*Updated 1 January 2021

Tldr:

Run whatever as long as it’s not racist/sexist/ableist/homophobic/transphobic/death good. I evaluate the round how you tell me to evaluate it

About me

Novice Coach at SPASH in Wisconsin

SPASH '20, Minnesota '24

My senior year I was double twos but I was 1a/2n for most of my high school career.

Tbh I think the only ethical paradigm is tabs and that it props up a very violent system when judges have the ability to vote a team down/dock speaks because of the meaningless rift between “K” and “Policy” debaters. In general, I will evaluate your arguments and decide the round how YOU tell me to… I don’t really have a “default” paradigm because I think that it would be really unethical to vote down a K just because I default to policymaker framing when neither team made framework analysis, or to reject a DA vs. a Kaff just because I default to pedagogy and nobody told me otherwise.

The information in this paradigm should serve only as a GUIDELINE. Please don't try to judge-adjust too much.

Just for the record I tended to read kritikal arguments on both the aff and neg, but I don’t think that makes me strictly a “K judge.” Either way, I’ve run and won with policy affs throughout my debate career, and I’ve been known to go for DAs/CPs/Topicality in the 2NR.

In terms of facial expressions, I think it's generally important for debaters to be able to see the judge during a round, which is why I try to keep my camera on during speeches and cross-ex at least. That said, I don't tend to be very expressive until the RFD, so don't interpret my lack of reaction as a lack of attention.

Topic knowledge

I like to think I have some basic knowledge... I've been coaching the novice packet affs since September and judging since October, but it's still probably best to assume I don't know acronyms right off the bat.

In-round stuff

I don’t tolerate rudeness/disrespect to your opponents, your partner, or myself. I’ll let you know right away if you’re being rude or disrespectful, and if the behavior is egregious enough or continues after I warn you your speaks will suffer.

If you need to stop or pause the round for any reason, please let me know. Debate should be a safe space for everyone and I understand that there is often quite a bit of pressure to put up with absolutely unacceptable behavior on the part of opponents/coaches/judges/tournament officials, especially for those of us who are already marginalized within the space. You are not obligated to endure hate or disrespect. You are not obligated to be silent while your opponent speaks over you in cross-ex. You are not obligated to read what you are told to read if you know that it is wrong. The only way that we can improve the systemic issues which we all know are present within debate is by confronting them head-on. Ultimately, this is y'all's space. The line between "in-round abuse" as a reason to reject the team and give the other the ballot and in-round violence as a reason to stop the round immediately and DQ one team can be very thin, which is why I'm inclined to listen to the debaters. If you tell me in your speech that something is a violation of debate rules/norms and a reason to vote, I'll evaluate it as a debate argument. If you express to me in or outside of a speech or cross-ex that you don't feel the round can continue, I'll honor that. Because of this, I think that some rounds require a more participatory group discussion in lieu of or following the RFD-- feel free to let me and your opponents know if you'd like to dissect the round as a group and/or have a conversation about something specific that happened.

Yes, put me on the email chain! (graf.daphne@gmail.com)

Please time your own speeches and prep—I’ll record how much prep YOU tell me you’ve taken and remind you of how much you have left, but in general I trust you to have integrity and behave like an adult. Feel free to time your opponents’ speeches as well.

I DO NOT count flashing/emailing time as prep… however, it the time it takes to put together the flashing document/save to the flashdrive/attach to the email chain becomes excessive or involves a lot of typing (as if you were… maybe… writing your speech?), this could be subject to change.

(Not really relevant at the moment but) Paper teams: I expect you to hand any evidence you read to your opponents as you read it. If your evidence is stapled and for some reason you can’t unstaple it, or if you accidentally put your cards on the wrong side of your stand (it’s been known to happen) arrangements will be made to provide the other team with some reading time (depending on the amount of evidence) before cross-ex/prep begins. If one team is paperless and the other team does not have any kind of computer to view speechdocs, a viewer laptop must be provided.

Speed

On the body of cards, go as fast as you want, but PLEASE read tags and analytics a little bit more slowly than you read cards. Clarity is key! I’ll tell you “clear” twice if I genuinely can’t understand you before I stop flowing. If you’re going to spread your blocks as if they’re cards please at least include them in your speech docs.

T/THEORY/FRAMEWORK IS NOT THE PLACE TO BE SPREADING AT TOP SPEED! My ADHD brain is not physically able to process your wall of analytics, and I’ll be a lot more sympathetic to the other team if you end up going for subpoint d of your 7th 10-second theory block from the 2AC. Again, if you send it out on the email chain, we can flow it, but otherwise I don’t think I can ethically vote on something I didn’t catch.

Topicality

I love a good T debate! I think I’m very tech-over truth on topicality arguments… that said, I think that if you genuinely meet the other team’s interpretation and you want to take the risk the 2AR can go for “we meet.”

You definitely need to impact out your violation…. Why does it matter that you don’t have ground against this aff? If YOU IN THIS SPECIFIC DEBATE do have ground, what precedent is the affirmative team setting? Please actually give WARRANTS and EXAMPLES.

Impact calc on the T flow can actually be really helpful for both teams… how do I weigh Aff Choice Vs. Education? Reasonability vs. Fairness?

TVA: I think that in the case of straight topicality a case list might be a better way to go but it’s up to you if you want to go for the TVA instead. I think that on this topic, there are several T violations that are very strategic against K-affs, in which case you should DEFINTIELY be reading me a TVA.

Framework

Say it with me, folks: FRAMEWORK! IS! NOT! T!

Too often, teams run a “T USFG” violation and try to act like it’s framework. If you’re going to make the argument that affirmative teams must defend FIATED government action, then there should probably be a definition of “should” in your 1NC or some other indication of how FIAT is intrinsic to the resolution. Your violation should be supported by definitions.

The best way to win a framework debate in front of me (whether you’re aff or neg) is by CLASHING WITH THE OTHER TEAM’S ARGUMENTS. If they read me a specific indict of your definition or a DA to your interpretation and all you do in response is read a six-minute overview, I’m not going to be super persuaded. Obviously teams that read kritikal affirmatives are usually very prepared to hit framework, and teams that read framework probably had to dig it up from some decades-old backfile, but you need to do more than just read me your blocks.

TVA: I think that if the negatives prove that their interpretation is good, a TVA can be fatal for the affirmative case. That said, I don’t think that the TVA is a voter if you’re not winning the violation or interpretation.

Theory

Go for it! If your theory violation is explained well/debated well/impacted out/not violent and you legitimately beat the other team in the theory debate then I’ll vote on even the whack stuff regardless of my personal feelings on whether or not something should be allowed in debate.

See “speed” for more advice on how to run theory in front of me.

Aff advantages/Solvency

This might be revolutionary but I don’t think that “They didn’t contest the internal link chain so give us full weight of a nuclear war vote aff automatically” is an extension of your case. PLEASE give a quick overview of your actual advantage scenario… it doesn’t have to be long, but if it’s being weighed against a DA/CP/K that’s explained well I’ll have a really hard time voting aff.

We stan a solvency takeout... but we also stan an impact turn. I think that if the off case/on case arguments prove that the aff is either a) a bad idea or b) no real change from the status quo I'll have a really hard team voting aff.

K affs

Here it is, the moment you’ve all been waiting for—yes, please run your k aff in front of me! I don’t think you *need* to have in-round solvency, but if you do, tell me about it! I don’t think your overview on case *has* to be super long but I’m also not against long overviews… if you want to offer a role of the ballot specific to your aff, that’s fine. If the role of the ballot is just “vote for the best idea,” that’s fine too. If your aff does not defend a reduction in foreign military sales and/or direct commercial sales of arms from the United States, then you should explain why your lack of topicality is necessary—feel free to be creative with your explanations.

Definitely see the Ks section for more info on debating your advocacy/ROB/impacts

DAs

I mean… it’s a DA. I’ll be really annoyed if I have to vote on a nonsensical link but I do vote on the flow so… if you’re negative, read a good link card and if you’re affirmative and their link card is bad, PLEASE attack it. I’m fine w/ new link scenarios in the 2NC to an extent… I think there’s an unfair burden on the 1AR if you’re basically running a new DA, but if you win the theory debate I won’t intervene.

I’m not super persuaded by 6 different marginally different DAs with the same nuclear war impact in the same 1NC… I’ll be much more sympathetic in that case to the aff cross-applying answers.

CPs

Fairly self-explanatory… I don’t think that CPS nEED to be topical or nEEd to be non-topical either way. I think that the goal of the counterplan is probably to solve the impacts of the aff, but if the net benefit is strong enough and the only aff argument on the CP flow is a solvency deficit, I could vote for the CP anyway.

I think the CP flow is where the most theory pops out so please, feel free to go off!

Ks

I don’t think you need to read a super-long overview at the top but you can if you want… I also *HATE* that I have to say this but the 1nr/2nc does NOT have to follow the order of the 2AC. The 2AC should try to follow the order of the 1NC but with perms and maybe framing at the top. Please rest assured that I AM FLOWING YOU. Whether you’re reading psychoanalysis/nationalism/colonialism/queerness lit (in which I am very well-versed) or something that I’ve never heard of before, I’ll listen to your speeches and use what you tell me to make my decision. I know that a lot of debaters are voted down too often because the judge either thinks that they understand the theory of power and doesn’t flow OR the judge is convinced that they are incapable of understanding the theory of power and refuses to flow it.

On the link level, I think that your link should be to the 1AC or Cross-ex in some way… but what part of the 1AC/cross ex (plantext, advantages, framing, fiat, problematic language, etc) is up to you. I don’t tend to buy arguments from the affirmative that “this is how debate has always been so we should keep debating the same way” just because that’s not… a warrant.

I think that negative framing can be new in the 2 because you’re really answering the 2AC framing argument. If the 1AC didn’t explicitly say “We get to weigh our impacts bc fiat good” I don’t think the 1NC should be forced into spending time on trying to guess how the aff wants to frame the round. That said, I give the 1AR a little bit of leeway for tagline framing arguments.

Go for whatever impact you want… pre-fiat, post fiat, whatever. I’d like to see either framing or some kind of calculus with the aff’s impacts, although, as always, this depends on the specific round.

As far as the alt goes… I’m cool with refusal alts if you explain what I’m refusing and why. I’m also cool with fiated/hypothetical alts like “embrace the communist party” or whatever. For the aff, I’m much more persuaded by arguments about how the negatives’ arguments are wrong than I am by backfiles cards indicting the theory of power as it was 20 years ago.

I have do not prefer a particular kind of argument over any others. Stylistically, however, I prefer quality over quantity; if you are spreading, ensure that your delivery is comprehensible. Sign-posting and clash are also appreciated.

Above all else, please respect your opponents. I'm looking forward to judging your debate!

About Me

-In high school, I was a debater for all 4 years. I bounced back and forth between policy and pf every year. I graduated from high school in 2016 and have been assisting and judging every year since.

-I have mild Tourettes, so if I clear my throat or make slight odd movements it has nothing to do with you

Paradigm

--One thing I can say is that I flow impacts pretty heavily, so overall I am more of a policymaker.

Things I like

-I LOVE framework and topicality! If a plan isn't topical I have no reason to vote for it!!

-I absolutely love being told what to vote on! You could be the best debater of all time, but if you can't tell me why your ads/disads are better then I have no reason to vote for you! We all know that something like nuclear war is bad. But if the other team gives evidence saying that it's not and you don't respond, I am going to vote as if it were not a bad thing.

Things I don't like

-I am fine with Open CX, but if it's your cross you should be doing the majority of the talking, not your partner.

-Please don't talk to your partner during their speeches.

-I am fine with speed, but I am not a fan of it when it becomes excessive. And it DEFINITELY can be excessive at times. As long as I can understand you I will continue to flow. But faster debating doesn't equal better debating.

Feel free to include me on your email chain if you'd like. kinkintherope@gmail.com I rarely follow along with the speech doc though.

If you have any questions feel free to ask!

***JUMP TO THE MIDDLE IF YOU NEED MY PF/LD-SPECIFIC PARADIGMS IN A PINCH***

Short bio: former LDer for Brookfield East High School, 2012-16; after a 3 year hiatus, I was a pretty active judge from 2019-21, and now judge 1-2x per year; have about a year of coaching experience; also experienced with 4n6 and student congress; UW-Madison Class of 2019 (Poli Sci major); UMN Law School Class of 2024

Pronouns: he/him/his

OVERVIEW:

Debate was my favorite part of high school, and I believe the value provided by the activity is immense, both in the immediate and long term. Regardless of skill level or outcome, you should be proud that you have the courage to put yourself out there. I think debate rounds are at their best when they impart competitors with skills that can be used later in life, in a litany of different ways. In the long run, the glory that comes from winning will fade, and the sting that comes from losing will subside—but the valuable skills you develop will last a lifetime.

Of course, in the meantime, do what you must in order to win—not saying you shouldn't go for the gold. I'm just saying not to develop tunnel vision for racking up “points” in the game of debate to the detriment of all other considerations. Winning trophies/awards should not be the only purpose of this activity.

Ok, enough exposition—let’s talk about my actual paradigm…

NON-NEGOTIABLES:

--Bigotry of any kind will not be tolerated, be it racism, sexism, anti-LGBTQ+ views, etc. I shouldn’t have to explain why. Be a decent person.

--Be nice to each other. Debate is an adversarial setting and (basically) a zero-sum game. Getting a little fiery is a natural byproduct of this, but PLEASE keep it under control. This is an academic competition, not a tabloid talk show.

--NO SPREADING. I get speaking faster than a normal conversational pace, but spreading is a cheap tactic that turns debate into a joke. I get why people do it, but it is not a skill that will serve you well later in life. (I mean, just try it in a context outside of this relatively insular activity. No one will take you seriously). I’ll say “clear” if I need you to slow down—please don’t make me have to say it more than once or twice.

--Be comprehensible. If you gave the most brilliant speech in the world but no one could understand a word of it, did it even really happen?

GENERAL:

--Brevity is the soul of wit; quality > quantity

--Be organized—provide (off time) road maps, sign post, weigh, and give voters. (If you don’t do the latter two things, you're giving me a lot of discretion, and I may not utilize it to your liking)

--Show your work and leave nothing to chance. (Ex. your opponent drops one of your arguments...great! But that's not dispositive proof that you should win. Be specific with your extensions, remind me why I should care, and so forth.)

--Don't do underhanded things (ex. making new arguments in final speeches, deceptive card cutting, acting in bad faith, gish galloping, etc.)

--This isn’t forensics, so I care very little about aesthetic presentation–I probably won’t even be looking at you most of the time. Don’t worry about eye contact (judges that care about this probably aren't flowing!); sit or stand to your heart's content; wear whatever makes you comfy. (You get the idea). Don’t do/wear/say anything offensive, and you'll be fine.

LD:

I mainly ran traditional arguments as a debater, and prefer them as a judge. Run non-traditional arguments if you want, but be prepared to simplify them for me. (Ex. if they’re rife with jargon/wonky concepts, don’t assume I’ll be as familiar as you are.)

I also expect the resolution to be discussed. Even if just to say it doesn't matter, or is far less important than a more glaring issue, you should still acknowledge that it exists. I don't believe in disregarding the resolution entirely/reducing it to a placeholder. (Because why have it in the first place then?)

PF:

If you plan to run a non-traditional case in PF, remember that your opponents may not have experience debating those sorts of arguments, and PF is also supposed to be relatively accessible to a layperson. Keep it simpler than you would in LD or policy, and try to keep impacts as material and concrete as possible (as PF is also the medium most concerned with the real world).

Since I only ever competed in LD as a debater, off time road maps and good sign posting will make it much easier for me to follow your arguments. I also *LOVE* PF frameworks. They don't have to be overly complicated, but setting the terms of the debate early on will give you better command of the round. Also, be as clear and direct as possible with your weighing mechanism/telling me what should be of paramount importance. If you fail to do this, you're rolling the dice re: which arguments will be most salient in my mind. Similarly, give me very clear and explicit voters--many words will be exchanged, so if you don't tell me which ones to really hone in on, you're leaving too much to chance.

MISCELLANEOUS:

I’ll only intervene if your arguments are bigoted, untethered from reality, or backed up with exceptionally bad sources. (Pretty generous standard, so if I do intervene, it’s on you).

I generally despise slippery slope arguments that end in extinction/nuclear war, as most of them are incredibly stupid and nonsensical. Aiming for those impacts is fine if the link to get there actually makes sense--if it doesn't, I'll probably feel like you're trying to win the round with scary buzzwords rather than sound argumentation. I may not necessarily auto drop you, but I will not hesitate to show my displeasure.

Overall, though, I'm pretty laissez-faire. I'm open to almost any argument that's clear, logical, and well-supported.

I'll give you up to one extra speaker point if, somewhere in your speech, you roast Grandpa Joe from Willy Wonka and the Chocolate Factory (aka the worst fictional character ever). Mods—this is a reward for reading my paradigm carefully, not me trying to be a point fairy. Debaters—take advantage of this if you’d like, but don’t go overboard.

FINAL NOTES:

Please feel free to ask questions before the round--I'll do my best to answer and elucidate.

Speaker points are more of an art than a science, but I try to put some consistent logic into how I award them. If you'd like to better understand my system, you can read more here.

I usually give OC's and disclose, unless the tournament forbids it, we're pressed for time, or the round is too close to decide right away. Always feel free to ask, though--the worst I can say is no.

Good luck and have fun!

***Preliminary Note: Please time your own prep/speeches/cross-x. I tend to be inconsistent with staying on top of it.****

Background: Three years of policy debate at Stevens Point Area Senior High (SPASH) in Wisconsin between 2012 and 2015. I attended SDI for debate camp and was fairly frequent on the national circuit my senior year and currently judge for/help out the SPASH debate team.

I went for policy arguments for the most part in high school, but I consider myself a tabs judge and I vote off the flow so I'll really listen to any argument as long as you wrap up the round and give me a reason to vote for you and why your impacts outweigh the other team's impacts. Clash is important, and I consider warranted analysis something that's vital and is often missing from high school debate rounds. Unexplained arguments and shadow extending is a pretty frequent reason for me voting down teams that could have otherwise very well won. Additionally, I think internal link/link is probably the most important part of most arguments so keep that in mind.
TLDR: Explain what you're saying, actually respond to the other team, and do good link/internal link work and you'll probably be fine.

If you have any questions you can contact me at newdylan6758@gmail.com

Speed-Go as fast as you want but just be clear. I'll tell you if you need to be. But just be especially clear and a bit slower on tags so I'm able to realistically flow what you're saying.

Ks/K Affs-I'll listen to any K aff and will vote on them if you give me a reason to, but just remember you need to explain what your advocacy is pretty well since I largely debated policy in high school and I've never excelled at arguing Ks. Explaining your advocacy is a must and not having a good grasp of what you're arguing probably won't do very well with me as a judge, and neither will relying on ridiculously lengthy overviews and blocks through the 2NR. I will vote on either a Policy or critical Framework, but you need to argue it well from both sides and should probably spend a bit more time on it than usual in front of me. Also, I like a thorough explanation of how the alt functions; otherwise it's pretty hard to say the K has any solvency.
From experience, I understand that framework is often the only option for a debater versed in policy and is a valid strategy. Treat it as a DA/T violation and have internal links to fairness, education, etc.

DAs-I don't see too many good rounds come down to DA vs. Case anymore which is too bad, so I'll thoroughly enjoy a DA debate if it's something relevant with a strong link. Solid impact calc and link analysis from both sides are a must to win in these debates and like all policy arguments I hold a fairly high standard for internal links and internal link analysis. Too often, teams don't spend nearly enough time on specific clash for any of these components, and I'll probably default affirmative if it's lacking from both sides.

CP: Competition is important and if a CP isn't competitive a perm is a great strategy to go for as long as a reasonable amount is done in the 2AR. That said, I'm most easily convinced by solvency deficit arguments and the negative needs to spend a fair amount of time answering these arguments in the block and 2NR to win on the CP in addition to warranted analysis on how they solve their net benefit. Additionally, specific solvency advocates are a lot more likely to win you the round with me. As with my general stance on theory, I'm not likely to vote on it unless the CP is clearly abusive or (in the case of arguments like conditionality bad) it is argued exceptionally well without simply reading off of blocks, and I'm definitely not likely to vote on it unless a lot of time is spent on it in the 2NR/2AR.

Topicality: Topicality is a great position when run well and unfortunately hardly anyone goes for it. I'll vote on potential abuse. For the love of god don't read reverse voters on T.


Some things that are just generally annoying to me/could possibly get speaker points docked
1.) Being rude in your speeches or cross-x or being overbearing to your partner
2.) Personally rambling to me during your speech ("judge, you have to vote for this judge")
3.) Trying to be clever by asking questions like "how's it going" in Cross-X
4.) Sucking up to me
5.) Saying "this card is on fire" or equally absurd buzzwords
6.) "This is my cross-x"
7.) Not using all of your prep/speech time

I'm a tabula rasa judge which means blank slate. What this means is that I don't have any biases to arguments (unless they are ontologically violent), and it also means that you need to tell me how to vote by the end of the round. If neither teams give me a role of the ballot/how to vote then I will default to one of my choosing, and it may not be to your preference. This means I will probably end up doing work for one or both teams... which will make me upset.

Speed- this is fine under one condition- be CLEAR. I will cue for you to be clear only twice. After that whatever I don't get isn't my fault. I will always try my best but... eh...

Topicality- there needs to be voters here if I'm going to vote T. If potential abuse is your voter then you will need to do a really good job on why that's an effective voter. All in all, even after the affirmative team is found to be untopical, there must be a reason for me to vote negative. Topicality is one of those things that teams need to be doing work on. For example, if both teams have opposite interpretations, it's up to each team to do the work and evidence analysis on why one definition is better than the other.

Kritiks- these are fine, but please do not just assume that I know what you're talking about. That being said, the following things need to be crystal clear: the link, impact and alternative. Not only do these need to be clear, but the negs need to explain how the alternative functions with the aff and why I should vote for it in context of the round. For example, don't just tell me the alternative works because it can solve capitalism, but explain how solving capitalism is the best decision in the round. That being said, even IF I know what you're talking about I'm not going to do the work for you on the flow - this is your job.

Counterplans- negs need to be able to prove solvency and must explain why the counterplan is a better option than the aff. The net benefit must also be very apparent.

Affirmative Case- I did not think that I needed to mention this, but after judging a lot I think this does need to be said: the affs need to win their case in order to win the debate. For example, if the affs lose all their advantages but beat the negative's DA, that just means that the impact of the DA won't happen. However you still do not have an affirmative case, and all the negatives have to do is prove that the aff is a bad idea.

I'm a parent judge and have little experience judging.

I will go for strong arguments that are clear to me. I will have a hard time understanding Ks and theory.

I prefer a conversational talking speed, or slightly faster. I will not provide any indication if the speech is very fast but this may result in key arguments being missed by me.

Open CX

Finally, I expect civility between debaters.

I debated for four years in high school on the Minnesota circuit, making it to state and nationals a few times. I am fine with speed, but you MUST be understandable. If I can't tell what you are saying, chances are it won't be on the flow and someone will be upset. I have no preference towards policy/critique based debate, just prove to me why you should win. An easy way to get the ballot is to do impact analysis. Please do not be rude during cross ex, or in any other part of the debate. Tag team cross ex is fine. I don't have any objections to arguments, so juts read what you think you can win on.

I work for MPS - Rufus King High School

I did 4 years of policy debates in high school, what is now called "traditional debate".

I've judged mostly novice debate for a few years.

Speaking

How fast can students speak during speeches? Medium Speed

If a student is speaking too fast or unclear, will you give any cues to them? Usually I will say slow/slow down or clear

List stylistic items you like debaters to do.

1. Debaters should start with a roadmap and include signposts during their speech.

2. Debaters should do a line by line refuting the opponents arguments

3. Debaters should include an impact calc in the final speeches

List stylistic items you do not like debaters to do.

1. I do not like rudeness

2. I do not like partners to talk to the speaker during their partners speech excessively

Arguments

List types of arguments you prefer to listen to/evaluate.

1. Disadvantages are important to the negative attack

2. I’m open to inherency and solvency attacks

3. I’m open to counter plans

List types of arguments that you prefer not to listen to.

1. I do not understand kritiks very well, it will probably be hard to get me to vote on this for you. I come from the more traditional debate mindset.

2. I rarely vote neg on topicality, it would need to be the full shell with voters that make sense. And the neg must give this sufficient time in the round but I will be swayed aff by them being reasonably topical.

Other Notes

I love clash, I love line by line. I really want debaters to take apart each other’s arguments. This is best accomplished by listening to each other.

I want the last speeches to include an impact analysis that shows why their position leads to be a better world.