Put me on the email chain please. Ask me for my email

Kingwood High School 2017

University of Minnesota 2020

I judge/coach for the University of Minnesota very occassionally in my spare time. I'm not actively involved with college debate other than judging, so I'm not doing topic research or anything.

I will not adjudicate things that occurred outside the confines of the specific debate around I am judging. There are ways to resolve such issues that exist outside of the ballot, and I have come to believe that relying on ballots to try to resolve them is both futile and contributes to an increasingly toxic debate community. If your strategy relies on ad-hominems, harassment, or otherwise disparaging your opponents, then I am probably not the judge for you

I don't expect debaters to be 'polite' but I do expect debaters to maintain a bare minimum level civility. If racist, misogynistic, homophobic, transphobic, ableist, etc speech occurs, then I will punish your speaker points accordingly. If I believe the safety or well being of a debater is in danger, I will intervene, including by ending the round if necessary.

As a general note, as the years go on, I am pessimistic about the value of debate as an activity beyond the skills we learn from it and the community we build along the way. I will try to adjudicate rounds in such a way that my ballot does not reward strategies that make the activity worse. Things like issues with evidence ethics and call outs, while important in context, should not be considered your case neg.

Here's the things you are probably looking for right before your round:

Condo-I think a large number of conditional advocacys result in more interesting negative strategies that test the aff from more interesting angles. Trying to draw the line at X number seems arbitrary to me. While I recognize this creates an incentive towards neg teams spamming poorly thought out counterplans, I think the proper remedy is theory rejecting the specific questionable counterplans. I think the bar for the 2ac to answer counterplans with no solvency advocate (whether it be a 1nc card, or a warrant from a 1ac card), is low, and I grant the 1ar leeway when answering counterplans that are made whole in the block.

Judge kick-I default to judge kicking conditional counterplans unless the aff convinces me I shouldn't (condo bad warrants can usually suffice if applied specifically to judge kick)

Other theory-I think 95% of theory arguments other than condo are reasons to reject the arg, not the team. The bar for me to drop a team on a theory cheapshot is extremely high, even if dropped by the other team.

Process CP-I will admit to having a slight bias against negative postions/aff advantages that feel very contrived. This is probably relevant the most to process CPs. I am apparently a dinosaur on the topic of CP competitiveness, so I start with low bar for the aff to win perm:do the cp a lot of the time. If your competition argument isn't straightforward to someone who's only process counterplan they had to deal with as a debater was ESR, then you should slow down and explain it as clearly as possible to me.

I strongly lean toward tech over truth, but arguments still need to have warrants to be complete and to win on tech.

T vs plan aff-I generally am a fan of t debates vs affs with a plan, and I find 2ar pushes on "going for t is a waste of time/uneducational" to be unpersasive. This is topic neutral, so my thoughts might change year to year. I'm not super involved in the activity, so its unlikely I am aware of whatever the community consensus is.

T vs planless affs-it seems like to me clash is the internal link to everything that makes debate valuable and is therefore a relatively large impact by default. If your model of debate (generally the aff's) doesn't preserve clash, then you need to explain why the activity of debate specifically is key your impacts in a way that academic spaces generally aren't. For example, if the aff's main source of offense is the value of their scholarship or method, than either clash internal links turns the aff's offense because clash is the way unique to debate for the community to engage with the aff's method/scholarship or things outside debate can solve your offense as well as debate can, in which case a presumption push by the neg tends to be persuasive (see my above pessimism about the activity). There are other ways for the aff to garner offense, but the aff still needs to have warrant why the activity of debate specifically is key to win that that offense is reason why a model of debate is desirable. Aff strategies that don't defend a specific model are extremely unpersausive to me and functionally end up conceding most of the neg's best offense. Competetive incentives exist in the activity and it seems strange to pretend otherwise. For the neg, TVAs and SSD seem to be powerful defensive tools that in my experience judging neg teams underutilize. Absent egregious concessions by the aff, the 2NR should usually spend some time on case, since the 1ac is often the aff's best source of offense against T.

Arguments that I strongly prefer you don't go for: Death good, Warming good.

NDT debater @ University of Wyoming – 2013-2018. 2x NDT qualifier.

yes email chain - spencerculver1@gmail.com

Short:
Make strong arguments, compare them with other arguments and assess their relative importance in the debate.

Debate how you’d like.

Make complete arguments.

Links are highly important to me, but good impact calculus wins debates.

Top level considerations:

- The winner of a debate is usually the team who has the strongest arguments (duh…). I am more interested in listening to a debate with strongly supported arguments and specific clash than any particular type/category of content in a debate (i.e. I prefer hearing a good debate over hearing one particular style or approach to debate).

- Identifying the important questions / winning the key arguments in a debate is under-done imo. Erring on the side of winning one, two, or three arguments and explaining why those win you the debate is far better than trying to win most of the arguments without explaining how they interact or weighing their importance. Good debaters make choices.

- Not a fan of the offense/defense paradigm. Willing to vote on ‘no risk of a link, impact, etc.’

- “The affirmative has the Burden of Proof to overcome presumption. The team advancing an individual argument has the burden of proof to advance a complete argument. If the significance of that distinction is unclear to you, ask and I can happily explain.” stolen from Travis Cram

- Keys to good speaks: organization/line-by-line proficiency, demonstrating deep knowledge on something relevant to the debate, excelling at cross-ex, humor.

Specific thoughts:

T / Framework: I like T debates. I think that there are ways to affirm the topic that don’t necessitate a traditional plan being read. I’d prefer an affirmative that has content connected with the topic, the more specific the better. I have no presuppositions against either. I spent more time going for T against critical affirmatives than defending critical affirmatives than T, but I think I’m pretty close to the middle on the issue. I tend to prefer clear interpretations with an outlined idea of how debates on the topic would go over vague ‘reasonable’ ones.

DAs: I like ‘em. Link and internal link specificity matters most to me. Warrant and evidence comparison is next in the line of importance. Impact calc wins debates though.

CPs: Having these things is best: a clear-solvency advocate and a world that doesn’t result in the entire aff. Competition is important. Specificity here is important. If it’s a highly nuanced CP, take some time in the 2NC overview to give me some bearings and explain the context.

Critiques: Link and internal link specificity matters to me here, too. Example-driven argument and comparison are very valuable. If the subject matter of the debate is complex, do what you can to make the content more concrete and clear for me.

Case debates: underloved, in my opinion. I like really in-depth case debates. It makes winning on the neg far easier.

Other notes: I have a lot of facial expressions. Paying attention to that could be advantageous. Being courteous is valuable. I don't like prep stealing.

GTA at KU Fall 2021

former NDT/CEDA debater for the University of Missouri - Kansas City

I'd like to be on the email chain.

I will do my best to adjust to your style and evaluate what is presented.

I enjoy judging debates.

I'm generally fine with speed, but please slow down for tags and authors. I flow on paper. If you spread full speed through a CP with 5 planks, I will be struggling to know what it does.

I think debate is usually about story telling, and I often find myself more comfortable voting for debaters who have provided a better and more complete story. This also means I am more hesitant to vote on arguments that just don't make sense to me - this seems obvious but I feel like it comes up more frequently than expected. I need to understand your argument well enough to explain to the other team why they lost a debate on it.

Don't be racist, homophobic, transphobic, or other hateful things.

---------

Kritiks - I like a good kritik. I usually find myself more persuaded by kritiks that have an alternative in the 2NR with lots of examples and explanation for why it resolves the impact. I think policy affs often lack a robust defense of utilitarianism, and I enjoy listening to arguments about why we should use another method to make ethical decisions.

I would also encourage you to:

- contextualize your links to the affirmative

- explain why you control / solve / turn / moot the 1AC's impacts

- illustrate why the aff is factually incorrect, in a way that is consistent with your criticism -- usually think it's a little awkward when the K about epistemology contradicts your case defense from xyz think tank -- I would encourage you to read smart case arguments or be ready to defend "we're negative and get to do that"

I usually think K affs that 1) do something or advocate that something should be done 2) have some relation to the topic - are the most persuasive. If that's not your aff, just be sure to explain why you have good reasons not to.

Topicality / FW - Interpretations should be strategic and well justified. If you go for T, be sure to have clear impacts and weigh them. Reasonability vs competing interpretations is up for y'all to decide. In FW v K debates, I think specific and clear offense in the last speech usually ends up deciding my ballot. Affirmatives without a plan text should be sure to have significant offense - and explain why it outweighs clash or whatever.

Theory - Sure. Be in-depth, specific, and weigh the impacts of each interpretation. 3-4+ condo is probably a lot in front of me, especially if there is a clear in-round abuse story.

DAs - Works for me. Tell a good story and do lots of impact comparison.

CPs - Counterplans are cool and create interesting strategies. I probably lean slightly affirmative on most of the theory here, but could be convinced otherwise. That being said, strategic PICs are often very persuasive to me. If you read a big multi-plank CP, you should particularly emphasize what it does and how it works. Otherwise, we may not be on same page at the end of the debate when you assume that I understand why plank #7 solves the 3rd internal link of the second scenario on the first advantage.

Also, negatives should do more case debate. I am often convinced that plans wouldn't really do anything.

Speaker points:

DO:

- funny or particularly insightful remarks during the debate

- send speech docs quickly and effectively (for example, 1NR sent by the end of 2NC CX)

- signpost well during your speech

- make smart, strategic decisions during the debate

DON'T:

- steal prep

- be overly rude or mean

Email address: mmfrank@pugetsound.edu

I am a debate coach for the University of Puget Sound where I competed in Policy Debate for four years. I also did two years of LD in High School so I have some familiarity with that style of debate as well. I was a K debater but will evaluate any style of debate that is put in front of me, and do not have any qualms with any sort of argument. I am fine with speed and I like performative arguments. If you are going for Framework or Topicality I need to see good impact calculus to be persuaded, but this is true of any argument you may go for. It is very important to me that debaters are respectful towards each other and to anyone else in the room, including myself. I am willing to vote a team down if something they do in round is isolated by another team as problematic and impacted out. I think what you do in a debate round is just as important as the argument you have prepared prior to the debate. That being said, have fun, be nice to each other, and debate well and all we will have a good time :).

Experience:

• University of Wyoming policy debater & coach
• UC Berkeley policy coach
• Judging CARD for 3+ years (critic of the year in 2022)

CARD is not policy debate by design. I want to be moved and persuaded by your arguments, which you can't do if you are reading or speaking fast and using a bunch of technical jargon. Keep this activity accessible.

Read any style of arguments you want (kritical, policy, lived experience), but relate them to the topic. If you want to read an untopical affirmative then get ready to impact-turn and tell me why your arguments are important for this specific activity.

The 2NR and 2AR are for telling me exactly why you won the debate. A dropped argument is a true argument, but you need to tell me why that argument being true is important for your overall case (i.e. compare the quality of your arguments). Debate isn't just about winning individual arguments on the flow, but telling the judge a compelling story. An important part of telling the story is through impact calculus/comparison.

Flowing: I still prefer to flow CARD like a traditional policy round. I flow each argument on a separate page and I want to be able to line up the arguments to quickly compare them when rendering my decision. So, try to stay organized and answer the arguments in the order they were made.

Bottom line: Arguments need evidence and warrants. Keep it cute, don't post-round me.

Happy to answer any questions before the round begins.

I coached and judged CEDA, NDT, BP, IPDA in my 20 year coaching career. Aside from some online coaching during the pandemic, it has been 8 years since my day to day involvement with a debate topic. I have judged CARD for the last few years and enjoy the format immensely. I really have no argument or style preference anymore. I want to hear well constructed arguments about the topic. I will be clear when I see them and will not hesitate to explain why I didn't feel they were well constructed or about the topic. I will take good notes about the debate but I will not transcribe the debate. If it is not in my notes it is usually because I didn't feel you made it seem important or relevant. Please ask me any questions before or after the debate .

Former Assistant Coach for Wayzata (2012 - 2016)
Experience: Debated for Wayzata (2009 - 2012), and on and off for University of Minnesota (2012 - 2016), Assistant Coach at University of Minnesota (2020)

ONLINE DEBATE

I understand this isn't exactly what every one was hoping for this season to look like, and I also recognize that most of us will be experiencing a new form of debate together--I am hoping that we will work together during rounds to ensure that the online video call debate experience goes smoothy. Please remember despite this being frustrating for some of you, this is an incredibly important movement to make debate more accessible to more members of the community.

On this note of online video call, I have some preferences:
1) Camera: If you are speaking, please keep your camera on. You may turn it off once your speech is over.
2) Volume: Be wary of your speaking volume. Some times mics don't pick up spreading well because of the volume changes. I struggle sometimes with flowing every single argument, so this is really really important to me.
3) Recordings: I know you all will be recording these rounds--I am uncomfortable with being recorded consistently during the round. We live in a very different world than before, and I want people to recognize that recordings will be leaked and edited. For that reason, I'd prefer not to be recorded for long periods of time. I recognize this is frustrating.

POLICY PARADIGM
1) Dropped Arguments -- They need a claim, warrant, and implication. You cannot just say they dropped and therefore it is true.

2) Impact calc, Impact calc, Impact calc. Please do it.

3) Tech > Truth - I interpret this as I will judge things as they go on the flow, not as how I think things should go. I try to intervene very little. Intervention sometimes, but only if something comes across / is problematic.

4) Flow Troubles -- I'm forthcoming about this, so please work with me! I still flow on paper, so there is nothing I love more than a structured flow. It will reflect in your speaker points. On clarity, I will say clearer three times before I give up flowing.

5) Email Chain - I always want to be on the email chain.

Some specifics:

1) Disads - case specific disads are fun-- I like them. I'm not particularly sure if I like politics at all, but I'll vote for it. I get exhausted by trump oriented conversation though...

2) Counterplans – Many are theoretically questionable, but affirmatives rarely push back on this. Substantive PICs are awesome – multi-actor object fiat is the worst. Everything else is somewhere in between. I care about what the perm looks like post fiat AND how it functions in round. Please explain it to me.

3) Framework – So I think I have changed opinions on the K since I started only judging clash rounds in recent years--and I have been surprised to learn that I tend to lean towards "a more inclusive form of debate is good". I often am pref'd by policy aff teams hoping for lenience in K debates, and I want to highlight that this isn't the wisest strategy given how many times I have voted against framework.

Despite this, I do believe that framework can be a compelling argument in front of me if read in a way that is specific and conscious about the round. Please keep this in mind.

4) Kritiks - I'm not k-illterate and tend to be able to wade through evidence pretty well, but I am not super familiar with the literature. Explain to me the specific link, impact, and alt action, and please explain it specifically. I want you to get detailed and nuanced, and explain the scope of the argument. I really want you to contextualize a specific link to the 1AC / 1NC / Topic literature.

What are more popular kritiks nowadays? Generic postmodernism is something difficult for me sometimes, but then again, I'll vote on many different things. Honestly, I'd prefer you to go to a little slower on this, which would reflect in your speaker points. I like topic-specific K’s. Neolib, imperialism, etc. are all very viable strategies in front of me, but they need to be applied specifically. I would also highly recommend extending case defense to bolster your K – the most common aff argument I vote on against K’s is “case outweighs”.

Off-beat note: Many years into debate, I still like small, soft policy, K-friendly topical affs which defend a small-ish impact, and critique disads / net benefits. I find this kind of debate refreshing. An aesthetic I can stan for.

5) Theory – conditionality is almost certainly good, unless it is way excessive, like 5 counterplans. I do however think that if the neg makes performative contradictions – for example, reads a security K and then a terrorism impact on a disad – it can be justification for the aff to sever their reps/judge choice. I do not default to judge kick unless told to do so.

Finally, I hate wipeout, I think the argument is gross and irresponsible, and I'd appreciate if you don't read it in front of me.

PUBLIC FORUM PARADIGM

I will evaluate the debate using skills from policy -- technical debate will be had!

I'll try to let the debaters drive the debate, be a friendly soundboard for you all to do some learning and growing. If you want me to do something, say so and I'll try to do it.

Personally I'm an early/mid 1990s CEDA guy, debated at Oregon & Alaska, and grew up in Spokane around the Zaga program. I've worked as an environmental attorney and activist most of my grownup life. So the craft of debate (rhetoric, communication, logic) is near and dear to my heart. I've been loving CARD debate, and am excited to see this new format taking shape. You all are building something here that is unique and valuable.

My favorite rounds see two teams meet one another with a strong clash of good ideas-- where people seem to care in some way about what they are saying, and everyone goes away at least a tiny bit smarter and closer to truth than we were before. I love it when someone has something they passionately want to communicate. And also when teams are authentically struggling to discover the truth about things, or the pure learning of how to stand up and deliver a persuasive argument.

Curiosity and openness tend to be more impressive to me than zealous advocacy.

I tend to appreciate arguments with connections with real lived life, versus those that are merely clever, or some kind of performative righteousness. Reality over ideas. In that vein, USE EVIDENCE. Engage with the research. I haven't read your packet at all. Educate me and I'll be impressed.

Clarity goes a long way. Good communication. I value all that old-school rhetoric stuff-- things like eye contact, primacy and recency, repetition, numbered organization, clear taglines, following the agreed formal rules (like time limits, speaking order, the topic), standing up, body language, that sort of thing. I don't want roadmaps or files sent. But I do like for speakers to organize things for me.

jrskoog17@gmail.com

"Every man takes the limits of his own field of vision for the limits of the world." - Arthur Schopenhauer

I debated at Brophy College Prep and then debated at Gonzaga University.

I now coach at Gonzaga in Spokane, WA.

Everything under this are my defaults but obviously any argument that is contrary to any of these override my presuppositions. I'll try not to intervene to the best of my ability.

The Highlights:

I don't like when teams read evidence from debate coaches. It is absurd and self-referential.
Tech over truth
I'll call for ev, but only if it is a key part of the debate or I have been told to look at it. I put a lot of stock into the quality of evidence when deciding debates.
I default to reject the arg for everything except conditionality unless told otherwise.
Awesome strategic moves will be rewarded.
For the love of Przemek Karnowski, please don't cheat.
I'm not particularly expressive, but it doesn't mean I hate your argument, I'm just thinking to myself.
Keep your shoes on in the round.


Specifics:

Evidence:
Read warrants please. I will reward fantastic ev. Quality outweighs quantity. Use spin and compare your evidence to theirs.

Case/Impact Defense:
I do tend to default to less change and think that there is such thing as zero risk of the aff. Using very smart case defense arguments is awesome. Internal link defense and solvency arguments are, in my opinion, underused. That makes me sad. So please use them.

Counterplans:
I'm a huge theory nerd so I'm down with being convinced something is competitive. HOWEVER, I do think that a lot of counterplans that are commonly run are not competitive. Granted, I ran Reg Neg and Consult Russia a lot, and I understand why they are necessary sometimes, but I will reward case specific counterplans with net benefits that justify the status quo. To be clear: Artificial net benefits be dumb, yo. Counterplans should have solvency advocates--preferably normative one--which will go a long way in defending the theoretical legitimacy of the advocacy.

Against big stick affs, don't read stupid PICs like "the" or "should" because then I will cry. And I am an ugly crier.

I won't kick a conditional CP in the 2NR unless I'm explicitly told to in the debate.


Disads:
For politics, gotta have the goods evidence-wise.
Political capital key cards should say that political capital is key.
I think that an aff shooting apart the internal link chain of a stupid scenario is sufficient.
I would really like it if your DA was an actual opportunity cost to the plan.
Link controls direction of uniqueness.

Kritiks:
I exclusively went for the K almost all of college, so I know a lot of the literature. I've read a lot of Foucault, Baudrillard, Nietzsche and Deleuze but I won't pretend I know all K authors equally. Please explain it in relation to the aff, not just in high theory terms.
I don't think I'm the federal government. I am a sleepy coach judging a debate. However, I can be persuaded differently by args made in the debate.
Getting to weigh the aff is distinct from a "role of the ballot" argument because Role of the ballot determines how/what I am voting on or evaluating.
I love highly technical K debate ie. LINE BY LINE and clash.
Well researched and case specific Ks will make me smile.


Theory:
I really do enjoy theory debates if it is delivered at a rate consistent with the arguments. For example, if you are saying conditionality is bad in the 1AR don't speed through it because it is difficult to flow in its entirety. I will vote on unconditionality good, or 5 conditional CPs good. Debate is debate. If a theory violation is well impacted and explained, I will vote on it.

Topicality:
I default to competing interpretations unless told to evaluate it differently. I love when people read a lot of cards on tea, or have a hyper specific topicality argument. I evaluate it like a DA, so impacting things such as limits and ground is important.

Framework vs K affs:
I'm down to listen to really anything, and I was usually on the side of the team answering framework for most of my career. That being said, I really really enjoy framework debates. I think that "no Ks" isn't very convincing, but there should probably some agreed upon stasis point. This doesn't mean you need to defend the hypothetical implementation of plan in front of me, but if the other team wins that fiat is a good model of education, I will vote on it.

Hello, I'm Jamie Snoddy (pronounced like snotty, but with the [d] sound). I'm a community coach for Patrick Henry HS and also a coach at the University of Minnesota. I did a year of debate at Patrick Henry and debated two years for UMN. I graduated in 2018 with a Bach. in Linguistics (Puns get you extra speaks). Please add me to the email chain with the following email address: snodd003@umn.edu

Overview

Learning is the main focus of debate. I like arguments to be presented in a clear and logical manner (it can even be flawed logic, as long as it's coherent and feasible, I think it's legit.). So, there aren't many things I'm against teams running. TELL ME WHAT TO VOTE FOR PLZ! Impact Calc and Roll of the ballot args are great.

Place a higher precedence on presenting evidence clearly and consistently (so not reading things incoherently fast unless e.v.e.r.y s.i.n.g.l.e t.h.i.n.g. is in your speech doc. Which it shouldn't be. If I'm not looking at you and typing, you're good. If I'm looking at you and leaned back, I'm waiting for flow-able info. If I'm looking at you and nodding I'm listening to good points that I feel have already been flowed.

Full disclosure: I'm a sucker for wipeout/death good args, idc which side it is lbvs. Maybe it's the high school emo in me. Best way to combat these args, to me, is go all into VTL and some change better than no change and, if applicable, the ppl who are getting effed over by sqou violence still don't want to die... then that gets into cruel optimism, yada yare yare.

Case

I'm fine with no plan affs. You just have to reeeeeally be ready to answer FW and T. You need to convince me of why running this aff w/o a plan will not work within the resolution. I'm a former 2A so sympathize with defending your case baby from the big scary neg lolz jk.

CPs

As long as the Neg can keep track of all the CPs they have, have all the cps you want. Just be ready to defend needing all of the cps if the aff chooses to go that route. Condo... is... a thing... I guess. The more cps you have, the high chance I'll believe condo bad args, cuz having that many multiple worlds is sorta abusive. So if you're running 7 or 8 cps, they better be dispo or uncondo, or have really great answers for why having that many condo worlds is necessary...

DAs

Fine and necessary args in policy.

Ks

Great! I love Ks and really love non-basic Ks. I don't like flimsy, vague alts. Even if it is as simple as Reject "x", I need to know what exactly what the world of the alt will look like and why it should be preferred to the aff's.

T

Topicality, to me, is different than theory (I flow them sep) and as long as voters are attached to it, I'll consider the args.

Theory

Is a prior question and needs to be addressed before talking about anything else. If we can't agree on how we talk to each other, then what does anything we say matter? ROB args are persuasive if voters are attached to it.

Speaker Points

Switching between hs and coll. debate sometimes throws me of, but I try to be really generous with them? If you're chill, courteous and not a butt during a round you get higher speaks.

Cutting people off aggressively and being unnecessarily snarky looses you speaks. I get if you're having a bad day or are going through some things that it may get taken out here in our community. If that's the case, just give the people in your round a heads up that you're in a mood.

Ashe Tippins - they/them pronouns (she/her is not preferred but i'm not gonna correct you if you use it, just try to like not)

ashe.tippins@gmail.com // please include me on any email chain that is created for the round

First a little about me as a debater: I debated in college parli debate for four years at Western Washington University off and on between 2010-2016 (yes i'm old, but hey at least i've seen a lot of rounds lmao). I coached high school policy debate for two years. In the six years since I debated, I have coached and judged rounds in a variety of formats; I, now, coach policy and CARD debate at Western Washington University.

How I evaluate a round: My evaluation of a round does not change based on the arguments presented in the round. The only exception being debate performances that present sufficient cause to abandon the guidelines I have listed below. Such performances are; arguments that have won on the flow but are morally reprehensible (i.e. arguments that advocate for transphobia, antiblackness, colonialism, misogyny, antifatness, ableism, etc.), ad hominin based arguments*, and arguments that preclude another debater's ability to compete (i.e. triggering arguments). My bright line for abandoning the evaluation method outlined below is; 1) the performance of one of the listed behaviors above being present within the debate round, and 2) the argument is made that the team must be voted against for their performance within the debate. I would prefer that teams collapse to the performative exclusion type arguments however, a collapse is not necessary for me to vote on the argument. I do not enjoy voting on these arguments and I prefer to default to my stated evaluation method; i do not think a minor performance of these listed behaviors will be enough for me to exclude an entire team rather than simply excluding the argument**. *Ad hominin based arguments about public figures, authors, or rapists are not performances I would include within this designation. **this does not apply to performance-based arguments, simply arguments concerning the performance of the debaters’ opponents in the round.

A Note About Misgendering Your Opponents: DON'T DO IT! You are not always gonna know ahead of time, so ASK and never assume. If your opponent lets you know that you have misgendered them and you do not stop misgendering them, I WILL VOTE YOU DOWN. This functions the same way that the performance-based reasons to evaluate the round differently function; the only differing factor is that I have a zero-tolerance policy for continued misgendering within the debate round.

1. FRAMEWORK: By the very nature of framework, it must come first in any evaluation. Comparison work must be done between competing framework interpretations; simply giving further examples of your own framework is not sufficient. Framework decides which impacts must be solved for and which types of arguments I should prefer when making my decision. Role of the ballot arguments also need to be a full argument [claim-warrant-impact] as opposed to an assertion.  

2. INTERNAL LINKS/SOLVENCY: After determining which impacts must be solved (the point of framework debates), it is a question of who solves the impacts best. This is; CP solvency vs. Plan solvency – Alt Solvency vs. Plan solvency – Plan solvency vs. Status Quo Solvency – Standards internal link vs. counter standards internal link.

a. If the framework and uniqueness are agreed upon, then my decision will be for the team that best solves for the agreed upon impacts.

b. If the framework is won by either side, my decision will be for the team that best solves for the impacts that the winning interpretation prioritizes.

c. Under the winning framework, if solvency of the impacts is sufficiently contested and justified by each team, it is a question of uniqueness and the evaluation continues.

3. UNIQUENESS: There is all types of uniqueness – link turn uniqueness, uniqueness overwhelms the link, disad uniqueness, internal link turn uniqueness, etc. – and justifying sufficient uniqueness for your offense is the way to edge your way out of a close debate in front of me.

a. If the team wins that their instance of solvency is unique in some way - i.e. there's an opportunity cost or solving for a problem now allows future problems to have greater solvency - then the team that has the most unique solvency will have my ballot.

b. Conversely, if a team wins that there is no uniqueness for the other teams solvency - i.e. the problem could be solved later or will be solved by enacting some alternative to the presented advocacy - then the question becomes what percentage of the impact did each team win and which type of solvency should be preferred. This is where impact calculus comes in - magnitude, probability, reversibility, and timeframe. Realistically these are just impact framework arguments however, if there is no uncontested or cleanly won uniqueness for either sides impact solvency and there is nearly equal claim to solvency then it is ONLY a question of what type of solvency is best. These questions are answered by impact calculus and impact comparison. Too many times debaters leave this last question to the judge - which results in unhappy debaters and judges - if you want to be in control of the decision in front of me - then simply tell me how to vote and i'll follow you like jazz.

LINCOLN_DOUGLAS UPDATE 1/7/2023

I am clearly a policy judge even though i have judged some LD before and have seen many topics and am familiar with the basics like value, criteria, resolutional analysis, etc. What i have been finding is I need a story in the final rebuttals to win the ballot. Please don't just start the top of your last speech digging into the line-by-line. Please tell me why the line-by-line matters. You will have to concede arguments, more than likely, to win a competitive round so keep in mind that no debater wins every single argument in every single round. I need a comparative explanation of why you should win the round despite the fact that you are losing other arguments on the flow.

JAN/FEB TOPIC: I am finding that you will need more than terrorism, trafficking, or narcotics to win my ballot on the negative. Not to generalize, (that's kind of what we do in our paradigms) the argument has not been very persuasive to me, especially when the data indicates that citizens here commit violent crime at rates far exceeding the immigrant/refugee community. I don't wanna say that it would be impossible to win with this case on the negative, but just know that it might be a difficult and uphill venture. It sounds and feels kinda nativist, to say the least.

UPDATED 1/31/2021

I have been in policy debate since the early nineties. I debated at Gonzaga University in the late nineties. There's not a lot that i haven't seen in this activity. I cant even calculate how many rounds I have actually judged. Speed is obviously fine, if you need to be clearer I will tell you to do so as you are speaking. I really don't do this very often but it is a small issue now with online debate.

I need to be on the email chain and I super prefer flashing your theory arguments (if you really, really wanna win the round on them).

I will vote on framework arguments (AFF or NEG) i have no biases here. I really don't have any biases against arguments like K affirmatives, multiple CPs, condtionality....you name it, its debatable. I will vote on topicality and definitely will vote on stasis based arguments against K affirmatives that are clearly outside the resolution. (this isnt to say dont run non-topical critical Affs, i vote for them frequently.) I really like policy based CP and net benefits VS plan debates. I love a good (or bad) politics disad with super fresh/recent evidence and updates. I will vote on case turns (if they are unique, of course) this is a viable strategy for my ballot. I also like in depth/heavy case debates.

The most fundamental part of my paradigm is this: The debate round exists for the participants, not the judge. The affirmative or negative strategy should be based on what YOU like to run, what YOU feel is important, substantial, or an issue of prima facie concern. I can be persuaded to vote on any type of argument (topicality, critiques, framework, counterplan and net benefits VS the plan, even justification arguments) as long as clear voting issues and/or impact analysis is provided.

One of the best ways to win my ballot is to use “because-even if-because” argumentation. Here’s what I like to see in the last rebuttals:

“The affirmative/negative wins the round because (fill in the blank.) Even if the other team wins their arguments, we still win because (fill in the blank.) This is an old school paradigm that I picked up in the 90s from the late great Becky Galentine.

Furthermore, I need to see issue selection in the final rebuttals. Very rarely will you be winning every argument. Winning one vital argument soundly is better than winning small risks of numerous different impacts or disadvantages. The ability to concede arguments and “collapse down” into the key issues is often the difference when making my decision.

When clear impact analysis or voting issues are not delivered, I often find myself “reading into” your evidence to base my decision. This may help or hinder your case depending on the quality of your evidence. In other words, if your evidence does not say what you claim it does then I may have difficulty voting on the issue. When I cannot come to a clear decision in my mind and “on the flow”, I often look into your evidence for further assistance. At this point I often base my decisions on verbatim text from evidence read, not just taglines. I typically read a lot of evidence at the conclusion of the round. I often find myself voting based on "a preponderance of the evidence." Please make sure you are clear with the authors for each piece of key evidence so I know what to reference in my decision. If you call out an author in the last rebuttal I will almost certainly read that evidence.

Please be aware that i take a long time to decide almost every round. I am typically the last (or next to last) judge to turn in a ballot just about every time. I like to go over all arguments thoroughly.

Finally, I like to see creativity in the debate round. I will vote as a policy maker when put into that paradigm. I have no qualms doing so. Again, the round is yours, not mine. However, I can also be persuaded to vote on “outside the box” types of arguments and usually enjoy those debates immensely.

**Reach out to me via email after the round anytime for further answers regarding my reason for decision. I always save my flows.***

jhyake@hotmail.com