I competed in LD debate for Catalina Foothills High School in Tucson, AZ and graduated in 2007. I attended the University of Wisconsin-Madison for undergrad and the University of Iowa for grad school. I have a business and finance background, and have been working in the corporate world for 10 years. I currently live in Las Vegas, NV.

From 2008 to 2015, I judged at local tournaments (in WI and IA) as well as TOC bid tournaments in the Midwest, and I briefly coached as well. I am pretty open minded and will listen to creative arguments, theory, etc. as long as they're explained well. That being said, I have been removed from debate for the past 4 years or so. If you have specific questions, just ask before the round. In terms of speed, please go a little bit slower due to the debate being virtual. I'll judge off the flow and extensions should be made clearly, and I will give 30 speaks for clear extensions turned to voting issues. Please email me your case before the round at kcagrawal7@gmail.com.

Background... As a high school student, I competed in IE events. I went on to get my BA in Theatre/Secondary Education from St. Ambrose University, and during my college years coached IE and Novice LD at Bettendorf HS (3 yrs.), as well as judged. Though I never competed, I am a big fan of LD. After I taught a year of English and Speech at an alternative school in Appalachian Kentucky, I went on to get my Masters Degree in Social Work from University of Iowa (and judged while in grad school). Clearly, speech events are my jam, what I know best. I have been away from speech & debate for many, many years, but super enthusiastic to judge again. I believe that speech & debate is integral in turning out some amazing citizens, people who shine in critical thinking.

LD... Since I am climbing my way back in, a moderate speaking pace is desired. I have no qualms with asking for you to go slower--I value the quality of your words, over quantity, make your words count. I am definitely not a fan of pompous rhetoric. Give me a roadmap to follow I value signposting (always have) and definitely helps me really hear what you are giving me, and keep an accurate flow of the debate. Tell me how I should weigh the round, why do your impacts matter?? I am generous with speaker points, especially if you have earned them (and since I am a fan of drama, you will need to earn them). Connect, be organized, be sure to be succinct, extend your arguments (I'll notice if you drop them), use clarity, respond to your opponent's arguments.

Be respectful and show civility--we definitely need more of it in the world.

If you have any questions, please ask!

I competed in PF for four years for Johnston High School in Des Moines, Iowa. I currently go to Emory University and have judged policy on the urban debate league.

The only time I will intervene is if you do not weigh in the round. Please make sure you are weighing and doing the appropriate impact calc in summary and final focus. That being said, I am pretty open to any type of impact as long as you give me a good reason to buy into it.

If you do not extend an argument into summary and final focus, I will assume you dropped it. Please extend anything you want me to weigh/vote on throughout the round. I am also a big fan of signposting, it makes my flow easier to chart and will make it easier for me to weigh your impacts.

SPEED: I'm fine with speed, but you need to make sure you are clearly understood during the whole round if you choose to speak faster. That being said, do not spread. This is not a CX or LD round, so make sure you are speaking at a pace appropriate for PF.

Above all, I value respect in the debate. I know rounds can be stressful/get heated but do not be rude or aggressive towards your opponent. Additionally, if you are sexist, racist, homophobic, ableist, transphobic, etc., I'll drop you.

If you have any other questions, don't hesitate to ask before the round!

Topicality/FW vs. Non-T Affs

- Affs probably should be topical, I’m just as willing to vote for impact turns against framework.
- I view most of these debates like a checklist. Affs probably need some answer to the following (and negs should be making these args): limits turns the aff, switch side solves, topical version of the aff. I have trouble voting aff if these are not answered. Similarly, I have trouble voting neg if these arguments are not made.
- The best affs generate their impact turns to framework from the aff itself. A bunch of random external criticisms of framework like just reading Antonio 95 or Delgado and calling it a day is not persuasive to me
- The debater that best defends their model of debate is the one that tends to win. Aff debaters who win their model of engagement/debate/education is better than the neg's will win more often than random impact turns to framework
- Should you read a non-topical aff in front of me? You can check my judging record, I think I have voted for and against these non-t affs about equal amounts.
- If you're going for FW: answer k tricks, don't drop thesis level criticisms of T, reading extensions for more than 3 min of the 2nr is an easy way to lose in front of me
- If you're answering FW: you need answers to the args I listed above, I think defense on the neg's args are just as important as development your offense against T, less is more when it comes to developing offense against T

Topicality/Theory/Tricks

- Defaults: Competing interpretations, drop the arguments, RVIs justifiable, not voting on risk of offense to theory
- Weighing standards is the most important to me
- I will miss something if you blaze through your theory dumps
- I’m probably a better judge for tricks than you might think. I’m just as willing to say “these theory arguments are silly” as I am to say “you conceded that skep takes out fairness.” If you go for tricks, go for tricks hard.
- I will vote on 1 condo bad in LD

Phil

- I think frameworks are usually artificially impact exclusive where they preclude all other arguments for virtually no reason. I'm inclined to believe in epistemic modesty but you can win confidence in front of me.
- I default comparative worlds, but it's not hard to convince me to become a truth-tester. What truth-testing means, you will have to explain it to me.

Ks

- I’m slightly more convinced by the state being good than bad, but don’t mind on voting on state bad
- I’m a little better read on identity type arguments as opposed to high theory arguments
- I’m not afraid to say I didn’t understand your K if you can’t explain it to me
- I don’t know why negs don’t have a prewritten perm block given that I vote on the perm a lot
- Specific link analysis is better than generics
- There has to be a lot of weighing done in the 2nr
- Case defense is underrated in these debates
- Case K overviews that aren't entirely pre-scripted are undervalued
- Performance is fine
- There should be more debate about the alternative
- The aff gets to weigh their aff, what that means is up for debate

My name is Braedon Kirkpatrick (He/Him/His). I was an LD debater for 4 years at West Des Moines Valley High School and dabbled a bit into policy. I graduated from high school in 2019 and am currently in college. If you have any further questions regarding my paradigm, need to add me to the email chain, or just need to contact me for any reason, my email is braedon-kirkpatrick@uiowa.edu.

Notes on Speaker Points:

The easiest way to get good speaks out of me is to speak/spread as clearly as you possibly can and make good args that aren't just ctrl+c, ctrl+v -ed from a pre-written massive backfile. Managing to crystalize near the end of the round will also net you high speaks.

Also, if you are debating a novice or someone new to the circuit, please make the round as inclusive and as educational as possible, as we want to include people in this activity instead of scaring them off by being overly intimidating. I will reward high speaks if you do this.

I will plummet speaker points if there is any open hostility, bigotry, excessive rudeness, and/or aggression in the round. Just remember to be kind and we will get along just fine :)

Online Debate:

- I would appreciate it if you kept at a speed that is comprehensible on online debate, as the lack of audio quality can make it so when circuit debaters spread at top speeds half of the arguments are incomprehensible, and if I can't hear it I cannot vote on it. I would also appreciate you starting slow and ramping up speed for the first 10 seconds of your speech and slowing down on taglines and author names, as it makes it easier to engage with the case.

- If you know that you have tech issues, I would appreciate you keeping a local recording so if your speech cuts out, we can retrieve the arguments that were said, otherwise I will not be able to vote on what I did not hear.

- Signposting is really important for me especially in the online debate format as in order to flow your rebuttals and extensions I have to know where they are in the first place. If you don't do this it is likely I will miss an argument or 2 while I waste time attempting to find the argument, which may affect how I judge a decision.

-I really appreciate and your opponent appreciates it when you flash your case so please do it, especially in online debate.

The Core:

I believe that debate is, at its core, a game. I am willing to vote on pretty much everything (read my paradigm for exceptions) as long as the argument is explained well and it isn't offensive. All I require is for you to tell me why you deserve the ballot. In order for me to vote for an argument you make, however, I must be able to hear it. If you indecipherably mumble a turn in the 1NR that neither I nor your opponent can hear and then blow up on how it was conceded in the 2NR, I will be far less likely to vote for it than if you clearly and distinctly read the turn. If you have some reason why you cannot do so that's completely fine just notify me before the round starts so I can better flow your arguments. If you stand or sit, read from paper or computer, wear a suit or workout clothes, spread 350 wpm or speak like a political official, it doesn't matter. All that matters to me is the quality of your arguments.

For Prefs:

I'd consider myself to be a jack of all trades, master of none when it comes to familiarity with debate strategies, as I have a good level of exposure with Ks, Framework, Tricks, LARP, etc... but did not specialize in a single type during my time as a debater.

Specific Stances:

Defaults:

- If no ROB is provided, I will default to truth testing over comparative worlds

- I assume Tech > Truth unless proven otherwise

- I assume flex prep is A-OK

-I assume Theory > ROB > Framing unless weighed otherwise

-I assume all Plans, CPs, Ks, PICS, etc... to be unconditional unless specified otherwise

-I assume plans on the AFF to be whole-res unless specified otherwise

Framework: The only issue I normally have in framework rounds is a complete lack of clash. I really don't like to vote off of embedded clash arguments as I feel it opens up the door for a lot of judge interventions, so just be specific on how your cases interact.

K's: Don't have much to say on K's, other than please be explicit in your link and on what my role as a judge is. Also note that I have to understand something to vote off of it, and while I have some good experience with different types K literature, probably best to assume I have never heard of your lit before and I don't know what kind of arguments certain authors make.

NIB's: All I ask is that you clearly speak when reading NIBs so that it is possible for me to flow and for your opponent to have a chance to respond to them. Don't forget that arguments are claim, warrant, and impact, as I need NIBS to be arguments not just claims to be able to vote on them.

Spikes: Sometimes you need a good 4 min under view. Sometimes it isn't necessary. You do you. Your speaks won't suffer if you use them. Just as a good rule of thumb, list your spikes in some fashion so that your opponent and I will be able to write them down in some recognizable form and be able to engage with them. It helps us, makes it easier to signpost for you, and gives you more credence on the validity of the spike. The only spikes that I will not evaluate are in round spikes that affect speech and prep times and spikes that have "evaluate after the 1AR or 2NR", as I do not like spikes that attempt to alter the NSDA structure of debate especially since these specific spikes make the round super messy.

Disclosure: I hate disclosure arguments as I see them usually being used against new debaters and people just coming into the circuit, but I will vote on it if nothing is read against it and there is a particularly compelling case for why. For instance, if it is an elim round and you have screenshots of your opponent being shifty 15 minutes prior to the round and lying about their case, then I would consider a disclosure argument.

Theory/T: I have no specific paradigm issues with theory except I won't "gut check" against theory args. Got to provide an argument as to why the theory is frivolous and why that is bad. If a shell is extempt, please read it slower than you normally would, as it allows for both me and your opponent to be able to respond to the violation.

Evidence Ethics: I usually just default to tournament rules for this.

LARP: Please give me clear impact calc weighing with a clear link chain, that is all.

***I've only judged a couple of tournaments this year, so I won't be as used to some of your top speeds***

Kyle Kopf (He/Him/His)

West Des Moines Valley High School ‘18 || University of Iowa '22 || Iowa Law '26

I want to be on the email chain (but I do my best to not flow off of it): krkopf@gmail.com

Conflicts: Iowa City West High School, West Des Moines Valley High School

Bio: I coached Iowa City West LD for 5 years. I debated LD for Six Years. Received one bid my junior year and 3 my senior year.

I don't like long paradigms so I did my best to keep this as short as possible. My opinions on debate aren't what matters anymore. I try to be as tech as possible and not intervene.

OVERVIEW:

I won’t automatically ignore any style of argument (Phil, Theory, K, policy, T, etc), I will only drop you for offensive arguments within that style (for example, using a policy AC to say racism is good). That being said, I am more familiar with certain styles of arguments, but that does not mean I will hack for them. Shortcut for my familiarity with styles:

Phil – 1

Theory/T – 1

K - 1

Policy - 2

Tricks - 3

Online Debate:

-Please speak at like 70-80% of your top pace, I'll be much more likely to catch your arguments and therefore vote for you if you actually slow and don't rely on me shouting "slow" or "clear" a lot. Also, slow down extra on underviews, theory, and author names because I'm extra bad at flowing those.

-Please keep a local recording in case your speech cuts out to the point where I miss arguments. If you do not there is no way for me to recover what was missed.

-I find myself flowing off the doc more with online debate than I do normally

-If you think there are better norms for judging online I should consider, feel free to share before the round!

-I will always keep my camera on when debaters are speaking. Sometimes I turn my camera off during prep time. Feel free to ask me to turn my camera on if I forget.

SPEAKS:

Based on strategy, quality of discourse, fun, creativity etc. NOT based on speaking style. I will shout “clear” as needed without reducing speaks.

SPEED:

Don’t start speech at top speed, build up to it for like 10 seconds. Slow down significantly on author names and theory underviews.

IDENTITY AND SAFETY:

Firstly, I've stuttered for my entire life, including the 6 years I was in debate. Speech impediments will not impact speaks or my evaluation of the round whatsoever. I default shouting “clear” if needed (I always preferred being told to clear than losing because the judge didn’t understand me) so please tell me if you prefer otherwise.

Secondly, If there is anything else related to identity or anything else that might affect the round, please let me know if you feel comfortable doing so.

Ks:

This is what I primarily read in high school. I’m familiar with K strategy, K tricks (floating PICs need to be in some way hinted at in the 1N), etc.

Theory/T:

I read some theory although significantly less than Ks. Since I've started coaching I've become a lot more familiar with theory strategy. Assuming literally no argument is made either way, I default:

- No RVI

- Competing Interps

- Drop the debater on theory and T

- Text of interp

- Norms creation model

- “Converse of the interp/defending the violation” is sufficient

Phil:

I started reading phil in high school and I coach a lot of phil now. I'm comfortable in these debates.

Tricks:

I'll vote on just about anything with a claim warrant and impact.

Policy:

While I never debated policy arguments in high school, I've judged a lot of policy-style rounds and am much more comfortable with them now.

Postrounding:

I think post-rounding is a good norm for debate to encourage good judging, prevent hacking, etc. Always feel free to post-round me. I'll be VERY strict about starting the next flight/round, allowing debaters to be on time, etc but feel free to find me or email me later (email at top).

Misc:

*If you're kicking a CP or K, you need to explicitly say "kick the CP/K", not extending is not sufficient to kick

*All arguments must have some sort of warrant. The warrant doesn’t have to be good or true

*If an argument is new in the 2, I will disregard it even if it’s not pointed out. To clarify, you still should point it out in case I missed it.

Tech savvy truth telling/testing debaters who crystallize with clarity, purpose persuasion & pathos will generally win my ballot.

My email: wesleyloofbourrow@gmail.com

For CHSSA: Flow judge, please weigh impacts in rebuttals, please win line by line, please make arguments quickly and effectively, and make the largest quantity & quality of arguments that you can. Thanks.

Updated Paradigm for NDCA & TOC

My intent in doing this update is to simplify my paradigm to assist Public Forum debaters competing at the major competitions at the end of this season. COVID remote debating has had some silver linings, and this year I have uniquely had the opportunity to judge a prolific number of prestigious tournaments, so I am "in a groove" judging elite PF debates this season, having sat on at least half a dozen PF TOC bid rounds this year, and numerous Semis/Finals of tournaments like Glenbrooks, Apple Valley, Berkeley, among many others.

I am "progressive", "circuit style", "tabula rosa", "non-interventionist", completely comfortable with policy jargon and spreading, open to Kritiks/Theory/Topicality, and actively encourage Framework debates in PF. You can figure out what I mean by FW with a cursory reading of the basic wikipedia entry "policy debate: framework" -- I am encouraging, where applicable and appropriate, discussions of what types of arguments and debate positions support claims to a superior model of Public Forum debate, both in the particular round at hand and future debates. I think that PF is currently grappling as a community with a lot of Framework questions, and inherently believe that my ballot actually does have potential for some degree of Solvency in molding PF norms. Some examples of FW arguments I have heard this year include Disclosure Theory, positions that demand the first constructive speech of the team speaking second provide direct clash (rejecting the prevalent two ships passing in the night norm for the initial constructive speeches), and Evidence theory positions.

To be clear, this does not mean at all that teams who run FW in front of me automatically get my ballot. I vote all the time on basic stock issues, and in fact the vast majority of my PF decisions have been based on offense/defense within a role-playing policy-maker framework. Just like any debate position, I am completely open to anything (short of bullying, racism, blatant sexism, truly morally repugnant positions, but I like to believe that no debaters are coming into these elite rounds intending to argue stuff like this). I am open to a policy-making basic Net benefits standard, willing to accept Fiat of a policy action as necessary and justifiable, just as much as I am willing to question Fiat -- the onus is on the debaters to provide warrants justifying whatever position or its opposite they wish to defend.

I will provide further guidance and clarifications on my judging philosophy below, but I want to stress that what I have just stated should really be all you need to decide whether to pref/strike me -- if you are seeking to run Kritiks or Framework positions that you have typically found some resistance to from more traditional judges, then you want to pref me; if you want rounds that assume the only impacts that should be considered are the effects of a theoretical policy action, I am still a fine judge to have for that, but you will have to be prepared to justify those underlying assumptions, and if you don't want to have to do that, then you should probably strike me. If you have found yourself in high profile rounds a bit frustrated because your opponent ran positions that didn't "follow the rules of PF debate", I'm probably not the judge you want. If you have been frustrated because you lost high profile rounds because you "didn't follow the rules of PF debate", you probably want me as your judge.

So there is my most recent update, best of luck to all competitors as we move to the portion of the season with the highest stakes.

Here is what I previously provided as my paradigm:

Speed: Short answer = Go as fast as you want, you won't spread me out.

I view speed as merely a tool, a way to get more arguments out in less time which CAN lead to better debates (though obviously that does not bear out in every instance). My recommendations for speed: 1) Reading a Card -- light-speed + speech doc; 2) Constructives: uber-fast + slow sign posting please; 3) Rebuttals: I prefer the slow spread with powerfully efficient word economy myself, but you do you; 4) Voters: this is truly the point in a debate where I feel speed outlives its usefulness as a tool, and is actually much more likely to be a detriment (that being said, I have judged marvelous, blinding-fast 2ARs that were a thing of beauty)...err on the side of caution when you are instructing me on how to vote.

Policy -- AFFs advocating topical ethical policies with high probability to impact real people suffering right now are best in front of me. I expect K AFFs to offer solid ground and prove a highly compelling advocacy. I love Kritiks, I vote for them all the time, but the most common problem I see repeatedly is an unclear and/or ineffective Alt (If you don't know what it is and what it is supposed to be doing, then I can't know either). Give me clash: prove you can engage a policy framework as well as any other competing frameworks simultaneously, while also giving me compelling reasons to prefer your FW. Anytime you are able to demonstrate valuable portable skills or a superior model of debate you should tell me why that is a reason to vote for you. Every assumption is open for review in front of me -- I don't walk into a debate round believing anything in particular about what it means for me to cast my ballot for someone. On the one hand, that gives teams extraordinary liberty to run any position they wish; on the other, the onus is on the competitors to justify with warranted reasoning why I need to apply their interpretations. Accordingly, if you are not making ROB and ROJ arguments, you are missing ways to get wins from me.

I must admit that I do have a slight bias on Topicality -- I have noticed that I tend to do a tie goes to the runner thing, and if it ends up close on the T debate, then I will probably call it reasonably topical and proceed to hear the Aff out. it isn't fair, it isn't right, and I'm working on it, but it is what it is. I mention this because I have found it persuasive when debaters quote this exact part of my paradigm back to me during 2NRs and tell me that I need to ignore my reasonability biases and vote Neg on T because the Neg straight up won the round on T. This is a functional mechanism for checking a known bias of mine.

Oh yea -- remember that YOU PLAY TO WIN THE GAME.

Public Forum -- At this point, after judging a dozen PF TOC bid rounds in 2021-2022, I think it will be most helpful for me to just outright encourage everybody to run Framework when I am your judge (3 judge panels is your call, don't blame me!). I think this event as a whole desperately needs good quality FW arguments that will mold desirable norms, I might very well have an inherent bias towards the belief that any solvency reasonably expected to come from a ballot of mine will most likely implicate FW, and thus I am resolved to actively encourage PF teams to run FW in front of me. If you are not comfortable running FW, then don't -- I always want debaters to argue what matters to them. But if you think you can win a round on FW, or if you have had an itch to try it out, you should. Even if you label a position as Framework when it really isn't, I will still consider the substantive merits behind your arguments, its not like you get penalized for doing FW wrong, and you can absolutely mislabel a position but still make a fantastic argument deserving of my vote.

Other than "run FW", I need to stress one other particular -- I do not walk into a PF round placing any limitations whatsoever on what a Public Forum debate is supposed to be. People will say that I am not "traditional or lay", and am in fact "progressive", but I only consider myself a blank slate (tabula rasa). Every logical proposition and its diametric opposite is on the table in front of me, just prove your points to be true. It is never persuasive for a team to say something like "but that is a Counterplan, and that isn't allowed in PF". I don't know how to evaluate a claim like that. You are free to argue that CPs in PF are not a good model for PF debates (and lo and behold, welcome to running a FW position), or that giving students a choice between multiple styles of debate events is critical for education and so I should protect the "rules" and the "spirit" of PF as an alternative to LD and Policy -- but notice how those examples rely on WARRANTS, not mere assertions that something is "against the rules." Bottom line, if the "rules" are so great, then they probably had warrants that justified their existence, which is how they became the rules in the first place, so go make those underlying arguments and you will be fine. If the topic is supposed to be drug policy, and instead a team beats a drum for 4 minutes, ya'll should be able to articulate the underlying reasons why this is nonsense without resorting to grievances based on the alleged rules of PF.

College Parli -- Because there is a new topic every round, the threshold for depth of research is considerably lower, and debaters should be able to advocate extemporaneously; this shifts my view of the burdens associated with typical Topicality positions. Arguments that heavily weigh on the core ground intended by the topic will therefore tend to strike me as more persuasive. Additionally, Parli has a unique procedural element -- the ability to ask a question during opponent's speech time. A poignant question in the middle of an opponent's speech can single handedly manufacture clash, and create a full conversational turn that increases the educational quality of the debate; conversely, an excellent speaker can respond to the substance of a POI by adapting their speech on the spot, which also has the effect of creating a new conversational turn.

lysis. While this event has evolved considerably, I am still a firm believer that Value/Criterion is the straightest path to victory, as a strong V/C FW will either contextualize impacts to a policy/plan advocacy, or explain and justify an ethical position or moral statement functioning as that necessary advocacy. Also, V/C allows a debater to jump in and out of different worlds, advocating for their position while also demonstrating the portable skill of entering into an alternate FW and clashing with their opponent on their merits. An appropriate V/C will offer fair, reasonable, predictable, equitable, and functional Ground to both sides. I will entertain any and all theory, kritiks, T, FW. procedure, resolution-rejection/alteration, etc. -- but fair warning, positions that do not directly relate to the resolutional topic area will require a Highly Compelling warrant(s) for why. At all times, please INSTRUCT me on how I am supposed to think about the round.

So...that is my paradigm proper, intentionally left very short. I've tried the more is more approach, and I have become fond of the less is more. Below are random things I have written, usually for tournament-specific commentary.

Worlds @ Coppell:

I have taken care to educate myself on the particulars of this event, reviewing relevant official literature as well as reaching out to debate colleagues who have had more experience. My obligation as a fair, reasonable, unbiased and qualified critic requires me to adapt my normal paradigm, which I promise to do to the best of my abilities. However, this does not excuse competitive debaters from their obligation to adapt to their assigned judge. I adapt, you adapt, Fair.

To learn how I think in general about how I should go about judging debates, please review my standard Judge Paradigm posted below. Written short and sweet intentionally, for your purposes as Worlds debaters who wish to gain my ballot, look for ways to cater your strengths as debaters to the things I mention that I find generally persuasive. You will note that my standard paradigm is much shorter than this unique, particularized paradigm I drafted specifically for Worlds @ Coppell.

Wesley's Worlds Paradigm:

I am looking for which competitors perform the "better debating." As line by line and dropping of arguments are discounted in this event, those competitors who do the "better debating" will be "on balance more persuasive" than their opponents.

Style: I would liken Style to "speaker points" in other debate events. Delivery, passion, rhetoric, emotional appeal. Invariably, the power of excellent public speaking will always be anchored to the substantive arguments and authenticity of advocacy for the position the debater must affirm or negate. While I will make every effort to separate and appropriately quantify Style and Content, be warned that in my view there is an inevitable and unbreakable bond between the two, and will likely result in some spillover in my final tallies.

Content: If I have a bias, it would be in favor of overly weighting Content. I except that competitors will argue for a clear advocacy, a reason that I should feel compelled to vote for you, whether that is a plan, a value proposition, or other meaningful concept.

PAY ATTENTION HERE: Because of the rules of this event that tell me to consider the debate as a whole, to ignore extreme examples, to allow for a "reasonable majority" standard to affirm and a "significant minority" standard to negate, and particularly bearing in mind the rules regarding "reasonability" when it comes to definitions, I will expect the following:

A) Affirmatives will provide an advocacy that is clearly and obviously within the intended core ground proffered by the topic (the heart of hearts, if you will);

B) Negatives will provide an advocacy of their own that clashes directly with the AFF (while this is not completely necessary, it is difficult for me to envision myself reaching a "better debating" and "persuasion" standard from a straight refutation NEG, so consider this fair warning); what the Policy folk call a PIC (Plan-Inclusive Counterplan) will NOT be acceptable, so do not attempt on the NEG to offer a better affirmative plan that just affirms the resolution -- I expect an advocacy that fundamentally NEGATES

C) Any attempt by either side to define their opponent's position out of the round must be EXTRAORDINARILY compelling, and do so without reliance on any debate theory or framework; possibilities would include extremely superior benefits to defining a word in a certain way, or that the opponent has so missed the mark on the topic that they should be rejected. It would be best to assume that I will ultimately evaluate any merits that have a chance of reasonably fitting within the topic area. Even if a team elects to make such an argument, I still expect them to CLASH with the substance of the opponent's case, regardless of whether or not your view is that the substance is off-topic. Engage it anyways out of respect.

D) Claim-Warrant-Impact-Weighing formula still applies, as that is necessary to prove an "implication on effects in the real world". Warrants can rely on "common knowledge", "general logic", or "internal logic", as this event does not emphasize scholarly evidence, but I expect Warrants nonetheless, as you must tell me why I am supposed to believe the claim.

Strategy: While there may be a blending of Content & Style on the margins in front of me as a judge, Strategy is the element that I believe will be easy for me to keep separate and quantify unto itself. Please help me and by proxy yourselves -- MENTION in your speeches what strategies you have used, and why they were good. Debaters who explicitly state the methods they have used, and why those methods have aided them to be "on balance more persuasive" and do the "better debating" will likely impress me.

POIs: The use of Questions during opponent's speech time is a tool that involves all three elements, Content/Style/Strategy. It will be unlikely for me to vote for a team that fails to ask a question, or fails to ask any good questions. In a perfect world, I would like speakers to yield to as many questions as they are able, especially if their opponent's are asking piercing questions that advance the debate forward. You WANT to be answering tough questions, because it makes you look better for doing so. I expect the asking and answering of questions to be reciprocal -- if you ask a lot of questions, then be ready and willing to take a lot of questions in return. Please review my section on Parli debate below for final thoughts on the use of POI.

If you want to win my vote, take everything I have written above to heart, because that will be the vast majority of the standards for judging I will implement during this tournament. As always, feel free to ask me any further questions directly before the round begins. Best of luck!

Thomas Mayes

I do not want to be on the e-mail chain.

He/him/his

You are likely to run into me at Iowa tournaments. I nearly always judge LD. (I judge P/F and Policy on rare occasion. Following my LD paradigm in those events would serve you well also.)

Please keep in mind the following three things, which apply to any form of argument you may consider using:
1. Tell me what to prefer.
2. Tell me why to prefer it.
3. Tell me that you did what I should prefer (at least better than your adversary).

Although I have been around LD since the earth cooled, I have no views about how LD should be. I am not tied to a historical ideal of the activity. In my view, the nature of the activity is to be resolved by coaches, competitors, and competition committees. My job is to evaluate the round that is presented to me, as it is presented to me. I evaluate rounds based on their internal competitiveness, not against some external standard of goodness.

I have no default "positions" or evaluative mechanisms. I will listen to any type of argument. If there is weighing to do, please do it. Since this is a competitive activity, I must award a ballot to someone. If there is no reason to affirm or negate at the end of the round, and I am left to my own devices (meaning neither competitor has done a good job of attending to the three items above), I will penalize the debater who made the biggest strategic error by assigning that debater the loss. Since this is a competitive activity, I will be constrained by any instructions on the ballot (such as instructions regarding burdens, speaker point allocations, etc.).

I am fairly generous with speaker points, tending to cluster around a 27.5 on the customary 1-30 scale. To ensure I remain generous, (1) be smart, (2) be authentic, (3) be decent to your adversary, (4) be clever, and (5) keep trying and pressing your positions until the timer goes off (even if you think you're losing).

Background: I have degrees from Baylor, Iowa, and Lehigh. I have been a practicing attorney for many years and am currently general counsel for the Iowa Department of Education. My favorite things are running, spicy food, caffeine, collecting passport stamps, and Luka Doncic.

EMAIL: mcgin029@gmail.com

POLICY
Slow down; pause between flows; label everything clearly; be aware that I am less familiar with policy norms, so over-explain. Otherwise I try to be more-or-less tab.

LD

I am the head coach at Valley High School and have been coaching LD debate since 1996.

I coach students on both the local and national circuits.

I can flow speed reasonably well, particularly if you speak clearly. If I can't flow you I will say "clear" or "slow" a couple of times before I give up and begin playing Pac Man.

You can debate however you like in front of me, as well as you explain your arguments clearly and do a good job of extending and weighing impacts back to whatever decision mechanism(s) have been presented.

I prefer that you not swear in round.

I like debate and have been coaching and judging debate for 40 years. I competed in high school policy debate and college NDT and CEDA debate. For most of my career, I coached all events at Okoboji High School in Iowa. I worked for Summit Debate at NDF Boston in Public Forum for 15 years and judged numerous PF LD practice and tournament rounds. I have been the LD coach for Puyallup High School for the past five years. I'm working with the LD, Congress and PF at Puyallup.

The past six years, I've judge LD rounds from novice through circuit tournaments. I judge policy rarely, but I do enjoy it. Paradigms for each follow.

PF This is a debate that should be interesting for all Americans. It should not be overly fast or technical. I will take a detailed flow, and I don't mind terms like link and impact. Evidence should be read, and I expect refutation of important issues, especially the offense presented in the round. Follow the debate rules, and I should be good. The final focus should spend at least some time going over weighing. Be nice to each other, and Grand Cross should not be a yelling match. The summary speaker must extend any arguments to be used in Final Focus. I expect the second speaking team to engage in the arguments presented in the rebuttal. I do not like disclosure theory, and it would be difficult for me to vote for it.

LD - I have judged a lot of circuit rounds over the years but not as many over the past four years. Washington state has a slower speed preference than the national circuit, so I'm not as practiced at that type of speed. My age means I don't flow or hear as well as I use to, so make sure I'm flowing. I like speed, but at rare times I have difficult time keeping up. If this happens, I will let you know. I expect a standard/criterion debate in the round. If you do something else, you must explain to me why it is legitimate. If you run kritiks, DA's, or plans, you must develop them enough for me to understand them. I do not like micropol positions. I will not drop them on face. I don't mind theory, but again, it must be developed. Bad advocacy is bad debating. Lying in the round or during cx will be dealt with severely. CX is binding. I expect clean extensions of arguments, and will give weight to arguments dropped by debaters. I want to be a blank slate in the back of the room. Please tell me why I should vote for you. Deontology frameworks are fine, but they must be justified. Any tricks must be clear, and obtuseness in CX will not be allowed. Finally, I will not vote for disclosure theory unless something weird happens.

Policy died in our circuit, and we were the only team still trying to do it. I haven't coached a policy team for a season since 2010; however, I've had teams go to tournaments in policy for fun and to try it. I've also judged policy debate at district tournaments to fulfill the clean judge rule. I have judged a couple of policy rounds this year, and they were not difficult to judge. Just expect me to like traditional positions.

Watch me for speed. I will try to keep up, but I'm old. It's a lack of hearing that may cause me to fall behind. I will yell "clear," and that probably means slow down. I'll do my best. I like all kinds of policy arguments, and I'm ok with kritiks. You may want to explain them to me a bit better because it may have been awhile since I heard the argument. Besides that, I'm a policy maker unless you tell me to be something else. Theory is ok, but it should be developed. Abuse must be proven in the round. Rebuttals should kick unimportant arguments and settle on a few to delineate. The final speeches should weigh the arguments.

Old paradigm, I will no longer give extra speaks for anything listed as extra speaks, but I think this paradigm is a classic: https://tinyurl.com/yyhknlsn

[Updated 3/3/2021] In fact, here is a list of things I dislike that I will probably not be giving good speaks for: https://tinyurl.com/55u4juwp

Email: conal.t.mcginnis@gmail.com

Tricks: 1*

Framework: 1

Theory: 1

K: 6

LARP: Strike

To clarify: I like K's and LARP the LEAST (as in, you should rate me a 6 if you like Ks and strike me if you LARP a lot) and I like Tricks, Framework, and Theory the MOST (you should rate me a 1 if you like Tricks, Framework, and Theory a lot).

Util is bad enough to be beaten by sneezing on it

Overall I am willing to vote on anything that isn't an instance of explicit isms (racism, sexism, etc.).

Other than that, here's a bunch of small things in a list. I add to this list as I encounter new stuff that warrants being added to the list based on having difficulty of decision in a particular round:

1. Part in parcel of me not being a great judge for LARP due to my low understanding of complex util scenarios is that I am not going to be doing a lot of work for y'all. I also will NOT be reading through a ton of cards for you after the round unless you specifically point out to me cards that I should be reading to evaluate the round properly.

2. I know it's nice to get to hide tricks in the walls of text but if you want to maximize the chances that I notice something extra special you should like slightly change the tone or speed of delivery on it or something.

3. If you have something extremely important for me to pay attention to in CX please say "Yo judge this is important" or something because I'm probably prepping or playing some dumbass game.

4. I will evaluate all speeches in a debate round.

"Evaluate after" arguments: If there are arguments that in order for me to evaluate after a certain speech I must intervene, I will do so. For example, if there is a 1N shell and a 1AR I-meet, I will have to intervene to see if the I-meet actually meets the shell.

Update: In order for me to evaluate "evaluate after" arguments, I will have to take the round at face value at the point that the speeches have stopped. However, as an extension of the paradigm item above, the issue is that many times in order for me to determine who has won at a particular point of speeches being over, I need to have some explanation of how the debaters thing those speeches play out. If either debater makes an argument for why, if the round were to stop at X speech, they would win the round (even if this argument is after X speech) I will treat it as a valid argument for clarifying how I make my decision. Assuming that the "evaluate after" argument is conceded/true, I won't allow debaters to insert arguments back in time but if they point out something like "judge, if you look at your flow for the round, if you only evaluate (for example) the AC and the NC, then the aff would win because X," then I will treat it as an argument.

Update P.S.: "Evaluate after" arguments are silly. I of course won't on face not vote on them, but please reconsider reading them.

Update P.S. 2: "Evaluate after" causes a grandfather paradox. Example: If "Evaluate after the 1NC" is read in the 1NC, it must be extended in the 2NR in order for me as the judge to recognize it as a won argument that changes the paradigmatic evaluation of the round. However, the moment that paradigmatic shift occurs, I no longer consider the 2NR to have happened or been evaluated for the purposes of the round, and thus the "Evaluate after the 1NC" argument was never extended and the paradigmatic evaluation shift never occurred.

5. "Independent voters" are not independent - they are dependent entirely on what is almost always a new framework that involves some impact that is presumed to be preclusive. I expect independent voter arguments to have strong warrants as to why their micro-frameworks actually come first. Just saying "this is morally repugnant so it's an independent voter" is not a sufficient warrant.

Also - independent voters that come in the form of construing a framework to an implication requires that you actually demonstrate that it is correct that that implication is true. For example, if you say "Kant justifies racism" and your opponent warrants why their reading of the Kantian ethical theory doesn't justify racism, then you can't win the independent voter just because it is independent.

6. I will no longer field arguments that attempt to increase speaker points. I think they are enjoyable and fun but they likely are not good long term for the activity, given that when taken to their logical conclusion, each debater could allocate a small amount of time to a warranted argument for giving them a 30, and then simply concede each others argument to guarantee they both get maximal speaks (and at that point speaker points no longer serve a purpose).

7. My understanding of unconditional advocacies is that once you claim to defend an advocacy unconditionally you are bound to defending any disadvantages or turns to that advocacy. It does not mean you are bound to spend time extending the advocacy in the 2NR, but if the aff goes for offense in the 2AR that links to this unconditional advocacy and the neg never went for that advocacy, the aff's offense on that flow still stands.

Update: Role of the Ballots are frameworks and do not have a conditionality.

8. Don't like new 2AR theory arguments.

9. I don't time! Please time yourselves and time each other. I highly recommend that you personally use a TIMER as opposed to a STOPWATCH. This will prevent you from accidentally going over time! If your opponent is going over time, interrupt them! If your opponent goes over time and you don't interrupt them, then there's not much I can do. If you are certain they went over time and your opponent agrees to some other way to reconcile the fact that they went over time, like giving you more time as well, then go ahead. I do not have a pre-determined solution to this possibility. I only have this blurb here because it just happened in a round so this is for all of the future rounds where this may happen again.

10. If you do something really inventive and interesting and I find it genuinely funny or enjoyable to listen to and give good speaks for it, don't run around and tell any teammate or friend who has me as a judge to make the same arguments. If I see the exact same arguments I will probably consider the joke to be stale or re-used. Particularly funny things MIGHT fly but like, if I can tell it's just a ploy for speaks I will be sadge.

11. In general, for online events, say "Is anyone not ready" instead of "Is everyone ready" solely because my speaking is gated by pressing unmute, which is annoying when I have my excel sheet pulled up. I'll stop you if I'm not ready, and you can assume I'm ready otherwise. (However, for in person events, say "Is everyone ready" because I'm right there!)

12. I will not vote for you if you read "The neg may not make arguments" and the neg so much as sneezes a theory shell at you.

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

For traditional rounds: speak and argue however you want (bar racism, sexism, homophobia, or any other ism or phobia)

*WHEN YOU READ TRICKS: I PREFER BEING UP FRONT ABOUT THEM. Pretending you don't know what an a priori is is annoying. Honestly, just highlight every a priori and tell your opponent: "here are all the a prioris"**.

**Seriously, I have yet to see anyone do this. Do it, it would be funny, I think.

Speech must be clear and understandable if reading quickly. I appreciate when rounds stay topical however I am open to theory as well as other types of arguments.

Heya! Just a friendly reminder to chill and have fun. Good luck!

Background:

I’ve debated 3 years of LD and 1 year of PF at Bettendorf High School.

Speaks:

(PF) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower based on strategy on flow, being able to be slow and clear, word economy, GOOD WARRANTING, etc. I’m alright with reasonably fast speeds. I’m only ok with hardcore spreading if

1. It’s an outround
2. If all the judges, debaters, and possible audience members give their ok as well.
3. You disclose.

(LD) Base speaks start at 27. I choose raise or lower mainly based on strategy on flow. I'm ok with spreading, just make sure your opponent is ok with it as well. I’ll yell "clear" if I have to. Just disclose the doc to me if you can.

What I’d like to see in a PF round:

TLDR version:

Crystalize to main 1 or 2 impacts -----X------------------- Not collapsing

More args on flow to make ur opp inevitably drop one -----------------------X- Less args but better quality

Flow based ---X--------------------- Non flow

Stock args ----------X-------------- Weirder args

Taking time to check evidence X------------------------ “You’re wasting my time”

Necessary spreading ------------X------------ Normal/slower speaking speed

Sole contention case --X---------------------- Too many contentions

Will listen to CX -----X------------------- Won’t listen to CX

Theory ---------------X--------- Anything else

Non-TLDR version:

-Give me a roadmap and signpost clearly.

-I’m a flow based judge. Which means some real BS can start if you miss a really important FW/observation.

-2nd speaking team should cover both sides of the flow in rebuttal.

-Choose whether or not you go line-by-line or collapse to a specific arg. However, I HIGHLY VALUE WELL EXPLAINED WARRANTS AND WEIGHING. The clearest, sole reason for why I should vote for you in summary/FF is the best way to win the ballot.

-I’m open to any type of unique/weird argument, but I prefer really well run stock args. Don’t waste my time with poorly run theory/K shells unless you are absolutely committed to making debate better and more accessible.

-I will allow first speaking teams to extend defense from rebuttal to FF but it isn’t preferred.

-CX does affect speaks. Avoiding the question, not giving an answer, not being productive, or just being plain rude will tank points.

-Evidence is SUPER IMPORTANT. Call for it and take your time. I dare you. I’m not afraid to intervene and drop a team if the evidence doesn’t say what it is supposed to say.

What I’d like to see in a LD round:

TLDR version:

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

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

Theory ----------------------X-- Substance

More cards ---------------X--------- Less cards

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

Topical case ---------X--------------- Non topical cases

Fairness is internal link -----------------------X- Fairness is an impact

Line by line -----X------------------- Long overviews

Phil cases X------------------------ Literally anything else

Non-TLDR version:

-I'm much more accepting of the line by line in LD instead of a super long overview. This doesn't exclude basic weighing tho.

-I really really love well run stock phil cases.

-I also love Ks -Policy type args like DAs and CPs are also fine.

-Honestly, I’d prefer if you don’t go into a theory/T debate. If there is significant abuse occurring, go for it.

-Overall, just have good impacts/analysis. If you are an ex-policy debater who is really bad with comparing warrants/impacts of a stock Kant NC, you will lose the round. Framework makes the game work.

-I won’t hold it against you or anything but plz disclose if you can.

If you are a novice:

-Just remember to WEIGH your case vs your opponents (use the word weigh).

-Also to EXPLAIN what your arguments and show how it impacts the round as a whole. Don’t just repeat your claim.

Here are my paradigms for various events. If you have any questions feel free to ask for clarification in round.

PF paradigm

I am a former PFer and so I am familiar with the event. I competed for 4 years and I am pretty easy going as for judge preferences. I flow the round, but I do really like to see weighing, sign posting throughout the round and voters in the summary and final focus. I am okay with some speed, but this is not policy or LD so don't go over the top.

Congress Paradigm

I competed a bit in Congress in high school and am familiar with the event. I also have 2 years organizing a youth congress program in Iowa. I am looking for organization in speeches, and also prefer if you speak with limited notes rather than read word for word.

LD Paradigm

I have judged some LD and competed about 2-3 times in high school, but I still consider to be a lay judge. I do flow though, but please provide clear extensions.

Speech Paradigm

For Public Address/ Limited Prep speeches, I like seeing organization in the speeches, and for events such as oratory a clear argument

For Interp. I prefer seeing clear character pops and smooth transitions between characters.

Tell me which time signals you want otherwise I will typically give just 2 down for interp/ public address events and then 5, 4, 3, 2, 1 in extemp.