Tabula Rasa: I always enjoy a good framework debate, but I am also partial to stock issues. I also enjoy some good impact calc.

I debated policy in high school from 2009-2012, so I'm a little rusty at judging; I appreciate debaters who cater to that. I am also new to virtual judging so that may affect how well I can understand you if your spreading is unclear. I will let you know if I cannot understand. Please signpost, if I get lost it hurts your case.

Feel free to ask any questions you may have. :D

Updated for NCFL.

Send speech docs to sendmeyourspeechdocs@gmail.com.

I evaluate judging issues in a specific order. If you win on a high priority issue, you win outright (i.e. you can win every stock issue but lose on a relatively minor theory issue because pre-fiat impacts are higher priority than stock issues to me). This order is:

1. Rule/Evidence Violations.

If you think the other team is doing this reference which specific rule they're breaking and where I can find it (i.e. this section of the UM, this part of the tournament invite) in speech as a theory arg. If a team just doesn't know what they're doing and makes a mistake I'll just drop them, only if you intentionally violate tournament procedure/NSDA rules will I tell the tournament director. That said, this has only ever been an issue once, so I don't anticipate it being a serious problem.

As a note: anything not specified in the NSDA's or tournament's rules as not kosher is free game. I am not married to the resolution or typical procedure.

2. Being Offensive or Rude.

I will drop teams who are racist, sexist, homophobic or use ad hominem attacks. Being assertive, passive aggressive, or otherwise debating well is fine. I've never had an issue with this and I hope I never will. This comes after rule/evidence violations because it's specific to my paradigm (though it shouldn't be), whereas rule/evidence violations are not.

3. Pre-Fiat Impacts

Theory, some Ks, some topicality, and other arguments that actually affect you as competitors or me as a judge come before case arguments. Addressing real-world consequences is more important than the theoretical, post-fiat counterfactual, aff world, or status quo.

4. Stock Issues/Weighing Impacts

Per usual. Please directly weigh impacts in final speeches.

Misc. Things:

- 10 sec grace on speeches. No grace on cross, just stop when it finishes.

- What you say in cross examination doesn't affect the ballot so I will be on twitter. If something said in cross has bearing on the ballot, bring it up in speech.

- You don't need to run prep to find cards, but if you call for cards use your own prep when reading them.

- 27.5 is default speaker points, adjusted up or down based on performance (N/A for NCFL).

- Willing to discuss the round in person after the fact though I will probably not remember what happened. (N/A with online tournaments)

PF:

- Aff and neg both have burden of proof. Aff advocates for the resolution, neg for the squo or the counterfactual, depending on the resolution.

- Focus on quantifiable impacts but don't be ridiculous. I'm not a big fan of extinction-level impact link chains in PF. Not to say that you can't go this route, but I find that most who do don't offer convincing evidence. This is PF, not policy.

- Expecting the 2nd speaking team to defend in rebuttal puts an unbalanced burden on them. 1st speaker doesn't have to defend in rebuttal, so 2nd speaker doesn't either. Kudos and speaks if you do though.

- You don't need a framework unless your voters are weird. My default framework is pretty much just CBA/impact calc/util/whatever you want to call it. Don't waste time setting up something like that as a framework unless you're defending against a weird framework.

- If it's in FF, it better be in summary.

LD:

- In my opinion: value is why I care, criterion is how you access value, contentions are basically sub points under the contention of your value, and if they don't link to the value I am a lot less likely to vote for you. To win you need to prove why I prefer your value but also show that the resolution links to that value with a quantifiable impact. I didn't do much LD, so sorry if this is weird.

- B/c I did PF I favor quantifiable impacts, so be sure to explain why I care with moral arguments.

Policy:

- I cannot understand spreading, but I can follow a well-formatted speech doc. You can go as fast as you want as long as you're following the document you shared. Without a speech doc the fastest I can flow is briskly-paced PF.

- Topicality is just the worst. It should be a last resort, not a knee-jerk reaction. I'll pretty rarely vote on t.

- Tag team cross is fine.

- Unless the tournament specifies otherwise you have 8 minutes prep (N/A for NCFL, its 6).

- Neg can fiat CPs subject to the same limitations that aff has for plan fiat. You can run theory to change my mind here if you wanna.

Congress:

- I hate when speeches just rehash other people's arguments. Please bring up something original or specifically address opposing points. This should go without saying, apparently it doesn't.

- Less convinced by anecdotes and stories than the average judge, but an short anecdote paired with and supported by statistics is a sweet spot.

I am more traditional. I enjoy statistics from reputable sources that support your case. I judge based on who persuades me to their side. I prefer you not to spread. I can follow most of your case if you spread, but i have had people go to fast and they only way I understood their case was on cross ex. If i cannot understand you it will be hard for you to win. I have been judging speech and debate events for 7-8 years and have judged most events.

I am like a debate dinosaur. Maybe not a dinosaur, but a majestic unicorn that wants to be understood. I have been doing this activity since 1991 and I have literally done/coached every event. I believe that this is a community and we should all treat each other with respect.

I can flow. My skills are not what they used to be, but I can flow. Please be super clear in your organization and if I can't understand you, I will let you know. I am good with theory and enjoy it when done well. I was debating in college when critical arguments became widespread. I understand them and value them. I don't have argument preference...do what makes you happy and pick a strategy that you thing you can win with. Please be clear with your decision calculus.

Debate:

I would rather hear a slow, clear argument than a rapid argument that is hard to follow. Chart a path that makes it easy for me to flow your arguments through.

Persuade me with reasoning, weighing, and any arguments you were able to turn to your benefit. Don't use circular reasoning or tautologies ("it's true because it's true"); instead, show evidence for your claim and attach impacts -- otherwise, I can't see a path to voting for you.

Don't try to win by criticizing the other team with minor points of order; wonky theory or K arguments will only make the round harder for me to discern. Strong reasoning, evidence, weighing, and persuasion are key for me. Still, if the other team does something that warrants mention, please do so as it could tip the scales in your favor. And I'm a big fan of Aristotle's appeals, but keep it all in balance. I won't be persuaded by a charismatic argument that doesn't have support or impacts.

For me, tech>truth, pretty much every time. However, see my note above about points of order; if you choose to critique the other team, I will judge that critique based on the merits of your argument, not your detailed knowledge of how policy debate works. Same goes for DAs and counterplans. It all comes down to clarity, reasoning, evidence, weighing, and who can convince me that their policy is best, using all the techniques of good flow debaters.

Finally, extend and weigh. If you drop a contested argument, then I'll drop it as well. Same with an uncontested argument; it flows through.

I typically don't evaluate cross, and I will reduce speaks for aggressive behavior.

Speech:

Eye contact. Eye contact. Eye contact. Try not to trail words; be confident of your delivery, and move with purpose. Show some passion if appropriate but also vary your voice dynamics. Be memorable but do not do this at the expense of a cohesive, well-styled delivery.

You can run any argumentation (i.e. progressive argumentation is great) as long as it is respectful towards your opponent.

If you run a kritik, I expect an alternative to prove how neg can solve.

I don't flow cross, and if speed/audio quality is an issue I will address it right away for the clarity and fairness of the round.

Good luck, and have fun!

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.

Please just have a nice little case debate :(

Signpost or it didn't happen;

Arguments have to be in summary and final focus;

Consider slowing down a little for my tired old ears;

Err silly and down to earth over perceptually dominant;

Weighing is very important and shouldbe evidence-based;

It's okay to answer a theory shell then go for substance. Encouraged, even;

And meet NSDA rules for evidence or strike me. You have to have a cut card at a minimum.

Put me on the email chain and title it something logical: gavinslittledebatesidehustle@gmail.com.

Email: coachmogab@gmail.com

Policy -

Basic rules and considerations:

Obviously the first priority is clash. I want responsive arguments. I'm fine with speed and will say clear if you are not understandable. This being said, I haven't been coaching this year so I may be a little slower listening than normal. Flashing isn't prep within reason. I am not a fan of judge intervention on the rfd, if there is a flaw in their argument or something they missed I won't vote on it unless it's pointed out. Any specific questions you have I'll answer before the round.

Kritiks and Theory:

I was all about the kritik/critical side of debate when I was competing, I think it makes for a more interesting round IF it is run well. That being said, I still have a pretty normal threshold on kritiks, I'm not going to lean towards your side just because you have one. I'm pretty familiar with a wide area of literature as far as ks go, so if you have a K you can't run against most judges, go for it!!!

I'm good with theory, but it needs to have a reason for being brought up and it needs to be articulated well. I don't like it when theory is run as an obvious time skew, it makes the argument more illegitimate than it already is. Please please please do the fw debate well on the aff and the neg if framework is present in the round at all. Apriori voters will obviously be considered first.

Counterplans and Disads:

As far as DAs go, make sure there is a good link and internal link explanation. I prefer slightly smaller impacts than nuc war because, let's be honest, not super probable most of the time unless you have a really really good miscalc scenario or something similar. I'll still evaluate DAs that have nuc impacts fairly however. Make sure you're weighing the net benefit against the case early and often.

On Case

Make sure to keep extending/cross-applying/overviewing case throughout the round. This is another one that seems really easy. It's hard for me to vote aff if case isn't ever discussed. Other than that, your aff is your choice. I'm somewhat partial to critical affs if they have good solvency. But again, I won't vote on it just because you run it.

Traditional Debate

I love traditional debate IF IT’S UNIQUE and/or specific. If it’s not the clash should be really really really good as you'll be debating the core of the topic. Don't you dare read the same tags back at each other for the whole round. Clash is the precursor to analysis, which you should be doing after the first couple speeches.