read your files before the tournament. The trend of sharing files and never looking over the one's you didn't do is killing debate. So please, read your files.

Please put me on the email chain - epage.debate@gmail.com and feel free to email me any questions and let me know if I can help make the the round more accessible.

TLDR

I am willing to hear anything. Please don’t change what you’re strat just because I like a K more than a DA. If it’s a debate where we can all learn I will be super happy to judge it.

DA’s – they’re good, contextualize the link, make sure I know the story by the end of the round

CP’s – they’re also pretty cool, if you’re the affirmative I am happy to hear that the CP is abusive for XYZ reasons, make sure I have a story by the end of the round and some kind of net benefit. Perms need clear contextualization by the 1AR or I won't vote on it. I.E tell me exactly how it functions in this round.

K’s – I love a good K debate but this doesn’t mean you should read a K you don’t understand, same goes for the link debate here. Please explain the K like I am a policy judge, not only does it give you practice for your future rounds, I can then help you write your blocks for that K. Plus it never hurts to make sure that I truly understand the K regardless of if I have read it before.

T – I love a good T-Debate, please actually have voting issues. I will gladly vote for it.

Long Version

DisAd

- I don't mind them. Make sure you have researched and understand the DA well

- Turns case and case solves are different arguments

- Quality analytical reasoning and counter-examples can undermine most DAs. Combining logical analytics with your evidence or faults in their evidence boosts the credibility of analytical indicts.

Counterplan

- I will not accept a perm in passing, it needs to be flushed out entirely by the 1AR. Otherwise, I can't vote for it no matter how much it's winning

- I love reasons as to why the CP is abusive from the Aff but I need a good reason as to why.

- Ensure that you flush out the link and really contextualize it to the Aff in this round.

Topicality

- T is good

- make sure you don't forget to answer it in its entirety

- Affs should explain how reasonability impacts how I should decide the debate. Often, Affs win that reasonability is good but do not explain how that buffers/raises threshold for Neg offense

Kritik

- I love a good Kritik debate, I have read - Psychoanalysis, Death, Preciado, Bifo, Info/Persuasion, Set Col, Cap and many more

- if you don't understand the K, don't read it

- I prefer if your K is contextualized to the topic and better yet to the Aff

- you need a strong link and the entire K needs to be explained

- please limit your overview to 45 seconds

Non-Traditional Affirmatives

- I love it

- make sure your aff turns FW

- please make sure you can explain why you're topical or not and own it

Weird Pet Peeves

- please disclose on the wiki

- i cannot handle people who are rude or mean in CX for the sake of being mean

- extinction is not a tag line

Be nice, have fun! Break a leg

Updated for NDCA/TOC 21

Overview

E-Mail Chain: Add me (chris.paredes@gmail.com). I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.

Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate philosophy is reflective of the fact that I debated in the 00s and may not align with current "meta" trends of the community. Fifth year as the Assistant Director at Damien.

Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate (either more fair or more pedagogically valuable) compared to your opponent's.

Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is always easier to debate well by using true arguments (and good cards). In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however when I start reading evidence I read critically and will evaluate warrants. Arguments are only as good as their warrants -- if a card does not have the necessary warrants underlined/highlighted then I give them no greater weight than analytics. You are much better off with a few good well-highlighted cards than multiple bad and/or under-highlighted cards. Well explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.

Topic Familiarity: ~70 rounds on the topic so far. My professional background outside of debate is in civil rights law and public policy, so I have very high technical proficiency for process counterplans and plan flaws in this topic.

Argument Selection: Run whatever you are most familiar and comfortable with. I believe it is better for debate that judges reward good debating over ideology, and I try my best to hold myself to this standard. I am aware of my biases and strive to remain neutral when rendering a decision. Almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents; I frequently vote for arguments that I would rather not exist in debate. Regardless of the style of debate you choose, your goal should be to debate in a way where you do the work for me. You can limit the chances that I intervene against your interests by 1) establishing what criterion the debate should be evaluated under and 2) demonstrating to me why you win under those criterion. Think of the 2NR and 2AR as competing pitches trying to sell me a fully formed product; pitch me the better ballot.

Argument by argument breakdown below.

* Topicality

Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot if you are the team that best contextualizes how you provide the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I appreciate a good T debate and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses.

I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am generally more receptive to arguments that are able to quantify why the counter-interp is reasonable like "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases." I am generally not receptive to vague generalities such as "They have case specific literature, proves we are reasonably predictable."

I believe that many resolutions are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable negative strategy is important. Therefore I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is topical in a truth sense.

Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are independently impacted, Otherwise they must be connected as internal links to your original violation and standards. I think it is better to introduce Fx/Xtra as early in the round as you perceive the aff to be a violator. I generally believe that late breaking development is bad for the negative on topicality.

* Framework / T-USFG

My ideological predispositions are negative. If debated equally, the negative would probably almost always win framework in front of me. However an equal debate is a unicorn; I have never seen a round where framework was "equal." I strive for neutrality and I try my hardest to vote for whoever defends their model of debate better. As a result, I usually end up voting aff half the time.

For an aff to win framework in front of me, they should articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model for the activity. "The USFG/system sucks" or "The topical version doesn't solve" are generally not convincing reasons -- I default to believing that you need to do more/better research vs. concluding that systems are bad (i.e. a TVA is lethal). Given that debate is a competition, I default to treating procedural fairness as an impact. I can, and do, vote on education but it is the responsibility of the aff to make a case for why education outweighs or why I should prefer substantive fairness.

For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for as I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both, it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends regardless of the impact you choose. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss but impact that ground loss. For example, rather than just saying that the use of non-USFG actors makes it impossible to research, argue that research is the internal link to both clash and a case debate which means fairness is key to both in-round and topic education. When going for education, I will also give great weight to well-developed arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. As someone who works in civil rights law, I do generally believe in the potential for reform through laws and systems and empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable are extremely convincing in front of me.

* Procedurals/Theory

I value nuance a lot more than many other judges. I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy and the best iteration of debate is debate that will teach people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae. Process is important. Consequently, I have much less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case that the negative is entitled to test. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.

That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you unless you have done substantial argumentative development and clash on the theory flow. Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time. Do not spread a block of analytics like they were a card.

My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:

- Condo is good, but should probably have limitations (especially regarding perf cons and skew).

- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate, but should prove competition (process CPs where the process is entirely intrinsic are NOT competitive absent specific solvency evidence - i.e. uncooperative federalism, consult, etc.)

- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.

- A specific solvency advocate generally proves competitiveness and non-abuse while the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates either the likelihood of a solvency deficit or a lack of competition.

- The aff is not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) just because they do not specify.

My defaults that UNLIKELY to be/CANNOT be changed:

- CX is binding.

- Lit checks/justifies because debate is primarily a research and strategic activity.

- OSPEC is never a voter (sole exception to a team fiating something contradictory to their ev or contradictions between ev).

- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).

- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.

- Disclosure is good; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.

- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but unverfiable behavior outside the room/round is not relevant.

- Condo doesn't automatically allow severance of the discourse/rhetoric attached to the offcase (it's one thing to test the aff from multiple perspectives, it's another to run hege impacts when you have a K with a reps links and the alt is to reject bad scholarship). You can win this argument, but you must actually argue it. It is not a default entitlement.

- ASPEC is checked by cross and the neg should ask. If the aff does not answer, the neg can subsequently win the round by proving moving target or link spikes. If the aff does answer and doesn't spike, then ASPEC is dead.

* Kritiks

TL;DR: If you actually are legitimately interested in critical academic scholarship, have studied the literature seriously, and have a good contextualized argument for why that lens of that scholarship is relevant to the aff, then I am probably a good judge for you. If you want to be lazy and avoid doing specific case research so you can brute force ballots with links to the use of the state/fiat, then I am probably a bad judge for you. If you have me in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, there is an extremely high likelihood that you done your prefs incorrectly.

I enjoy critical literature, however I tend to dislike critical rounds because the vast majority of teams are very bad at making critical arguments and/or establishing why they are relevant to debate. I also find that the K evidence (on both sides) are the most likely to be power-tagged and under-highlighted (and yes that comparison includes politics evidence). But I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad. I have a high level of academic familiarity with basic critical lit, but only debate-level familiarity with higher level theory (Deleuze, Baudrilliard, etc.) However, even if I understand the lit, the kritik must be presented in an comprehensible fashion in round. I will not use my personal knowledge to make a K coherent for myself if was presented incoherently in the round. Additionally, the quality of your literature does not matter if the kritik is functionally deficient as a call for the ballot. You are well served by a developed defense of your decision-making process and why it is good.

The neg should clash with the affirmative head-on. A link is insufficient to win the K in front of me; a good contextualized link proves relevance to the round, but a complete K must give me a reason to reject the aff or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you do not explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt (or lack thereof) you will find that I have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as you actually give me a reason to do that beyond re-asserting the link(s) (e.g. links prove bad scholarship and therefore should be treated as procedural reasons to reject the aff as a research project). If the alt is some actual action which solves back for the implications of the kritik, in the fiat world or the real world, the solvency process of the alt should be explained and contrasted with the plan. Links of omission are super uncompelling in front of me. Ks can solve the aff, but there is a fundamental problem if they result in the aff. Floating PIKs pretty much never get my ballot unless the aff conceded that Floating PIKs are legitimate.

Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to consider the merit in challenging kritik ideology head on rather than labeling your discourse as a link. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relate to your aff.

* Disadvantages

I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial (i.e. the elections disad). I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of strong defense, but I do not really care about how strong your impact is and how the risk is infinite when extinction is infinite after you straight up lost the link.

* Counterplans

I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of the net benefit the neg must win is inversely proportional to how good the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits so they carry a much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg can present a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.

Because I do not think a 1AC plan text that fails to specify gives the aff default access to all theoretical implementations of the plan, I am super unfriendly to Perm Do the CP. The aff should know their case better and should want to take a debate on minutiae against the neg. Meanwhile the neg has an equally high burden to defend the coherence of a counter-advocacy (or the model of debate implied by their negative strategy). I will reject a counterplan for a structural defect or because the aff has effectively convinced me that the neg is debating in a way that is not just strategic but also fundamentally unfair. Process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic are not competitive and I have a very low threshold for rejecting them.

Superior solvency for aff impacts can be a sufficient net benefit for me to vote on the CP (either because of a conceded aff-only case take-out or turn, or because the CP solves better) so long as there's a reason to reject the perm.

I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do it if condo has been established.

I'm a sucker for sufficiency framing and DA as a tie-breaker against structural violence impacts; the aff absolutely needs a solvency deficit or needs to field well-developed arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative's framing (and why that is important in the round).

Misc.

Speaker Points: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I distribute speaks as if I was grading performances on a bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around an average. Theoretically teams looking to break should be scoring above average by definition. This scale is also standardized across tournaments, which means the majority of debaters at a national circuit tournament should be above average by default when compared to debaters who debate strictly lay-style. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. Thanos snap jokes on a Malthus flow.

Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear in Zoom. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. I also dislike long overviews that just get cross applied everywhere.

Bonus and Penalty Speaker Points: Because I feel it is a weakening aspect of debate, I want to incentivize debaters to do strategic and offensive research by awarding them with bonus speaks for what I consider "good strategy." On the neg that means that I should be able to tell that you have researched the plan thoroughly (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans/disads or a nuanced T or procedural objection vs. a generic actor/process CP plus a politics disad). Conversely, penalty to speaks if you try to hide ASPEC on T; penalty is doubled if you do not write out the ASPEC subpoint on T and try to sneak it through. On the aff that means being able to coherently defend your aff as a specific implemented policy/strategy rather than just being a "good idea." Specific plan texts with specific implementation backed by authors is vastly superior to the most generic phrasing possible that you can use for "plan text in a vacuum." I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies. And by disads, I do not mean solvency deficits masquerading as disads. Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad; CP gets circumvented is not a disad.

Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.

Accommodations: Feel free to ask for accommodations before or during round or email me ahead of time.

jpark.debate@gmail.com
University of Kansas '23

pronouns: he/him/his

Coaching for Washburn Rural (KS) and the Asian Debate League (TW)

TLDR: better judge for traditional policy strategies, not super biased, not the greatest flow, be creative, will vote on args that promote sedition, etc.

* compile a doc of relevant cards post-2NR/2AR

* clarity, explanation, persuasion, and quality of arguments will be rewarded

* strategies that are fully-developed and clash tend to perform better in front of me

Online Debate: be slower and clearer, don't start if my camera's off, send analytics, and interrupt each other less - I will be patient with tech issues, but please be prompt

________________________________________________________________________________________

About Me:

* respect your opponents (CX, pronouns, don't mercilessly bludgeon less-experienced debaters), be ethical, and read the Zoom

Policy

* aff-leaning on theory

* framing contentions need to contain offense

* more inexperienced judging techy T and Counterplan debates

* lack of analysis, judge instruction/framing, contextualization, and argument development will lead to me intervening - this will likely not be in your favor

Critiques

* my voting record is not heavily skewed either way

* lit bases outside of biopower, colonialism, settler colonialism, capitalism/neoliberalism, and IR need more explanation

* I seem to care a little more about performative contradictions/linking to your own K than some; teams should use this to their advantage

________________________________________________________________________________________

People who have shaped the way I think about debate/inspire me include Cindy Burgett, Tim Ellis, Will Katz, Natalie Knez, Q Robinson, Jordan Foley, Jazzy Stidham, and Brian Box.

Arjun Patel, Maine East Debate 2012-2016, TOC Octafinalist 2016, UChicago Alumni (Class of 2020), BA in Statistics, Lead Data Scientist at Speeko. Updated for 2020-2021!

Do not read death good in front of me or you will lose

Email: arjunkirtipatel@gmail.com

General Background:

Debated for Maine East High School (coached by Wayne Tang, Keith Barnstein, Ann Peter). Most of my ideations about debate have been shaped by who I've debated with (Ashton Smith) and who've I been coached by. I will approach arguments in a very "policy" mindset, so keep that in mind throughout this paradigm. It will be harder to win non-intuitive arguments (death good, etc) in front of me, but tech rules truth.Generally, if you are confused by anything here, check Ashton Smith's paradigm or Wayne Tang's to gain an insight into my debate atmosphere.

Affirmative General Comments:

Ran policy affs through most of my career, ran a soft left aff at the TOC and the good part of my senior year (genetic discrimination/racism impacts), check the wiki for 2015-2016. Generally, the smarter and more nuanced the aff, the more I'll enjoy it.

Disadvantages

Disads are awesome, as long as you make sure you are making inroads to the case and are mitigating aff arguments. The more specific the arg, the more diverse the link debate, and the stronger the internal link to the impact, and everything will go fine.
Politics: I am very receptive to affirmative arguments on politics, especially link defense and uniqueness thumpers. It's a good disad only in the hands of the technical. Make sure you spell out the uniqueness debate.

Enough chips away at the disad, and it's entirely possible for the aff team to reduce risk of the DA to zero. Be careful. This also means that 1% risk framing isn't super convincing to me on face, and you need to do work to establish this.

Answer warrants in impact defense.

I am receptive to ethical objections to the DA, if they are relevant (eg last year, terror DA is racist, etc), as long as they are supported and impacted.

Counterplans.

Good, nuanced ones are going to convince me very well. Make the net benefit clear, and dispatch of theoretical concerns, make the aff team's life hell. Aff: theory arguments and smart perms are incredibly persuasive, as well as smart solvency deficits. No solvency advocate is ALWAYS a bad time.

Topicality

I'm not the best judge for this argument, even though my debate career might imply otherwise. I strongly suggest you go for another argument unless the aff is blatantly un topical or you are damn good at explaining T debate jargon free. Unless you have made it incredibly devastating for the affirmative, it will be tough for me to decide the debate on T, and I will lean affirmative.

If you do decide to do this, make the impacts clear. Assume I have no idea about the acronyms you will inevitably use on the T debate. Explain as much as possible.

Framework

I didn't go for framework much, but I am pretty receptive to the argument given clear clash and engagement with the affirmative arguments. Please impact why your framework is better, and why your interpretation solves offense from the aff side. Please engage with the case. Topical version of the affirmative is a strong defensive argument, which if dropped or substantially won, becomes a huge reason to vote for the team that proposed it.

Planless Affs/Performance.

In general, not really receptive to these arguments, but I will not refuse to listen to them and I will judge them to the best of my ability. I consider Plan Text solves the case and C/I solves the aff args the most damaging against these affirmatives, as well as ballot k type arguments made pertinent to the affirmative, so prepare accordingly.

I'm going to post something that my former debate partner put quite well here (Ashton Smith).

"Note: Coming from a school without tons of resources and recognizing the experiences of other relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates."

Lastly, if you debate your affirmative well, and dispatch with neg offense, you will win my ballot. If you use obtuse philosophical/(insert theory here) language, and not explain what is going on, chances are I will get lost and I'll vote for the other team. I'm not an expert in what you're running, please understand that and accommodate. Part of debate is effective communication and if you don't effectively communicate the thesis of your argument to me, you lose.

Kritiks:

Don't use jargon the average person wouldn't understand. If you do, explain your terms explicitly.

I had an odd relationship with kritiks in my debate career. I have ran k arguments, ranging from security to Virillio to antiblackness a few times, however with any k debate I probably don't know what you are talking about. I will approach a kritik debate, in the absence of clear explanation from the negative, very much like a counterplan with a non-unique net benefit. Make it clear what your k is, why the affirmative UNIQUELY links, and what the impact is. Don't forget to include why your alternative solves risk of aff offense. BS K tricks are just that, BS k tricks...you can do better, and I'm not likely to vote on them. floating piks are silly and I won't vote on them. Probably weigh the aff.

MISC

Please don't expect me to understand the complicated jargon you will inevitably use (k stuff, legal terms, agency acronyms or bill titles). Make an effort too clearly, and concisely, explain the arguments you are presenting.

I despise when students (especially top tier senior teams) read 5+ off, especially in front of sophomores. Don't do this. You can win the debate without outspreading the opponent, and if you can't, you have bigger fish to fry... Having said that, as usual I will listen to the debate I just won't like it. If you are an aff team that destroys a neg team trying to outspread you, expect high speaker points.

The best debate possible is one with heavy discussion of case (such as case/author indicts, turns, arguments cut from the opposing sides evidence, impact turns, mechanism cps/mechanism das, and analytics).This is true even with planless affs and performance. If you can dismantle an affirmative with more analytics than cards in the 1nc, I'll be impressed.

Cross ex is a speech. I take notes on cross ex (meaning I write down what you state, in order to use this as clarifying or framing information for arguments you make make later) so make the most use of it. Get concessions, framing, clarification, or run traps. Point out flaws. Bonus if you can make their arguments look ridiculous, while still being classy.

Protip: I have a horrible poker face, so if I look distracted, or confused in the round, chances are that I am. Same for if I don't look those ways.

I'm a sucker for impact turns, so I appreciate a good impact turn adv cp strategy. (Consequently however, I will pay especially close attention to this debate. It isn't a get out of jail free card).

If you can trap the affirmative (or the negative) in making an argument detrimental to themselves (especially in CX), or if you concede arguments strategically to put yourself in a better position, speaker points will go up. Some of the best debate rounds happen when unseen connections are made between arguments, and used efficiently.

The more you engage the case, the more I will enjoy the debate and the better it will turn out for you.

Dropping Theory is almost always a game over, but this is diminished by how ridiculous the theory argument is. Condo is persuasive, so is any kind of theoretical objections to abusive counterplans (conditions, multi-actor fiat, no solvency advocate, pics bad etc). Just be sure you impact your argument when it's dropped, and it's good.

Don't do anything unethical (racist, sexist etc). I will not hesitate to drop you. If you think the other team has done something unethical and I don't look like I have noticed (again, I have a really bad poker face) make that clear, please.

Good luck.

I would like to be on the chain, here's my email: masonwpeeples@gmail.com

Debated at Notre Dame for 4 years, went to the TOC, currently a student at American University, feel free to ask questions if you have them.

Read whatever you want as fast as you want (as long as you're clear)

Given that, there are a few areas where I hold specific opinions. These opinions are closer to my natural dispositions and can all obviously be swayed by good debating. If there's something you're worried about that's not on here, chances are I don't have strong feelings about it, but you can always email me or ask me before the round if you're curious:

Kritiks-- If you're looking at this trying to decide between going for the K or something else, you should go for something else. But if the K is what you do best, go for it. I find myself increasingly judging bad k debates which has substantially lowered my tolerance for the argument. Fundamentally I think K's are interesting, strategic arguments that are capable of bringing about really in-depth and nuanced debates, but debaters are so insistent on just throwing overviews and paragraph long tags at each other that I think much of the potential of K debate is lost. Unless you have a link to the PLAN, then you should not go for the k in front of me. Any other type of link articulation should be easily disposed of by the affirmative with a permutation. Floating PIKs are probably bad but not the end of debate, and severance is bad.

Counterplans-- "PICs are good, especially if they PIC out of a part of the plan" -- Brett Bricker, NDT Champion. Functional competition > textual competition.

Topicality-- I don't have any specific bias on topicality, just tell me why the aff is or is not topical, and make sure to do impact calc in terms of why that matters. It's not enough to assert that the aff "explodes limits", you have to tell me how and why that is important.

Non-Traditional affs/Topicality vs. Non-Traditional affs-- I'm down to listen to whatever you want to talk about, as long as you give me a reason why talking about that is good/productive/unproductive/etc. Now given that, debate is a game. Procedural fairness is an impact, perhaps the only impact that my ballot can resolve. Despite this, debating the line-by-line on topicality is necessary for negative teams to get my ballot. If you concede that debate is not a game or that it should not be viewed as such, I'm not going to automatically default to procedural fairness. While I may tend to lean negative on the question of framework, I find that most negative teams are bad at persuading me to vote on it so don't let that discourage you from reading your aff. Also "but you flipped neg" is not an argument.

Theory-- I think condo is a reason to reject the team. Anything beyond condo is probably a reason to reject the argument, although I can be persuaded otherwise. As a former 2A I'm pretty sympathetic to 2+ condo illegit args. Judge kick is bad but only if the aff tells me it is.

Other notes--

• impact calc is extremely important
• impact turns are underrated
• case debate is also underrated
• don't be rude, it'll lower your speaks and also makes me uncomfortable
• I probably won't read evidence after the round unless there's a lot of contestation over a specific piece of evidence, and if I do read ev, I'm only going to read what you read in the debate (i.e highlighting)
• tech > truth
• saying the words 'durable fiat' is not a sufficient answer to circumvention

Preface
Yes I want to be on the email chain. nickspereda@gmail.com.
Don't steal prep
An argument is claim and warrant minimum.

Summary
I like flex debating and enjoy diverse strategies, so you do you and I will try to judge you with as little argumentative biases as possible. That being said, I am a human and I do have preferences.

I think the aff should read a plan text and defend it. At worst, I think the aff should have a strong resolutional basis. Probably related to that, I'm likely not the greatest judge for super K-oriented strategies. This is not to say I do not enjoy these debates or won't vote for Ks, but that you will have to do more work explaining the theory and its relationship to the aff than average.

I feel much more qualified in "policy" debates. I like wonky and technically intensive stuff so do something interesting.

Isolate what impacts you think you have a chance of winning and compare it to the impacts you think the other team has a chance of winning.

Speed:
I'm good with it but don't sacrifice clarity. Slow down on theory arguments, give me pen time.

*For online tournaments: Maybe slow down a bit to compensate for mic quality so I can still understand what you're saying.

Tech vs. Truth:
Tech> Truth. Being on the side of truth is obviously a good thing and I'm hesitant to consider arguments that are objectively false, but if you can't answer an argument that's really really bad, then you should lose anyways.

Evidence vs. Spin:
I think research is the most important aspect of debate and should be rewarded. I will read every card that I think I need to at the end of the round, so isolate evidence you think is really good or important. That being said, cards are support for larger arguments, meaning that I will default to your explanation of an argument or card whenever it makes sense.

In technical debates, have a card doc for the end of the round so I don't have to look around for relevant cards.

Quality>quantity

Specific argument preferences:
Topicality:

I went for T a lot in both high school and college and think a lot of debaters just aren't as good at debating it or as willing as a lot of other argument categories. Well executed T debates are really fun for me, but poorly executed T debates are the least enjoyable type of debate to judge. Limits and ground aren't impacts, they're internal links to things like education, fairness, research models, etc. I default to competing interpretations but reasonability is a winnable argument.

RVI's are bad arguments.

T comes before theory.

Case lists are good and necessary.

Actually engage with the other teams arguments, most T debates I've judged at this point have felt like ships passing in the night and forced me to resolve a lot of stuff on my own which should never be what you want. Statistically I lean neg in these debates, but I think that's because a lot of 2Ns only go for T if it's very clear cut which is unfortunate.

I've discovered throughout the CJR season that I vote neg much more often than aff in these debates and I think that's usually due to sloppy 1AR coverage or bad evidence.

DA:
Cool. Aff specific DAs are much cooler (and usually easier to win).

There is such thing as zero risk and I think the link usually controls the direction of uniqueness.

Do a lot of turns case analysis that's actually contextualized to the internal links of the 1AC. Not much else to say.

CP:
Good, not much else to say. I will say that I like advantage CP + Impact turn debates a lot.

Word PICs should be based on a word in the plantext, anything other than that is meh.

Read a solvency advocate, each plank should be based on evidence or something the other team said.

I will not kick the counterplan for you unless you tell me to.

Ks:

Material> High theory

I have a high threshold for the link portion of the debate. Root cause claims are not links but they can be solvency deficits. Fiat not being real is not an argument. Links of omission are the worst arguments in debate.

If I don't feel like I can explain your K to someone else by the end of the round then I will not feel comfortable voting for you.

Ks that advocate for death or suicide are not only bad arguments in the context of debate, but also morally objectionable and I will not vote for them.

K affs:
I am not the best judge for this. I prefer debates focused around a plan, and in nearly all of the clash debates I have judged at this point I have voted for FW.

I don't know that my ballot has the potential to do anything beside designate a winner or loser, and debate isn't meant to come to a final decision on the truth of any given statement but come to a determination on subjective truth so I don't think subject formation arguments are very persuasive.

The aff should at a minimum be related to the topic. You should also have some clear advocacy statement that you defend consistently. The CI should be predictable and res grounded with definitions. USFG = "the people" is intellectually dishonest and just not a good argument.

FW vs. K Affs:
Go for it, it's the most strategic 2NR available.

I'm more likely to vote on procedural fairness than I think the community at large is. Structural fairness disparities are inevitable but procedural fairness disparities aren't.

FW is not violent or policing and saying so is insulting to people that have dealt with those issues.

Theory:
Usually a reason to reject the argument not the team. 3 conditional advocacies are probably ok but more is iffy. Consult, delay, and condition counter-plans are sketchy. Each conditional plank is its own world if you can kick them individually. I have been both a 2A and 2N, so I don't have any strong protectionist feelings for either team, and sometimes cheating is pretty fun to watch. Also I think the impact of some theory arguments should sometimes just be that you should get to cheat too.

Speaker points
They're entirely subjective. That being said, I do understand that context (tournament size, quality, etc.) should influence my scale. Speaker points are a holistic reflection of how I think you did. I used to have a scale here but with speaker point inflation I don't think it really matters anymore. My average hovers around 28.5-28.6.

I have shortened my paradigm over time to make it easier to read, if you have questions for prefs just email me.

Donny Peters

Director of Debate

Damien High School

18 years coaching. Before Damien I have coached at; Cal State Fullerton, Santa Margarita High School, Fairmont High School, Illinois State University, Ball State University, Wayne State University and West Virginia University.

I have been judging/coaching for 18 years, mostly college. After reading over paradigms for my entire adult life, I am not sure how helpful they really are. They seem to be mostly a chance to rant, a coping mechanism, a way to get debaters not to pref them and some who generally try but usually fail to explain how they judge debates. Regardless, my preferences are below, but feel free to ask me before the round if you have any questions.

For CJR: New Trier is my first official tournament judging this season, but I have done a ton of work on the topic, judged practice debates etc.

Evidence: This is an evidence based activity. I put great effort to listening, reading and understanding your evidence. If you have poor evidence, under highlight or misrepresent your evidence (intentional or unintentional) it makes it difficult for me to evaluate your arguments. Those who have solid evidence, are able to explain their evidence in a persuasive matter tend to get higher speaker points, win more rounds etc.

Overall: Debate how you like (with some constraints below). I will work hard to make the best decision I am capable of. Make debates clear for me, put significant effort in the final 2 rebuttals on the arguments you want me to evaluate and give me an approach to how I should evaluate the round.

Nontraditional Affs : I tend to enjoy reading the literature base for most nontraditional affirmatives. I'm not completely sold on the pedagogical value of these arguments at the high school level. I do believe that aff should have a stable stasis point in the direction of the resolution. The more persuasive affs tend to have a personal relationship with the arguments in the round and have an ability to apply their method and theory to personal experience.

Framework: I do appreciate the necessity of this argument. I am more persuaded by topical version arguments than the aff has no place in the debate. If there is no TVA then the aff need to win a strong justification for why their aff is necessary for the debate community. The affirmative cannot simply say that the TVA doesn't solve. Rather there can be no debate to be had with the TVA. Fairness in the abstract is an impact but not a persuasive one. The neg need to win specific reasons how the aff is unfair and and how that impacts the competitiveness and pedagogical value of debate. Agonism, decision making and education may be persuasive impacts if correctly done.

Counter plans: I attempt to be as impartial as I can concerning counterplan theory. I don’t exclude any CP’s on face. I do understand the necessity for affirmatives to go for theory on abusive counterplans or strategically when they do not have any other offense. Don’t hesitate to go for consult cp’s bad, process cps bad, condo, etc. For theory, in particular conditionality, the aff should provide an interpretation that protects the aff without over limiting the neg.

DA's : who doesn't love a good DA? I do not automatically give the neg a risk of the DA. Not really sure there is much else to say.

Kritiks- Although I enjoy a good K debate, good K debates at the high school level are hard to come by. Make sure you know your argument and have specific applications to the affirmative. My academic interests involve studying Foucault Lacan, Derrida, Deleuze, , etc. So I am rather familiar with the literature. Just because I know the literature does not mean I am going to interpret your argument for you.

Overall, The key to get my ballot is to make sure its clear in the 2NR/2AR the arguments you want me to vote for and impact them out. That may seem simple, but many teams leave it up to the judge to determine how to prioritize and evaluate arguments.

Put me on the email chain: sandwiches95@gmail.com (yes I know).

TLDR I debate at Wichita State in college. I am a junior. I'm more of a policy person. I will vote on framework, I will vote for an aff without a plan. Probably more willing than most to listen to cheating neg strategies but I don't like process counterplans.

I ended up judging a lot of CJR debates and all I can really say is that the big affs are really cool and I think soft left affs are getting really boring. I tend to render decisions quickly and talk a lot after. Interrupt me if you have a question or I made you mad.

I debated at Kapaun Mt. Carmel (2018) in high school. I've been a 2n my whole career. I primarily research and read policy stuff.

They/Them

- I try to hold myself to the same standard I expect out of judges when I am debating. I care a lot about debate and think it's an amazing activity. I cannot promise that I will always make the best decision, but I can promise that I will put as much effort as possible into that decision. Debates are hard and stressful and I don't think that asking a lot of questions constitutes "charging the mound." I get frustrated with decisions too and will do my best to help you work through that but at some point you just end up burning a lot of your own energy on something you cannot change. I won't take a post round personally.

- Read your framing page, but please answer the DA too. You can ignore the whole framing/ case mess that inevitably arises in the 2ar if you just strait turn the disad.

- If you clip you lose. If I catch it and the other team doesn't say anything I will still vote against you.

Disads

-Politics - Big fan. These debates, at their best, are usually about evidence quality. Strait turns are underrated - this goes for all DAs

Counterplans

- Mixed thoughts about judge kick. It’s probably fine but just please say it in the block

T

- Not a huge fan of T debates. I am not saying don’t go for it but I get very bored of judging the same T cards all year that no one agrees on the meaning of. Good debates are still good

Theory

- Anything but condo is a reason to reject the argument. I think condo is good but 2nrs get away with murder when “answering” condo

Ks vs policy affs

- I think 80% of the time when I vote for the K it is because I think it turns case.

- Really blippy framework debates bother me and if it’s a wash I usually just let the aff have the aff.

- perms are an aff argument. They can solve a lot of links.

K affs

Framework

- fairness is an argument and it can win debates. More of a clash person and not really a big “learning about the government good” person. I think we should learn about the government but I find it strategically underwhelming as an argument – it usually requires you to have already won case.

- I really do think about these debates in terms of competing interpretations. I like an idea of what the aff model looks like. This means that both teams should constantly be trying to illustrate what happens under their model AND their opponent's. I have certainly voted aff when they don’t extend a counter interp but I think that it will still increase the odds you lose tremendously.

K v K

- Not a great judge for these debates. I might know about both of your literature bases but probably will be clueless about how they interact. Obviously going for cap is fine.

- Framework arguments are always helpful

Monta Vista PS

Michigan PR

Top-level:

Do what you want, as technically as possible, and that maximizes your chances of victory.

I’ve read almost every conceivable flavor of argument -- traditional affirmatives with broad advantages about the international order, kritiks exclusively about the plan’s representations, soft-left affs about archaic and needlessly confusing judicial precedents, and kritikal affirmatives about race or Foucauldian readings of the topic.

Invariably, the strategic decisions that informed my argument choice were based in one central tenet: debate is a game.

This is an unshakeable ideological conviction and you are far better off tailoring your arguments to accommodate it rather than attempting to reverse it.

However, what I interpret debate’s status as a game to mean is substantially different than most. Rather than deeming kritikal affs an automatic non-starter or punishing 13 off with dismal speaker points, the game-nature of debate simply means you should do what it takes to win.

In that vein, I have no substantive ideological preferences sans the fact that technical argumentation decides debates.

Add me to the chain: rafaelpierry@gmail.com

Evaluating debates:

I see lots of judge philosophies include qualifications or caveats like “I am not the best at flowing.” I will appeal to no such disclaimers. I am comfortable flowing and feel confident in my ability to accurately record two high-level debaters going at top speed. If you ask me not to flow, I’ll agree, but I will treat that as you dropping every argument.

My decision will reflect what’s found on my flow and will prioritize resolving concessions in order to assess what offense has the highest risk.

Dropped arguments are absolutely true, but an argument only consists of the words you said. Additional words, warrants, or evidence are certainly new and merit new responses. If the 2AC concedes ASPEC and you extend it, you’ve almost invariably introduced new arguments, meaning the 1AR gets new responses. This doesn’t mean I won’t vote on a dropped ASPEC violation (I very quickly will), but it’s a reason you should carefully consider each word you say.

In a similar vein, cross-applications are never new. You can persuade me that the opposing team made new arguments while cross-applying something and I’ll likely grant you new contextualization, but I am extremely unlikely to disallow cross-application in a final rebuttal.

I am likely a bit more lenient than the average judge when it comes to “what constitutes a warrant.” I find that most requests for formal elaborations are needlessly pedantic and inject personal biases into the flow. I openly admit that where I draw the line is arbitrary. I am unlikely to vote negative on the phrase “vote negative if the aff drops this” alone, but I would vote on “severance is a voting issue -- makes the aff a moving target and robs neg ground” even though neither team has formally explained why lost neg ground or aff shiftiness is bad.

My general guideline for a warrant is: could I explain this argument to the other team in a reasonable post-round and feel confident that it was said by their opponents? This explanation doesn’t mean I need to have a deep intellectual grasp of the position, simply that I could re-state it and the losing side would understand why they lost.

That might sound intimidating, but, rest assured, I have been in almost zero debates where one team could not recover from a concession. 2AC dropped ASPEC? Was there a T violation in the 1NC? Did you say functional limits? Reasonability? Arbitrariness? Sounds like you answered ASPEC to me.

Regarding argument resolution, spin outweighs evidence. Spin is debating. Evidence is research. The final rebuttals should be characterized by analytical development rather than purely evidentiary extension. Of course, spin has its limits, like factual claims, and evidence remains paramount to a well-executed strategy.

When resolving arguments, I start with some assumptions. Each can easily be reversed by technical debating. For example, in an average debate between two policy teams, I assume that nuclear war is bad, that death is bad, that we should try to maintain a stable system of nation-states. These assumptions are radically altered when one team introduces a kritik. But even in the absence of a kritik, my predispositions are subject to change. In the debate hypothetical where the 1AC introduces a series of internal-links to causing nuclear war and the negative proceeds to introduce arguments for why the plan prevents a nuclear war, I would vote affirmative if I concluded the plan was more likely to cause a nuclear war than prevent it.

Lastly, no argument presumptively escapes refutation. The ideologues of the real world demonstrate that society regularly fails the “offensive” or “patently untrue” test. If you believe an argument is so poorly constructed that it does not deserve to be answered, then demonstrate why with a robust and devastating response.

K Affs and Framework:

K teams should pref me below judges who ideologically slant towards K debate, but above policy judges who don’t consider themselves clash judges.

A brief caveat: the following simply reflects my thoughts on strategy. It is not an immovable set of beliefs and you are always better served by playing to your strengths and displaying mastery of technical form.

My preferences for K teams concern technique, rather than content. If you prefer to substitute traditional line-by-line for musical performance or emphasize the affective resonance of your speeches over strategic concessions, I am not the best for you. That doesn’t mean you can’t incorporate those elements, but I will evaluate them based on their technical execution. On the other hand, if you are team that relishes technical debating and precise sequencing, but simply prefers debate arguments of a kritikal genre, then I am an apt critic.

My own debating style slants heavily in the policy direction. I’ve been exclusively a policy debater with the option to “go flex” for the majority of my career. That said, I started as a K debater and went one off in every neg debate. I’ve read a K aff for a full year. I’ve read K affs and gone one off in both college and high school. I feel confident judging pretty much any clash debate and reasonably confident judging a K vs K debate.

For framework, I’m equally good for fairness or skills. I personally believe that fairness is the better argument, but the difference in your skill vastly outweighs my marginal preference, so go for what you’re good at. If evenly debated, I will almost certainly conclude that fairness is an impact. K teams, this doesn’t mean that you should abandon attempts at impact-turning or outweighing, but it’s worth putting some thought into defense.

The counter-interpretation matters substantially more to me than most. The “impact-turn only” approach that seems in vogue relies on drastically overestimating in-round solvency and ignoring the glaring truth that both sides voluntarily participated. Some say that no conceivable aff counter-interp can avoid arbitrariness. That might be true, but I’ve yet to see a K aff that can’t outweigh arbitrariness.

For the negative, you should prioritize heavily contesting the counter-interpretation, developing a strong limits and predictability case, and winning that the counter-interpretation links to aff offense. Both switch-side debate and the topical version of the aff are powerful defensive tools, but they are often over-used and treated as an excuse to avoid directly answering aff offense. While neither should replace explicit contestation, I prefer “read it on the negative” as a catch-all defensive option.

Your best defense is often solvency. Do not let the aff win that they solve their impact-turns to topicality. Do not couch all of your defense in terms of “debate is a game” because that presupposes you have won that descriptive claim.

For the affirmative, you may be worried after my statement that debate is a game. I believe this is the case, but, as previously mentioned, it simply means that I will judge the debate like a technical game. You are more than welcome to introduce arguments for why debate is not a game, for why it should be treated as more than a game etc, and I will evaluate these according to the usual conventions of line by line.

Affirmative teams should counter-define words and craft a counter-interpretation that provides a role for the negative. You should heavily contest predictability and openly admit there are categories of affirmatives you exclude. If you define “criminal justice,” “reform,” and “federal government” to include grassroots organizations that demand decarceration, you presumably prohibit the Cuba Embargo affirmative and many K affs from that era. Your odds of winning are substantially higher if you persuade me that the negative can debate the aff over the course of a season with a relatively even win-percentage. Advance impact-turns boldly, but do not forget defense.

It is helpful to group aff offense into two categories: (1) The negative’s vision of the topic -- a year of debating plans that hypothesize federal action -- is bad. Impact-turns involving institutions, fiat, or subject formation typically fall under this category. (2) The act of reading framework -- introducing the off-case position in the 1NC -- is violent. Arguments about pathologization, exclusion, or respectability politics typically fall into this category.

Of these two, I am better for the first category. You should make offensive arguments of both types, but it will be easier for the negative to convince me that topicality is akin to any other argument and analogous to its deployment against policy affs.

I prize affirmative solvency explanation highly. The clearer the aff is about their method/advocacy/performance, the more case refutation I expect to see from the negative. The 2NR does not need to include case, but the neg should recognize when dropping the aff’s advantage hurts them. Similarly, the 2AR shouldn’t just assert that dropping case means an auto-loss, but they should take advantage of advantage claims that clearly implicate framework.

Topicality:

Both sides should develop impacts thoroughly. Why are limits good and how narrow of a topic do we need? Conversely, why does a predictable or realistic definition outweigh the negative’s ability to clash?

The side controlling impact explanation will likely persuade me that their interpretation is desirable.

Tech rules the day, but repetitive subpoints justifying a contrived, Frankenstein definition of “substantial reform” can only go so far against a well-developed arbitrariness and aff predictability claim.

I default to competing interpretations and likely have a higher threshold for voting on reasonability than average. The aff should clearly explain what reasonability entails and why their counter-interpretation falls squarely within that boundary.

On the flip side, I will vote on “we meet” as a yes/no. This means the aff wins if there is a greater than fifty percent chance that they meet.

Evidence is incredibly important in topicality debates. This is truer for the neg, although highly dependent on the quality of 2AC cards. The block should certainly read additional topicality evidence, and the 1AR likely should as well.

Soft-Left Affs:

Framing matters a ton. It is almost impossible to for the aff to win if they lose framing, barring offense on another position. I will try to resolve framing conclusively in one direction but am willing to make compromises (i.e. consequences matter, but we should enforce a probability floor for risk) when needed.

In terms of framing genres, my intuition is much more strongly aligned with arguments concerning risk assessment as opposed to ethics or impact defense. This means you are better served mitigating the probability of existential risk, establishing a floor that negative arguments must clear, and offensively warranting such a model of policymaking.

It is difficult to persuade me to abandon consequentialism and, albeit less so, a general presumption in favor of utilitarianism. However, I don’t think this should be an impediment to a soft-left victory. Similarly, reading security K style evidence, critiquing discourse, or leveraging representational advantages is likely to be less effective.

I can be convinced either way that the negative gets to impact-turn the framing contention. The likelihood of this increases dramatically if the aff says representations or epistemology matter. If the aff merely says that, descriptively, a given probability is statistically insignificant or wars are less likely in democracies, I am much less likely to grant the negative the impact-turn.

In the same vein, I am extremely unlikely to be persuaded by some variant of “preempts bad.” This is largely due to definitional issues -- every argument is a “preempt” in the sense that it preempts its opposite (saying the plan solves preempts the argument that the plan does not solve, hegemony good preempts hegemony bad, etc.).

All that said, don’t over-adapt. Debate whatever style of soft-left aff you are most comfortable with.

Kritik:

For prefs purposes, the same standard as the K aff section applies. I am likely one of the better “policy” judges for the kritik and teams should feel comfortable deploying it as a component of their negative arsenal. I think many of the most effective 1NCs contain a K.

Every stylistic preference I have for policy arguments remains true for the K. You should debate it as technically as possible, prioritizing generating concessions and exploiting logical weaknesses in your opponent’s case.

I am probably more likely to vote on underexplained Ks than most. If I can tell something is conceded and I know that both teams agree on its implication, I will pull the trigger even if I don’t grasp the rationale behind the claim. That’s not to say I’ll vote on arguments without a warrant, but in the same way that I know “they dropped the announcement plank” means something in a CP debate, I know “they dropped ontology is a sequencing issue” means something in a K debate.

I have experience with almost every flavor of kritik, from structural, post-modern, and performative schools. I’m by no means an expert but my debate vocabulary and general understanding will be up to par.

I have no problems with large overviews, but don’t let them become an excuse to avoid the line by line. Most block organization for Ks is counter-intuitive and unhelpful (the 1NR randomly takes the perm and FW, the alt is only talked about in the last 20 seconds), but as long as you adhere to answering every 2AC argument you should be fine.

K debates are often either impact-turn debates or FW debates. You should recognize which category you fall into and debate accordingly. A common mistake I see K teams make is relying on grandiose impact overviews that the aff’s FW denies. Similarly, overviews that start with “if we win a link, it’s an independent DA and a reason to reject the plan” need to grapple with FW first because the aff has contested that claim from day one even if the 1AR “conceded” it.

When debating FW, you need to answer the aff’s standards explicitly. Don’t just assume they are embedded in yours.

Floating PIKs need to be clear or the aff gets new answers. I don’t think clear needs to mean “the alt is a floating PIK,” but I’ll be listening for phrases like “do the aff,” “plan,” “not exclusive with policy,” “minus representations, etc.”

If your K is an impact-turn K, you should think about impact-uniqueness and alt solvency.

From the aff perspective, I have no preference between big-stick and soft-left. Each has its time and place and success often varies depending on the kritik read by the negative.

I think aff FW interps should be more nuanced than “weigh the plan.” Does the K need an alt? Does it need to be material? Do their links have to be unique? Non-FW theory arguments like “alts must have a text” or “no epistemic fiat” are also often helpful.

The 2AC should aim to rejoin every claim made by the 1NC -- specific link refutation, recharacterization of the alt etc. Even if you’re going for no link plus the perm (as opposed to an impact-turn), you should generate offense against the alt and links.

1ARs need to deal with the onslaught of “satellite Ks” and general line by line barrage and then condense to their overall aff vs K strategy, supplemented by a robust FW.

Both sides need to think about how concessions implicate their arguments. I view a debate concession as “true.” So, for example, it is basically impossible to win a threat inflation link against a dropped Russia war scenario. It’s not inflated; it’s literally 100% true. Similarly, is the plan really cruel optimism if the negative conceded it solves?

Lastly, I am willing to take FWs at face value. Lost of judges seem to inevitably resolve a middle-ground where the aff gets the 1AC but the negative gets links to parts of the 1AC. This often makes no sense -- how do you weigh a miscalculated war in the East China Sea versus a flawed research methodology? If your FW involves excluding one portion of the other teams’ arguments (they don’t get to weigh the aff, they only get links to the plan etc), I’ll be receptive provided adequate justification. This means resolving FW is typically one of the most important parts of the debate.

Theory:

I am a vastly better judge for theory than average. This is not because of any particular bias or desire to enforce my views on the debate community, but because I view theory like any other argument. If you are technically ahead on all components of the theory debate, you should win. If you are deciding whether to give a 2AR on conditionality or substance, look at the flow and decide accordingly. However, beware that the quality of theoretical arguments is deceptively more important than the quantity. You may be “ahead” on conditionality bad, but if your interpretation is “two CPs and one K” and the negative has a well-developed arbitrariness standard, you are unlikely to win.

In short, the above paragraph does not mean that I look at most theory interpretations favorably, just that I evaluate them fairly. Most interpretations are contrived nothing -- every CP has “a process,” any CP could result in the aff, any combination of individuals is “multiple actors,” all CPs are PICs because they include an action, etc.

Crafting a coherent and workable theory interpretation is generally the first step to victory and the negative should invest a great deal in tearing down the aff’s interp. Similarly, the aff should tailor their offense to the full extent of the neg interp. Infinite conditionality, 2NC CPs, amendments, any combination of governmental actors, all read interchangeably and with no regard for affirmative offense? Really? The vast majority of theory debating should occur at the level of interpretation.

Interpretations also need violations. Conditionality bad lacks a violation if you didn’t ask in CX. ASPEC lacks a violation because the “United States federal government” IS an agent.

Theoretical arguments are, by default, a reason to reject the argument and not the team. Conditionality bad is a reason to reject the practice of conditionality, but easily becomes a reason to reject the team. If a “cheapshot” theory argument with a warrant for rejecting the team is dropped, I will likely vote on it.

I value cross-applications on theory highly -- conceding reasonability from T, conceding conditionality sufficiently solves negative flexibility, etc.

On a sidenote, if you concede a theory argument in the 2NC, that does not mean the argument ceases to exist. I’m referring to the situation where the 2AC says something like “fifty state fiat is a voting issue” and then also says “their interp makes the aff lose to the states CP” on the topicality flow. The negative will often concede the former claim and assert that it resolves the latter because the states CP is now theoretically illegitimate according to their model of debate. This is false. All the negative has conceded is the claim that the states CP is normatively undesirable. The aff did not also say “and judges around the country will universally vote down this CP.” There was no argument for the negative to concede. If anything, conceding the theory argument makes the aff ground argument MORE persuasive because we now have a topic that supercharges the negative’s access to an abusive CP.

Counterplans:

Counterplans should be clearly explained with the language of necessity/sufficiency and tailored to solve various portions of the affirmative. Concepts like sufficiency framing and offense/defense are intuitive but should be articulated nonetheless.

Accordingly, I default to offense/defense framing (links less, any risk, etc.) with one exception: judge kick. I will not judge kick unprompted. This view is subject to change, but I’ll adhere to whatever my philosophy says at the time. However, when prompted, I lean negative on judge kick. The aff needs to out debate the 2NR in order to stick them with the CP.

Although it’s strategic to say so, I don’t think judge kick is “implicit” in conditionality. That means the aff gets new answers in the 2AR unless judge kick was clearly voiced earlier in the debate. This includes cross-x. If the aff asks a question pertaining to status in the 1NC (judge kick, kicking planks etc.), then the 2AC must answer it or it is “dropped” for the debate.

As mentioned, I assess permutations and links to the net-benefit arguments through a frame of relative risk. That means winning the perm very likely shields the link does not suffice if the CP certainly avoids it and solves the case. That said, it is by no means impossible for the affirmative to reverse this presumption and win simply by reaching a sufficiently high level of defense. Aff teams should try to phrase “defensive” arguments in as offensive a manner as possible -- the perm solves better, the CP links more, etc.

If the negative introduces new planks or amendments in the 2NC, the affirmative gets new permutations in the 1AR and deficits to the corresponding planks or amendments. They questionably get deficits to original portions of the CP. These claims are all up for debate, but those are my presumptions.

If the 1NC contained an analytic CP with no additional explanation, the negative has not made a solvency argument and the 1AR gets new deficits after the block inevitably explains CP solvency. The same is true for analytic planks of CPs which otherwise have evidence as well.

An ideal world would involve CPs that compete textually and functionally. This means the affirmative would have access to textually legitimate, but functionally intrinsic and functionally legitimate, but textually intrinsic permutations as a remedy to “artificial” CPs. Any other standard seems either hopelessly inelegant or prone to endless exploitation through functional or textual means. Again, though, it is in the negative’s interest to disagree with this and advance as liberal an interpretation of competition as possible.

I am inclined against all but the most explicit form of positional competition. Implications, statements with qualifiers, even answers that are just ambiguous…none of these suffice to make a CP competitive. But boldly stating “the plan is the Supreme Court” means the Congress CP competes.

In general, going for competition is more likely to result in victory than going for theory.

Disadvantages:

Disadvantages need uniqueness, links, internal-links, and impact. That doesn’t mean all those components need to be in the 1NC, but they are almost certainly a requisite for a negative victory.

If the 1NC includes an incomplete disadvantage, the 2AC should bombard analytics on the unfinished component and justify a slew of new arguments in the 1AR. The definition of “incomplete disadvantage” is up for debate.

Turns case matters substantially but operates as a function of the DA. “Russia war turns China war” only matters if the DA accesses Russia war…which raises the question of uniqueness, link, internal link etc. Consequently, link turns case/uniqueness solves the case are incredibly important.

Dropped impacts are absolute, but still subject to mitigation. A “no link” argument worth 10% is as much mitigation as a “no impact” argument worth 10%. The fact that the 2AC dropped the terminal does not automatically mean the DA is elevated above defense.

DA framing questions are extremely important for argument resolution. Does the link-turn outweigh the link? Alternatively, is the link-turn faster than the link? Does the link-turn matter if the neg is winning UQ? Does the DA depend on a threshold or is it linear? Control the narrative and orient your rebuttals towards answering these questions.

Neither “link controls uniqueness” nor “uniqueness controls the link” makes obviously more sense to me, but this type of judge instruction is helpful.

I am agnostic about politics theory; it is an argument like any other. However, it needs to be an argument, not just a complaint. I am sympathetic to the politics DA as an argument which rewards spin and savvy.

Case:

Case debates are underdeveloped and worth investing into. I would almost always rather debate CP/DA than DA/Case as a 2A.

I am much stricter for the 2AC on case and slightly stricter for 2NR on case than what I perceive as the average. The 2AC needs to actually answer the 1NC case arguments -- that means rejoining their warrants, not just plausibly answering their tag.

If the 1NC reads a “no Russia war” card that says Putin is deterred by NATO, war would be too expensive, and there’s no public support and the aff responds by saying “yes Russia war -- blurred redlines, escalate to deescalate,” the Russia war impact is close to zero. The aff didn’t explain how those warrants interact with the neg’s defensive claims OR rejoin the specific claims made by the 1NC.

It’s perfectly fine to shadow extend a scenario, or an advantage, but if you intend to win a large risk of the case than you must actually debate the 1NC defense.

That may seem strict, but I apply a similar, if laxer, standard for shallow 2NRs. Neg teams often give great blocks with ample case coverage and then rely on a four-second extension of “no warming -- adaptation and intervening actors” for the 2NR. I will give credit for a good block, but I will only evaluate arguments made in the speech. The exception to this is when the 1AR is equally shallow and forces the negative into an arms race.

By contrast, I find that the 2AR is generally quite good and explains the advantage in a persuasive and well-thought-out manner. This is a welcome sight, but I will be watchful for newness so good 2AC and 1AR case debating is essential.

Speaker Points:

I anticipate being quite generous with speaker points. Debaters work hard and I am impressed. Here is an estimation of my average scale:

29.4+ -- Top speaker

29.1-29.3 -- Late elims

28.9-29.1 -- Mid elims

28.7-28.9 -- Debating to clear

28.5-28.7 -- Even

28.0-28.5 -- Below even

Below 28 -- Other

Miscellaneous:

For Zoom debates, I would prefer if all debaters kept their cameras on during the round. However, I won’t enforce this, and I won’t penalize you for choosing to keep it off.

If a debater disconnects during their speech, I will ask them to restart. If the connection only drops for a moment, I will fill in the blanks with context and evidence but ultimately defer to “you didn’t say anything” over a debater asserting something was dropped during the disconnect.

You don’t need to take prep for tech issues, going to the bathroom, or anything of the sort.

I flow cross-x.

I’m strict about new arguments. However, you have to actually say “this is a new argument.” This applies to every speech except the 2AR.

Lastly, I will work hard to judge. I love debate and I’m happy to be there. I hope you all enjoy your time in this activity.

Colin Quinn
University of North Texas

Highland Park High School (TX)

Please include me in email chains, thanks: aqof05@gmail.com

Framing how I should evaluate things is the most important thing to do. When that doesn't happen I have to intervene more and rely more on my predispositions rather than the arguments made.

Topicality: I like T debates. I think that for the neg to win a T debate there needs to be a well established competing interpretations framework and a good limits or ground argument. Affs need to have a reasonability argument paired with a decent we meet or counter-interpretation.

Counterplans: The neg needs to establish competition and a clear net benefit. I think i'm generally aff biased although they need to focus on what they can win (Most theory arguments are reasons to reject the argument except conditionality bad, I think most condition/consult-esque counterplans are legitimate but not competitive, etc).

Disadvantages: Impact calculus should be a priority. I do not think that there's always a risk of anything and can be persuaded that there's zero risk.

Kritiks: Impact framing arguments are the most important thing to win. They filter how I evaluate the rest of the debate in terms of deciding what is important to win and what isn't. I think that negatives need to make definite choices in the 2NR in terms of how to frame the K and what to focus on otherwise the aff is in a strategic place. Link/Impact scenarios that are specific to the plan make the debate much harder for the aff.

Affs: I think that framework is useful and can be won but I am sympathetic to affs that are topical without maybe defending a resolutional agent. I think a winning framework argument should be centered around a method that encourages the best discussion about the topic rather than just the government. When negs lose framework debates they fail to win links to the aff c/i or role of the ballot arguments. Topical version arguments are useful but negs need to remember to explain the reason they solve the affs offense; "you can still talk about x" often doesn't cut it. I think that affs that don't defend a plan need to focus on framing the ballot because that's how I will filter all of their arguments. I think that it is difficult for aff's to win framework debates without a we meet or counter-interp that can frame any other offense you have in the debate.

I may not know the very specific part of the topic/argument you are going for so make sure it's explained. I'm pretty visible in terms of reactions to certain arguments and it will be obvious if i'm confused as to what is going on.

Don't cheat.

North Broward MR

Michigan PR

fiatdoublebind@gmail.com

Here are some tags from my 1ACs in the past:

"Originally known as crossfire debate, public forum became a safe-haven for traditional white debate – insulated from arguments that would make white debaters question the privilege behind the activity they were competing in."

"Your ballot can’t tell the United States federal government to prioritize growth over debt or vice versa, but it can help produce real, tangible change in the Public Forum community."

"Why haven’t you learned anything?"

"There is no death there's only eternity And I be riding on the wings of eternity Like HYAH! HYAH! HYAH! Sha-clack-clack But my flight doesn't go undisturbed Because time makes dreams defer And all of my time fears are turning my days into daymares And I live daymares reliving nightmares Of what taunted my past All this time is beatin my ass."

"Tipping point close but its not too late."

"Each internal-link exponentially reduces the likelihood of the next."

"This is America – don’t catch you slippin’ up."

"Beneath Sunnydale High School lurks the Hellmouth."

"Listen closely, because what we are about to tell you is hard to hear: you’ve been duped."

"The rule of symbolic exchange is not to seek meaning, but to challenge it. To deactivate the system, we must begin with the level of form, not its representational contents. Our anagrammatical affirmation of the resolution is not enamored in identification mania, but is an insurgent disorientation of the Symbolic, a poetic nullification, the gift of death. Remember, “nothing becomes wholly transparent without also becoming entirely enigmatic.”"

"Storage fires are likely and kill millions."

"Rutgers taught us to “examine the ways war is declared in this community” and force the debate about anti-blackness."

"The right to know is intimately connected to the right to conquer."

"Uprisings disrupt REEs---IMAR’s key."

"First, U.S. government attacks on encryption are an unconstitutional violation of privacy. Encryption is a basic human right."

"The control loop is approaching the terminal stage. We live in a comments section"

"We would tag this card but it would reveal the mystery."

"We are the underside of the topic."

"Extinction."

"Geography is a technology of power used by China to violently suppress alternative perspectives such as Lhasa, Khashgar, and Taibei."

"Russian IP theft now---they can’t be deterred---bolstering cyberdefense is key."

"Ending suffering is a decision-rule."

"The eradication of radical alterity is in and of itself an impact."

"Forest fires are the biggest risk to destruction of Indonesian rainforests."

"Preventin' me from freedom, Maintainin' your pollution."

"Containment policies are driven by China threat allegations that are racist myths manufactured for political purposes."

"Tiimmy, Tiimmy, Tiimmy Turner."

"Batteries key to survival."

"Key to UAV effectiveness."

"Space laser solves."

"Lay down on the ground, lay face down, put your hands behind your back."

"Only US-Russia war causes extinction."

Here are some tags from my 1NCs in the past:

"Our interpretation is that the aff must be topical."

"Playing music without asking us whether we had epilepsy is ableist—reject the team—asking before the round solves."

"Vote neg for the status quo, to blow out the candle."

"Second — Surveillance Literacy. (See separate file)."

"The alternative is to vote negative – reject the aff as a team who has failed to final in speech."

"Not specifying your 1s and 2s on your pref sheet is a voter for structural fairness."

"Scene 3: La Frontera."

"Hesitation in the Race War is a voting issue."

"Give Black Debaters a W and 30 Speaker Points - its a teachable moment."

"We could initiate a strike in 22 minutes---that forces surrender."

"The 1AC was nothing but nine minutes of white talk."

"The plan is a crushing blow to presidential war powers."

"This is an act of intellectual colonialism that is a Trojan horse for imperialism."

""Its funding” implies federal money."

"H-Triv Turn — their Matusov ev makes comparisons between schooling and concentration camps — that trivializes and decontextualizes the Holocaust—reject the team."

"Forced refutation of personal experience collapses dialogue and polarizes opposition."

"Federal courts’ solutions punish victims."

"Capitalizing “federal government” is not an agent that exists - vote neg on presumption."

"Vote neg to embrace the lacerative transmission of anagrammatical blackness."

"Vote neg to endorse eco-centric ethics."

"Revolution is not writing an essay about “dwelling as poets,” revolution happens at the end of the gun barrel."

"Every claim on this flow is false."

"This is a stick up."

"Nobody gets how hardcore they are."

"Asian conscientization can’t be operationalized without an institutional blueprint to take down things like bases or markets—just becoming conscious of violence does nothing."

"They said “Colonial schooling gets exported around the globe” but the earth is neither round nor a globe."

"Education refers to the process of instruction."

"8:30 start times don’t solve – 10 AM is key."

"Consultation over education reform is key to black leadership – community leaders will say yes."

"The plan is flawed--it only effects rooms with baths. The counterplan is better and addresses restrooms."

"It's gon' happen point blank range, so don't even duck."

"Tax reform will pass – ALL of Trump’s capital is key."

"Plan results in chain migration thru families."

"Closing yourself off from the outside makes you a tasty snack for the Life-Satan, acting as a decoy to commence the hunt from Outside – don’t crack open a cold one with the boys, crack the boys open with the Cold Ones."

"AYO what’s that shit?"

"To speak is to inevitably code switch—there are no fixed codes, any insistence on a preferable code is essentialist."

"That means they damage transnational queer Black-South Asian coalitions, which challenge empire abroad."

"Particle acceleration disasters cause galactic extinction."

My name is Dana Randall (danarandall@gmail.com) and I am the Director of Debate at Carrollton School of the Sacred Heart. I have been an active member of the policy debate community since 1996.

As a competitor and coach of policy teams at regional and national levels I feel comfortable assessing debates that are quick and complex.

I have instructed novice, jv, and varsity teams who've enjoyed tremendous success. I credit that success to the fact that I've had the privilege of working with some of the brightest and most dedicated students in the activity. Witnessing their steadfast commitment inspires me to take my judging responsibilities very seriously. I will strive to keep a meticulous flow and render my decision based on what transpires in the debate round as opposed to my personal predispositions.

I will ask to be included on the speech thread. I do this to prevent teams from debating students that succumb to pressure of competition by representing that they have read words in a speech document which they have not audibly read. Debate is a very difficult activity without compelling students debating to also follow along with every word read by their opponent.

I believe that fairness is a terminal impact – that is why I flow both teams, listen to both teams, enforce reciprocal time limits, have teams affirm or negate the resolution based on the pairing provided by the tournament and I have no idea what an alternative metric for reaching a conclusion as to which team did the better debating.

Niles West High School 2014-2018

Trinity University 2018-Now

Last Updated: September 2020

Email: nasim978@gmail.com (please put me on the email chain)

Top Level

I'm open to all arguments as long as they're not morally reprehensible. I did policy throughout all of high school, but that's only because I wasn't familiar with critique literature. I would have definitely read a k aff if I knew how to. So you can read whatever you want in front of me. I'm going to try my best to evaluate every single debate fairly. There are ways you can help me with this!

- Don't use acronyms! I'm not familiar with the topic and might have no idea what you're talking about.

- Don't spread through analytics. This doesn't mean you shouldn't spread. If you're going for an argument that requires a lot of explanation, I want to make sure I can write everything down on my flow and use it to make a fair decision. It's been a couple of years, and I'm not as good at flowing as I was before.

- Don't assume I always know what you're talking about. I'm familiar with most arguments, but I don't want to vote you down because I misunderstood something.

Important ways I evaluate debates

- I don't vote on cards alone. Explanation of an argument will get you way farther than an extra card. Debate is an argumentative activity. You need to explain why you're winning. I won't reward a team for reading a ton of cards and expecting me to just read them after the debate. If I can't figure out a way to evaluate the debate on my flow, I'll resort to evidence to determine the round.

- I'm 50/50 on tech vs. truth. If you explain why one matters more than the other, then I'll evaluate the debate that way. Tell me how I should evaluate the round, and I'll do that.

- I'll only read cards after the debate that I think are relevant to my decision. If there are cards you want me to read after the debate, you should extend/reference them in your speech.

- I have literally a million facial expressions during a round. If I'm scrambling to write things down, go a little slower. If I look confused, I'm confused.

CX

Explain everything to me. If a team asks you something generic, and you're going for a complex argument, use that time to make sure I understand what's going on. Keep speaking until they ask you to stop. Feel free to ramble on and explain other parts of the debate that you think are important. Also a great time to explain acronyms or things about the topic that I might not know. However, you should use cross ex as an opportunity to make arguments and use them later on in the debate. You'll probably get higher speaks if you use cross ex well and incorporate it into the debate.

Topicality

These debates are great! I'm not familiar with the topic this year, so I probably won't understand your case lists. That being said, there are other ways to paint a picture of the best version of the topic and still win my ballot.

One thing to note -- the aff can win my ballot on we meet alone, so make sure your violation actually applies.

Also, I won't vote on ASPEC. 2A's, you can feel free to just ignore this argument. I'm serious.

Disads

Great! I will reward 2A's who can logically beat a disad. I'm a little different on this than most people (I think). An aff team can win my ballot by simply pointing out logical fallacies in a contrived and weak disad. That being said, this shouldn't encourage you to read zero cards against a disad. For the neg -- if you're reading a contrived disad, I'll be more likely to vote for you on dropped arguments.

Counterplans

Also great! Advantage counterplans are definitely underutilized. Sufficiency framing!!! Frame the debate!!! Tell me why the net benefit outweighs the risk of a solvency deficit. You can read really abusive counterplans, but you better be good at answering theory. If the aff doesn't read theory, you're lucky. If the aff goes for theory, you're in trouble. You can go for theory in front of me, but that shouldn't dissuade you from going for good solvency deficits. I won't kick the counterplan unless you tell me to do it. Status quo = a viable option always means judge kick.

Impact Turns

Read them! I haven't experienced many of these debates, but if you win, you win!

Theory

Sure! I'll vote on it. Not on the neg. Never go for just theory on the neg. I won't vote for you.

K

I'll be honest, I don't think I'm good at evaluating these debates. For the aff, why does framework mean their links aren't true? Why is their theory of how things work wrong? For the neg, why does winning your theory mean you win the debate? These debates become kind of muddy for me, and often times, I'll have to resort to judge intervention to determine who is right. I don't know how to evaluate framework because both sides are spitting things out about either predictability or reps, and they all have equal weight but no one tells me what that means for the rest of their arguments. I'm just not good at evaluating this. That being said, I want to judge debates as fairly as I can. You can read any k you want in front of me Remember that I don't know a lot of k literature, so you'll need to explain more than usual. You'll probably need to slow down here. For example, if you say there's "x disad" on the perm, give me time to write it down before moving on. I won't remember what the disad to the perm is if I don't write down what it means. I don't want to vote you down just because I didn't understand what the disad was, so please explain it. I like specific links, but if they dropped it and you're winning on a generic link, then I'll vote for you.

K vs policy aff

You can definitely read these in front of me! I'm familiar with these debates, since I've had a lot of them. These debates are the ones where explanation is crucial. I'm not familiar with a lot of k literature, so you'll probably need to do more explaining than usual. Please don't spread through analytics in these debates. I need to make sure what every disad on framework means, and to reiterate, I haven't flowed in a while.

K vs k affs

Do whatever you want. I encourage you to cause chaos. I might have no clue what's going on, but somehow I will form a ballot. Warning - this might be a coin toss, but it'll be fun. I really hope to judge one of these debates someday.

Framework

Do whatever you want. I know these debates and will vote on any impact!

Fun things:

- I like jokes

- References you can use -- Game of Thrones, Rick and Morty, Avatar the Last Airbender, something popular

- If you know people I know in debate, make a funny joke

- Be bold and do risky things

- Some debates don't require a full speech. You can end a speech in 1 minute if they dropped something like topicality.

Don't do these things

- Attack someone's race, gender, orientation, identity, etc. I will stop flowing and submit my ballot.

- Be super mean to your partner/opponents

- Overpower your partner during cx

- Say morally reprehensible things

- Expect cards to win you debates with zero explanations

- Clip cards

I would like to be on the email chain: dsavill@crossingsschool.org

Current Coach of Crossings Christian School in Oklahoma since 2011. We have a 6th grade - 12th grade debate program and our varsity team debates on the national TOC circuit. I debated in high school under Martin Glendinning.

Things you need to know for prefs:

Kritiks: Oklahoma is very heavy with kritiks and non-topical affs so I am very familiar with them. I like kritiks and K affs and can vote for them.

Policy: I am familiar with policy debates and can judge those. My squad is designed to be flex so I am good with either.

Speed: I can handle any kind of speed as long as you are clear.

Theory/FW/T: Only if the team is blatantly non-topical will I consider voting neg or if the aff screws up. On FW heavy debates, I am not such a fan so if you are neg and hit a non-topical aff I will entertain FW but that shouldn't be your only offcase. I am a fan of seeing actual abuse in the round so you should run a generic DA to get the "no link" argument. Also, root causing with a K is a good strat for me.

Performance/non-traditional debate: Despite what some would think coming from a Christian school, I actually like these kinds of debates and have voted up many teams including LGBTQ affs and wipeout-type arguments.

I try to be a tab judge but I know I tend to vote on more technical prowess. I believe debate should be a fun and respectful activity and I try to have a good time judging the round. I think debaters are among the smartest students in the nation and I always find it a privilege to judge a round and give feedback.

I'm selling a bunch of debate files, check it out HERE

Add me to the email chain: pasdebate@gmail.com

Pronouns He/Him

Maine East HS Class of 2020

University of Pittsburgh Class of 2023

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

My paradigm has been written in strong correlation to Aidan Kane's because I adore their writing clarity and share similar thoughts in regards to debate.

TLDR

Better for K/flex teams.

First year university student studying finance and economics in the College of Business at the University of Pittsburgh on an early graduation track.

If you care, I did moderately well during my time in high school debate and I'm currently debating for the University of Pittsburgh, reaching relative success. This is my first year judging varsity-level rounds, and during this time I've judged 80+ rounds on the topic.

No major bias or preconceived notions to any style of debate, though I typically find myself in the back of mostly clash of civs and K v K debates. That being said, if you have me in the back of a high-level policy v policy round, I will do my absolute best but know that you will need to be more clear, explain terminology, etc. I should definitely not be a 1/2/3 on your pref sheet. I've dabbled with policy-oriented arguments but have never been more than mediocre at going for them, most recently reading a hard-right affirmative on the college circuit and going for impact turns on the negative.

I'm comfortable with nearly all kritiks, do whatever you want. My personal strength in debate has been primarily identity and colonialism based arguments (afropessimism, settler colonialism, model minority, Puar, Halberstam, Bey) and then your generic arguments like cap and security. High theory wise, I have experience in going for Baudrillard.

All of this said, my voting record is quite even in clash debates.

Please subject the email chain - Tournament Name Round # - Aff Team AFF vs Neg Team NEG

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

Policy Affirmatives

I enjoy well-research policy affirmatives that have clear internal link chains and solid evidence. The impact debate matters a ton to me but only insofar as the internal-link is strong. These days, I find framing pages to be mostly irrelevant and not too useful, why not add on another advantage? I am fond of impact turns, theory arguments, and 2AC add-ons. Whether you read a hard-right affirmative or a soft-left one, does not matter too much to me as long as you know your evidence.

K Affirmatives

Absolutely! Critical affirmatives are my bread and butter, my later high school years consisted of identity-related affirmatives. For these affs, truly, you do you! I enjoy performances, poetry, no card 1ACs, anything and everything. I find the impact turn framework strategy to be more convincing than the "here is our counter-model."

I'm familiar with a wide range of literature bases but that is not an excuse for non-technical debating, LBL is important and so is impact analysis.

Disadvantages

Disadvantage debates can be a great deal of fun, I find turns case arguments to be convincing if done well. It is critical to frame the debate, in terms of impact calculus, in the rebuttals. Specific links are always better and it is in your favor to read internal links to numerous different impact scenarios.

Counterplans

Specific ones will convince me, have multiple net benefits (it makes the debate easier for you), answer theory and permutations. I enjoy advantage CPs and PICs. You must have a solvency advocate.

Kritiks

The K side of debate is where I have spent most of my time while in debate. The 2NC should be strong in answering all of the affirmative's arguments while extending the meta-thesis level analysis throughout the debate. Overviews that are over 2 minutes are unnecessary, just do it on the line by line. Links are DAs to the permutation and the negative does not need an alternative considering you win the framework debate. Links of omission are not going to win you the debate. Affirmatives get far in these debates when they attack the alternative along with the framing (ontology, epistemology, etc.) My experience lies in race (specifically Black and Asian), settler/colonialist, gender, sex, and security studies. I'm relatively familiar with most postmodernism (Baudrillard, D&G, Bataille, etc) like arguments but explain in simple language.

Topicality vs Policy Affirmatives

Topicality arguments against policy affirmatives are absolutely fine. I find most teams lack impact calculus in the 2nr/2ar i.e. you should spend time discussing the implications of unfairness/education in debate. Author qualifications is an underused tool in these debates along with presenting a tva/caselist which satisfy your interpretation. Competing interpretations are convincing assuming you justify the demand for the 1AC (why should the aff be included even if you are not completely "reasonable?")

Topicality/Framework vs Kritikal Affirmatives

Sure, I generally evaluate T/FW as to whether or not the affirmative should defend a hypothetical enactment of a USFG action. The argument is most convincing when utilized against non-identity (race, gender, sex, etc.) affirmatives. TVA's and switch-side arguments are very under-utilized!

Theory

I will most certainly vote on theory arguments that are flushed out and won on the line-by-line. However, if a theory argument is your way out of the debate, significant time must be spent analyzing and impacting the argument out.

Speaks

These are mostly in the context of around an octas level bid tournament. Speaks will be adjusted for smaller bid tournaments.

30-29.9 - probably within the top 5 speakers at the tournament

29.6-29.8 - probably within the top 20 speakers at the tournament

29.1-29.5 - will probably clear

28.6-29 - might barely miss clearing, but you still did something I liked

28.2-28.5 - good debating but numerous places needing improvement

anything below 28.2 varies

Any racism/sexism/anti-queerness will make me give you the lowest points I can and an L

Glenbrook South '19

University of Michigan '23

About Me:

kellymskoulikaris@gmail.com

I'm currently a 2A, but I was a 2N in high school who debated at the TOC. I have judged at many tournaments this year and I have researched on the topic because I work with Pine Crest.

I will be invested in the debate, and try to give the best decision and feedback as possible. If you show that you care and try, I will be happy and give good speaks.

Tech > Truth, but in close debates, reading good evidence will help you. In the 1AR/2NR/2AR, reference and frame your explanation around the evidence.

Topicality:

I'm down for a T-Enact debate. T-Subs, not so much. Read evidence past the 1NC/2AC!

I love when the negative has a clearly defined interpretation with what affirmatives they allow and what affirmatives they exclude. Chart it out. What would debates each tournament look like? What would the topic look like?

K:

I am familiar with the Anti Blackness Ks (+ Other Identity Ks), Capitalism Ks, and Fem IR/Security Ks, but I have little experience going for the K. That means affirmative angles are more persuasive because of my lack of experience and understanding, but this does not mean you should change your strategy in front of me.

I believe that affirmatives get to be weighed, so it is recommended to spend more time on the links. The negative should provide lots of judge instruction and strong, specific links contextualized to the affirmative. Each link should be impacted out. Strong, specific links ≠ links of omission.

K Affs:

As a 2N, I went for framework every time. I think debate is a game - a lot of times the affirmative describes a problem in the 1AC, failing to win why their model of debate resolves the problem in the 1AC.

For framework, education / iterative testing impacts > fairness impacts. I think framework is effective and persuasive when the negative extends and wins that their model of debate solves the problem in the 1AC. The TVA is a way to resolve any of the framework DAs, and doesn't need to solve the problems in their entirety.

Please, answer the case - it makes the debate easier to resolve especially when you are disproving their theory and winning presumption arguments (above). If you are reading a K Aff, my views are malleable, but my predispositions shape how I will evaluate the debate.

In front of me, affirmatives are better off impact-turning framework rather than trying to win they are in the direction of/in line with the topic.

DA:

Love them, except the Rider "DA."

CP:

Love them.

Advantage CPs coupled with awesome case defense is great. The negative should have planks to solve both the internal links and impacts.

Process CPs are smart and strategic - I will vote for and against theoretically illegit CPs. Theory debates and competition debates should clear interpretations and justifications.

Condo is probably good, but I can be (and have been) persuaded otherwise.

Ashton Smith, Assistant Coach, Maine East High School

Maine East '16, University of Michigan '20 (Debated all 8 years)

*Update 10/9/20 - For College Debaters*

I have not done any topic-specific research. So, take into account my lack of topic knowledge.

*Updated 9/17/20*

General notes:

-- Put me in the email chain: ashtonalsmith@gmail.com

-- Most of my debate experience is "policy"-oriented. I have heard about various kritik arguments, but do not assume that I am well-read/deep in the literature. I am well-informed about this year's resolution.

-- I'm a technical, flow-oriented judge who will attempt to adjudicate the debate with as minimal intervention as possible on my part. Dropped arguments are (usually) true arguments. I appreciate tricky concessions that interact with other parts of the debate.

-- I think case-focused debates are the most interesting debates. I love impact turns and I think in-depth case analysis can substantially help negative strategies and affirmative wins against off case positions.


SPECIFIC ARGUMENTS
TOPICALITY—

I'm a good judge for Topicality. I enjoy technical, well-defended interpretations of the topic. I am a fan of a well-defended reasonability argument, to contest evaluating these debates through competing interpretations. I do not immediately view any interpretation with a more limited topic as the better limit for the topic.

T-Substantial is a thing.

Regarding "Framework" - Procedural fairness is an impact, if articulated correctly.

DISADVANTAGES—

Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is definitely possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it with defensive arguments, alone. This is difficult, but possible given the quality of DAs.

COUNTERPLANS—

Counterplans are good and strategic. Read them. Debate them. I do have some issues with some PICs, Process CPs and other questionably justifiable positions.

Solvency advocates are good.

KRITIKS—

I really enjoy well-articulated kritiks that directly interact with the affirmative. I enjoy kritiks most when they’re read against kritikal affirmatives. In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique disadvantage. If you can make specific applications or read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

Re: Ontology - Too many debaters fail to fully engage the theory level debate and prove/contest metaphysical explanations for the world. In the context of some afropessimism kritiks, I appreciate a substantive debate about social death true/false.

PLANLESS AFFIRMATIVES—

I'm probably not the best judge to have in the back if you're reading a planless affirmative (because I spent the majority of negative debates against K affs defending T/Framework). However, I do have experience coaching "K teams" to win against framework. To win in front of me, have a good counter-interpretation and offense against their method for understanding the topic (to supplement a reasonability argument).

I do believe debate is a game. However, you can win that it is also more than a game.

I do appreciate K v K debates. A well-constructed kritik against a planless affirmative can yield a great debate. Many of my 1NRs against kritikal affirmatives (in college) were kritiks or case debates.

THEORY—

I love theory. Use it to attempt to limit our arguments that reduce the quality of debates or misuse negative fiat. I am least persuaded by "conditionality bad" if there are 3 or less conditional positions.

The lack of a solvency advocate bolsters most theory arguments. I believe that the existence of literature on a topic is important for affirmative preparation.

Most theory arguments are a reason to reject the argument unless there is an explanation of why I should reject the team.

Plan-inclusive Kritiks are probably bad but it’s not an immediate Affirmative ballot. I’ll evaluate both PIKs bad debates and framework on whatever happens in a specific debate.

Overview

Director of Debate at Casady School

Put me on the e-mail chain: snidert [at] casady [dot] org

On Evidence

Evidence quality and consistency is very important to me. I can easily be convinced to disregard a piece of evidence because it lacks quality, is insufficiently highlighted, or is not qualified.

Author qualifications are under debated and if a piece of evidence lacks a qualification then that should definitely be used in debate.

K Things General

One line should dictate how you approach reading the K in front of me:

“You are a debater, not a philosopher.”

This should be your guiding principle when reading and answering a kritik in front of me. Debaters seem to rely more on jargon than actually doing the work of explaining and applying their argument. Unnecessarily complex kritiks won't get good speaker points (90% of the time you could have just read the cap k).

I will not flow overviews on a separate sheet of paper.

If you plan on reading the K

I've got good news and bad news. I'll start with the bad news: You are very unlikely to convince me not the weigh/evaluate the aff. I'm not persuaded much by self-serving counter interpretations on framework.

That said, the good news is that I think people give the aff too much credit and most of the reasons why I shouldn't evaluate the plan are typically offense against it. For example while I don't find the FW interpretation "Debate should be about epistemological assumptions" very convincing, I will definitely vote on "the affirmative's plan relies on a flawed epistemology that ensures serial policy failure, which turns case."

If you're answering the K

While the above may seem like good news for the aff answering the K, I tend to hold the aff to a higher threshold than most in K debates. I don't think "you need a specific link to the plan" is responsive to a K of the aff's epistemology. Likewise, aff framework interps that exclude Ks entirely are pretty much a non-starter.

Theory Issues

Condo seems to be getting a bit excessive, but no one goes for condo anymore so I'm sort of stuck with it.

Tech vs Truth

I think of this as more of a continuum as opposed to a binary. I lean more towards tech than truth, but I'm not going to pretend that I evaluate all arguments with equal legitimacy. For example, I have a higher threshold for arguments like “climate change not real” than “plan doesn’t solve climate change.” I traditionally evaluate the debate in offense/defense paradigm, but there is a such thing as a 0% risk.

K affs/T-FW

I enter every debate with the assumption that the resolution is going to play a role in the round. What role it plays, however, is up for debate. I don’t have a preference between skills or fairness standards.

Common reasons I vote aff on FW:

The neg goes for too many “standards”/"DAs"/whatever-youre-calling-them in the 2NR.

The neg doesn’t even try to engage the aff’s 2AC to FW.

Common reasons I vote neg on FW:

The aff doesn’t have an offensive reasons why the TVA is bad.

The aff doesn’t even try to engage the neg’s standards on FW.

Misc

I only flow what I hear, I won't use the doc to correct my flow. If I don't catch an argument/tag because you're too unclear then *insert shrug emoji*. That said, with online debate I will flow what I hear and use the doc to correct my flow after the speech. Including your analytics in the speech document will make correcting my flows much easier.

Guaranteed 30 if you’re paper debate team #PaperDebate

My facial reactions will probably tell you how I feel about your arg.

Last Updated: 2/24/21

I would like to be on the email chain stinnett.jada@gmail.com

***This Paradigm is written with with the idea that I will be judging policy debates, if this isn't a policy debate take what applies to you and ignore everything that doesn't***

*Overall Ideas that I have about debate*

I like all styles of debate.

I believe that debate is a fun game we play.

Why we play the game is different for everyone.

I believe that everyone should have fun playing it.

This is especially true for novice debate. I think sometimes we forget we all had a first day.

What this means is that I will make it a priority to keep the spaces I'm involved in safe.

I will acknowledge the material implications of some bodies in certain spaces, so I will not police the debate space or conform to respectability politics of ANY tournament.

I will try my best to make this space accessible for you. Let me know what I can do (this can include an email before the round).

Technical debate is good debate.

A true argument can beat a bunch of silly arguments.

An Argument is a claim with a warrant. I will only flow claims with warrants.

I will not listen to impact turns of oppression. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.

Don't use slurs outside of your social location. I will stop the round and leave. Your speaker points will reflect this.

I don't want to judge a debate based off of what happened outside of the round. It becomes really awkward for everyone. And I can't adequately attest these truth claims. Just don't do it. Please.

I flow on paper- due to technology sound transfer and audio processing I ask that you go slower than your fastest pace. 80% of your normal speed should be good. If I don't flow it, it doesn't count so don't try to argue with me on what you did/didn't say.

Spreading is a strategy used to create Layers to an argument in a small amount of time. If you are just fast without adding dimension to your argument then you are dong it wrong and should stop.

I am very expressive, you can tell if I like your argument or if you are winning an argument.

I understand adapting to judges, but from personal experience you can win in front of any critic doing what you do best.

I am open to adjusting my judging style/practice in nearly anyway that is asked of me.

I will not be offended if you ask me about my familiarity with topic specific acronyms/specific arguments. PLEASE DO SO. I want to know what you're talking about.

Other things:

AFF: You should be "topical", what that means is up for debate. Does that mean in the direction of the topic? Does that mean USFG action? IDK you tell me. But criticizing the "norms" of debate without relation to the topic is iffy for me and in my opinion a negative argument. If you have a justification for it go ahead because I will be evaluating the debate based off my flow anyway, but I am sympathetic to T/Framework Arguments. But don't be discouraged I have read/do read/coach teams to read "non-topical" affirmatives and understand the strategic choice behind doing so. That non-topical affirmative MUST do something (re: differ from the status quo).

Case Debate:

The status quo is always an option. Please don't forget the art of case debate. This goes beyond just impact defense. Don't be afraid for a good Impact Turn debate I'm all for a warming good, econ decline good, bio D loss good, ect debate.

T/Framework:

I wholeheartedly believe that you can say the state can do a particular policy action, and that single instance is good for x amount of people, without defending the other terrible things the state has done. Example, Welfare is probably a good thing. Yes there is problems with who gets it, but a world with out it is probably worse. I also believe that wiki disclosures is good defense against predictability claims. I also believe that some teams don't even make an attempt at engagement and some framework shells are written with the intent to never have k debates exist. That's probably a bad thing to defend. Don't let that be you. Nonetheless, T debates are dope. I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise. It will never be a reverse voter. It will never be genocide. You have to have a TVA. Your standards need to be impacted out or else they are just internal links and idk what to do with that. I will not vote on potential abuse. I want to see the blood on the flow. Where did they make the game unfair for you. I think the more specific the evidence/examples the better.

DA:

Impact framing and comparisons are major key. I'm cool with Generics DA's as long as your links are baller, but the more unique the DA the better. I believe in a 1% risk of a link. I also believe in a 0% risk of an impact. Explanation is key here. Im more willing to vote on a good story with fewer cards than me drowning in cards and trying to put together a story myself. also please tag your card 7 words or more. "more ev" is not an argument and i will not evaluate it.

CP:

I'm all for a good counterplan. 2nc counterplans are cool. 2nc amendments are cool. For me to vote on a CP you need to be super good on the case debate and differentiating the perm. Be clear on the CP text so I can flow it and also establish competition and better evaluate the argument. The states counter plan is definitely a legitimate strategy and should be protected at all cost.

K:

I'm most familiar with argumentation in critical race theory, gender and sexuality args and identity/performance based arguments but this doesn't mean I won't listen to what you have to say if those things aren't your jazz. Reading is Fundamental. I read a lot so I will most likely know what you are talking about. I expect college debaters to also be well read. My patience increases with hs debaters learning about different arguments, none the less you should still be reading. I cannot stress this enough. Reading is imperative. My hs kids have taken a liking to old french dudes so I have tried by best as an educator to familiarize myself with that field of literature to be a better coach. I will give you that same respect as an adjudicator if I don't understand your criticism. I believe engagement and contextualizing your theory with your opponents arguments gets you a long way. Explain what the alt does. I think far too often this explanation is missing from the debate. I don't believe in just voting on links (I say this, but as I think about it you can go for links as disads to the case...idk convince me). You have to find a way to resolve those for me. Also "root cause" arguments are not links, they are just alt solvency evidence.

I don't believe in Fem IR criticisms, I don’t believe in satire performances, I’m not a fan of girl boss feminist narratives, and I have a problem with “debate bad” arguments.

THEORY:

Don't read theory args as a time skew. The aff gets a perm unless you say why. Conditionality: The neg can do whatever they want as long as the positions don't contradict (nothing more than 5 off please), and they make a decision in the 2nr. I will not judge kick for you. You need to make a decision. Not here for cheap shots. I really don't want to have to judge a theory debate but I understand abuse and am willing to vote on it. If you plan on going for a theory argument, a substantial amount of time needs to be spent on it in the rebuttal. SPEC arguments are the worst thing to happen to debate and I will buy anything the 2a says if its remotely responsive. As said before, I don't like performative contradictions. This also just applies to the rounds that i'm in. I don't care that the person reading framework against you also reads a k aff. It's a game. they picked a strategy that's going to win them the game.

CX:

Is binding. Is a speech. I'll write notes during this time. Please Answer questions. Don't be sketchy, I'll know it. Don't be afraid to point out if your opponents are being sketchy.

cheating:

Do not Fabricate evidence. It's inexcusable. Do not clip cards. its inexcusable.

Challenges of card clipping will result in stopping the debate if material evidence is provided that proves beyond a reasonable doubt in my mind that card clipping has occurred. the offending team will receive a loss and the offending speaker will receive 0 speaker points. however if i conclude that the speaker is not guilty of clipping cards the challenging team will receive a loss and both challenging speakers will receive 0 speaker points.

***clipping cards is not a slurring of words or clack of clarity***

Evidence:

I'm from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the debate. Denial to share citations or disclose is a b!+ch move. Prepared debate is good debate. Don't get this confused with breaking new, that's all fine.

Prep/Speaking Times:

MY TIME IS THE RIGHT TIME AND THE ONLY TIME THAT MATTERS. I don't count flashing or emailing as prep. Flex prep is not a thing(you cannot use cross-x as prep or time to give another speech). Speak in your assigned time slots (interpret this vaguely. It just means 1 constructive and 1 rebuttal. idc the order) unless for some performative or ethical reason that you can't (For example, if both debaters speak during the 1AC cool. There was a reason for it. Probably performative. In the rebuttal to continue the performance? Cool. Have a debater take over the line by line? Not Cool. This is a clear shift in the competitive aspect and nature of the game. Unless for some reason a debater disappears/goes missing...why would this happen? idk, but unusual things happen all the time)

Clarification questions during prep is okay. But don't try to make "a point". If you happen to be a team on the receiving end of someone trying to tear down your argument during prep, please refuse to answer.

Speaks:

I'll hook everyone up with speaks #PointFairy. I never want to be the reason debaters don’t break so I might over compensate, but who cares y’all are doing all the rigorous work the least I can do is help in the speaker point end.

I understand the joy of speaker awards and I will do my best to help y'all out.

I evaluate speaks of by delivery>argument choice. the team with the better Argument choice will most likely win win the round.

You'll get a 30 if you are just baller, or make me laugh uncontrollably. (I enjoy witty jokes, and I'm a big sports fan if that helps you come up with material)

+0.3 for every KD joke

(I haven't made up my mind if I will put a cap on jokes or not, so be a comedian at the risk of knowing you might not be rewarded for all the jokes)

I'll use this as a tool to teach young people how to advocate for themselves. after the round tell me what speaks you think you deserve(realistically) and I might agree with you.

when making analytical arguments I would advise going for the easiest pen to paper phrasing

if you send me your flow after the round I will up your speaks(HS ONLY)

How I make my Decisions:

I use the burden of rejoinder frame to structure how I evaluate debates.

I hold a strict line with new arguments in the rebuttals so a majority of my time will be lining up arguments.

In clash debates the easiest framing for me is what's most educational and best for the community.

I dislike students who try to post round. This has only happened to me twice. None the less I will not tolerate it. I am also willing to admit that I am wrong. But that will not change my decision. If the understanding that I get form your argument happens in a post round and not in a debate, I cannot reward you for communicating your point late in the game. This is a communication activity and if something didn't reach my flow like how you intended there isn't much I can do but listen and process to the best of my ability. If you think I made the wrong decision that's fine and you are completely entitled to feel that way. It does not change the fact that you loss.

Mics/Things you might wanna know about me:

I am Black and Queer.

pronouns: they/them

When I debated I was trained to "Defend the walls" later in my career I became a "k-debater"

You all can call me Jada you don't have to say judge

I was a 2n

I'm a Dog Mom

#FUCKDONALDTRUMP #ALLBLACKLIVESMATTER

I have a real pet peeve with what is considered violence in debate

You can insert re highlighting- you don't have to reread the card

If you wanna talk about college debate I'm here(I debated for UNLV) or I can get you in touch with someone from a program you are interested in.

Quotes from People in The Community about me:

"Super smart and a great person all around" Allego Wang

"Incredibly intelligent + really good at explaining difficult concepts" Ali saffieddine

"Their ability to compartmentalize argumentation and overall communication skills are ones I've always aspired to have and continue to grow from simple conversations I have with them. Jada's ability to empathize with students and find the grammar to communicate in ways to accommodate students needs and comprehension skills is one of the many talented characteristics they have. They will really be personal to you and your needs, with flares of individual organic wisdom they've learned over the years. They will not just lecture you. They will help you on your path to education/understanding difficult literature bases by shining light at your strengths and guiding you to find solutions to your weaknesses. Legit, Jada is one of the most influential person I've been blessed to come across" Yumasie Hellebuick

"You're the 50 cent of this community" -Chris Randall

"Jada is the love of my life" - Caitlin Walrath

"I told ppl to pref u just cuz you’re not afraid to stare a k team down and say “yea I voted on nuke war outweighs” with a smile ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" -Ari Davidson

"Jada makes the best memes" JV Soccer Captain and my Teammate Dan Bannister

These are my jams at the moment do with that what you will:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=96etssDazC4

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p9pf5EyOgcs&list=TLPQMDYxMDIwMjAf0hhn6QIZ9w&index=2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqO4dd3Ea9Q&list=TLPQMDYxMDIwMjAf0hhn6QIZ9w&index=3

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A-iyzBk_Nc0&list=TLPQMDYxMDIwMjAf0hhn6QIZ9w&index=5

Affiliation: Winston Churchill HS

if I have judged you in the past/if I judge you, feel free to fill out this form and I will post responses at the bottom.

https://docs.google.com/forms/d/e/1FAIpQLScDXlY8uI0X1eOuekjXutz1j5eYKzsg4S-mdjoK4kn-ZqhSZA/viewform?usp=sf_link

TLDR version: no strong ideological debate dispositions, link/perm analysis is good, tech > truth, 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 and certainly malleable.

**prep time stops when the email is sent, too many teams steal prep while 'saving the doc'**

*If you are an LD debater, this should give you a good idea of how to debate in front of me. Feel free to ask more specific questions before the round.*

Long version

Do what you do well: I have no preference to any sort of specific types of arguments these days. 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.

This being said, if I am judging you in LD, here are a few things I've realized about myself that you should know: I find myself seeing most 'traditional/phil' strategies to be lacking in offense and largely ill explained; I think bad theory arguments are wildly unpersuasive and generally default to drop the arg; I think 'spikes' (especially when undisclosed) are not arguments and generally give the neg decent amount of leeway to make responses once they actually become warranted arguments.

-Truth v Tech: I find myself more frequently deciding close debates based on questions of truth/solid evidence rather than purely technical skills. This also bleeds into policy v policy debates, as I get older I find myself 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 often find this to be the biggest issue with with politics, internal link, and permutation evidence for kritiks.

-Speed vs Clarity: I don't flow off the speech document, I don't even open them until either after the debate or if a particular piece of evidence is called into question. If I don't hear it/can't figure out the argument from the text of your cards, it probably won't make it to my flow. If I say clear it is because I cannot hear/flow you and you probably want me to have your arguments, if you hear me say clear and your opponent doesnt get more clear, I don't see any reason why you shouldn't be able to ask me before CX what arguments I did/did not get on my flow because I don't see why you should have to answer arguments that I didn't even have flowed. this seems to be a problem that is especially true in LD.

-Permutation/Link Analysis: this is becoming 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. Reading a slew of permutations with no explanation as the debate progresses 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.


Speaker points: average = 28, 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.
-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/just reading blocks

Prep time stops when the email is sent

Survey Results:

If you had to give advice to a team who had this judge in the back of the room, what would you tell them?

--Do whatever you’re good at, he’ll be down for it.

--Read your normal arguments, but make sure you explain them correctly and are able to connect your arguments to the 2nr/2ar explanation.

--read what you feel comfortable explaining and is most strategic in your eyes

--Focus on providing a lens/framing for the judge to view the debate through--if you're making an argument, be sure to explain why that argument (or groups of arguments) are relevant given the context of other arguments. For instance, explain why x section of the case debate is important to y section of the K debate (or something similar).

On a scale of 1-10 with 1 being the least similar and 10 being the most similar, rate how you thought the round went down matched up to this judge's assessment of the round based on the RFD

10

9--x3

8--x2

5

What was the quality of this judge's RFD?

10

9--2

8--x3

7

What was the quality of this judge's post-round comments?

10

9--x5

8

What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is familiar with?

--I feel like he has a wide base of knowledge over a broad range of literature, which helps a lot in both Policy v Policy debates and Policy v K debates.

--Topic specific literature of policy affs/DA's and mostly familiar with the literature in the round

--Policy and Kritik

What areas of scholarship do you feel this judge is unfamiliar with?

--Maybe the pomo bs people have are reading (baudrillard, bataille, etc.)

--This was only for a specific post-round question, but the judge wasn't 100% sure about ontology cards to read when aff vs settler colonialism.

--LD Moral Frameworks/LD Analytic Philosophy debates

Do you have any additional comments?

--Very thorough and helpful RFD!

--n/a

--Make sure to be explicit in not allowing judge intervention, ie "dont kick this for them"

tl;dr

I am more a technical judge than the average. I do not enter the round "tabula rasa." Don't think anyone can. I believe, in a way that no amount of debating can convince me to abandon, that I must evaluate the line-by-line. When I sit, though, I do so because of ticky-tacky drops. As soon as I understand an argument, I can vote on it.

If a debate is close, I defer to evidence, and then to my own beliefs.

NDT Quarterfinalist and First-Round '21

In high school, add brandonstras@gmail.com; debatemba@gmail.com to the chain.

Michigan '21 (debated with Kelly Phil, among other legends), Wayzata '18, Sabes JCC Pre-K '05 (with DML)

Assistant Coach at Montgomery Bell Academy.

Framework/the K

• I don't view debate as much more than a strategy game. Fairness matters to me for the same reason that I do not think competitive Pokémon matches should handicap a player with a team of five instead of six.

• When I vote for the K against a policy aff, I must often pull the trigger on "don't weigh the aff." I don't find it very compelling. But I adjudicate it just like a theory debate. Teams drop "aff gets infinite prep" in K debates just as often as they do in conditionality debates.

Framing

• In soft left aff vs big stick CP/DA debates, my RFD usually focuses on framing. "Extinction first" and "extinction not first" are irreconcilable views. And picking one over the other rigs the game. If a team loses framing, wins the counterplan solves 50% of case, and a reasonable risk of the disad, it does not seem likely that they will win. The framing arguments often mean the solvency deficit automatically outweighs the disad, turns case arguments notwithstanding.

• If you asked me, in real life, if I identify as an effective altruist, I would snort. In debates, however, I have about as much agnosticism about existential risks as my Judaism (a lot).

• Most framing 1ACs are a disgrace. Don't waste time on pomo journals, Security K cards, etc. Read "existential risks don't come first" cards and then disad answers. Don't complicate it by making useless arguments.

Topicality

• Usually, judicial definitions do not persuade me more than dictionary definitions. Most judges cite dictionaries as the ultimate lexicon, so it does not seem more likely that a judge has cracked the code on what the verb "enact" means.

• Expect a 50/50 on T Enact.

Theory

• You probably get as many counterplans as you want in the 1NC, but the vast majority of your process junk probably does not compete. Go ahead and win me over to the contrary.

• Expect me to lean neg on conditionality and median but slightly aff on judgekick. I treat conditional 2NC counterplans with disdain, as they violate the Geneva Convention (perhaps not if unconditional). I assume such 2NC counterplans are a reason to reject the team.

• I bias towards thinking that counterplans must compete off text and function. I often accept "logical" permutations (textually but not functionally intrinsic perms, functionally but not textually intrinsic perms).

• Concon/Lopez/international fiat, probably cheating.

• Process CPs et al., rarely competitive, but you do you.

• NGA CP genre, see process CPs.

• States CP, probably the neg's god-given right.

"New arguments"

• The only speech that I intervene against is the 2AR. Otherwise, teams need to debate whether arguments are new and/or justified. And that debate needs to happen sooner rather than later—right when teams make them.

Quick Q&A:

Yes, include me on the doc chain – mrgrtstrong685@gmail.com

No, I am not ok with you just putting the card in the text of the email

Idk if the aff has to read a plan. I would obviously prefer it, but I also would prefer if I were in for zero rounds, so…

Quick note: (2020 Spring Semester)

I have judged very few rounds on this topic due to illness. Please pretend I am someone with not a lot of topic knowledge.

The longer version:

K STUFF:

Planless:

-I’ve never judged a planless debate where the neg has not gone for framework.

-I generally went for framework against planless affirmatives when I debated, and therefore am a bit deeper on the neg side of things.

-I don’t think topicality, or adhering to a resolution, is analogous to rape, slavery, or other atrocities.

-I don’t think that not being topical will cause everyone to quit, lose all ability to navigate existential crisis, or other tedious internal link chains.

-I would really prefer if people had reasonable arguments on topicality for why or why they don’t need to read a plan, rather than explaining to me their existential impact to voting aff or neg.

-I find myself persuaded that the case can not outweigh topicality. Arguments from the case can be used to impact turn topicality, but that is distinct from “case outweighs limits” in my mind.

-if you choose to pref me, that’s on you. Blow me up and I might blow back.

Neg K v plans:

-Generally, the alt won’t solve

-Generally, the alt doing the plan is a reason to reject the alt/team

-Generally, contradictions justify severance

-Generally, the neg is allowed to read Ks

K v K debate:

Wow, you might be the first to be judged by me in this situation. Congrats! Also sorry! I have no clue what if I’m supposed to judge differently, but I tend to find myself thinking of things in terms of causality, so if that’s not your jam you gotta tell me not to think in that way.

K stuff in general:

-My degree is in math. While y’all were reading a lot of background lit, I was doing abstract algebra. You might have to break it down a bit.

-I am more persuaded by identity or constructivism than post modernism.

-I do not recommend reading Baudrillard, Bataille, etc.

POLICY STUFF:

CPs:

-Tell me if I can (or can’t!) kick it for you. I may or may not remember to if you don’t. I may or may not feel like you are allowed to if you don’t.

-Reading definitions of should means the perm or theory are in tough shape. Its not unwinnable, but I was a 2A…

-Links to the net benefit is usually a sliding scale. But sometimes links have a certain threshold where it doesn’t matter which links less. Please consider this nuance when debating.

Theory:

-TBH – y’all blaze through theory blocks with no clarity and then get confused when I have no standards written down. These debates are bad. Be more clear. Speak at a flowable pace. Maybe make your own arguments. Idk.

-It is debatable whether an argument is a reason to reject the argument or team. Except conditionality…that makes no sense.

DAs:

-Yes, there can be zero DA. No, it’s not as common as you think.

-answer turns case!!!

Etc:

-There is a lot uncovered here… at least I finally updated it from 2012 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯

Monta Vista '18, UC Berkeley '22. dsudesh2000@gmail.com -- put me on the chain.

This philosophy reflects my ideological leanings; it is not a set of rules I abide by in every decision. All of them can be easily reversed by out-debating the other team, and I firmly believe tech > truth.

The most important thing for me is argument resolution. In close debates, I generally resolve in favor of rebuttals that have judge instruction, explain the interaction between your arguments and theirs, and efficiently frame the debate in a way that adds up to a ballot. If you don't give me a way to reconcile two competing claims, I'll likely just read evidence to make my own judgment. Some effective examples of this are "even if they win x, we still win because y" and short overviews for individual parts of the line by line (like framing issues for comparing the strength of a link to a link turn).

K Affs and Framework:

K Affs: Develop one or two pieces of central offense that impact turn whatever standard(s) the neg is going for. I tend to vote more frequently for the direct impact turn than the 'CI + link turn neg standards' strategy.

Framework: I don't have a preference for hearing a skills or fairness argument, but I think the latter requires you to win a higher level of defense to aff arguments.

K:

I am well versed in security, cap, and a few other similar K's. Links are best when they prove the plan shouldn't be implemented. I'm skeptical of sweeping claims about the structure of society (provided reasonable pushback by the aff). If equally debated, I am likely to conclude that the affirmative gets to weigh the plan. I tend to vote aff when the aff wins they get to weigh the plan and their impact outweighs the neg's, and I tend to vote neg when the neg wins a framework argument.

Theory:

Infinite conditionality, agent CPs, PICs, conditional planks, 2NC CPs are all good. CPs that rely on certainty or immediacy or the like for competition are illegitimate. I would strongly prefer if you resolve debates substantively than resort to theory.

CPs/DAs/Impact Turns/Case Debate/T:

Smart, analytical case defense or CPs are fine if completely intuitive or factual, but they hold significantly more weight if tied to a piece of evidence.

As far as T goes, I highly value precision when compared to limits and ground. Winning that your interp makes debates slightly more winnable for the neg is unlikely to defeat a precise interpretation that reflects the literature consensus.

Other Things:

When reading evidence, I will only evaluate warrants that are highlighted.

Dropped arguments don't need to be fully explained until the final rebuttals. However, you must point out that they are dropped and give a quick explanatory sentence.

I debated for 3 years @ Washburn Rural
I debated for 4 years @ Emporia State (NDT '08)
I am the Director of Debate at Lawrence Free State HS (4th year at FS, 12th year as a head coach, 20th year in Policy Debate)

*Please add me to the email chain if one exists: kmikethompson@gmail.com

tl;dr

I will do my best to answer any questions that you have before the debate.

-I don't care how fast you talk, but I do care how clear you talk. I'm unlikely to clear you but it will be obvious if I can't understand you because I won't be flowing and I communicate non-verbally probably more than most other judges. This is particularly relevant in online debate.

-I don't care what arguments you read, but I do care whether you are making arguments, responding to opposition arguments, and engaging in impact calculus (your arg v their arg, not just your arg) throughout the debate.

-I don't care what aff you read, if you defend a plan, or if you debate on the margins of the topic, but I do care if you have offensive justifications for your decisions, and if you solve.

-If you're reading generic link arguments or CP solvency cards - it will matter a great deal how well you can contextual that generic evidence to the specific affirmative plan.

-I think teams should be willing to go for theory more.

Some top level thoughts:

1) "New in the 2" is bad for debate. Barring an affirmative theoretical objection - I'll evaluate you arguments and not intervene despite my bias. But, if the other team makes an argument about it - I will disregard all new positions read in the negative block.

2) Neg ground on this topic is not very good. I'm sympathetic to the negative on theoretical objections of counterplans as a result.

3) If you're flowing the speech doc and not the speech itself you deserve to be conned in to answering arguments that were never made in the debate, and to lose to analytic arguments (theory and otherwise) that were made while you were busy staring at your screen.

4) People should assume their opponent's are winning some arguments in the last rebuttals. A decision to assume you're winning everything nearly guarantees that you are incorrect and minimizes the likelihood that you're doing relevant impact calculus. I really think "even-if" statements are valuable for final rebutalists.

-My speaker point scale has tended to be:

29+ - you should receive a speaker award in this division at this tournamnet

28.5+ - you should be in elimination debates at this tournament, and probably win one or more of those rounds

28 - you are competing for a spot to clear but still making errors that may prevent you from doing so. Average for the division/tournament.

27.5 - you are slightly below average for the division/tournament and need to spend some time on the fundamentals. Hopefully, I've outlined in my notes what those are.

27 - there were serious fundamental errors that need to be corrected.

Topicality- I really enjoy T debates, I think competing interpretations is probably true and find reasonability arguments to be uncompelling almost always. If you're not topical you should have an offensive reason that you're not. If you are topical then you should win why your vision of the resolution is superior to the negatives.

Critiques- K debaters tend to spend an extraordinary amount of time on their link arguments, but no time on explaining how the alternative resolves them. Affirmatives tend to concede K tricks too often.

Counterplans - I like smart, aff specific counter plans more than generic, topic type counter plans. I understand the need for questions CPs on this topic.

Critical affs - I'm fine with K affs and deployed them often as a debater. I find it difficult to evaluate k affs with poorly developed "role of the ballot" args. I find "topical version of the aff" to be compelling regularly, because affs concede this argument. I have been more on the "defend topical action" side of the framework debate in the last two years or so. I'm not sure why, but poorly executed affirmative offense seems to be the primary cause.

Read a plan.

Death is bad, suffering is bad.

Not a huge fan of theory.

Prep ends when the doc is sent.

After a decade, I’ve now finally decided to update my philosophy. I’ve found that nothing I could say about each of the main argument categories would be particularly relevant because of one simple fact - my ultimate preference is to evaluate the round in whatever way you tell me to. I’m not saying you can call me a “tabula rasa” judge, if people even use that phrase anymore…I’m saying that my goal is to intervene as little as possible in the debate.

-I find myself evaluating every argument in a debate as a disad. This is obvious for actual disadvantages, counterplans, etc but for me, it's also true of theory, framework, and topicality. Did you read framework against a critical race aff? Then you likely have a predictability disad and a fairness disad against the aff’s framing of how debate should be. Did the neg read a conditional CP, K alternative, and insist the SQ is an option? You probably have ground and fairness disads to the CP/K. In those instances, you HAVE to make an impact argument that makes sense. Exclude the aff, reject the CP, reject the team…whatever. I will compare those impacts to the impacts the other side has (flexibility, education, etc.). It’d be a lot better if you did the comparison for me. If you don't, I will read into everything and make a decision for myself.

-Otherwise, debate like you want to debate. I no longer find myself voting against framework all of the time or voting for the K vs policy affs that are going for framework against the alt. I probably have voted the opposite way more often in the last year.

-Lastly, I flow but I also want to be on the email chain (cturoff@headroyce.org). I'm actually trying to model what you are supposed to be doing...flowing the speech and looking at the evidence the team is reading once I've written down what they said ALOUD. If you do this, guaranteed 28.9 or better (which is high for me). If you actually flow AND you are funny and/or efficient at line-by-line and/or making a ton of smart arguments while covering everything, guaranteed 29.5 or better (which is outrageous for me).

------------------------------Online Debate Update------------------------------

My computer setup is way better in my house than on the road. I have incredibly fast internet and multiple screens. But it's not enough to be able to flow full speed debates over Zoom without issues. Please keep that in mind. A few things will help, if you so choose - send out your full speech doc, not just your cards so I can follow along (I'm still going to flow what you say out loud but will cut you a bit of slack in the form of looking at your speech doc to fill in holes) and slow down on theory and analytics (I'm flowing on computer and not paper at home which is both faster in some respects and slower in others).

-Director of Debate at Little Rock Central High School
-Yes, email chain and sure, questions: rosalia.n.valdez@gmail.com

TL;DR

Do what you do and do it well. I will vote for who wins. Over-adaptation is probably not a great idea with me in the back (I can smell your soft-left add-ons a mile away). Be clear, be concise, be economical. I coach primarily K teams, so it is immaterial to me whether or not you read a plan.

Evidence/Argumentation

I care about quality of evidence. I would much rather hear you read a few well-warranted cards than a wave of under-highlighted evidence. Same goes for redundant evidence; if you need six cards that “prove” your claim with the same words interchanged in the tag, your claim is probably pretty weak. Evidence does not (alone) a (winning) argument make. I like to be on email chains.

Ks

Neg teams lose when they don’t demonstrate how their arguments interact with the 1AC. Winning that the affirmative is “flawed” or “problematic” does not guarantee a neg ballot. In my mind, there are two ways to win the k versus a policy aff: either win that the effects of the plan make the world significantly worse OR win framework and go for epistemology/ontology links. Know when framework is important and when it’s not. Give analysis as to how your links implicate the world of the aff. This is where case mitigation and offense on why voting affirmative is undesirable is helpful. These debates are significantly lacking in impact calculus. Also - the alt needs to solve the links, not the aff - but if it does, great! If you win framework, this burden is lessened. Don’t spread through link explanations. I am seeing more debates where teams kick the alt and go for the links as disads to the aff. This is fine, but be wary of this strategy when the alt is what provides uniqueness to the link debate.

Conversely, affs typically lose these debates when there is little press on what the alternative does and little analysis of perm functions. However, some teams focus on the alt too much and leave much to be desired on the link debate (especially important for soft-left affs). Not sure why teams reading HSI are making perms on the cap k. Defend your reps. Your framework shell should also include a robust defense of policymaking, not just procedural fairness. The 1AR should actually answer the block’s framework answers. More impact turning rather than defensive, no-link arguments.

Also, running to the middle will not save you. Some Ks are going to get a link no matter what, and tacking on a structural impact to your otherwise straight policy aff will likely only supercharge the link. So. Read the aff you'd read in front of anybody in front of me. You're probably better at that version anyway.

K Affs vs. FW

For affs: I’m good for these although I do think that oftentimes the method is very poorly explained. Neg teams should really press on this and even consider going for presumption. Side note: I absolutely do not think that critical affs should have to win that the ballot is key for their method. Against framework, I most frequently vote aff when the aff wins impact turns that outweigh the neg’s impacts and have a counter-interp that resolves the majority of their offense. I can still vote for you if you don’t have a counter-interp in the 2AR but only if the impact work is exceptional. I prefer affs that argue that the skills and methods produced under their model inculcate more ethical subjectivities than the negative’s. The best aff teams I’ve seen are good at contextualizing their arguments, framing, and justifying why their model and not their aff is uniquely good. I am most frequently preffed for K v K debates. Judge instruction is extremely important here as these debates can become muddled extremely quickly. I would rather evaluate those rounds based on whose method is most relevant to the debate rather than k tricks.

For neg teams: I like to see framework deployed as debate methodologies that are normatively good versus debate methodologies that are undesirable and should be rejected. Framework debates should center on the impact of certain methodologies on the debate space. “Your argument doesn’t belong in debate” is not the same thing as “your argument is hindered by forum” or “your argument makes it functionally impossible to be negative.” (fun fact: I read a lot of judges' paradigms/preferences..."debate is a game" does not = debate is a good game, and participation in that "game" does not = can't say the game is bad). I prefer more deliberation & skills-based framework arguments rather than procedural fairness, but I will vote on either as long as you have warrants and comparative impact analysis. If going for skills & research impacts, the internal link debate is most important. TVAs are great as defense against the aff’s impact turns. They do not have to solve the aff but should address its central controversy.

I feel similarly about theory debates in that they should focus on good/undesirable pedagogical practices. Arguments that explain the role of the ballot should not be self-serving and completely inaccessible by a particular team.

Topicality

Topicality is a voting issue and never a reverse voting issue. T debates are won and lost on the standards level. If the affirmative wins that their interpretation solves the impact of topicality, then I see no reason to vote negative. Thorough T debates are about more than fairness. The idea that you have no game on an aff in this era is just not as persuasive as the idea that the aff’s interpretation negatively impacts future debates.

Disadvantages/Counterplans

No real issues here. Specific links to case obviously preferred to generic arguments. Give me good impact analysis. As a debater, counterplans weren’t really my jam. As a judge, I can’t say that I get to vote on CPs often because they are typically kicked or are not competitive enough to survive an affirmative team well-versed in permutations. A CP should be something to which I can give thoughtful consideration. Don’t blow through a really complicated (or long) CP text. Likewise, if the permutation(s) is intricate, slow down. Pretty sure you want me to get these arguments down as you read them, not as I reconstruct them in cross. I vote for theory as much as I don’t vote for theory. No real theoretical dispositions.

Arkansas Circuit

1. I’m not going to bump your speaks for thanking me and taking forever to start the round because you’re asking “opponent ready? judge ready? partner ready? observers ready?” for the first 20 minutes.
2. If you do not take notes during my RFD, I will leave.
3. Don’t clip. Why do debaters in Arkansas clip so much? Answer: Because I don’t judge very much in Arkansas.
4. Keep your own time.

https://www.tabroom.com/index/paradigm.mhtml

TLDR

Condo is probably bad. I don't like tricks and rude stuff. I don't like people beating their opponents down in a disrespectful manner. True champions find a way to win with style, finesse, and some measure of grace. Basically, "say what you mean, and mean what you say" in front of me. Kick outs and shifts are not received well. If you shift your position and the other team catches you, calls you on it, labels it a voter, impacts it, and you do not give that response serious consideration, you will likely be very disappointed when the RFD happens.

I like and am comfortable with crystal clear debaters and crystal-clear rebuttals. I've been focused on my policy teams this year, so I'm not familiar with the LD topic. I think there is still such a thing as an LD topic, although I keep hearing the same positions regardless of the topic a lot, and I guess that's ok. I am open to a lot of different types of discussions, and I'm excited to listen to what you bring to the debate space.

NO MATTER WHAT YOUR ARGUMENT, In a nutshell:

Tell Me What Your Argument Is

Tell Me Why I Should Prefer It

Tell Me Why If I Do Prefer Your Argument Why You Should Then Win The Debate---Some form of Impact Calculus/Weighting Magnitude, Probability and Time Frame-ish args are goods.

If you think you are really winning something, "sit on it" and explain why you win.

Updated 4/9/2021

Overview: I firmly believe that policy debate is first and foremost a communication activity. Consequently, oral presentation plays a larger factor in my adjudication process than in most decisions in recent years. I focus on the “story” of the debate, but line-byline refutation can be a component of that. Know your order before you announce it. Don't change the order after you announce it. Clearly articulated arguments at any speed can be evaluated. Inarticulate utterings that cannot be understood cannot be evaluated. Especially in online debates. Slow down and be really clear on why you are winning. Be quick, but don't hurry. I will not tolerate rudeness. Cross X is binding. I don’t like “camp games” that steal time. I see you. I can’t guarantee I won’t put the trigger on such nonsense. Keep it to a minimum. If there is a mistake or misunderstanding just apologize. Saying you are sorry is often overlooked. You might clean it up well and still be in the debate. At the very least, you will save yourself low speaks if you make an honest effort to play it smart and on the level.

My paradigm biggies are as follows:

1. I agree that conditionality is "probably" bad. So, its "probably" not a bad idea to speak to this and support reasons why I might or might not vote on this. Don’t just wait to see what I’ll do. As far as just throwing out a bunch of stuff and them dropping it as a strategy---it does not usually go very well. I do not automatically judge kick. I don’t think I judge kick at all. If you run 10 off, then win 10 off that do not contradict each other. Most importantly, be sure that you are clear as crystal even attempting it. When you time skew and then kick out, I am predisposed to vote for the other team, absent compelling reasons why I should not do this. Say what you mean and mean what you say.

2. Topical Counterplans are not OK. If at the end of the round I have been effectively persuaded there are two Affirmative teams, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

3. I prefer not to judge topicality debates. If you're ahead on it, explain to me why it’s important to care about this, or I might not understand why to vote on it.

4. I enjoy case debates. Solidly clear and irrefutably presented and reasonably current inherency evidence could really win a debate. No, really.

5. Kritikal arguments on both AFF and NEG are fine, but pay close attention to the way you communicate your positions (clear and concise!).

6. The topic should be debated, but how you approach the resolution, and how you approach debate generally (content, style, etc.), should be left up to the debaters.

7. If you're Negative, show me how your approach is specific to this Affirmative. Be thoughtful in explaining what a vote for your side means and why I should endorse it. Ask me to vote for your side. Don't completely on-face grant the 1AC in favor of pre-set tangentially related points and expect me to get why that means the Negative wins the debate. Be particularly clear on fairness and why ground is or isn't lost and warrants a decision. These are usually not presented clearly and powerfully. And without why they should matter, I tend to be persuaded by other issues

8. I will appreciate teams who competently deploy arguments from the earlier days of CEDA, such as Justification, Hasty G, etc. I also appreciate when the AFF and NEG teams sit on the correct sides of the room with respect to the judge. Otherwise, I might want to vote for someone but accidentally vote for the wrong team. "Sort of kidding" but I know this has happened to teams and that in my career in the activity, more than one judge thought they voted for a team, when they hadn't. If you're not on the proper side of the room, at least say in your speech which team you represent and why you think your side should win the debate. That is taken for granted a lot. :)

Best,

Marna Weston

Overall:
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.

2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.

3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."

Counterplans:
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.

2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.

Disads:
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.

2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.

Kritiks:
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.

2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.

3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.

Nontraditional affirmatives:

Versus T:

1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.

2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.

3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.

Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.

Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.

2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.

LD section:
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.

2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.

3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.

4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.

Top level// TLDR

Preferred pronouns: they/them

I debated policy for three years at aubrey high school. I currently coach there and do some other policy oriented work. I am a first year out - I have judged about 50 rounds. My sole focus is pretty much policy debate - I debate NFA- LD at UNT but it is nothing like policy or high school LD, beyond the titles of the arguments.

if You are going for T and theory- or spreading through some other paragraph sized bullet points- you need to do a couple things for me- give me space between arguments and make it really clear that you are making a new argument and what it is supposed to answer i.e "they said 'x' I have three answers 1. 'answer' 2.'answer' 3. 'answer.'" If you don't do this for me and I miss something- or I think i missed something- I will err towards the side that cleaned up the debate for me.

Yao Yao Chen said something a lot of people quote for good reason - “If you have little time before a debate, here’s all you need to know: do what you do best… I would rather listen to you debating your strongest argument than you adapting to my preferences.”

Unlike Yao Yao tho- I prefer one off K debates. And I won’t say go as fast as you want- you probably should give me more pen time then you usually would for other folks on taglines, CP texts, theory, perm texts etc. although I do not really care how fast you go through the evidence itself.

I really appreciate judge direction- it is probably the best thing you can do for yourself in front of me- I often find myself at the end of debates where both sides have won certain arguments- but have failed to explain what the implications of those arguments are for how I should resolve the other sub debates.

I’m not sure if I have developed a routine for evaluating rounds- it is very important that both teams tell me what they won, why they won, and what that means for the round/ for what my ballot should look like. I’ll try to defer to what is on my flow to the best of my abilities.

I enjoy answering questions after the round. I don’t enjoy rude people, if we all treat each other kindly then I will answer questions till I am blue in the face. And everyone should feel free to email me at any point with any questions.

My email (which you should put on the chain) is: debatethek@gmail.com

Online debate stuff:

I like email chains over other kinds of sharing methods- it lets us get in contact with ppl in case of technical difficulties.

I think Jackie Poapst said this first, but I absolutely hate “is any one not ready” because if someone is having a tech problem then they may not be able to indicate they are not ready. It is the equivalent of “if you aren’t here raise your hand.”

There have been several times when debaters have asked “is everybody ready” and then proceeded to give their speech without a response from me- I missed several seconds of those debaters’ speeches. Please wait for me to respond I’ll usually say that “i’m good” verbally. If I see that the debater about to give a speech can see their camera- i may just give a thumbs up. If I have not done either of those things- I AM NOT READY.

Topicality:

This is my least favorite kind of debate- but mostly because I have never gone for T. I am slowly growing to appreciate T debates.

I think that fairness is probably an internal link to an impact- but not an impact in it’s own right, but I can definitely be convinced otherwise.

I think that reasonablity is an argument that begs the question of whether or not the counter interpretation is reasonable- not whether the aff is reasonably topical.

I think impact calculus is really important for me here- you should err on the side of overexplanation of your impact and weighing for me.

Framework-

I usually vote for the team that does the better weighing- if an aff wins that there is some sort of external disad to framework but then doesn’t do the work to weigh that impact versus the impacts the neg goes for then It becomes very difficult to vote aff.

Similarly when the negative wins risk of offense but then doesn’t sufficiently weigh that offense against that of the affirmative it is very hard to vote negative.

I don’t think that the TVA has to resolve the entirety of the aff- but I do think that it is important that it captures some of the affirmative offense.

I have voted negative on framework one time- and there wasn’t a TVA- but I will still say that I think the TVA makes the neg’s life a lot easier.

I think that negative teams should make more arguments about how a good stasis point is necessary to resolving the impacts of the aff.

I think that too many teams get stuck into defending their model - instead of comparing models- good affs are able to make arguments that they generate better education or have better access to procedural fairness- good negative teams are able to explain why the aff interp bites the link and what their model does better and why I should prefer it.

Kritiks:

Just like every other judge- I think that specificity is key- the more specific your link evidence is to the aff the more I will be persuaded by the kritik

however - I think that contextualization can be just as good as specificity- all I am looking for is language that emphasizes what the aff does to trigger an impact- and why the aff is a really bad iteration of that.

A lot of teams contextualization devolves into descriptions of the status quo- which, while these descriptions are often frightening, and enlightening, they fail to explain what the affs specific relation to their kritik is.

I don’t think debate should happen in the overview- you should do as much work as possible to describe your kritik on the line by line- it makes it so much easier for me to flow.

I am a sucker for link turns case arguments- I just ask that they be thoroughly explained if you want to go for them.

I don’t think that you necessarily need to win an alternative to win the debate- but you do have to win a reason why the link/impact debate necessitates my ballot absent one.

It is not hard to convince me that affs shouldn’t get a perm in method debates- but it is also not hard to convince me they should get perms.

Kevin Hirn said a couple things I really agree with:

1. “Role of the ballot/judge claims are obviously somewhat self-serving, but in debates in which they're well-explained (or repeatedly dropped), they can be useful guidelines for crafting a reasonable decision (especially when the ballot theorizes a reasonable way for both teams to win if they successfully defend core thesis positions)”.

2. “Most permutation/framework debates are really asking the question: "Is the part of the aff that the neg disagreed with important enough to decide an entire debate about?" (this is true in CP competition debates too, for what it's worth). Much of the substantive debating elsewhere subsequently determines the outcome of these sub-debates far more than debaters seem to assume.”

counterplans -

I think that PICS are probably good

I think that process debates are interesting.

I judged a prelim at stanford this year where a kid may have won the debate in an overview- and then got mad that I didn’t evaluate their blippy cross extension onto the CP solvency flow- so this is my warning- I am not a good judge for super fast overviews explaining counterplan solvency- I would much rather you do that on the lbl- i.e explain CP solvency while answering solvency deficits to the CP.

Disads-

I usually give the neg a risk of the disad- but i can be convinced there is zero risk.

I think you have a better shot of convincing me that there is 0 risk of a link than you do convincing me that there is zero risk of an impact.

Comparative impact calculus is key for my ballot- you have to tell me why your thing happens- why its worse etc,

You should definitely be doing the work to tell me how to evaluate impacts at some point- i,e probability first and why etc.

Tricks : (this section was written with LD in mind)

I am not a good judge for one line arguments that aren’t explained thoroughly- and I am an even worse judge for teams whose apparent goal is for the aff to concede “3a. Determinism means util auto negates”

I guess I am down to have debates where the neg strategy is 4 minutes on one line from the nc but I have a couple stipulations.

1. I think the argument should be complete when it is introduced- if it isnt then the aff should be able to get away with saying- that’s not an argument and moving on.

2. I have to have that argument on my flow before the final speech- i,e if i missed it in the first speech because you didnt give me the pen time or because you sent paragraph form theory blocks instead of numbering each separate arg- then I will not vote it

Misc-

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.

If you say anything about "evidence theft" I'm going to actually scream- it's not offense, and if y'all go to a big school (larger than 100 graduating class) you need to check ur privilege, paywalls are a thing, and not everyone has hours to spend getting around them.

Trigger warnings are super important- descriptions of violence should probably have a trigger warning, you never know who has experienced the problems you're talking about first hand. No highlighting around descriptions of violence does change that, Idk about y'all but sometimes I just be reading the other teams cards so I can cut CP's or what have you.

Experienced teams need to be nicer to novices, I get that y'all are stressed about breaking so you can get your TOC/TFA qual, but like.... U shud know when ur winning a round. Don't make debate an exclusive activity.

Extra speaker points if you make good jokes.

I will love you if your overview does more than just "lemme describe my case to you again... Just in case you forgot"

If you misgender ppl consistently, I'll probably vote you down.

Absolutely no racist, sexist, or anti Queer rhetoric- I’ll probably slash your speaks and may drop you depending on how egregious i find the offense.

If you clip in front of me- I will destroy your speaks.