Updated for NSDA Nationals:

Hi! I am happy to judge you. My son does PF, so I know the topic and how to flow. I prioritize clear speaking and argumentation. Please be nice to one another in questioning. I appreciate clear voters at the end of the debate.

Thanks, and happy debating!

Edit in progress! It will reflect the fact that I have not coached policy in a few years. Still a fan, but I'm rusty on what all the cool kids are doing these days.

Policy:

I'm happy judging whatever crazy, creative argument you think you can make me believe (which you will do by providing awesome evidence, links, etc.) BUT you better enunciate those crazy arguments clearly. My number one pet peeve in policy debate is debaters who try to spread but stutter and stumble through their speeches. I can flow as fast as you can speak, but if I can't understand what you're saying, I will say "clear" once or twice, and then simply not flow what I can't understand.

I'm fine with tag-teaming in cx.

If the round is shared via email chain, I'd prefer you still make an effort to say actual words.

A few caveats to the "I'll buy anything" -

I'm fine with Ks, but it's got to be a pretty killer kritik for me to vote on one K alone - it's more likely I'll weigh it as part of a larger strategy.

PICs are abusive as they take too much affirmative ground, BUT occasionally there's a PIC that justifies the existence of PICs, and those make me happy.

Run topicality if it's justified. If it's not, and you're running four Ts as a time-suck, I won't buy any of them.

I prefer textually competitive CPs. If it's only competitive through a link to a DA, then I'm going to give it the stink eye. Never say never - I do periodically vote for arguments I claim not to like - but you better advocate for that CP really, really well.

IN summary with the PICs, Ts and CPs - just run a good, relevant argument. If you're throwing crap at the wall to see what sticks, I'm probably going to dismiss it as crap. But if you're confident it's an awesome argument, tell me why I should buy it; it's distinctly possible I will, just understand those arguments have a higher threshold for me.

Signpost, give me clear voters, be polite. When a team starts showing contempt for their opponents, I start looking for reasons to vote against them.

And have fun.

Lincoln Douglas:

Value/Value Criterion Clash - I expect you to have a clear value and value criterion, but I use them as a way to evaluate the round (framework), not as a voting issue (unless they're really, really bad, abusive, or maybe unexpectedly brilliant). Show why you meet your opponents' v/vc as well as your own, or why yours makes much more sense in context of the round, then move on. It's probably not going to be a big independent voter for me.

If you're doing circuit LD - please don't make it dumbed-down policy. Arguments still need to be fully developed, relevant to the topic, and coherently articulated.

If you're doing traditional LD - I appreciate someone who can talk pretty, I really do, but I want to see CLASH. Weigh arguments. Compare sources, and delve into what cards actually say. I like to vote for debaters who can help me see the big picture in the round, but can also weave a convincing narrative out of all the minutiae.

As with all debate - be confident, be aggressive, but don't be a jerk.

Public Forum:

I'm fine with speed in PF - but same as other debates, enunciate clearly!

More than any other debate, I expect PFers to be respectful of opponents. Be confident, be aggressive, and never show contempt.

Please maintain a consistent strategy between both partners' speeches - you need to be on the same page as to what you're going for and how you argue things. If I see two different debates from one partnership, I don't know what I'm supposed to vote for, so I'll usually vote for the other team.

Most (not all, but most) topics benefit from a framework, so have one! Tell me how to evaluate the round so I can judge the debate on what's debated, not on my preconceived notions of what's important.

I am okay with paraphrased evidence, but make sure to represent the facts and perspectives of your sources accurately. If I ask for a card after the round, I want to see the paragraph before the portion (highlighted) read, the paragraph after, and of course, the evidence itself, with all non-read portions viewable as well. Do not send or show me a 30-page journal article.

I prefer that you begin to narrow the debate in your summary speech, and then highlight voters in your final focus. Maybe that's obvious?

Anyone, good luck, have fun.

The only request I have is to speak clearly and be kind to your opponents.

Hi, all. I couldn't be more excited to be joining you for this tournament. I competed for 3 years in a number of events (including LD) and was the 1999 Wyoming state champion in Dramatic Interpretation. That same year I qualified for Nationals in both Dramatic Interpretation and Student Congress, so I know the pressure that comes with competition. But, don't forget to have fun! That's the best advice I can give to you, generally.

Specifically, as it relates to LD, I do not come into this with a particular style philosophy. Debate in the style you are most comfortable and use the tools that make the most sense to you. When you're comfortable you are more likely to present a clearly defined argument. Which is what I'm looking for.

Spell it out for me. Don't assume I am familiar with the topic or your contentions. I don't need a dissertation outlining the history of any given topic, but a rough overview is helpful. Define your thesis early, support it continuously, and conclude by identifying how you've supported and proven it. No one else at the podium is going to defend it. That's *your* job. Never forget the thesis. Never leave an argument/counterargument unanswered. CLASH!

Speak clearly. I am going to flow your speeches so I need to hear your argument. Too fast? Too soft? Too mumbled? How do I flow that? I won't necessarily take points for those styles, but I can't judge what I can't understand.

Don't present new arguments in final rebuttals. They won't be considered. Neither will contentions made after time is called.

Beyond that, the floor is yours. Relax. Present and defend your thesis. Clash. And have fun!

If I’m judging Debate, I prefer it to be traditional. Your job is to convince me that the resolution should either be affirmed or negated, bottom line. Please try to stick to NSDA standard rules for your respective event. There’s no need to bring Policy into PF or LD. If you are speaking so quickly that I cannot follow you, you aren’t helping your argument.

Online Congress: You’ll help us both out if you turn your camera on while you ask questions; I keep track of your overall participation and a face-to-the-name is appreciated. (unless you’re having WiFi issues, I understand) Also, please don’t talk over the speaker during questions - politeness will take you a long way with me. I love a good “hook” and analogies. Stand out.

Thanks and good luck!

*Reagan Great Communicator Debate Series: "Use logic, evidence, and personality, just as Reagan did throughout his life". I want to see personality!

Argumentation, Speaks

I weigh on theory

Impact Calculus

• Timeframe (when will the impact happen)
• Scope of Impact (How many people will be effected)
• Difficulty of recovery (How hard will it be get back to normal)
• Outright probability (how likely is this too happen)
• Intensity of impact (are the impacted individuals slightly hurt or seriously injured)

I respect pronouns. Just let me know.

My biggest paradigm is to be respectful to your opponents. I want to see a clean fair debate. I want debaters to speak clearly and don't rush so fast that I can't understand them.

I was WY state champ for LD in 2020; I do policy at the University of Wyoming now (go pokes!) under instruction of Lawrence Zhou, Matt Liu and Brent Lamb. I also help coach LD voluntarily at Rock Springs High School (WY)

If there's a chain, please add me: knickknackmack@gmail.com

I use they/them pronouns

Last updated for the Bobcat Invitational

~~~

Summary for prefs (CX and LD)

Approach the debate however you like, just make sure you focus around the topic; I'll totally vote for K affs if they provide specific warrants to the topic's wording/content/epistemology and why it's harmful, and do this throughout the round.

I'm not apt to vote for tricks or arguments that are contingent on your opponent missing them.

I'll, of course, vote on any argument if it's not responded to well regardless of paradigm. That said, my paradigm does lower the threshold your opponent needs to meet for them to win/not lose on that particular arg.

For LD: I generally think Nebel T is true, but as always tech > truth. I do lean towards reasonability (if the aff is actually reasonable) but an undercovered T is an undercovered T, y'all.

Notes for all debates

1.) I'll vote by evaluating what the winning framework was (if this was a point of contention; if it wasn't I'll probably assume standard util) and then taking the most straightforward route to the ballot through that framework.

2.) Tech > truth, but very obviously untrue arguments have a much lower threshold to overcome, especially if they're analytics

3.) You don't need to ask me if I'm ready, I'll tell you if I'm not

4.) This should go without saying, but I'll vote you down for making the debate space unsafe. Slurs, intentionally misgendering someone after being corrected, mocking someone in a way that undermines their identity or personhood, those are all no bueno.

~~~~~

Policy paradigm

Pre-paradigm note: Don't assume I know the topic very well. I do college policy and help a bit with high school LD -- I know a workable amount of argumentation, not nearly as much content.

Counterplans

Condo in policy is way more justifiable than it is in LD. I'll usually side neg with conditionality in the average debate (5 off with two counterplans will 9/10 times be fine). Judge kick is also fine. Of course, I'll still vote on condo bad if there's evidence of significant time skew on CPs that get kicked in the block, or if aff doesn't do a sufficient job at proving no abuse. I'm a 2A so I'm sympathetic to it, y'all

CPs must have a net benefit and be competitive (duh). Lots of CPs (agent and process specifically) don't do one of those very well. You don't need to read (and I'd prefer you not read) "Agent CPs bad" or "Process CPs bad" theory, just defend your mechanism via solvency deficits and use perms to test competition.

Impacts

Advantages/disads with nuclear war impacts that have an arbitrary mention of "extinction" in the tags but no mention of it in the internals are likely to work against you. Often people forget that their card does not, in fact, frame nuclear war as existential, in which case they lose impact calc

On the CJR topic in particular I will probably find myself leaning towards probability more than magnitude; I think the link story on either side is particularly tenuous when trying to connect the aff's domestic CJR action to extinction.

K affs

As always, it is the negative's job to prove the aff wrong. The aff needs to offer some point of predictable stasis so the neg can be prepared to prove the aff wrong. I will vote aff on kritikal affirmatives that a) are related enough to the topic to allow for enough neg prep, and b) are debated better than the negative on a technical level. A is a prerequisite to B; if you debate net better on a technical level but still don't prove sufficient points of clash I probably won't vote for you.

Ks

I really like Ks, however, I tend to find many difficult to vote for. Please tell me what the alternative does without obfuscating the discussion until the 2NR. This includes both the action and the actor

I find the "serial policy failure" argument powerful in the CJR topic because I think it is particularly true in this context. The aff should be aware of this and allocate time accordingly.

I would prefer K debates stay away from broad, overarching claims and narrow in on the nitty-gritty in terms of how the aff links, why this matters, and how the alt solves this specific problem. Example, one saying "Their epistemology legitimizes oppression and we solve by rejecting the state" versus "Their Smith 20 card talks about reform being good. This is a link -- reform is a tool of cruel optimism by the state, used as a smokescreen to hide its illegitimacy -- that's our Nguyen 20 card. This means as long as there is narrative around reform, the state can stay in power. The alt solves by disintegrating that narrative because the alt rejects reform in favor of abolition." Specificity is key in K debates, especially when they're often so broad that nobody knows what's going on.

~~~

Trad LD (if you're competing at the Bobcat Invitational, this is probably you)

I'm gonna keep it real with y'all, framework is not helpful in, like, 99/100 debates (that being said, it probably will be a bit more helpful with the LAWS topic.) Still, if both of you run util, please don't spend a minute on it in the 1AR. It is a) painful, but also b) doesn't help you get phat dubs. The only time I really see value clash as having any sort of... value (heheh) is when someone runs deontology and the other runs consequentialism.

One thing I've learned from college policy that can help with trad LD: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. Let me repeat, for emphasis: you don't need to go for every one of your contentions in the 2AR. You can collapse down to a single one and just be like "This is incredibly important and makes the rest of the debate moot," and then explain why that contention matters so much. I will absolutely adore this and give you v high speaks.

~~~

Circuit LD Paradigm

ctrl+F Policy paradigm for policy stuff.

K Affs

The aff should be related in some way or another to the topic. Shifting the debate to something entirely inapplicable to the resolution is very likely to lose to T-FW.

If the K has an application to the topic that they explain well and with warranting (e.g. saying "Predictive policing and this specific rhetoric around it are used in these specific ways to uphold the state which is bad for these specific warrants" instead of "The neg supports the state"), I'll be more apt to dismiss neg FW args.

Phil

I am completely fine with philosophically based arguments, but if they are something I'm not familiar with (below), you will need to explain them knowing I don't have as much background on them.

Phil that's often used in LD that I'm familiar with (in order of most to least): Mill's util, Rawlsian justice, Kant's deontology, Baudrillard/simulation theory, a very small bit of Nietzsche, everything else

Tricks

I don't particularly like tricks, or any argument that is dependent on your opponent missing or misunderstanding it for you to win. I'll vote on them if you win them and they're warranted but I'm not a fan and would prefer you make other arguments.

Some tricks are so sneaky that they lose the opponent but also the judge. If you blow up a trick in your last speech, but it's not on my flow, I'm going to assume it's a new argument.

Counterplans

I love counterplans. In LD, I lean towards condo bad but can be convinced otherwise depending on how the aff handles the argument. If aff doesn't breathe a word about conditionality until the 2AR I, of course, won't vote on condo bad.

I reflect Jacob Nails' paradigm in that "perm do the counterplan" is almost always a better option than "process (or whatever) CPs bad." Any type of CP that has its competition resting on a single Merriam-Webster definition of "Resolved" is pretty shaky and will more often lose to tests of competition than to theoretical arguments.

Agent CPs need to clearly demonstrate a net benefit to the aff. Most of them don't do this unless they have an explicit solvency advocate with carded evidence on why "courts are key" or whatever the CP is.

Topicality

No preference. If you're neg and you legitimately think the aff is untopical, you're probably not the only one. If you're neg and you're running it to waste time on a very topical plan, the aff saying "we meet" is sufficient.

Inclusivity

It's good. If your opponent is trad please make it educational for them. As someone who was against progressive LD for a while because of opponents that were condescending and wouldn't explain what anything meant, I can tell you for sure that your behavior matters. More people and interactions with different styles of debate is net good for education and the inclusivity of small circuits.

~~~~~

Public Forum

PF is the debate I've admittedly done the least of. I do adore judge instruction, so if you tell me what to vote for and why, your chances of winning and/or achieving high speaks are pretty good.

Tech > truth, but the more untrue an argument is, the less your opponent will have to say about it to beat it.

Progressive arguments are totally fine as long as you keep them accessible to the opponent (explain them, answer questions about them straightforwardly, etc.)

You can read the rest of my paradigm to get a feel for me as a judge but it's not very PF-specific. I'm not very picky. Just have fun and don't be a dingus.

I consider myself to be tabula rasa with the exception that I will insert myself into the ballot to prevent anything I view to be excessively abusive or factually incorrect. My history is primarily in policy debate but know all events well. I love impact calc/voters in all events- don't make me work the flow myself.

I am a Business Analyst for a major Air Line, developing technology solutions for reservations and customer care. I'm a graduate of Weber Sate University with a degree in communications and public relations. I was a Speech and Debate participant in High school and was a Student Congress alternate to nationals in 1999 and 2000.

For extemporaneous speeches, I look for well structured arguments supported with evidence and data driven insights. I will not be judging based on your position on the topic but by how well you support your position as well as how you address any rebuttals.

For Congressional speeches, I again look for well structured arguments with supporting evidence. Speakers should be familiar with parliamentary procedure and should adhere to the rules established for the session. The speeches should be substantial in length and contain at minimum 3 evidentiary talking points which support their position on legislation and/or amendments.

For other performances, I judge based off of the speaker's connection and interpretation of the material. Speaker should show good character development and present their material to convey the unspoken emotion, subtext and rhythm of the piece.

For all speakers, I do like to provide thorough feedback so that you can continue to improve your performances and speaking skills.

Howdy! My name is Breeze (she/they) and I am very excited to be judging whatever it is you are competing in.

A little about me I attend Hamilton College in Clinton, NY where I am a major in International Relations.

I did speech and debate for four years in High School. I did almost every event under the sun (PF, LD, Congress, OO, Info, DUO, PO, Impromptu). I like to think I was pretty good. I've got two national tournaments under my belt and a top 24 in congressional debate at the 2020 nat tourney.

If you are looking at this I'm gonna assume you are here because you are a debater so let's get to the good stuff.

All Debaters: Please, on-time road maps (With the exception of CX). I will be timing you, any speaking past a 10 second grace period will not be considered in the debate. This should be obvious and a standard at this point but hate speech and disrespectful debate are never tolerable. Got a chain? Add me breezepetty@gmail.com

LD: Clash is super important obviously, but that includes value, value criterion, and contention clash. Don't get too caught up on one versus the other. I will be flowing so make sure you do your best to cover the entire flow in every speech. Evidence is good but philosophic debate is it's equal I just ask that every new argument you make is supported by one or the other, otherwise, it gets challenging to weigh it accurately in the debate.

PF: Clash is important, duh. I want to see evidence supporting every argument made in the debate and validity of evidence is a welcome point of contention in the event it is necessary.

CX: Not a big fan of spreading but if you speak clearly I will probably follow. Stock issues are important.

Congress: Wow I didn't think congress kids looked at paradigms, I'm impressed if you are here. I like to see good concise speeches with structure and evidence. If you are speaking later in the debate on a bill don't waste everyone's time arguing the same thing that's been argued before.

I believe debate is a communication event so I oppose speed and jargon. Debaters should explain their arguments and have sound logic and evidence to support it. Being able to explain the argument, the implications of the argument, and why does it matter is key to winning my ballot.

LD - Prefer classic value clash debate, but only if it is meaningful. Clear case construction with logical links are important. Coverage of debate flow and respectful approach important to me. Evidence is fine, but I like philosophical debate in LD too. Please treat each other with respect.

CX - Stock Issues are important in my judging. I don't especially like spreading, but don't mind quick reading (as long as I can understand it). Prefer transparent and respectful debate. LINKS LINKS LINKS. Fine with K's, as long as they link and make sense. Impact calculus done well often sways my vote.

PF - Prefer winsome and clear debate. Respectful questioning approach appreciated. Evidence links are important. Dropping arguments is fine as long as you stay within a meaningful framework.

I've judged many debates over 10 years + of coaching, but am still learning more and more about debate all the time.