** Updated for the 2023-2024 Academic Year**

She/Her/Hers

Evidence: Apparently I need to put this on here now, but evidence standards will always be an a priori issue to evaluation for me. If there is a procedural argument that is brought up on the standards for evidence (example: distortion, not being able to access source for evidence, clipped evidence, or non-existent evidence). I will default to NSDA evidence standards unless there are other standards governing evidence evaluation. I will also only evaluate evidence that has been brought up on an ethics violation. Once an evidence ethics argument has been made, I will stop the round and vote immediately on that issue before anything else in the round proceeds. I see evidence as a core ethics argument that impacts the ability to go through anything else in the round and impacts my ability to trust any evidence that has been read by a team with evidence issue.

General Background: I’ve been in the world of policy debate for about 15 years, ranging from participation to coaching. Way back in the day, I debated at both Topeka High and Washburn Rural HS. I also debated in the regional circuit for University of Kansas for a few years and coached in Kansas, Alabama, and Mississippi. I have a deep love for the activity. I am currently working on a Ph.D. in Political Science and I study immigration surveillance as part of my research.

Topicality/Procedural Issues: I vote on these. While I default to competing interpretations, it's important that you are answering all levels of the argument-- including the impact level of the debate. If you are negative and hope to win the round on T, you need to make sure you have a complete argument out of the gate to vote on. I should see a definition, interp, link, and impact level to your argument and I should see the aff responding to these. Cross-apply this to any procedural argument as well (such as ASPEC, condo bad, etc.)

Disads- There needs to be a terminal impact (or at least solid analysis as to why that impact outweighs aff impacts in the round), a risk/okay probability of the disad happening (otherwise, why does your UQ matter?), and a plausible link to the aff. Generic DAs are fine, but there needs to be a plausible link, even if just at an analytical level.

Counterplans-- I tend to be alright with CPs and lean negative. I think most are generally smart. However, that being said, the CP needs to be both rhetorically and functionally competitive. I think Affs can/should be held accountable for clarifications made on positions and that those links apply across both CP and DA grounds.

Kritiks-- I'm fine with these, however, keep in mind that I am studying political theory in a Ph.D. program, so if your whole knowledge of your K is from a long series of back files on the K or from reading a few paragraphs of Nietzsche, this might end badly for you. I tend to prefer Ks with wider reach (capitalism, feminism, racism, etc) and less so Ks of particular authors, mostly because they are generally done poorly. If you run a K, it is EXTREMELY important that you provide a clear narrative of a) the role of my ballot, b) the world of the alternative, and c) how I should prioritize impact calculus in the round.

General Notes:

- If you are going for more than 2 major things in your 2NR/2AR, there is a low chance you are going to win the round. Similarly, if you don't provide an impact calculus, you likely will not like the decision I make at the end of the round.

- Negative strategy-- there needs to be some sort of offense in the round. A defensive strategic approach has rarely won my ballot.

- Please don't be unpleasant during the round. I can almost guarantee that if you are, it's not aligned with the quality of your argumentation and it's just going to be a long round. For me this looks more like arrogance or intentional cruelness-- I'm fine with bluntness, anger, frustration, etc. If you are unsure what I mean by this, please ask.

- I pay attention to the rhetoric used in the round. Slurs and derogatory language will almost assuredly earn you lower speaker points.

- Both teams should start impact calc early, use this to frame your speeches and line by line, and use impact calc to prioritize voting issues and role of the ballot.

- I reward debaters who make an effort to deeply engage with the topic area and issues.

- Squirrel affs are rarely good affs. They generally have poor structure, poor solvency or advantage foundations, and generate poor debate. I would rather see a super mainstream topic that prompts a lot of clash in the round than an aff that is poorly written for an ambush factor.

- In more policy-centered debates, I may err more on the tech aspect of the debate. In other cases, I may give some leniency on tech if the arguments are "true" (understanding that truth can be a subjective value).

- I'm starting to realize through my working social justice that I'm more easily affected by detailed narratives of sexism, racism, ableism (esp. invisible disabilities), and sexual assault. Trigger warnings aren't very helpful for me as a judge (I don't have a choice to opt out of them and I don't think that I would want to) but know that I may ask for a minute to just breathe or get some water between speeches, so I can have a clear head for the next speaker if there is a particularly vivid or powerful speech. This is by no means a common thing that I do, but I did want to add this to affirm the value of self-care in this activity.

- Add me to the email chain: devon.cantwell@gmail.com

- I flow on my computer, so please make sure you take a beat at the top of flows before jumping in and please slow down to about 70% for analytical arguments, especially if they are fewer than 5 words. I have physical pain in my joints, especially at the end of long days of judging. This doesn't make my ability to assess your arguments any less, nor does it impact my competency. I will do my best to say "slow" if my joints can't keep up.

- If you think you might want my flow of the round, I'm happy to send it. Please try to give me a heads-up before the round starts, as I organize my flows a bit differently when they are being distributed. Also, send me an e-mail after the round to remind me to send it to you.

TL;DR: You do you. Have fun. Be a decent human in the round. Learn some things.

I will be judging based on organization, supported factual arguments, delivery of information and how you interact with your opponent(s).

Clear points with strong supporting evidence. Also well structured speeches and clear presentation.

Hey everyone,

I like good debate. I debated policy at the TOC in high school and for a few years at Northwestern University. In high school, I mostly debated the K, and in college I debated more straight up. I'm fine with speed and most arguments. These days, I don't judge as frequently, so I'm never deep in the topic literature or the most trendy arguments, so don't assume I know all your acronyms and lingo. However, you probably won't surprise me.

One pet peeve - excessive amounts of down time/stolen prep relating to computer issues. Get your act right. If you take too long, you'll lose speaker points, some tech emergencies withstanding.

General tips for persuading me

-Specificity is best. Make your links specific, cite and clash with your opponents evidence, and explain your arguments as they apply in this round - not the overview you pasted into a speech doc.

-I prefer depth over shallow, blippy arguments. I can keep up and will vote on dropped theory, but I would much rather see a good debate than cheap shot tactics.

-Impact all your arguments. Debaters do good with this on DAs, but not so well on topicality/theory standards, or author/evidence indicts, or weighing links and link turns.

-Focus on the nexus questions. You rebuttals should focus on the most important arguments of the round, not whichever arguments you like best or are winning on. Too often debaters misallocate time and leave crucial aspects of the debate undecided, without much clash or ink on them. Cross-x is also a good time to flesh out nexus questions, but don't forget to make the argument in an actual speech as well.

-Most importantly, don't be a *#@$. Aggressive questioning is fine; being rude is not. Attack arguments, not people. If you know the round is a crushing victory, make it quick and clean, fun, educational for the opponents, or maybe all three.

taylordlayton@gmail.com

Ben McGraw (he/they)

background:

I debated at Juan Diego Catholic (UT) from 2015-2017 before transferring to Rowland Hall St. Marks (UT) from 2017-2019. I attended the University of Michigan for undergraduate from 2019-2022. For those that use success as a benchmark, I attended the TOC once and qualified to NSDA nats twice in high school, and broke at ADA Nationals, CEDA Nationals, and the NDT in college. I have also had the opportunity to coach high school debate for both Rowland Hall (2019-2021) and Young Genius CP (2021-). 

My email is benmcgrawdebate [at] gmail [dot] com. Say hi, ask me questions about debate, and put me on the email chain.

how i think about debate:

If you are reading this, you are likely doing prefs and want to make sure I either agree with how you think about debate or that I am not an unpredictable rando who will drop you for something trivial--thus, here is the scouting I have done on myself so you can determine how unpredictable I may be:

Even though I no longer debate, I care a lot about the activity because it (and the people within it) cared a lot about me. I also care that the debaters treat both their opponents and their judges with kindness and respect. If you think that your previous first rounds or TOC bids justify treating your younger or less experienced opponents dismissively or with contempt, I am not the judge for you. Treat your opponents and the judges with respect and I will respect both you and the arguments that come out of your mouth.

I have a higher threshold for winning an internal link than most. This applies to policy arguments just as much as K arguments. If your 1AC is the style of "death by 1,000 impacts" or if the story of your K relies on poor inductive reasoning, I am not the judge for you. I really don't care what you read, but if your argument can't survive a good cross ex it's better off left in the prep doc.

Here's a tip on how to win my ballot most of the time, regardless of what you're reading: frame the ballot. Even if its subconscious, my mind is easily tricked by the team that puts the pieces together for me. I won't lie and say I'm a robot that resolves everything on the flow--I know myself well enough to know I'm manipulatable (as is everyone, but I won't get into that). Whoever does the better job of telling me why winning their argument matters (and not just why they are winning an argument) is more likely to win my ballot. In a mid- to high-level college debate where it's likely to be a close debate regardless of skill disparity, this will be the reason I vote the way I do.

Last meta-level comment: My biggest risk of intervention is when framework doesn't link up with the theory or story of a Kritik--for example, if you want me to view the 1AC as an object of research/scholarship, and the K is a hodge-podge of contradictory authors while the aff is consistently constructed (even with a problematic assumption), there is a risk I will vote aff (if given a defense of their scholarship) even if they lose framework. 

If you are still curious, here are people who have largely influenced how I view debate: Moses Baca, Maddie Langr, Khalid Sharif, Mike Shackelford, Maggie Berthiaume, Will Repko, Kurt Fifelski, Dustin Meyers-Levy, Thomas Vance, Josh Harrington, Adrienne Brovero, Shunta Jordan, Vida Chiri, and (obviously) Clare McGraw.***

back to the meta-level details:

tech over truth but truth determines tech. arguments require warrants to be legitimate, and those warrants need to be logical. if those warrants go dropped, they have a lower threshold of explanation needed to win them. yet, those warrants still need to be extended/explained. no argument is bad if it is warranted, including most theory args.

i treat all arguments as legitimate until proven otherwise (includes procedurals, process cps, kritiks, politics das, etc). obviously, there are limits to this (see last section).

i enjoy topicality debates but have little knowledge of how the topic works--hold my hand through these but don't be discouraged

i enjoy soft left affs but only when they are debated well

i have yet to judge a theory debate, but would likely vote on tech (instead of the "was condo a cop-out strategy" concept, which i think is absurd)

a lot of the specifics below are geared towards high schoolers and younger debaters--if you know your stuff then you can skim most of it.

online debate/paperless:

for the love of all that is holy please label chains with at LEAST the round, tournament, aff team vs. neg team in some easily readable format.

send analytics in all constructive speeches if your debate. it helps mitigate tech issues, and is NECESSARY for certain arguments, like fw interps or perms. i do not plan on stealing your blocks. 2Ns, take the high road even if the 2AC chooses not to send analytics. if you refuse to send analytics, prepare to record your own speeches in event of tech issues, since I lean against "giving your speech over" to prevent in-round redos.

please try and keep your camera on for your and your opponent's speeches, use a headset/external mic, and have a stable place to debate.  these things passively affect my ability to judge, as it removes the (very important) humanizing element of debate that is already mitigated by zoom.

if my camera is off, please confirm verbally that I am still here before starting. 'is anyone not ready' is not a good metric for online debating, as interrupting is quite literally impossible with a poor connection. I used 'can i get a verbal/visual confirmation' and I find that mostly works.

k affs:

---good for things like music, dancing, performance, as long as they are contestable (outside of "pic out of music/performance/etc.)---this means i am not great for the ballot as solely a form of self-affirmation (a.k.a 'survival strategies')

---if your plan is to go for one-off t usfg, impact why the topic (not just the usfg) is good engagement AND make inroads to the case page, even if it is just analytical presses based on 1AC discrepancies or dml cards.

---i prefer a smaller debate earlier, with only one (maybe two) impacts in the block

---i prefer t against a planless affirmative to look like t against an aff with a plan, using similar organizational structures (aka small/no overviews)

---i am unlikely to vote for an aff team weighing offense without a counter-model of debate, unless they are going for the we meet

the k:

---i tend to allow the aff to access their fiated/in round offense; likewise, i tend to allow the k to question the assumptions of the 1ac. 

---i have a higher threshold for link warrants than many: saying "the aff securitizes china" over and over without explaining either the theory or where the aff links (like the rehighlighting of aff ev/pulling lines from aff ev) will make me much more likely to default aff.

---i prefer examples on both sides that support your theory, but when examples act as the sole explanation of the alt/aff, i will likely be confused

---i am growing tired of improperly structured, terrible “affs v. ks” in high school debates. if reading a different aff will decrease your ability to adequately explain your affirmative, you should stick to your "aff v. policy" because explanation matters more than avoiding a link

---i prefer that identity arguments not contain broad claims about how all people w/in that social location must feel/think about the world if you do not identify with that social location.

---i prefer that everyone treat arguments as legitimate until proven otherwise. debaters tend to think certain arguments are 'bad' on face, which can lead them to underestimate the strength of the argument. I will not be persuaded by 'but Baudrillard is a joke so vote aff' even though I'm not a fan of his work in/out of debate (though the balsas card is a good way to make me laugh, and raise speaks even if it is only for the meme).

note to younger debaters on cx in k debates: if you don't understand their theory or their link, ask for clarification! coaches often teach debaters that cx should make arguments or attempt to trap the other team (which are both fine strategies), but often ignore the structural importance of clarification. questions like "do you defend x" or "what is the link articulation based on the 1ac" help aff teams get a better sense of what the block will do (which helps 2ac prep immensely) more than "one of your cards says white and one says non-black, which is it" (which just gives them a reason to explain residual offense that the 2ac now has to answer).

topicality:

Competing Interpretations vs. Reasonability: I'm neutral, but it you think reasonability is solely "good is good enough" (that includes in the 2AC) then I probably vote neg. if you don't know what reasonability is beyond 'good is good enough,' then email/ask me and i will gladly explain it to you, free of charge.

theory:

top level: theory can be a primary strategy and doesn't necessarily require the aff/neg to prove in round abuse. a good, developed theory debate is quite enjoyable to me. all counterplans are legitimate until proven otherwise, but the threshold for their legitimacy is dependent on the counterplan. i feel that 2ARs should have more counterplan theory in them, especially for counterplans that are obviously pushing the limits of neg fiat.

dropped theory: definitely a voter, but the amount of trickery determines how sad I will be. if you put aspec on it's own flow, had it in the doc, etc. then it's definitely not your problem that they dropped it; however, if it's egregious, then i will be very sad, and perhaps glare/look dead inside. however, it's still a voter, so don't let my deadness deter you. if you are worried about this, i am generally for the question "reasons to reject the team?" as a 1NC/2AC cx question, because even if you do flow it's easy to miss blips.

judge kick: i'll do it unless the aff tells me not to; if the aff brings it up, ill default neg if it was in the block and has a warranted claim. "we said condo/cross apply condo" is not a warrant, it is just a claim.

condo is about type, not number. 1, 2, 3, 4, 17, 26 condo are all the same within the context of whether conditionality is good or bad. if they say dispo, punish them.

disadvantages:

zero risk is possible, but rare---just explain why in the context of the round if you think you get there

I am more likely to vote on internal link takeouts than most (applies both to case and DAs)---most internal links lack reverse causal warrants (obviously) and aff teams should point that out more. I genuinely think that the logical leap that many teams take from internal link to impact is egregious and is the best way to attack a DA/Case you don't have the goods against. This is especially true in warming advantages, as solving 1 instance of BioD loss =/= solving ALL BioD loss, and solving all BioD loss =/= solving all warming, etc.

my research outside of debate is on courts, particularly reproductive rights and judicial ideology. this means that I will likely have a lower bar than some for proving how terrible court DAs are (*cough cough*), and likewise know more about how your courts aff is butchering precedent. however, this doesn't make things like the court ptx da unwinnable---in fact, if you know your stuff and can justify why you think roberts/barrett/kavanaugh vote in particular directions based on past outcomes, i am a very good judge for you.

counterplans:

i'll evaluate any cp with an internal net benefit as a uniqueness cp with the net benefit as a disad if they win a terminal solvency deficit and you don’t win judge kick.

people need to go for theory more against counterplans, but because people do not i have been a good judge for process/agent counterplans

case framing:

six minute long framing pages that don’t make it past the 1ac make me sad. you/your coach chose those pieces of evidence specifically to help you weigh your aff in a strategic way. don't make it unstrategic by reading long extensions and not answering their warrants, or not extending them at all. because the topic almost mandates these affs in most areas, spend some time learning how to do it properly (also, think about it...2/3 previous topics also mandated soft left affs, do you really think this is a skill you don't need to learn?)

utilitarianism=/=consequentialism; likewise, [x] ethics first=/=deontology

non-negotiable rules:

no inserting rehighlightings (charts are fine), but if you have rehighlightings of their evidence i respect you more as a person and debater.

clipping is bad, and ends the round immediately if i notice it. i will give the non-offending team the chance to continue the round for educational purposes, and will give the offender a 25 but will try not to tank everyone elses speaks.

swearing is fine---yes it is an educational activity but i genuinely couldn't care less. slurs =/= swearing.

ev quality outweighs ev quantity---1 good card outweighs 10 bad ones, "outcarding" them is not the way to win my ballot.

don't say problematic things---you can't impact turn everything. examples (not extensive) of this include racism/sexism/homophobia good.

if you need accommodations, let me know (details not required). however, any accommodation applies to you as well. for example: don't ask them not to spread and then go 400 wpm. otherwise, i’m open to whatever makes the round more enjoyable, accessible and fun for all. coaches should not interfere in the process of accommodations in debates in any way for a competitive incentive.

presumption is whoever changes the least

please disclose properly.

good open source in high school gets you +.2 speaks, ill look (or, feel free to tell me after the 2ar).

if you want me to know something that happened before i got there, have proof of it (recordings w/ permission in necessary areas)

give me time between off, or i might miss the top 3 args you make. i usually flow on paper.

visibly writing down answers to cx and using them in speeches is a power move, speaks will be rewarded.

prep ends when you finish making the speech doc, but that doesn't mean you can steal 45 minutes of prep by saying your wifi isn't working or that your "email is slow" while still typing/using ~. i have stolen prep before, i know how it works

i enjoy talking to people, especially about debate. seriously, if you want, feel free to ask about my thoughts on anything about debate, either before or after the round. additionally, feel free to ask me about debating at michigan, debating in college, or anything that a normal human would talk about before screaming at each other for 2 hours.

speaker points: i give high points even compared to current point inflation. competitive varsity debates should expect mid-high 28s to mid 29s with me in the back. older ppl, sorry not sorry. earn speaks by making tasteful jokes about anyone on the michigan team, Letterkenny references, or really any joke dependent on bad humor (particularly ones that reference PDM&CD). if you know me, make fun of me, if you don't, don't. i enjoy self-awareness, especially if you have the knowledge to point out my personal biases (which shouldn't be hard, if you made it here you probably know way too much about me).

decision process:

i will ask myself questions that are integral to the debate, answer those questions, and decide based on the resolution of those questions. read this post from the 3nr for more info: http://the3nr.com/2009/11/03/judging-methodologies-how-do-judges-reach-their-decisions

i will type out my rfd and i will most likely take a while, regardless of how close the round is. this is to ensure i weigh arguments correctly.

Especially for online debate, slow down a little, particularly from the 2NC on.

Please include Ryanpmorgan1@gmail.com and interlakescouting@googlegroups.com for the email chain. Please use subject lines that make clear what round it is.

I wrote a veritable novel below. I think its mostly useless. I'm largely fine with whatever you want to do.

Top level:

• I am older (36) and this definitely influences how I judge debates.
• Yes, I did policy debate in high school and college. I was mediocre at it.
• Normal nat circuit norms apply to me. Speed is fine, offense/defense calc reigns, some condo is probably good but infinite condo is probably bad, etc.
• I have a harder time keeping up with very dense/confusing debates than a lot of judges. Simplifying things with me is always your best bet.

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

• I am more likely to call "nonsense" on your bewildering process CP or Franken K. If the arg doesn't make any sense, you should just tell me that.
• Aff vagueness (and in effect, conditionality) is out of control in modern debate. I will vote on procedural arguments to rectify this trend.
• Bad process CPs are bad and shouldn't be a substitute for cutting cards or developing a real strategy. Obviously, I'll vote on them, but the 2AR that marries perm + theory into a comprehensive model for debate is usually a winner.
• I'm less likely to "rep" out teams or schools. I don't keep track of bid leaders and what not. Related: I forget about most rounds 20 minutes after I turn in my ballot.

Stats:

• Overall Aff win rate: 48.7%
• Elim aff win rate: 42.3%
• I have sat 6 times in 53 elims

Core controversies - I'm pretty open so take these with a grain of salt.

• Unlimited condo | -----X-------- | 2-worlds, maybe
• Affs should be T | ---X----------- | T isn't a voter
• Judge kick | ----X--------- | No judge kick
• "Meme" arguments | --------X- | You better be amazing at "meme" debate
• Research = better speaks | --X--------- | Tech = better speaks
• Speed | -------X---- | Slow down a little
• Inherency is case D | -X--------- | Inherency is a DA thumper

My Knowledge:

• I went for politics DA a lot. Its the only debate thing I'm a genuine expert in, at least in debate terms.
• I do not "get" the topic (inequality) yet. I did not go to camp. Debate like this is Mich finals at your own peril.
• I have some familiarity with the following K lit - cap, Foucault/Agamben, Lacan/psychoanalysis, security, nuclear rhetoric, nihilism, non-violence, and gendered language.
• I'm basically clueless RE: set col / Afropess / Baudrillard / Bataille. I have voted on all of them, though, in the past..

K affs

I prefer topical affs, and I like plan-focused debates. I'm neg-leaning on T-framework in the sense that I think reality leans neg if you actually play out the rationale behind most K affs that are being run in modern debate. But I vote aff about 50% of the time in those debates, so if that's your thing, go for it.

T/cap K/ ballot PIK and the like are boring to me, though. I think that unless the K aff is pure intellectual cowardice, and refuses to take a stand on anything debatable, there are usually better approaches for the neg to take.

I'm a great judge for impact turning K affs - e.g., cap good, state reform good.

Word PIKs are a good way to turn the aff's rejection of T/theory against them.

Or, you could simply, you know, engage the aff's lit base and cut some solvency turns / make a strong presumption argument that engages with the aff's method.

Some other advice:

• "Bad things are bad" is not a very interesting argument. You should have a solvency mechanism.
• Affs should have a "debate key" warrant. That warrant can involve changing the nature of debate, but you should have some reason you are presenting your argument in the context of a debate round.
• I think fairness matters, but its obviously possible to win that other things matter more depending on the circumstances.
• Traditional approaches to T-FW is best with me - very complicated 5th-level args on T are less persuasive to me than a simple and unabashed defense of topicality + switch-side debate = fairness + education. "We can't debate you, and that makes this activity pointless" is usually a win condition for the neg, in my book. St. Marks teams always do a really good job on this in front of me, so idk, emulate them I guess, or steal their blocks.

Topicality against policy affs

I have not read enough into this topic's literature to have a strong opinion on the core controversies.

I think I tend to lean into bigger topics than most modern judges do. That a topic might have dozens of viable affs is not a sign of a bad topic, so long as it incents good scholarship and the neg has ways to win debates if they put in the work.

Speaker points

When deciding speaks, I tend to reward research over technical prowess.

If you are clobbering the other team, slow down and make the debate accessible to them. Running up the score will run down your speaks.

I frequently check my speaker points post-tournament to make sure I'm not an outlier. I am not, as near as I can tell. I probably have a smaller range than average. It takes a LOT to get a 29.3 or above from me, but it also takes a lot for me to go below 28.2 or so.

Ethical violations

I am pretty hands off and usually not paying close enough attention to catch clipping unless it is blatant.

Prep stealing largely comes out of your speaks, unless the other team makes an appeal.

Roy Highschool '19

eneiswanger@gmail.com

I did PF and Policy debate in high school, each for one year.

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

Flows the doc --------X----------------------------------It's on you to be comprehensible

Spin > Cards ----------X--------------------------------Cards > Spin

Poker face-------------X-----------------------------You'll know my thoughts on everything

Not ideological in clash debates -----------------------------X--------------No plan no ballot

Pomo/high theory expert -----------------------------------------X-Whatever the opposite of that is

Fairness/clash/research impacts on T --------------X----------------------------Delib k2 solve warming/Movements

Counter-defining and offense/defense on T --------------X----------------------------Impact turning everything

2NR needs TVA to win-----------------------------------X------Overrated/unnecessary most of the time

K links to the plan -------------------------------------X-------Unnecessary if you win framework

Extinction outweighs/impact turn vs K ---------------------------------X----------Perm/no link

Conditionality bad -------------------------------------X--------Infinite and good

1NCs that proliferate incomplete arguments-----------------------------------X-----Aff gets new answers

Bad for process/"cheating" CPs ------------------------------X--------------Being neg's hard

"We're topical but don't defend implementation"-------------------------------------X------Makes literally 0 sense

Theory debates hinge on ideology -------------------------------X-------------Execution is everything

Aff-leaning on T vs Policy Affs ----------------------------X--------------Neg-leaning on T vs Policy Affs

Intrinsicness bad -----------------------X---------------------Better for it than most

Logical internal link presses/recutting their ev --------------X----------------------------Impact D to everything

"Insert this reHLing" --------------------------------------X-----Gotta read it

Bathroom breaks and small talk ---------------------------------------X---Decision time is short

Having to read an essay with my thoughts on debate ---------------------------------X-----Short judge philosophies

I am a coach of over 15 years for policy, pf, ld and all speech events at North Sanpete HS, Mission San Jose, Alta and Summit Academy, at Westlake High School and currently an Assistant Coach for Salem Hills High School.

In HS I competed in Speech events, LD and coached policy teams (there was no pf then).

I am the Chair for the NSDA Sundance District and former president for the UDCA. I have judged IE and debate events at the Nationals Level and have served on the pf wording committee. In other words, I know what I'm doing and know speech and debate very well!

I believe that you should give a well organized logical argument in any debate or speech. Topicality is imperative to a debate, and supporting and explaining your position on that topic is vital to a clear argument construct. If you don't say it, I didn't hear it. Don't assume I will know what your evidence means the same as you...

Policy debate should be relevant, and well understood by the competitors otherwise it will not be understood by the judges. I do not mind speed, but if it is so fast that I can no longer understand your words, then I can no longer understand your argument to judge it. K's and theory are fine as long as they go toward the overall value of the debate and topic. They should in no way demonize or devalue any individual or group of people asa part of the K. Analysis and connection of evidence/cards to the plan and solvency is imperative in making a good argument and being a good debater. Cards do not a case make, the debater does. Know your cards, know your plan, and know how they work to support and solve the inherency of the issues involved.

Public Forum should be a thoughtful discussion and not overly repeat questions and answers. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. PF IS NOT just policy light....it is its own event with no plans and merits. Treat it well. Weighing and analysis of the topic, evidence, and oppositions arguments are imperative.

Lincoln Douglas should have a clear value and criterion from which to work from, and stay focused on topic and argument. Don't just read evidence and think it will make your argument for you. CARDS and EVIDENCE DO NOT A CASE MAKE...the debater does. Analysis, rebuttal, and connections to the value criterion are paramount in an LD round Plans are ok, as long as they are relevant, on topic, and are shown how they connect to the value criterion like any other argument in the case.

IEs should be unique, appropriate, and follow all structures outlined in their respective events. I look for organization, relevance, creativity and thoughtfulness as well as the presentation being engaging, and suitable for piece and audience. Remember when trying to engage an audience, one should want to help them understand, be brought into the conversation, and allowed to learn another perspective while still maintaining their own in the end. Try not to preach, demean, or ostracize your judge in your piece or presentation---even when controversial topic---they can be great, if done right.

Hello 2022 Utah State 6A Debaters. Congratulations on making it to my paradigm. I hope you are having a nice time at this tournament. See my thoughts below from 2019. They are still valid. You may notice that this is my first tournament for this year. I thought I might have been done with judging when my son didn't debate this year but I was asked to help with this tournament. So, here I am with all my oldness and such. I understand that there are some very detailed paradigms out there. This is not one of those.

Here in 2019 I am judging policy debate for the first time in many years. In a prior life (like 20 years ago), I judged regularly in policy and assistant coached in policy for Murray High School. I was a policy debater in high school and debated for Southern Utah University and for a very short time for the University of Utah. I am a lawyer and practiced primarily administrative law where I often argued individual's disability cases before administrative law judges (these were very much like mini trials). I was frequently in other courts primarily representing individuals. I don't practice law much now and am running a local business.

I view my experience in debate as critical to my personal development and the main reason I became a lawyer (unfortunately). I see it as vital preparation for doing important things later in life. While I consider myself open to all types of arguments, and very much appreciate a robust and vigorous exchange of ideas between the parties, debate is still grounded in speech and persuasion. This means that you can let 'er rip in the debate round, but you still need to appropriately communicate and persuade me. This is what is required out there in the "real world". I think it is a mistake to allow communication that is barely understandable, behavior that is rude or just plain out of control. But, despite having said that, I don't want to see a lot of arguments about the other side not being fair, speaking too fast, or the like. Stick to the issues. Also, I am now in my 50s. Sometimes I struggle to keep up with you amazing debaters. So, think about being kind to me and slowing down when you read your tags and pause at other appropriate times.

If you don't properly sign post, I can't properly flow your arguments. If directly contesting an opponent's arguments, you should directly attach your argument to your opponent's through reference to their signposting and then create your own signposts (if you don't know what I mean by signposting, ask your coach or you can ask me at the beginning of the round). Tell me exactly where to put new arguments, overviews, underviews, etc. Please don't jump all around with your arguments. Make them in the appropriate place and move on.

Former CX debater in high school. Won a state championship. Qualified for nationals.

Did parlimentary debate and many other speech events in college. Did well.

Coming in with a blank slate, and generally looking for the best use of logic.

Most impressed by one of the hardest things: identifying and sorting through voting issues for me. I do not feel bound by the voting issues that you present, but ideally you are picking and highlighting the best arguments for your side and explaning why you should win. That is impressive, especially if logically you are on point.

My name is Jonathan Spencer. I would like to applaud you first and foremost for dedicating the time to such a useful and enriching activity. I am a proud member of generation X and don't believe in voting straight ticket in any election. I have a graduate degree from Westminster College of Utah and I work in the financial services sector. Some of the items I will be looking for when I am evaluating your round or event:

1-Preparation. Chance favors those who have spend the time to prepare and put in the hard work to have a successful round.

2-Passion. I want to be moved to feel why your point of view is relevant and valid even if I may disagree with you.

3-Decorum. Its important people are treated with respect and show validation even when a point of view is not in alignment with your own perspective.

4-Be concise. I am not counting words & I'm not overly sensitive to the time you use (however some judges may be).

5- Politics. It is not important to me what political slant you bring into your topic. As stated earlier I want to sense your passion and energy from your presentation. My assessment of you is not swayed by your political views and this does not factor into my evaluation. However I am very interested to learn & become informed from your perspective. Please do not alter your words or content by compromising yourself on the grounds of trying to pick up points by appealing to what political lenses you believe I want to hear.

I'm looking forward to hearing what you have worked so hard to prepare and eager to be a part of your adventure in your next round.

JS

wake 24 | law magnet 20

call me asya, like asia.

pls add me to the chain - asyadebates@gmail.com

be fun/funny/interesting, unless you’re not, then don’t be.

i’d rather watch debates i’m normally in (clash, k debates). i’d also rather be doing things that aren’t judging debates so don’t feel like it’s adapt or die if you wanna do plan things, just know i need more handholding on argument interaction.

defend what you say, hold people responsible for what they say. i’m not here to resolve your personal beef with someone, but i do find myself responsible for making sure this space is maximally safe.

“with high risk comes high reward, etc, etc” -- you win more the more you’re willing to try things you wouldn’t go for, and you can persuade me of most things (not ethnic genocide good, never ethnic genocide good).

i flow, but sometimes not very fast or well. if i’m judging you, assume that i’m in the camp of people who are literally writing down what you’re saying and not always the argument you’re making. i don’t suck at debate, i just have short term memory loss and don’t want to literally miss arguments you’re making.

i can’t flow when people are atrociously unclear, which is like saying “i can’t flow when the debaters are completely silent” because you are effectively saying nothing. i get being nervous though so i try as much as possible to not punish debaters for stuttering or anything else that people traditionally suggest makes someone a "bad speaker"

i’m unclear on why people try to resolve debates in their paradigm - if i could resolve a debate on my own, then i would ask you to send speech docs for the 1ac/1nc and get back to you in thirty.

argument specifics:

-convincing me fairness matters as anything more than an internal link will be difficult.

-if debated equally, i tend to err aff on framework.

-default offense-defense, technical concessions matter - unless someone says they don’t or another frame of evaluation

-won’t judge kick unless told to

-unless the negative is crushing framework, at best i default to weighing the non-idealized version of the plan in most aff v k debates (i.e. i’m unlikely to ‘moot’ the aff)

-don’t really follow docs to be honest, if i’m sus about clipping i certainly will (will dock speaks, won’t drop team unless the other team suggests it)

ask me questions about my paradigm, wake debate/the rks, or my rfd. disagreeing with me is fine, insulting me is not.

LD STUFF:

I evaluate debate like a policy debater that reads k's and read 'larp' or more traditional arguments in high school. I value really good thought out strategies over obfuscating the debate. Debate should be about substantive issues so it's easier to get me to reject the argument and not the team for theory.

please don't ask me for your speaks (uncomfortable), please set up an email chain (not fileshare)

if you need help preffing me, nate kruger gave me this guide:

k - 1

larp - 1

theory (topicality) - 1

phil - 4

tricks/theory - 5

thanks for 10 years and 100 tournaments of judging

:)

Debate History:

Juan Diego Catholic: 2011-2014 (1N/2A and 1A/2N)

Rowland Hall-St. Marks: 2014-2015 (1A/2N)

University of Michigan: 2015-2019 (1A/2N)

University of Kentucky: 2019-2020 (Assistant Coach)

Wake Forest University: Present (Assistant Coach)

*Please put me on the email chain: caitlinp96@gmail.com - NO POCKETBOXES OR WHATEVER PLEASE AND THANK YOU*

TL;DR: You do you, and I'll flow and judge accordingly. Make smart arguments, be yourself, and have fun. Ask questions if you have them post-round / time permits. I would rather you yell at me (with some degree of respect) and give me the chance to explain why you lost so that you can internalize it rather than you walk away pissed/upset without resolution. An argument = claim + warrant. You may not insert rehighlighted evidence into the record - you have to read it, debate is a communicative activity.

General thoughts: I enjoy debate immensely and I hope to foster that same enjoyment in every debate I judge. With that being said, you should debate how you like to debate and I’ll judge fairly. I will immediately drop a team and give zero speaks if you make this space hostile by making offensive remarks or arguments that make it unsafe for others in the round (to be judged at my discretion). Clipping accusations must have audio or some form of proof. Debaters do not necessarily have to stake the round on an ethics violation. I also believe that debaters need to start listening to each other's arguments more, not just flowing mindlessly - so many debates lose potential nuance and clash because debaters just talk past each other with vague references to the other team's arguments. I can't/won't vote on an argument about something that happened outside the debate. I have no way of falsifying any of this and it's not my role as a judge. This doesn't apply to new affs bad if both teams agree that the aff is new, but if it's a question of misdisclosure, I really wouldn't know what to do (stolen from DML and Goldschlag). *NOTE - if you use sexually explicit language or engage in sexually explicit performances in high school debates, you should strike me. If you think that what you're saying in the debate would not be acceptable to an administrator at a school to hear was said by a high school student to an adult, you should strike me. (stolen from Val)

General K thoughts:

- AT: Do you judge these debates/know what is happening? Yes, its basically all I judge anymore (mostly clash of civs)

- AT: Since you are familiar with our args, do we not have to do any explanation specific to the aff/neg args? No, you obviously need to explain things

- AT: Is it cool if I just read Michigan KM speeches I flowed off youtube? If you are reading typed out copies of someone else's speech, I'm going to want to vote against you and will probably be very grumpy. Debate is a chance for you to show off your skill and talent, not just copy someone's speech you once saw on youtube.

K (Negative) – enjoyable if done well. Make sure the links are specific to the case and cause an impact. Make sure that the alt does something to resolve those impacts and links as well as some aff offense OR have a framework that phases out aff offense and resolves yours. Assume I know nothing about your literature base. Try not to have longer than a 2-minute overview

K (Affirmative) / Framework – probably should have some relation to the resolution otherwise it's easy to be persuaded that by the interp that you need to talk about the resolution. Probably should take some sort of action to resolve whatever the aff is criticizing. I think FW debates are important to have because they force you to question why this space has value and/or what needs to change in said space. Negative teams should prove why the aff destroys fairness and why that is bad. Affirmative teams should have a robust reason why their aff is necessary to resolve certain impacts and why framework is bad. Both teams need a vision of what debate looks like if I sign my ballot aff or neg and why that vision is better than the other side’s. Fairness is an impact and is easily the one I'm most persuaded by, particularly if couched in terms of it being the only impact any individual ballot can solve AND being a question of simply who's model is most debatable (think competing interps).

T is distinct from Framework in these debates in so far as I believe that:

- T is a question of form, not content -- it is fundamentally content neutral because there can be any number of justifications beyond simply just the material consequences of hypothetical enactment for any number of topical affs

- Framework is more a question of why this particular resolution is educationally important to talk about and why the USfg is the essential actor for taking action over these questions

Case – Please, please, please debate the case. I don’t care if you are a K team or a policy team, the case is so important to debate. Most affs are terribly written and you could probably make most advantages have almost zero risk if you spent 15 minutes before round going through aff evidence. Zero risk exists.

CPs – Sure. Negative teams need to prove competition and why they are net beneficial to the aff. Affirmative needs to impact out solvency deficits and/or explain why the perm avoids the net benefit. Affs also must win some form of offense to outweigh a DA (solvency deficits, theory, impact turn to an internal nb/plank of the cp) otherwise I could be persuaded that the risk of neg offense outweighs a risk a da links to the cp, the perm solvency, etc.

DAs – Also love them. Negative teams should tell me the story of the DA through the block and the 2nr. Affirmative teams need to point out logical flaws in the DA and why the aff is a better option. Zero risk exists.

Politics – probably silly, but I’ll vote on it. I could vote on intrinsicness as terminal defense if debated well.

Topicality – You need a counter-interp to win reasonabilty on the aff. I default to competing interpretations if there is no other metric for evaluation.

Theory – the neg has been getting away with murder recently and its incredibly frustrating. Brief thoughts on specific args below:

- cps with a bunch of planks to fiat out of every possible solvency deficit with no solvency advocate = super bad

- 3+ condo with a bunch of conditional planks = bad

- cps that fiat things such as: "Pence and Trump resign peacefully after [x] date to avoid the link to the politics da", "Trump deletes all social media and never says anything bad about the action of the plan ever", "Trump/executive office/other actor decides never to backlash against the plan or attempt to circumvent it" = vomit emoji

- commissions cps = still cheating, but less bad than all the things above

- delay cps = boo

- consult cps = boo (idk if these exist on the immigration topic, but w/e)

- going for theory when you read a new aff = nah fam (with some exceptions)

- 2nr cps (yes this happened recently) = boo

- going for condo when they read 2 or less without conditional planks = boo

- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps for any perm

- theory probably does not outweigh T unless impacted very early, clearly, and in-depth

Bonus – Speaker Point Outline – I’ll try to follow this very closely (TOC is probably the exception because y'all should be speaking in the 28.5+ category):

(Note: I think this scale reflects general thoughts that are described in more detail in this: http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html - Thanks Regnier)

29.3 < (greater than 29.3) - Did almost everything I could ask for

29-29.3 – Very, very good

28.8 – 29 – Very good, still makes minor mistakes

28.5 – 28.7 – Pretty good speaker, very clear, probably needs some argument execution changes

28.3 – 28.5 – Good speaker, has some easily identifiable problems

28 – 28.3 – Average varsity policy debater

27-27.9 – Below average

27 > (less than 27) - You did something that was offensive / You didn’t make arguments.