1. I ask that your argument be specifically related to the resolution for me to consider it as a strong case. If your points, contentions, etc., could equally be applied to a hundred other resolutions, I will generally consider you to be running a generic argument and to not have done any specific research on the resolution at hand. Of course, you are welcome to run such general contentions; I am just less likely to see them as strong points if they're not specific to the resolution.

2. Likewise, you are welcome to speak too fast and get out of breath if you feel it will help you make your case. However, I don't have your notes and it's neither my job nor your opponent's job to decipher what you are saying. So, if I or your opponent can't make out what you're saying due to speed, that's on you. If you can combine speed and clarity, I'm fine, but I have found that combination is generally rare.

3. In LD, I would prefer to see contentions clearly tied back to values etc. as much as possible.

In short: keep contentions specific to the resolution at hand as much as possible, make clear the relation of contentions to values, and speak clearly.

First the easy stuff: I was a four-year, state- and national-qualifying competitor in multiple events in high school; an assistant coach for several years after that; and have judged off and on for another decade on top of that. So, don't be afraid to use whatever tactics/speed/style you wish; I promise you won't fly over my head.

That experience has given me enough time debate-adjacent to see it evolve in multiple ways; it is and should be an evolving activity/game/event/art-form/whatever. In service to that view, I will be doing my absolute best to let the round speak for itself. I will do my best not to come into the round with preconceived notions of what debate ought to be -- and 'what debate ought to be' will always be an issue up for debate within the round itself. What I really want is clash in the debate -- what the sides seem to mutually agree is important, I'll take as important.

The above is barely helpful though, isn't it? It kind of sounds like I'm protesting that I have no biases, which is not really true for anyone, let alone me. So here's a list of things I like a lot and things I like less:

Things I like a lot:

Well-expanded topicality arguments with a lot of ink on the standards flow

Nitty politics impacts

LD rounds with a lot of philosophy wonk talk

Incisive but respectful cross-examination

Small, realistic impact stories

Analysis of impacts at the ethical level

Things I don't like as much:

When topicality standards boil down to just "but how are we supposed to winnnnnnnnn?" I should have reasons to prefer your interpretation other than to throw you a bone.

A bunch of useless definitions at the top of an LD case. This is just an annoying vestige of a much older form of debate.

Discourse impacts asserting that my ballot itself changes the world somehow - I know this is popular now but I've always had trouble with this particular suspension of disbelief.

Expansive Neg fiat - I come in assuming that all neg positions are, fundamentally, disadvantages: i.e. the Link is that if we do Plan, we can't do Counterplan. If counterplan has zero chance of happening in the real world, the DA at it's heart is non-unique. Negs should take a grounded advocacy or they are, to me, vulnerable to attacks on their fiat power.

gEt OfF tHe RoCk

When teams collectively decide to just refer to "The McGilligan Card" or whatever the case may be over and over again without periodically reminding me where to find the McGilligan card on my flow and what it says. I'm a bit hard of hearing and names are the one thing I have a hard time catching right off the bat, so refer to a card solely by author name at your peril.

Hopefully these examples are enough to give you a feel of the kinds of biases I might be subject to. I highly encourage you to ask any specific questions you may have before the round.

I have been a coach in Idaho since 2013 with students competing in Public Forum, Lincoln Douglas and Policy style debate. In general I prefer clear articulation, solid logic, and in depth analysis. I will add style specific details below.

Public Forum

I believe that public forum should remain the most accessible format of debate and should strive to avoid over reliance on Debate Theory or jargon. I prefer a few in depth and detailed arguments over a larger quantity of superficial arguments. Final Focus should include key voters on both sides.

Lincoln Douglas

I am on the progressive side of traditional for LD debate. I believe the value debate is the key to Lincoln Douglas debate and expect clash on the value level as well as the argument level. I like the inclusion of philosophical arguments and may vote only on philosophy if it is warranted. I enjoy definition and theory debate but you'll have to work very hard to get me to vote on a K.

Policy

I am a traditionalist in Policy debate. I vote almost exclusively on the stock issues, I believe that the Affirmative must sufficiently address each of the major stock issues and have never voted on a kritical Aff. I believe T is a voter, but that the default assumption is that the Aff is topical. I don't like topical CP's and you will have to work pretty hard to get me to vote on a K. I default to Condo Bad so the neg will need to justify any conditional positions. I am not a fan of high speed "spreading" or any rate of speed which inhibits clarity of arguments or speech. I want to be able to flow the warrants and links as well as taglines and impacts.

The paradigm with which I use to judge is primarily based on the educational value of any given round. What this means in practice for instance is that I view the institution of "spreading" to be antithetical to the educational goals of a round. I believe the goal of debate ought in major part to be to demonstrate and hone one's ability to both articulate themselves such as to be easily understood and to create and defend arguments. My preference always is depth over breadth, and to that end, I prefer students to spend time making cogent arguments rather than simply rehashing evidence that has already been presented. If a debater is capable of competently pointing out logical inconsistencies or holes in their opponent's arguments with recourse even entirely to pure analysis, this will almost guarantee a victory against an opponent who is only capable of reading large amounts of evidence. As far as critiques of the fundamental conceptual structure within which the debate topic is contextualized go, I am biased against these as there are theoretically infinite potential means of critiquing the assumptions made in framing a given question in debate, and therefore it is impossible and unreasonable to ask a debater to be prepared to counter all of them. This is to say that a debate topic is intrinsically a tool for limiting the domain of argumentation in a given round and to attempt to overly delimit that scope of argumentation is to put an unfair burden on one's opponent. If this argument is coherently made against an opponent running a critique, I will most likely accept it as at least borderline round-winning unless the person running the critique proves highly capable of dealing with this line of argumentation.

https://judgephilosophies.wikispaces.com/Fitzgerald,+Michael

Michael Fitzgerald
Kamiak High School 2007
University of WA BA Political Science 2011

---

Cross Examination Debate Paradigm

I'm a tabula rasa judge with respect to the arguments that I will listen to.

It is important to me that I see an obvious progression on the flow within the round given the arguments made during constructive speeches and questions asked and answers given during cross examination.

Having clear voting issues articulated during rebuttal speeches is more advantageous than not, and having clear ways to comparatively weigh various arguments within the round will help to narrow the bounds for how I arrive at my reason for decision.

I flow the round the best I can, if the speaking is unclear then I will say clear. If I have to say clear a second time speaks will be reduced by a half point. If I have to say clear a third time (this is very rare) then I will grant one less speaker point.

If you have any questions for further clarification of my paradigm it's important that you ask those questions prior to the beginning of the first constructive speech. After that point it is unlikely that I will answer any further questions with respect to my paradigm.

Anything that I do not understand with respect to clarity will not count as an argument on my flow, so it is advantageous to consider slowing down to such a degree that it is clear to me should I state the word clear during a speech.

---

UPDATED LD Paradigm for the 2021 Season.

I was 4A State Champion in LD(WA) in 2006 and a 4A Semi-finalist for LD at State 2007. Most of my experience as a competitor was with Lincoln Douglas debate although I did compete as a policy debater for a year and so I am familiar with policy debate jargon.

Summary of my paradigm:

Speaking quickly is fine, I will say clear if you are not clear to me.

Theory is fine, I default reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given an articulated justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation that is insufficiently contested, then that increases the likelihood I will vote for a competing interpretation. Unique frameworks and cases are fine (policy maker, etcetera), debate is ultimately your game.

I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate. Cross examination IS important, and I do reward concessions made in cross examination as arguments that a debater can't just avoid having said.

I disclose if the tournament says I have to, or if both debaters are fine with disclosure and the tournament allows disclosure. I generally do not disclose if the tournament asks judges not to disclose.

The key to my paradigm is that the more specific your questions about what my paradigm is, the better my answers that I can provide for how I'll adjudicate the round.

The longer version:

Speaking: Clarity over quantity. Quality over quantity. Speed is just fine if you are clear, but I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, etc the entire debate. Pitch matters, if I can't hear you I can't flow you. Excessive swearing will result in lower speaker points.

Theory debate:
Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is pretty high. If I feel like a negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 3 independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a team of people with PhD's to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory on it, I'll probably vote Affirmative.

Cross Examination:
I'm fine with flex prep. Cross examination should be fair. Cross examination concessions are binding, so own what you say in cross examination and play the game fairly.

--- Speaking: The same rules for clarity always apply- if I don’t understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28.
You will lose speaker points if you:
1. Use an excess of swearing. If swearing is in a card, that’s allowed within reason. I understand some Kritiks require its use as a matter of discourse, but outside of carded evidence I absolutely do not condone the use of language that would be considered offensive speaking in public considering debate is an academic and public speaking competition.
2. Are found to be generally disrespectful to either myself as the judge or to your opponent. This will be very obvious, as I will tell you that you were extremely disrespectful after round.

You can generally run any type of argument you want in front of me. I generally believe that for traditional LD debate that all affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win (value/criterion), and that the negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation- the burden on either side is different. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently. I’ll listen to a Kritik. The worse the Kritik, the more susceptible I’ll be to good theory on why Ks are bad for debate.

Kritiks that in some way are related to the resolution (instead of a kritik you could run on any topic) are definitely the kind I would be more sympathetic to listening to and potentially voting for.

When I see a good standards debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks really matters in my adjudication of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I don’t like blippy debate. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. In terms of priorities, there are very few arguments I would actually consider a priori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins standards (whichever one they decide to go for), and has a compelling round story. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear link story, replete with warrants and weighted impacts, is the best route to take for my ballot.
I approach judging like a job, and to that end I am very thorough for how I will judge the debate round. I will flow everything that goes on in round, I make notations on my flows and I keep a very good record of rounds.

If something is just straight up factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, don’t expect to win it as an argument.

I'll clarify my paradigm upon request, my default this season has generally been tabula rasa. It's also important to have articulated voting issues during rebuttals.

Congressional Debate Paradigm

I look to several factors to determine what are the best speeches for Congressional Debate when I am adjudicating this event.

To decide the best competitor with respect to speeches I look to speech quality and I consider total number of speeches with respect to if recency is utilized strategically to deliver speeches when there is an opportunity to speak. The more speeches given that are consistently of high quality the more likely that I rank that competitor higher overall.

With respect to speech quality the speeches I tend to give 5 or 6 to have a few important elements. First is the use of evidence. For evidence I am listening closely to if it is primary or secondary evidence, and I'm also carefully listening for citation of evidence to qualify the importance of the evidence with respect to the chosen topic of discussion.

Second is speaking delivery. I'm carefully listening to see if speaking time is used to effectively communicate with the audience. Specifically I'm listening for the use of the word uh, um, overuse of the word like, and also if there's significant amounts of unnecessary pausing during speeches (3-5 seconds). I'm also carefully listening for if there's unnecessary repetition of words. In terms of more advanced speaking delivery things I'm carefully listening for, there's word choice, syntax, metaphor and simile and whether there's an effort being made with respect to vocal dynamics. A speech that is good but monotonous might be ranked 5 while a speech that is of similar quality and employs the use of vocal dynamics to effectively communicate with the audience would likely be ranked 6 instead, for example.

Third is organization. I'm carefully listening to see if the speech is organized in such a way that it effectively advocates for the chosen side to speak on. A speech organized well generally has an introduction or thesis to explain what the speech is discussing, has several distinct arguments, and some kind of conclusion to establish why the speech is being given to affirm or negate the legislation.

For evaluating questions with respect to deciding the best competitor there's two areas of decision happening when I judge Congressional Debate.

Question asking. For question asking I'm carefully listening to see if the question is a clarifying question or if it is one that advances the debate for the chosen side of the questioner or challenges arguments that were made by the questioned. I'm also making an effort to consider volume of questions with respect to participation for the competition. Meaning that if a competitor gives good speeches and consistently asks effective questions when the opportunity is afforded to them to do so then that competitor will likely rank higher than competitors that give good speeches but ask a lot less or no questions.

Question answering. For question answering the important things I'm carefully listening for is if there's an actual answer given or a declination to give an answer. I'm also listening to see if the answer advocates for the chosen side to speak on with respect to the legislation, and if it effectively responds to the question asked.

---

I did Congress and LD for 3 years.

For LD:

- I focus heavily on the flow and the framework debate.

- Please signpost clearly, even if that means taking a pause before reading your tag-lines.

- Framework debate is really important to me in an LD debate, so make sure to emphasize the importance of your Value and Value Criterion

- I am okay with speed, if you are spreading please send a copy of your case

This is my first time judging public forum. I try to not be biased.

Respect your opponents and be polite to each other.

Speak slowly and clearly.

I will dock speaker points if you cut anyone off, or are condescending.

I stop listening when you go over time.

Have fun!

EXPERIENCE

I competed in Policy (among other events) from 2006 to 2010 and in British Parliamentary at the college level from 2010 to 2014. I've been judging since then, and have been running the debate programs at a number of schools since 2016. Please read the applicable paradigm categorized by format below:

POLICY

I'm a Stock Issues judge! My belief is that we're here to debate a policy option, not discuss external advocacy.

Generally not in favor of the K. If a team chooses to run one with me, provide a clear weighing mechanism as to why I should prefer the K over the policy issue we're actually here to debate.

I do not look upon Performance cases favorably. If you want to pull that stunt and expect to win, go do Oratory.

I'm able to understand speed just fine, but prefer clear articulation. Pitching your voice up while continuing to read at the same speed is not spreading.

I highly value clash and a weighing mechanism in the round, and strongly encourage analysis on arguments made. I work to avoid judge intervention if at all possible, unless there is clear abuse of the debate format or both teams have failed to provide effective weighing mechanisms. Don't just give me arguments and expect me to do the math; prove to me that you've won the argument, and then demonstrate how that means you've won the round.

I have a deep hatred of disclosure theory. I expect teams that I judge to be able to respond and adapt to new arguments in-round instead of whining about how they didn't know the 1AC or 1NC ahead of time. If you want to run this, I have an exceedingly high threshold for proving abuse.

Please do not assume that I'm reading along in the doc with you. Debate's meant to be about oral communication, and only stuff that's actually said in round makes it into my flow. If I request the doc, it's purely for verification needs in case there's a challenge.

Finally, I have low tolerance for tech issues. I've been doing this since laptops first came onto the debate scene, and I've never seen computers crash or "crash" more consistently than at debate tournaments in the middle of a round. If there are persistent issues relating to files being ready or shareable, I may offer you a flash drive if I have one for a manual transfer, but I also reserve the right to factor that into my decision if it's a severe issue and extending the round beyond a reasonable point.


LINCOLN-DOUGLAS

I am a firm believer in traditional LD debate. LD was designed around Value-Criterion debate of the philosophical implications of a resolution, and I'm very happy to see debates of this nature. If you want to run a Plan, CP, or any variation of that, I would like to suggest 3 options for you: Go do Policy, have your coach strike me, or hope for a different judge.

I am not a fan of Kritiks, but haven't been shy about voting for them in the past when they're well-impacted and developed with a competitive alt. You're going to have to do some serious work if you want to try and get me to prefer the K, but it's certainly possible. A K without an alternative is just whining.

No speed. A conversational speaking rate is more than adequate if you've done your homework and refined your case.

Performance/meme cases will result in swift and appalling reprisals in your speaker points, even in the unlikely event that you win the round. A low-point win is virtually inevitable in that case, and indicates that your opponent has somehow become incapacitated during the round and was unable to gurgle a response.

Adaptation to your audience is one of the most basic and essential factors in debate, and public speaking in general. Please keep that in mind when formulating your strategy for the round.

PUBLIC FORUM

I strongly prefer traditional public forum debate. Do not treat this like Policy Lite. PF was intended to be accessible to the layperson, and I take that seriously. Go do Policy if you want to use jargon, run plans or kritiks, or spread. If I hear a plan text, it's likely that I'll be signing my ballot right there and then.

In order to earn the ballot from me, focus on making clear, well-articulated arguments that have appropriate supporting evidence. Remember to tell me why I should prefer your evidence/points over your opponent's. Make sure your advocacy is continually supported through the round, and give me a good summary at the end to show why you've won.

WORLDS DEBATE

Traditional Worlds adjudication; please remember which format you're competing in. Do not spread. I voted down a team in Triple Octafinals at 2018 Nationals for it.

I am a coach (Washington) with most of my skills and training in speech. My high school events (Oregon and Montana) were oratory and interps. When it comes to debate, I am not as experienced though I have been judging it regularly at smaller local tournaments. I have been coaching for over 5 years and attended nationals 3 times. I did judge Big Questions at nationals one year.

I prefer traditional LD and a conversational speaking pace. This is a values debate so you should focus on convincing me that your value is more applicable and that your criterion uphold it better than the opponents. It isn't about how many points you win, but winning the most important ones. If you can show that your side also upholds your opponents value- even better.

Coming from the speech side of things, I appreciate clear roadmaps and organization and speaking skills. Make me want to keep listening (or at least not want to stop). You can have a personality.

I am not a fan of tricks or trying to make it so there's nothing your opponent can really argue against. I want to see both sides being able to bring good ideas and counter things their opponents says. I want this to be a tough decision. Respect your opponents and me and have fun.

There was a time in which I had a four word paradigm, but then things happened and now it comes with a disclaimer:

If you are racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, or anything of the sort you will lose my ballot on the spot. That being said - Don't kill each other.

I don't appreciate spreading. If I can't understand what you're saying because you're speaking so quickly, I won't be persuaded by it.

Second year judge.

I’m the head coach of the Mount Vernon HS Debate Team (WA).

I did policy debate in HS very, very long ago - but I’m not a traditionalist. (Bring on the progressive LD arguments-- I will listen to them, unlike my daughter, Peri, who is such a traditional LD'er.)

Add me to the email chain: kkirkpatrick@mvsd320.org

Please don’t be racist, homophobic, etc. I like sassy, aggressive debaters who enjoy what they do but dislike sullen, mean students who don't really care-- an unpleasant attitude will damage your speaker points.

Generally,

Speed: Speed hasn't been a problem but I don't tell you if I need you to be more clear-- I feel it's your job to adapt. If you don't see me typing, you probably want to slow down. I work in tabroom in WA state an awful lot, so my flowing has slowed. Please take that into consideration.

Tech = Truth: I’ll probably end up leaning more tech, but I won’t vote for weak arguments that are just blatantly untrue in the round whether or not your opponents call it out.

Arguments:

I prefer a strong, developed NEG strategy instead of running a myriad of random positions.

I love it when debaters run unique arguments that they truly believe and offer really high speaker points for this. (I'm not inclined to give high speaks, though.)

Any arguments that aren’t on here, assume neutrality.

Do like and will vote on:

T - I love a well-developed T battle but rarely hear one. I don't like reasonability as a standard-- it's lazy, do the work.

Ks - I like debaters who truly believe in the positions they’re running. I like critical argumentation but if you choose to run an alt of "embrace poetry" or "reject all written text", you had better fully embrace it. I’m in touch with most literature, but I need a lot of explanation from either side as to why you should win it in the final rebuttals.

Don’t like but will vote on if won:

“Debate Bad” - I DO NOT LIKE "Debate is Futile" arguments. Please don't tell me what we are doing has no point. I will listen to your analysis. I may even have to vote for it once in a while. But, it is not my preference. Want a happy judge? Don't tell me that how we are spending another weekend of our lives is wasting our time.

Very, very, very... VERY traditional LD - if you are reading an essay case, I am not the judge for you.

Not a huge fan of disclosure theory-- best to skip this.

Don’t like and won’t vote on:

Tricks.

I did LD for two years my junior and senior year of high school, so I'm quite comfortable with a lot of things thrown around in the round. I was more of a traditional debater, so progressive debate is a little out of my scope. So long as it is reasonable and you use it effectively then I am okay with it, just let me know what you're doing and why.

I'm not particularly picky on a lot of things, but I like to hear backing for your warrants and evidence brought to the table. Our thought processes are not the same, and I might not draw the same conclusions as you are. That leaves it up to you to communicate with me the importance of what you are saying.

That being said, it's your round and I'll let you pull what techniques you want in terms of nontraditional debate styles. However, do not abuse this and confuse your opponent purposely so they don't have a chance to argue. Most often it will leave me confused as well and will only work against you. Don't put words in your opponent's mouth, be respectful of each other and each other's time, and make sure to take a breather when you stumble over words. I prefer a calm, collected speech rather than a rushed one where you try to fit in as many things as possible at the cost of my ability to understand you.

I am a scientific individual, I am listening for credible facts, quotes, sources and empirical evidence.

Be knowledgeable on the topic, if a question is asked I expect some type of answer, not "I don't know".

Presentation of your argument(s) is a factor as well, your job is to persuade me to vote with you. Congress specifically, don't just read your speech, make eye contact and let us hear your passion and research that you've completed.

Elaborate on the impacts using the 5 Ws (who, what, when, where and why).

I've been an assistant coach at Ferris High School for four years now. I've coached and judged for Ferris at the local, state, and national level.

Intro:

Tech over truth. Speed is great, I've never had to clear anyone. I don't want to intervene so please do enough work to justify a vote for you (see below, this isn't a problem in most high level debates but if there is heavy framework argumentation in the debate it will be like a breath of fresh air for me). I've voted on Policy, Theory and Kritikal arguments in the past. I like CX debate. I judge because I enjoy the game. Flashing isn't prep but please don't spend too long doing it, a timer should be running for as much time as possible during a debate to preserve fairness and for the good of the tournament schedule. I try to be as attentive as possible so if you have any questions or concerns please let me know before the round starts.

Paradigm proper:

I know that the paradigm so far has been pretty non-specific and not really that helpful but I try to be as much as a blank slate as possible. When it comes to my actual biases, I'm not overly fond of generic procedurals or any arguments that could be described as gimmicky by someone reasonably acquainted with CX. That doesn't mean I won't vote on a procedural but I would probably be more sympathetic towards arguments made against a procedural so long as there isn't a blatant warrant for the procedural to be read.

I'm not particularly tied to any philosophy when it comes to how I should make my decision or what the ballot signifies. Disturbingly often, I'm frustrated by the lack of framework arguments made in rounds and the general lack of instruction about my role is, what my ballot signifies, and what I should be doing when I make my decision. In those sorts of rounds, I'm usually left to make a decision about what I should value most in the debate which is uncomfortable and leaves room for "judging errors" if the framework I was presumed to have assumed but wasn't told to take wasn't taken. I understand that my paradigm should describe the framework that I bring to a round before any arguments have been made, but I am generally apathetic towards most arguments when presented in the abstract. It isn't my job to come to the debate with a well built schema of what should and shouldn't be valued (that is what impact calc and framework arguments are for). In the absence of framework my decision is based off of what arguments I think would be most easily defended in an rfd.

In the unfortunate absence of any framing:

In the absence of any framing to go off of, I suppose I am usually most swayed by the biggest impacts in the round, as most judges are. Those impacts most usually come from policy arguments but can also stem from kritikal arguments as well. I think that a lot of time in rounds is wasted on the link debate, at least in my debate community, which leads to frankly boring debates with excessive defense. I don't vote on defense, there is no reason to (not linking to the negative is not a reason to vote affirmative, it's at best neutral). I like offense heavy debates with well developed off case positions from the negative and well made affirmatives.

Round operation:

My flow is really dense. I write down as much as I am physically able to in every speech. I think that email chains are nice and I appreciate being sent cases. I keep time and will stop speeches that go over time with some leniency. I still encourage everyone to keep track of time within the debate to ensure that everyone is accountable. You can address me as judge, I don't like being referred to directly in a debate round because it breaks my emersion and is at best a waste of time to try to get my attention/ add emphasis to a point when I am already writing down what you are saying. Outside of the round Kyle is fine.

Preparing for a round where I am judge:

Do not fret over anything I said in the sections above. The biggest concern of mine that I bring to a round before anything has been said is the tournament schedule. Please arrive on time. When considering what to run in front of me please consider what would be the most strategic answers to your opponents case. Be polite and respectful to all parties involved. I want to have a pleasant time.

But most importantly of all,

Follow Your Heart.

My name is Carlos Santos (He/Him/His), I debated in Spokane briefly at Lewis and Clark High School and would consider myself closer to lay than experienced as a judge (though I am learning!). I am the coach for North Central High School and this will be my second year back in the debate circuit. While I am more familiar with traditional debate styles, I am open to progressive debating and do my best to view unfamiliar debate styles impartially.

General: Time limits are to be followed, speaker points are not debatable, self-timing is acceptable.

Policy/LARP – Policy/LARP arguments are fine but avoid contrived scenarios.

K - K aff should be able to provide contextual answers to framework. K affs should have a clear advocacy, whether that be enacted or embodied through performance or advocating a philosophical re-orientation towards/away from the resolution. If you're moving away from the resolution, you need an embedded critique of the resolution - this will give you a large leg up in front of me on the t-framework debate – vague arguments on oppression/racism/capitalism without clear structural analysis and coherent theories of power make it difficult to evaluate within the round.

1 NC K - When using Kritik in the 1NC, you should be able to clearly shift the burden of addressing the underlying issues of the debate to the affirmative. I do not mind at all being asked to consider assumptions I have made regarding the framework of the debate.

Framework: Provide clear structure in framework debate – be sure to elaborate on how I (as the judge) should be interpreting the rules within the round as well as how the round should be judged and provide sound reasoning for this interpretation.

CP – Counterplan should provide a reasonable alternate course of action with a net benefit over the plan – avoid contrived scenarios with unclear net benefits. Your text should be clear in stating your advocacy. Elaborate on how the counterplan is competitive to the plan and provide a net benefit to the counterplan.

DA – disad should operate with a clear link to the plan, please provide evidence and have a clear impact. Because DA impact should be considerable, provide multiple links. Long link chains are acceptable as long as they all relate back to your claim. Impact should be broad and clearly outweigh the affirmative, turn case, or at least nullify the 1AC advantage(s). Impact turns are challenging to do well and inoffensively. Use them only if you are certain it will be effective.

Performance – Performance can be an effective way to communicate narratives that operate outside of the dominant cultural narrative, but make sure the impact is carried beyond the 1AC. Use it as a connection between each part of the round.

T – I have no issue with topicality debates and aff should be prepared to defend against with a clear, delineated counter-interpretation. I am fine with theory debates – just make sure your interpretation is clear and provide a reason for me to give you the ballot or drop the argument

As a debate judge, I value a few things:

-Signposting: Please tell me where you are at in the flow to assist in my ability to accurately judge the round. This will also be extra powerful in points of clash -- show me where your cases are in direct contention with one another and why your side should be preferred.

-Cards/Evidence: I get that evidence matters in a debate round. I honestly don't place a lot of value in a lot of a round being focused on when an article was published or when a study was conducted ... like I get that it matters and can be important to a round, but I much so value your wholistic arguments and ideas in your case over niche disputes on sources.

-Impacts: By making your impacts clear and concise, I am better able to understand the most important/essential elements of your argument.

-Voters: By the end of the round, you should be able to tell me why you won the round.

At the end of the day, I am not a very picky judge! I want to see you do what you do best.

Just be sure to speak well and speak clearly, I don't particularly enjoy tricky or slippery cases but if you pull it off, good for you!

If you are a bad speaker with a fantastic case, it's possible to win a round because debate is not simply about being a good researcher but a good presenter as well. In other words, quality over quantity, and I am not a fan of speed, speaking at a conversational pace and being able to debate is my favorite! Other than that, just have a fun time and good luck!

(Also if something is online, no worries, tech issues are super understandable and I'm very flexible)

My pronouns are they/them.
I'm a lay judge. (I did cx in high school, but have been judging pf, ld, and congo since 2018)

I don't like speed for online tournements, and I really like it if you give me voters and impacts

Be respectful and argue well.

Policy

I’ll start this off by saying that I don’t judge policy regularly because in my area I’m almost always working in Tab at a tournament; however, I have been a policy coach for over 20 years, so I am familiar with policy debate jargon and speed. It is important though that the speed doesn’t get in the way of the clarity and understanding of the arguments—if I can’t understand what you are saying, it won’t go on the flow. I prefer the tags to be slower so that I get the arguments on the flow correctly, but I rarely flow the names of the authors, so refer to the evidence by both the tag and author if you expect me to cross-apply or extend arguments on the flow.

I’m a true policymaker judge. I want to hear debate about the topic intended by the framers. I want to be able to weigh the end of the round by whether or not the Squo will be a better place post plan. Therefore, it is important to me that the Aff runs a case that is trying to solve the harms inherent in the resolution, and the negative should prove to me through the use of DAs and case attacks that the plan is a bad idea. In addition, the Aff must uphold the burdens by meeting the stock issues, so the negative is encouraged to run T if they believe that the Aff is not topical; however, the neg should not go for T unless there is a very clearly articulated and proven abuse story. The negative could choose to run a CP, but avoid getting into a serious theory debate by making it competitive.

I really hate theory debates, so try to avoid those things by running more substantial arguments. And while I’m on the topic of things I hate—I HATE Ks!!!!! I hate critical Affs and I certainly hate Negs who deflect from the true debate by running a K that takes the focus away from the merits of the Aff. I'm not saying that morality arguments aren't strong motivators, but they must be clearly applied to the resolution's intent--not just running the K because it's the only argument you want to discuss (aff or neg)

Best way to win my ballot is to stick to the Aff and its merits or weaknesses.

PF

I'm a flow judge, so whatever you want me to buy as a voter at the end, better be on the flow before the final focus. I'm a practical person, I like practical impacts. And with those practical impacts, I want to see quality evidence to back them up or to refute them. I want you to weigh the round for me by continually, in every speech, explaining why your arguments/impacts are better than your opponents. Also, I like strategy in the crossfire. Use your time to set up future arguments or catch your opponents in double binds. In addition, be nice! I do not want to see or hear rudeness during the round--debate should be about civil discourse, and as such, I expect to see that.

If you are in a rush please skim the bolded text for what is relevant to you, the not-bold text that follow is just the longer clarifying explanation for those that might want more details.

wasmith7899@gmail.com is my contact email for any other questions or if you need to add me to a potential link chain

Competed and learned all debate styles in high school.
Competed at NFL(now known as NSDA) Nationals in Congressional Speaking.

Was a high school assistant coach for 3 years. (Currently an unaffiliated judge)
Currently pursuing Bachelor degrees in: Communication, Early Childhood Development, and Psychology.

I do not flow cross-examination period. Meaning only the words spoken in a speech are noted on paper for my decision of the winner. I do listen though so, if you want a notable answer marked in my decision bring it up in your speech so it is on my flow(otherwise it 'didn't happen').

Speed - is no problem. If online I need camera on while spreading though- I have a much harder time keeping up with a case if I cannot read your lips while you're talking if you cannot have your camera on for any reason please slow down your speaking slightly and make sure to emphasize your tags. Standard SpReading rules: Slow for Tagline, Author, Date of evidence. Sign post occasionally. I will say "Clear" if I no long understand you.
I strongly encourage you time yourself. I keep silent Official Time unless told otherwise- but I am not very good at providing time signals while I am also flowing. . If you run out of time I allow approx 4 second grace periods to finish your sentence before I'll have to cut you off. If I am verbally cutting you off you have already gone over time and I will only flow 2-3 more words after the cut off. No new thoughts after time has elapsed. In questioning periods if time runs out with a question unanswered I would prefer a brief answer, but allow the debater to decline and move onto prep for the next speech if they so wish.
If you make personal attacks on your opponent's character, your speaker points will suffer significantly. It is rare but occassionally if you are too rude and lacking in decorum you can loose a round from that alone. (We all make mistakes, malicious intent vs a slip up is very obvious.)

I believe it is your debate round so you, the debater, determine the direction of the debate. I will listen to any type or style of arguments you want to run, simply explain why that is the most important thing to be looked towards in the round. I say I will listen but that does not mean you win just because your argument is unique. Whoever wins is whoever best explains and supports their claims, and refutes your opponents claims.

Tabula Rasa as much as I can be- knowing i have my own biases and experience that I try to leave at the door but isn't entirely possible. Primarily with emphasis on Flow. I weigh what you present and unless you are clearly and blatantly perpetuating obvious falsehoods I simply look at the facts presented on my flow, if something isn't on my flow it didn't happen in the debate.
Every claim needs a warrant and justification of relevance.
I will leave my political opinions at the door and do not reference them. I don't care what party the current acting president or house leader is, you will refer to them by the office they hold and no other. Don't assume that because you think I believe something personally that I will need less supporting evidence for your claims.

In Public-Forum the round is generally yours to do with as you please.
Courtesy to your opponents is vital. Being as 4 people can get very heated on topics quite easily I will not put up with disrespectful, rude, or threatening behavior in anyway. PF Cross-fire is the most common place in the debate sphere I consider if a team should loose on decorum, remember you are still talking to other humans that have to go back to their lives after this round ends, loosing civility is not worth maybe winning a round and if I'm judging you probably wouldn't end up winning anyways.
I love Voters at the end please- it helps show what you as debaters believe to be most important in that round.
If no RA, framework, or definitions are provided by either side I will loosely judge the round assuming the most common Webster definitions of terms and utilize a Cost-Benefit Analysis approach of who most accurately addressed and supported their claims in relevance to resolution question and demand, but student defined frameworks(within reason obviously) are my first preference weighing mechanism for the round.

In Lincoln-Douglas I have a slight preferential bias towards more traditional style and format. I will absolutely still listen to progressive styles, you must simply continue to warrant and justify all claims.
I think values and morality ultimately are the core of LD and debates of value are vital to a good LD debate.
I try to use the Value and and Value-Criterion as my first tool of weighing the round. I would really like to see how the value and value-criterion are supported by the rest of the following points of your cause. Ideally an LD debate does not devolve to just stating one side has a better value than their opponents, and should just win Becuase that value is "better." Instead I like to see V and VC incorporated throughout the flow and relating to your contentions. Tell me how your value is achieved in your world through what you have presented in your case and how you are doing that better or the values you are achieving will have more impact than the evidence and values the opposite side presents. If you get near the end of the debate and aren't sure how to conclude, impact calculus is one of my favorite formats for finishing out a speakers speech to get my onto the same page of what you think was most important in the round today.
If you opt to utilize a Standard instead then you must explicitly explain why you chose a Standard over a Value and Value-Criterion and the relevancy of that, all other incorporation into the debate applies the same as what I want to see for V and VC.
If you are running progressive: your evidence needs to be relevant, if I could read your case in 2 months on a different resolution and nothing would need to change then your case will have much less ground to stand on in my eyes.

In Congress I am a seasoned Parlimentarian, I've held Parli as multiple state level tournaments in both Idaho and Washington, I look to Roberts rules and NSDA standards. I prefer that POs use audible time signals such as knocking or make a timer accessible and easy to see for the speaker. The more you can effectively manage the room and keep things in order without me having to interfere the more successful I will perceive the PO job you did.

In Policy I have the least experience. I have not dealt with Policy style debate much in quite a few years so I am not especially up to date.
I can listen to spreading but I have been hearing LD spreading primarily so consider slowing down a titch - especially on taglines.
Please do not do Performative Affs. I think they are very cool but often, for me, lead to just having more trouble tracking the debate thus harming you in the long run.
Don't expect me to just know your cards and arguments. You have to explain and justify your arguments. If you just say a tag and move on then you aren't willing to work for my vote and likely won't receive it.
I know most concepts within policy but am very lacking on the jargon that coincide so quickly throwing out a lot of jargon specific to this debate types will lose me.

I'm a parent judge who has been judging nearly every tournament for 5 years for my kids.

No Swearing.

No spreading. I can't understand it, and if I can't understand you, I can't judge you and that's sad.

Sign post. If you don't sign then I get to guess where what you say applies and you don't want me to do that. I often don't guess correctly.

Provide impact(s). Tell me why what you said is important. It should not be a restatement of your contention.

Don't make me think for myself. Please tell me how to think, how to judge how to apply your arguments. Otherwise I have to use my own bias to draw the lines, no one wants this. Not even me. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. If one is better explained, I will go with that one. Make sure you case is well-explained.

For CX
hlsoderquist@gmail.com for document sharing.

• Use 5th grader terms. While I am aware of Ks, T args, perms and the like, my knowledge comes from their use in LD, so my depth is lacking. If you accidently use a term in round please explain it.

• Seriously, please don't spread. I'm sorry. I will say out loud "clear" if you are going too fast. Most likely, you are going too fast. I'm sorry. Slow down on taglines, contention names, and other very important issues...like your case. I'm sorry.

• I think linearly, so don't rely on my ability to multi-thread thoughts in order to get through your links to your impacts. Keep it simple OR clearly connect it for me. If it is muddy or I don't get it, I will not vote on it. Your job is to explain your case to me in a way that I can vote and understand it. In other words, I am a flow judge.

• If you "kick" something, please tell me the tagline or contention or argument name and instead say We or I am dropping this. If not, once again, I will guess what you dropped, and that could be really bad.

• My favorite cases are ones that outline their case, support it with evidence, explain the evidence and tell me what and why I am voting for them. Contentions - Impacts - Voters

• If you change the role of the ballot, tell me what triggered it, why it is more important than the resolution and what the new role is. I will then be able to decide if I want to use your new ballot, or if your arugment is lacking I will keep the current one. This must be a rock solid argument and trigger for the new role.

• I will go wherever you take me. I am happy to entertain any debates backed by evidence and a clear train of thought. Nuclear war, extinction, fascism, and all the things are on the table. But please argue them with tact and warrants and clearly show me how we will get there. If you can do this, I am willing to judge it and weigh it in the round.

• Thanks for accommodating me and good luck.

For PF, if you use a RA, make sure your contentions support your analysis. Ensure I know why it is important to judge on that analysis.

For LD, I expect a traditional LD debate on moral grounds tied to a value and seen through the lens of your value criterion. Make sure all of your contentions support that value/value criterion.

I like a clear case with well defined arguments. I am an Industrial Automation Engineer who designs autonomous machinery. Give me facts and data to judge by. No fear mongering. Emotional arguments will not impress me.

ncsoderquist@gmail.com

ALL EVENTS: I WILL NOT VOTE ON ANYTHING RACIST, SEXIST, HOMOPHOBIC, OR ANY OTHER HATE SPEECH. Please do not use speech and debate as a platform to spread any type of hatred. You will not win my vote.

This is my fifth year judging. Past Asst. Coach at Middle School for Public Forum. I debated in High School. I have one child in LD.

DEBATE:

I like the clash, but keep it polite. My biggest pet peeve is poor sports-person-ship. I do not mind if you take control of your cross-ex. Argue your points, and refute your opponents. Back up with facts, quotes, stats. Use impacts and YOUR VALUE!!! Use your VC as a weighing mechanism. I am a flow judge and follow my flow and arguments made there. I am a tech over truth judge. Lead me through your evidence and tell me how to vote. I will take the path of least resistance to a ballot. Don't make me guess or make my own conclusions, as they may not match what you are presenting. In other words, impacts and voters.

Slow down on tags and contention tags. If it is critical to your case, slow down for that portion and taglines. Enunciation is key for me to understand your case. If I am trying to figure out what you said, I miss your case. Spreading is an art form that has guidelines, breathing patterns, and rhythm. Don't confuse talking fast with spreading, they are two different things. If I cannot flow it, I do not judge it. If I stop typing, you know I am not getting it.

I do not judge on cross-ex. I will flow it, because I have the memory of a goldfish, and if you bring it back into round, I want to have notes on it. But if you do not bring it into round, it flies away and never comes back again. If it is a good point, don't let that happen.

IEs:

I will count stutters/missteps and crutch words. If a round is close I will rank off who has less. Tone/Infection are important during any speech, use them. Work on not yelling to show all emotions in any speech. Anger/Sadness has many faces, explore these to rank higher. Those who have their presentation memorized will rank higher than those who do not.

Informative: You got to pick your topic. Make it FUN and INTERESTING to me. Show me your passion and excitement about the subject. Be a human in your speech, not a robot. Please do this by making jokes, puns, or using conversational speech to keep me hooked. Pieces with good transitions, hooks, and conclusions rank higher.

Impromptu: I look for a framework. If you set a framework for your piece, I expect you to follow it. You don't have to have 3 points if you have a strong speech with 2.

Have fun and good luck! :-)

A few times now there have been T debates where the aff does not explicitly answer the argument "no truth testing means assume all their claims are false = presumption indpt. of if we lose the interp" and I didn't vote for it, and am not sure if I should have. Now, many things that the aff says implicitly respond to this, I think, and there are plenty of "nuh uh" style answers that are easy to think of and make. (Assuming it's competing interps and not "you are racist for reading T, in-round violence, VI.") But in other areas I am quick to vote on stupid blips and in general I don't like making cross-applications that don't occur to me involuntarily/without straining. So from now on I am voting neg if that happens! You must answer the argument directly, even if it just means explicitly making a cross-application. Be warned! It's right at the top! It's above the email! Just answer it and there will be no issue!

sposito@umich.edu

Above all, tech over truth--to this, there are no realistic exceptions. Fairness in evaluation is most relevant for arguments which are disreputable, and it is my intent to be fair. I will evaluate every argument I have on my flow, and refuse none. It's an argument if I understand it*, which includes most blips but excludes some K things. My opinions about content that follow are the equilibrium provided teams make the best available arguments, so far as I understand them, which means that when the best arguments aren't made, I'm liable to vote exactly opposite of what I've said here.

Although it hurts to say, I am not the best flow, and will likely miss some arguments. I can't be trusted to make the right decision in situations when such a decision hinges on a single, unemphasized argument. To be clear, I will try to do that--and vote remorselessly on, say, dropped one line intrinsicness if I got it--but I may not succeed. I will try my best to be fair, and care about making the right decision, even when it may be inconvenient or for something I find distasteful. I have made the wrong decisions in the past--I am not a relativist, and decisions are right or wrong. Students have a duty to be intelligible, but they do not have a duty to be persuasive beyond the line-by-line. Instead, it is judges who have a responsibility to have to render correct decisions (who is paying versus being paid? Among other asymmetries). Corny as it, numbering 1NC case/2AC offcase arguments, and then adhering to those numbers, helps me a lot and will increase the likelihood I render the most correct decision. Generally I start flowing at the 1NC on case, so I will probably miss ASPEC too....

I am not an educator! In my ideal world, I tap tap tap on my little laptop everything you say so as to correctly record the winner of the competition for which you volunteered... Educator implies a level of partiality and moralism of which I disapprove (ironic I know) and think has run rampant, to everyone's great loss. Similarly, I am not evaluating "who did the better debating"; that's what points are for. Exactly what question I am evaluating in a debate varies across and throughout debates....

I am very sensitive to judge instruction: About when an argument is new, about what evidence I should read or under what circumstances, about how strictly or literally I should take what was said, so on. My default is that I shouldn't read any evidence unless it's a subject of contention and that tags start at 100% risk. (I wish this weren't the standard....)

I enjoy villainy, and things generally hated: scandalous impact turns, process counterplans/neg terrorism, competitive personalities, egregiousness and trickery. My preference is for inserting cards over reading them, until it's like a ton of 1AC cards.

(*= requiring claims to have warrants strictly is impossible, because all warrants are claims which would then require warrants and result in an infinite regress. What is the answer to this argument?)

K affs and framework:

The aff should go for impact turns. I think that K arguments are almost uniformly awful, but will still vote for them. Go for "debate bad means it's good that we destroy it" or "no models--only in-round 'violence'" or whatever else. Moderate-seeming or 'compromise' approaches often do not make sense; K teams are better off when they take aggressive stances. I have an essentially unlimited tolerance for stupid claims, but none for incoherent claims. Cynical and tricky K teams should easily reach competitive parity with top policy teams because of the tactics they have at their disposal, but they must then use those tactics in a strategic way... The ability to do so is usually follows from understanding that the K shouldn't ever win, because it emphasizes exactly why it still does, the fruitful exploits.

There is behavior sufficiently objectionable to sideline competitive concerns. That is easy to establish. The rub is whether or not the object of the dispute (often, reading T) constitutes that behavior. Truthfully, it does not, but policy teams can lose this argument, and do.

DAs do not generally link to K affs, unless the aff catastrophically fails in cross-ex. If they do, then even a negligible risk of the DA clearly outweighs and turns the case. The neg should probably go for T, or maybe a PIK (will the aff successfully execute competition?). High theory Ks can also be good against typical K affs, and mostly now lose, I suspect, for ideological reasons which I will not replicate. I am worse for identity politics than other Ks. I prefer bad faith debating about identity to its moralizing, sincere alternative, and technical debating above all.

On T, the neg should go for fairness. I have a low opinion of the education that debate provides or even could provide, really, even in policy v. policy debates. Clash is not the point of debate--it is strategic to minimize it. I think most of what students pick up in K debates actually harms them (it certainly harms me), and I think that the exclusion of most K arguments would be desirable in and of itself, and wish more teams would argue for that. So, K "research" isn't worth learning about; even if it were, debate wouldn't teach it; to the extent that it does that, gamesplaying still outweighs.... Of course, you need to competently make this argument. But this is where my sympathy sits.

I have never thought skills was any good. I did think clash was good, but don't now. Even good policy teams going for T are liable to lose on "T is a microaggression, racism causes heart attacks, that outweighs the full magnitude of clash." The skills argument that "debaters solve existential risks, small coefficient * a massive value is still massive, outweighs racism," is fine, but as easily defanged as the idea that T is racist at all.

Ks on the neg:

The best Ks are framework arguments that moot the plan. Second best is a concrete (if utopian) alt with framework-type reasons why "do both" is illegitimate. Without some way of overcoming the uniqueness problem, Ks don't make sense and wouldn't outweigh the case if they did. Alternately, the K should be a vehicle for tricks: "If we're right about the incurable racism of the academy, assume that all social science is false and vote neg on presumption" is the kind of thing I would speedily vote on when dropped by the 1AR, perhaps because it was overstretched having to answer several other tricks. Those are the three main 2NRs I am looking to vote for. "Link, impact, alt" is incoherent and factually defeated by the perm double bind. The problem is not me--the emperor has no clothes. To be clear, that excludes "links to the plan," which are bad, non-unique DAs. Even when they are unique, they likely will not outweigh the case without considerable attention paid to framing. Of course, the aff still must minimally extend the perm and non-unique and so on in situations that call for it.

One implication of this is that you really probably don't need more than one link, and it doesn't matter at all if it's specific. Whether or not an argument rejoins the plan does not depend on its novelty to high school debaters.... Similarly, the 2AC really probably does not need much more than "2AC 1 is framework"....

To reiterate, I think the fiat K that moots the case and has the neg go for framework impact turns is very winnable, something on which the aff could reasonably get out-teched. Similar the other 2NRs. I believe debate is a technical game and don't want my feelings in truth about the K to be mistook for my belief that it's not at least sometimes viable. On the other hand, incoherent arguments are extremely unstrategic, because they can be easily beaten.

Obviously, I will only assess the aff's FW interpretation versus the negs. Middle-ground interpretations are fine, but you don't need them to win, and I will won't opt for one unilaterally. A neg interp that allows the aff to weigh the case but reserves uniqueness for links does solve some fairness offense and could be strategic if the K impacts get to extinction (say, security or cap), but I think the aff should probably go for no Ks.

There are some teams and persons who inspired me in the K world--Izak Dunn, James Mollison, Ani Prabhu--who made me believe that more creativity and alternate models were possible and worthwhile. At the moment, it's hard to reconstruct exactly what they were. But I mention them here to curb my cynicism and to break from my narrow prescriptions up until this point. I was a K debater in high school (high theory, Buddhism, anthro).

For policy debaters: If an extinction impact is dropped, it needs no further elaboration.

Topicality:

Reasonability is about the threshold of necessary offense before the the penalty for substance crowdout is outweighed. It is wholly irrelevant of whether or not the aff is popular or easy to debate or if the neg read multiple positions in the 1NC.

It is far easier to win a giant limits DA and 'debatability matters most,' than that precision in the abstract outweighs, and I will vote on that. But my true belief is that there really is a 'best' way to read the resolution in context, and I care about this 'precise' reading immensely. I don't know how pertinent that will be in really-existing debates. I highly, highly recommend Scalia's Reading Law for thinking about topicality.

Plan text in a vacuum is obviously true, and better than all competing standards by a great deal, with the exception of specification in 1AC CX. (It is only better than that by a lot.) Serious question: What would topicality be about, if not the plan? "Planicality" loses swiftly to an analytical PIC and a topic DA. PTIV is not the argument that the text of the plan can be considered in isolation (what could that possibly mean?). It is the argument that the "function" of the plan is determined wholly by its text (as it would mostly be under other standards, if they were ever clearly articulated, without other vague and capacious additions).

Related: Normal means is a factual question. If the aff declares the plan happens in an unrealistic way, the neg should read contravening evidence.

Counterplans & theory:

Update: It is not 1954. Women have entered the workforce, we survived Y2K and this thing called the Internet has swept the world!. Consequently, it does not matter if the 2NC counterplans out of a straight turn. The "C" stands for constructive, even though it is preceded by a "2." Why can't debate be fun?

I like counterplan competition and find it interesting, especially its outer recesses. I agree exactly with Rafael: "I don’t share the sanctimonious distaste that many do for plan inclusive or process counterplans. I won’t think a net benefit is bad just because it’s ‘artificial’ and I don’t think a DA/Case 2NR is necessarily better than a counterplan that steals the aff." You should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory, regardless of whether or not it represents research as some people in the community may like. Clearer: It may be difficult to convey how unconcerned I am with a practice in debate being 'educational' or not. Debate is a game played to win, which has the incidental sometimes-benefit of teaching kids some economics and current world affairs, and maybe some philosophy. What I care about is whether or not the counterplan makes the game better or worse, more fun or too unmanageable. Of course, education matters, and I will behave like a normal judge insomuch as I won't go rogue and ignore that part of the debate, and I know it's a pain to adjust the blocks for some ideologue... But I will be quite receptive to teams making the commonsense fact-and-values claims that give me license to mostly ignore pedagogy and focus on the part of the game that matters....

Textual alone is a bad standard, but I think textual and functional or just functional are both OK. Process counterplans I think are key neg generics, certainly on bad topics. In CP debates, may we all drop the politeness that a K being a generic or a functional limit is a desirable state of affairs? I care most about process counterplans being fun, or, on the other side, word games before fun, or at least an idiomatic skill.

I am a little higher on theory than I used to be, because I realized that competition alone cannot elegantly exclude game-breaking counterplans, like those which fiat both the federal government and the states, or private actors. But I am still mostly in the "get good" school, and am fine for the neg on most questions. Then again, theory is a technical matter like any other, and in fact more susceptible to fatal drops, and so it's still probably worth the time.

Conditionality: Seven is clearly worse than two, but even seven isn't so bad. That said, the fashionable new answers to dispo are Russian misinformation meant to undermine Hilary Clinton: "Plank spam" is answered by selectively permuting, and the definition is not vague: An advocacy is dispositional if it may only be kicked once the aff reads a perm or theory against it.

RVIs: Stupid, but don't warrant suspension of the law of tech over truth.

Judgekick: Truthfully good, but no different than everything else in vulnerability to technical debating.

Text vagueness: Concern is overheated. The neg should write texts as vague as they can get away with, but counterplans should probably be policies. Normal means determines what the counterplan does; sufficiently vague ones may factually do something unrelated to neg solvency claims.

DAs:

Again Rafael: "I don’t understand the moral panic about politics, ‘generic’ DAs, or links to fiat. A disadvantage is just some negative consequence the plan brings about. The nature of that consequence is entirely irrelevant except to the extent it affects the substantive magnitude of the impact." And again, you should go for the argument that maximizes your chance of victory.

Zero risk will probably only be achieved through judge instruction, or expired uniqueness, or some sort of plan flaw. But even then, how can I be sure that I'm not only hallucinating it's not 2016? Or that the author of the card didn't accidentally cite the wrong bill? Truthfully, I think this logic is suspect, but the reasons why that are commonly discussed in round are unimpressive.

Case:

See the note on PTIV as well.

What fiat means is open to debate, but starts at durable, good faith passage. Circumvention is a theoretical, normative matter whose viability varies by the topic.

Presumption is the procedure for adjudicating a tie, not deference to the status quo through "least change." Of course, it may behoove the neg to advocate the "least change" standard.

Analytics can defeat many advantages (but probably won't get them to zero).

Soft left affs will likely struggle. The more the "framing" arguments are defense (even if not in the traditional sense), the more successful they will be. Strategies that grant that the plan causes extinction but plead that other issues matter more hardly even need to be answered... judges are licensed to do obvious impact calculus in almost every policy debate...

Impact turns/misc. arguments:

Debate is a voluntary, competitive game centered on disagreement, which means that, of all scholastic activities, it must be the most permissive in speech. I must be a responsible supervisor of high school students, but I also have a responsibility to ensure fairness between competitors, as measured by technical, openminded, and impartial judging to the best of my ability. Relatedly, skill in the art of debate requires the cultivation of mental toughness and the ability to countenance ideas that may be upsetting at first; it requires a philosophical tact and cognitive flexibility to take seriously a superficially ludicrous claim, or four. Debate should not be a place where scoffing is good enough, or where students are taught to run to an adult the moment they encounter something challenging--that is literally everywhere else. It should certainly not be a place where judges abandon logic and allow bad responses to defeat arguments they dislike. Not only would I undermine the fairness of the game were I to intervene against some arguments, I would also compromise the development of habits of mind that are sorely needed nowadays, and which, you'd hope, debate would provide....

If it's not clear: Yes, that includes the death good argument that all human life is worse than nonexistence on balance, so maximizing the number killed is good. It also includes spark and war good and liberal shibboleth bad and aliens and souls and libertarianism and yadda yadda. My views are no longer the in majority within our community which, although discouraging, has the silver lining that I am perfectly comfortable saying that if you would like judges to intervene on your behalf on those issues, you should strike me. You will still have the majority of other judges to choose from; I'd like to judge debates where teams have 'opted in' to the joy of nihilism.

(Also, it is not just that if you cannot beat bad arguments, you deserve to lose. Yes that, but not only. First, some 'bad' arguments are clearly reasonable, e.g. animal wipeout (conditional on utilitarianism). Second, and more important, bad arguments are what debate is for; the truth is self-promoting, and rhetoric, at bottom, can only beautify falsehoods. The point of debate is sophistry; it certainly isn't research, judging on what we churn out (or fail to) annually. Read Gorgias. Anyway, there is great beauty and richness and joy in the philosophical attitude, and the ability to try on different ways of seeing. The prevailing Stalinism makes me feel resentment and despair, or can you tell? It's OK, even good, that kids would end up with some bad ideas. I know that because, right now, they end up with more!)

Nonetheless, there is something gorgeous about teams defeating impact turns, defending the truth. Successfully parrying a 1NC full of garbage would make very pleased to vote aff, if they did, and has historically afforded my best points.

D-rules are not answered by "case outweighs," nor uniqueness, and instead require a defense of some kind of consequentialism or criticisms of deontology/rights. My guess is that on this topic, coercion is often answered very badly, and in that sense underrated....

Other issues:

Whether or not an argument is "generic" or has legitimately no bearing on how much the other team has to respond to it. Similarly, the threshold for answering a bad argument is only low in the sense that there exists a short 2AC that wins---it does not mean that arguments other than those 'true' responses are somehow better. So, even a long 2AC against something "stupid" or "generic" may still be unrecoverably poor... in fact, I have seen such 2ACs... Anything else is unfair (to competitors) and illogical.

I do not think it is advisable to send analytics....

On the flipside, if you only need one or a few arguments to win, why say more? No need to waste speech time, if you're right.

The 2NC is a constructive, and so wholly new case arguments and positions (including counterplans) may be read in it. The 1NR and 1AR do not get unjustified new arguments, although justifications are easy to come by, and include the other team making any new arguments. Similarly for cards. When extending, say, dropped theory, the extensions should also be blippy, to avoid making new arguments to which the aff can respond, or at least careful to avoid them, demarcating which kinds of new arguments may be allowed. When an argument is truthfully new or illegitimate, you do not need to respond to it, other than to point that out.

Dropped arguments that make the other team's thing zero risk cannot be recovered from, assuming the team that made them doesn't own goal themselves. Sometimes there was nothing the rebuttals could've done! Focusing on improving your speeches is often a cope--the 2AC/block is generally more tractable and outcome-determinative....

Don't do the annoying echo thing--if you need your partner to say something, the ideal is that you type it in a Google Doc to which they alt tab when you tell them to. If it's not written down, then I will flow the speaking partner until it becomes excessive, after which I won't flow it at all. The only reason you should repeat them is if it wasn't audible. Obviously, this is bad for your ethos and you should try to avoid it.

Quick background on me: I'm currently attending Columbia University with a Neuroscience and Behavior Major and a concentration in Race and Ethnicity Studies with an Asian American Specialization. I have been competitively involved in speech and debate for around 6 years with particular experience in Impromptu, Original Oratory, Original Interpretation, Dramatic Interpretation, SPAR, Congressional Debate, and Lincoln Douglas Debate.

When it comes to judging IE, I am very big on presentation style, paying particularly close attention to tone, eye contact, good use of floor/camera space, and distinctive hand motions. For events that require original work, I also pay particularly close attention to evidence/anecdotes and the effectiveness in relation to your speech.

For debate, I am a little bit more comfortable with PF and LD in relation to others. I can handle speed well but WILL NOT judge spreading. I definitely will prefer a clear and concise presentation. CX and Rebuttals are areas that I analyze a lot. If you drop an opponent's contention or card I will definitely take that into consideration. I'm also fairly open-minded and am not opposed to voting in ways that are against my personal opinions, as long as you are able to make an argument better than your opponent. However, I will not tolerate overtly racist, anti-LBGTQ+, and sexist speech. I will not tolerate hate speech in any form.

Depending on tournaments, I also am open to giving feedback in the round. I usually take extensive notes, but a couple things do slip my mind when I go back to write my ballots. So if you have any questions/concerns after or before the round regarding preferences then please feel free to ask me.

Good luck to you all!

I am a fairly new judge and consider myself a lay judge. I do not understand spreading or progressive arguments.

When judging I value these the most:

1. Clear and confident speech. What ever the topic be, I expect contestants to be confident in the stand they take. I don't want contestants to rush their speech.

2. Topics to be explained as part of the speech. I might or might not know all the topics that are being discussed, so it is the contestant's responsibility to make it clear to me what the topic is being discussed and what stand they are taking.

3. Clear evidence with links to data.

4. I believe in "Give Respect and take Respect". I discourage extreme offensive language and rudeness to either the judges or competitors.

5. Have fun and enjoy the debate.

I have almost exclusively done policy debate for 4 years (3 in high school and 1 at Arizona State). My time reading traditional and kritical arguments has been split nearly 50/50, so I’ll be able to keep up with any of the types of arguments you read. I think that debate is your space, and you should be able to do what you want with it (within reason). Tell me why you win the round, then convince me that you’re right. Longer/argument specific version below, if you want it.

----

DAs: I think good disads are getting harder to come by. If this is what you like to read and are good at it, go for it. That said, I can’t vote for a DA if part of it (uniqueness, impact, etc) is not extended.

CPs: Neg, please read a net benefit. Aff, should you always perm a CP? Yes. Can you effectively perm a CP in 4 seconds by saying “perm”? No.

Theory: I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, meaning that you should be able to prove that there was substantial abuse. I am more willing to buy theory that has an in-round impact than a potential impact in other rounds. Do not go for theory and another off case argument in the 2NR; you have to pick, or your theory argument doesn’t make any sense. Fairness, I don’t think, is an impact. Everything is unfair, so unless you can tell me why their interp is the most unfair thing of all time, I don’t really care. I will default to reasonability unless neg gives me a reason not to. All of that said, if aff drops theory and neg doesn’t, I will evaluate it over all other arguments (this includes topicality). Theory on the aff (condo args, etc) is also fine. I have not been convinced that condo is entirely good or bad, so I’m open to both sides of that debate.

FW: For theory-esque parts of FW, see above. As for round evaluation, both teams should have and read framework. If I don’t know how you want me to judge, then I will either figure it out myself or use the other team’s. This is not good for you. Both of the 2Rs should be telling me your framework, why it’s better and why you win it with your arguments. I will default to an ethical obligation/structural violence outweighs FW unless told otherwise.

Ks: I am familiar with some K literature, but do not assume that I have read your obscure interpretation of Marx, please. You should be able to tell me exactly what your alt does, but that DOES NOT mean it has to be a policy alt. K teams most often lose me on the alt and perm debate, so do extra explanation there. Most of the flow should be that and the links. If I can tell that you read this K every round with the same link and don’t explain it, I am less inclined to vote for it. Dropping the alt is fine, but you have to explicitly say that you are doing so and then explain whatever else you’re using the K evidence for.

K affs: Most of the time, I will buy a well-run FW argument on the neg. However, as K affs become more common, I am increasingly convinced that there are a lot of arguments that effectively counter them. If you have me as a judge, and you’re running a K aff, explain your version of debate in every speech in a way that gives me something comparable to the squo.

Debate that isn't policy: If you have the misfortune of getting me as an LD, PF, or Congress judge, then just debate as you normally would. I do know the rules and structure of these types of debate, but slow down if there is something that I really need to understand. I don't have anything applicable to say about what I like/dislike about these types of debate other than that they often do not rely as much on evidence, authors, etc. If you read an entire case without a single citation, I will not vote for it. If I'm your Congress judge, I will judge it like a speech event.

Misc:

- jordyn.walhof.27@gmail.com yes, add me to the email chain.

- flashing/email is not prep unless you’re being unreasonable with it.

- tag teaming is fine.

- impact calc is key. Please do it.

- I don’t know why I have to put this is here, but don’t say anything racist/sexist/otherwise rude or offensive. It’s not a good look, you will get low speaker points, and you may be dropped. If your opponents do this, do NOT feel afraid of calling them out.

- signpost, signpost, SIGNPOST; if I don’t know where to put something, I will not be flowing it

- do not extend evidence with just the author’s name; chances are, I didn’t actually hear it and don’t know what you’re talking about. Use a warrant from the card AND the author.

- if you make me laugh, you will get higher speaks; debate should be fun.

- feel free to email me if ever you have a question.

LD Paradigm

LD Coach 10 years.

If I am your judge, please put me on your email chain. My email is, lwpco480193@outlook.com, prefer Aff to be topical. I prefer a traditional Value/Criterion debate. I like clear signposting, that opponents refer to when refuting each other. I also require evidence to uphold your warrants and link to your personal analysis. All affirmatives should have some kind of standard that they try to win, value/criterion. The negative is not necessarily tied to the same obligation. The affirmative generally has the obligation to state a case construction that generally affirms the truth of the resolution, and the negative can take whatever route they want to show how the affirmative is not doing that sufficiently.

When I see a traditional debate that clashes on fundamental issues involving framework, impacts, and what either side thinks, really matters in my weighing of the round, it makes deciding on who was the better debater during the round an easier process. I like debate that gets to the substantive heart of whatever the issue is. There are very few arguments I would actually consider apriori. My favorite debates are the kind where one side clearly wins the framework, whichever one they decide to go for. Voters are crucial in rebuttals, and a clear topicality link with warrents and weighted impacts, which are the best route for my ballot.

I will listen to a Kritik but you must link it to the debate in the room, related to the resolution in some way, for me to more likely to vote for it. I am biased toward topicality.

I hold theory to higher bar. I will most likely vote reasonability instead of competing interpretations. However, if I am given a clearly phrased justification for why I should accept a competing interpretation and it is insufficiently contested, there is a better chance that I will vote for a competing interpretation. You will need to emphasize this by slowing down, if you are spreading, slow down, speak a little louder, or tell me “this is paramount, flow this”.

Reasonability. I believe that theory is intervention and my threshold for voting on theory is high. I prefer engagement and clash with your opponent. If I feel like negative has spoken too quickly for an Affirmative to adequately respond during the round, or a Neg runs 2+ independent disadvantages that are likely impossible for a "think tank" to answer in a 4 minute 1AR, and the Affirmative runs abuse theory, and gives direct examples from Neg, I'll probably vote Affirmative. Common sense counts. You do not need a card to tell me that the Enola Gay was the plane that dropped the nuclear bomb on Hiroshima.

Progressive Debates: I default Affirmative framework for establishing ground, I default Kritiks if there are clear pre-fiat/post-fiat justifications for a K debate instead of on-case debate.

Cross Examination

I do not flow cross examination. If there are any concessions in CX, you need to point them out in your next speech, for me to weigh them.

I'm fine with flex prep. I think debaters should be respectful and polite, and not look at each other. Cross examination concessions are binding, if your opponent calls them out in their next speech.

Speaker Points

If I do not understand what you are saying, don’t expect to receive anything higher than a 28. You will lose speaker points if your actions are disrespectful to either myself or to your opponent. I believe in decorum and will vote you down if you are rude or condescending toward your opponent. I do not flow “super spreading”. I need to understand what you are saying, so that I can flow it. I will say “slow” and “clear” once. If there is no discernable change, I will not bother to repeat myself. If you respond, slow down, then speed up again, I will say “slow” and/or “clear” again. For my ballot, clarity over quantity. Word economy over quantity. I reward debaters who try to focus on persuasive styles of speaking over debaters who speak at the same tone, pitch, cadence, the entire debate.

If something is factually untrue, and your opponent points it out, do not expect to win it as an argument.

Please give me articulate voters at the end of the NR and 2AR.

I disclose if it is the tournament norm.

If you are unclear about my paradigm, please ask before the round begins.

Public Forum Paradigm

RESPECT and DECORUM

1. Show respect to your opponent. No shouting down. Just a "thank you" to stop their answer. When finished with answer, ask your opponent "Do you have a question?" Please ask direct questions. Also, advocate for yourself, do not let your opponent "walk all over you in Crossfire".

2. Do not be sexist/racist/transphobic/homophobic/etc.... in round. Respect all humans.

I expect PF to be a contention level debate. There may be a weighing mechanism like "cost-benefit analysis" that will help show why your side has won the debate on magnitude. (Some call this a framework)

I like signposting of all of your contentions. Please use short taglines for your contentions. If you have long contentions, I really like them broken down into segments, A, B, C, etc. I appreciate you signposting your direct refutations of your opponents contentions.

I like direct clash.

All evidence used in your constructed cases should be readily available to your opponent, upon request. If you slow down the debate looking for evidence that is in your constructed case, that will weigh against you when I am deciding my ballot.

I do not give automatic losses for dropped contentions or not extending every argument. I let the debaters decide the important contentions by what they decide to debate.

In your summary speech, please let me know specifically why your opponents are loosing the debate.

In your final focus speech, please let me know specifically why you are winning the debate.

I have been actively coaching for over 15 years. I have been coaching and judging Public Forum Debate since its first appearence at the state tournament. I prefer a reasonable rate of delivery. I do not prefer over use of debate jargon in Public Forum Debate. During the rounds I prefer to take bullet point notes on key points of the respective arguments. I value both argument and style. I find logical and persuasive arguments valuable. My expectations for debaters to treat each other with respect.