Paradigm for urban debate:

I strongly value clash. Please make sure that you're advancing the debate throughout the rebuttal speeches (i.e., responding to your opponent's arguments both on their own case and responding to their objections to yours), vs just restating your position and/or reading a block file without making the impact / implication of the blocks clear.

I can't flow spreading (super fast rates of speaking) very well through online debate, so please don't do it. If you're having and mic issues or anything else that makes it challenging to hear you I'll say "Clear."

Please number your responses to arguments where applicable e.g., if you have 3 responses against the affirmative's first advantage, say 1/2/3 before each argument, otherwise it is very challenging to understand where one argument ends and the next begins.

If you have any questions about my judging or prior debate experience that would help you to compete most effectively, please do not hesitate to ask!

General paradigm:

Hi, I'm Grant

I competed primarily in LD (both traditional and circuit) for Gilmour Academy for 4 years, and served as the head coach of Dublin Jerome High School for 3 years. I've coached NSDA and TOC qualifiers in LD, PF, and Congress

I am comfortable judging most arguments and positions (i.e. you don't need to stick to purely traditional) with a few caveats (most of this applies to judging LD):

1) I don't like when progressive arguments are used simply to deny access for your opponent to participate -- please recognize the context of the tournament, i.e. it's okay to run a K at GBX but please don't do it at a local where there's 0% chance a student's coach taught them how to effectively debate K's

2) I'm a few years removed from the meta so do not assume I have a well-rounded understanding of the argument and how it typically interacts with other arguments, i.e. be very clear on the claims, warrants, and implications of the argument you're reading and define any jargon

3) Please don't spread -- especially in virtual debate, I've somewhat lost my ear for speed. I do not consider speaking/presentation a voter, just a pre-req for me to understand you

4) I don't care for tricks debate. Theory is fine, but I'll probably give your opponent the benefit of the doubt if they slightly misinterpreted one of the dozen spikes at the top of your case and the full implication of the argument was not clear when you first read it

If you have any questions about my judging or prior debate experience that would help you to compete most effectively, please do not hesitate to ask!

(updates for cities '21)

- i have judged zero rounds of online debate, so bear with me and probably aim for clarity as opposed to warp speed.

- i have judged zero rounds on the topic, so while i can read ev and follow a round don't assume i share, or care about, the community opinions about what cards or arguments or teams are good or bad or cool or automatically knock out others. good warrants are good warrants, trash is trash. now that i think about it, that's the case for every year.

- previewing your aff doesn't mean you're topical. it means you're predictable.

- there are a fair number of northside judges in the pool. for the most part we share a brain when it comes to what works for us stylistically, so if they've judged you before, that's a good barometer for what i'm looking for.

- it's the end of a brutal debate year for everyone, and for some of you it's the end of your careers. treat that scenario and everyone in it with the kindness and decency it deserves.

previous

(updated as of fall '17 for the sake of efficiency and clarity)

(further update: take anything aidan kane has told you about my judging with a grain of salt the size of a city bus.)

1. i spent the past 11 years as head coach at Northside College Prep (UDL school from Chicago, though we compete nationally) before stepping down in may. i don't judge a ton anymore, and don't pore over files as closely anymore.
2. i'd like to be on the email chain, but i won't be reading along with the speech doc. if you want the card to matter, make sure you’re clear and organized enough that it’s on my flow the way you want it. i don’t generally take prep for flashing/emailing; in panel rounds i’m happy to defer to less lenient judges.
3. fine with national-circuit speed when you’re reading cards, though per the above note you do need to cue me when you’re moving between cards or from the overview to the line-by-line. when you’re making analytics or reading your t/theory/fw blocks, you need to go slower. i say this knowing every other judge says the same, and yet for some reason it’s still necessary to say this.
4. the more bogged down in minutiae without clear framing and organization you all make the debate, the more likely i am to vote on the general thesis of the arguments. (not purposely or anything, just happens.) this might work in your favor, this might not.
5. non-traditional affirmatives (whatever that means now) have generally done well in front of me, although that’s largely a result of negative teams not being terribly strategic. i’m in a weird position in that i probably agree with your critique of societal ills and probably agree that they need to be aired, but i default to disagreeing that entirely delimiting the affirmative team is good for the educational value of the game. my initial degree of sympathy towards the neg on fw is usually dependent on how untethered the aff is from the core ground of the resolution as opposed to a particular method of defending it.
6. i will vote for arguments that i hate (besides the obvious like racism/sexism/etc. good), though both your burden and my blood pressure is higher in those instances.
7. Ks i hate: death cult/death good (it might be, but we have no game without those impacts), arguments that the state itself is bad (it might be, but at present we have no game without the aff being topical) as opposed to a specific action the plan fiats that the state takes. Ks i don’t love: those with alternatives that don’t take an action (and unless your alt solvency evidence is good, rethinking =/= acting). Ks i’m fine with: the rest. CPs i hate: artificially competitive process CPs. everything else is reasonable if you can justify it.
8. early in the year i look more to competing interpretations/potential abuse on t; later in the year, as the community is more settled, for me it becomes more about reasonability/in-round abuse.
9. i’m almost always going to default to RANT rather than dropping a team on a cheap theory violation. i’ve got more tolerance to outright drop a team on well-developed theory args on status questions as opposed to type questions.
10. ways to improve your speaks: have a coherent strategy, whether aff or neg; have causal scenarios that make sense as opposed to being distinct ideas from different contexts clumsily Frankenstein-ed back together; provide comparative impact and link work rather than ignoring what your opponent is in front on; don't be a tool in cx (better yet, at all); stick to the 2AC order (particularly in the block); structure your last rebuttals in such a way that i don't have to intervene a ton.

UPDATE FOR TOC 2024

a.bhaijidebate(at)gmail.com

gbsdebatelovesdocs(at)gmail.com

**please add both emails to the chain!**

Aasiyah (ah-see-yuh) Bhaiji (by-jee)

any pronouns (pls don't call me judge)

Debated for GBS 2016-2019, qualified to the TOC my third year and was awarded the JW Patterson Fellowship as a member of the graduating class of 2020. I do not debate in college.

I’ve judged around 30 debates on the fiscal redistribution topic. Most of my work related to debate is with Chicago Debates, where I help to build and maintain programs.

SHORT VERSION

"Do your thing, so long as you enjoy the thing you do. My favorite debates to watch are between debaters who demonstrate a nuanced understanding of their literature bases and seem to enjoy the scholarship they choose to engage in...I think judging is a privilege."-Maddie Pieropan.

I flow as much as my fingers will allow me. Slow down on the important parts and always remember clarity should be prioritized over speed.

LONG VERSION

Debate as an activity loses all value when debaters do not consider that there has to be a reason why a team deserves the ballot. I try my hardest to stick to my flow and rely heavily on judge instruction as to how I will write my ballot. YOU DO NOT WANT ME TO CONNECT THE DOTS FOR YOU.

I appreciate debaters who are passionate, excited, and well-prepared. The best debaters I’ve witnessed throughout the years have been the ones who show kindness and respect towards their partners and opponents. I am not a fan of teams that openly mock, belittle, and disrespect the people they are debating.

Clarity is key and seems to be a lost art. I mostly flow by ear and will not catch what you are saying if you blast through your analytics. Please slow down and do not start at 100% speed at the top of your speech.

Planless Affirmatives

I like planless affirmatives, but you absolutely need to defend the choices and explanations you give in early cross-exes. I need to know what your version of debate looks like, and I am finding that most teams aren’t willing to defend a solid interpretation, which makes it hard for me to vote for them.

Please stick to an interpretation once you’ve read it. Clash debates with affs that are centered around the resolution are fun, and I find myself in the back of those debates most of the time.

CPs

I do not default to judge kick; you have to give me instructions. What does it mean to sufficiently frame something? I am so serious. I have been asking this question for what seems like forever now.

I miss advantage counterplans, and I am a less-than-ideal judge for Process CPs (I'm not saying I won’t vote for them, it might do you well to spend a couple more seconds on process cps good in the block).

Solvency advocates are good but not always necessary.

DAs

Zero risk of the DA is super real; sometimes you might not even need a card for it!

DAs as case turns will inevitably end up on the same flow, so please just tell me where to flow things earlier on in the debate.

Ks

Biiig fan of 'em.

“Kritiks that rely entirely on winning through framework tricks are miserable. If I am not skeptical of the aff's ability to solve their internal links or the alt's ability to solve them, then I am unlikely to vote negative.”-AJ Byrne

If you cannot explain your alternative using a vocabulary a 7th grader can understand, you are likely using language and debate jargon that I find counterintuitive and, quite frankly, boring.

T

Why are we putting this as the first off? I will most likely miss the interpretation if you are speeding through it.

FW

Fairness is an internal link, clash is good and I personally think that more teams should be going for portable skills.

I am not good for “our interpretation is better for small schools”.

Other things:

1. If I could implement the no more than 5 off rule, I would.Obviously against new affirmatives, the circumstances are different, but I firmly believe that everything in the 1NC should be a viable option for the 2NR.
2. DISCLOSURE IS GOOD!I will try my hardest to be in the room for when it happens and I am not afraid to check teams wikis to see their disclosure practices. If you post round docs and show before I give you my decision, you will be rewarded.
3. I am super expressive, and you will be able to tell if I am vibing with whatever you are saying. I do have a very prominent RBF. Don’t take it personally; it means I am trying to get everything down.
4. Fine with tag-team but have found myself becoming frustrated when one debater from a team dominates all of cx. I do think that all debaters should speak at some point during cross-ex.
5. CX as prep is only justified when there is a new aff or if you are maverick.
6. The 1AC should be sent out at the scheduled round start time, the only exception is if the tournament is behind schedule and Tab has alerted everyone of the timing change.

More things I have thought about in regards to debate but aren’t wholly necessary to pre-round prep.

1. There is a difference between speaking up and yelling, I do not do well with debaters talking over their partners.

2. STOP HIDING ASPEC ON YOUR FLOWS, say it with your CHEST.

3. I LOVE good case debating, and I get sad when the block treats it as an afterthought.

4. I had no idea teams gained the ability to remember every single thing their opponent said. FLOW! PLEASE!

5. Why are we reading the tier 3 argument against planless affirmatives.... let's start using our critical thinking skills

6. Rehighlighting evidence is a lost art. Bring it back for 2024

7. Clipping is bad, don't do it. I will clear you twice, and after that, I will stop flowing. If there is a recording of you clipping, it's an auto loss and a talk with your coach

8. I flow straight down (primarily because of sloppy line-by-line); the more organized your speeches are, the happier I am.

9. DRINK WATER

10. I do not care if you put a single card in the body of the email chain.

11. Have fun and let the games begin!

Amit Bindra's Judge Philosophy

Below are some of my thoughts on debate.  However, since 2009, I have (a) cut maybe two debate cards, and (b) only judged at CDL or local, tournaments in the Chicagoland area. 

I debated for 2.5 years at Michigan State in college (2005-07, 2009), and for 4 years at Brookfield Central High School (2001-05).  I cleared at the NDT twice in college (07, 09), and the TOC in high school (05).  However, I'm pretty removed from debate right now.

During my debate career, I was fairly policy oriented.  I will do the best that I can to conform to the debaters and their preferences, but my knowledge level for critical and performance based debates is low.  My feedback for policy oriented rounds will also be more productive for the debaters. 

Finally, I'm still figuring out how to properly award speaker points, especially now that the norm involves giving out tenths of a speaker point.  So I apologize in advance.

Please feel free to email me after rounds if you have additional questions.

Cross-Examination

I flow CX, and the best debaters make this the most important speech.  I think a lot of teams make good connections in CX, but fail to apply these connections to the actual round.  

Blippy Arguments

I am incredibly unlikely to vote for unsubstantiated claims that the other team allegedly did not answer.  I will give the rebuttals a lot of leeway to respond to "they dropped x is a voting issue."  Especially when "x" is barely an argument.  See most CP theory arguments. 

Topicality

I typically vote for the "best interpretation" for debate.  Generally, that means some sort of offense/defense paradigm.  I do not generally like just defensive arguments.  An interpretation coupled with some reasonability arguments could get my vote for the affirmative.

Theory

I lean negative on almost all theory questions, and I am incredibly unlikely to vote affirmative on conditionality bad, no neg fiat, etc.  At the same time, this doesn't mean the affirmative shouldn't make these arguments, or that the negative can concede these arguments.  There are strategic benefits from a time stand point for the affirmative.  But if the 2ar is going for conditionality bad, and the 2nr made some arguments in response, I am likely voting negative pretty quickly.

Disads/CPs

These are the debates I prefer, and debates I'm probably the most qualified to judge.  I fall into the "offense/defense" category of judging.  I generally think there is a risk of the disadvantage, though it might be very small.  I have no problem if the negative reads multiple conditional frameworks or counterplans.

Critiques/Performance/Framework

This definitely isn't my forte - I don't know too much about the literature (surprisingly, I don't spend my free time reading Baudrillard and Zizek).  

At the same time, I think "policy oriented" teams do a poor job responding to criticisms or performance arguments.  I am unlikely to vote for framework in these debates, mostly because I think these debates are rarely nuanced. 

For the most part, I'm probably closer to the middle regarding non-plan/performance debates than one would guess given my debate background (i.e. I vote for the team running the performance -  even when not defending the plan - about half the time).  However, I'm not well-educated on these debates, so I have the potential to make errors in judgment.

Also, I truly do not understand the value of reading a former debater's or current coach's thoughts on framework.  I really don't understand how attaching the evidence to a debater/coach's name adds any credibility to the evidence. 

Other

I reward teams with better speaker points for not wasting my time when they do not need to.  For example, if you are in a non-competitive round, you are not required to use all of your prep time.  Obviously, make you sure you are able to win the round.  But I will reward higher speaker points for being considerate of my time.

Please Note: ADD me to the Email Chain [dbraswell@chicagodebates.org]

My Paradigm is as follows,

I am a stickler for structured organized debate. As a previous high school and college debater; I stress the importance of the AFF team hitting all stock issues (Inherency, Harms, Solvency, Plan, and T), signposting, line by line clash, Impact Cal, poise during cross ex, and leaving no argument unaddressed. For the NEG Team, I welcome off case and on case arguments, they must be clearly signposted (If DA- Uniqueness, Link, Internal Link, Impact. ETC for T/K/CP/Theory arguments), use line by line, Impact Cal, and politeness as well during cross ex (Keep It Cute). I am a firm believer of strategy as well, so go for whatever strategy you feel works best for you IN the debate round. I can flow spreading however IF you are spreading, IT MUST BE CLEAR AND CONCISE. Actual spreading doesn't sound like gibberish and run-on sentences. If it is a digital debate with files online, PLEASE set up Email Chains and Flash Drives before the round, it takes away from actual debate time. I do signal how much time you have as time goes down and you can finish your sentence when the timer goes off. In the event someone has to go to the restroom, it would be counted as prep time. I have judged the following debate/speech events: CX, PF, LD, Congress, College Parli, OO, and other speech events. As I have been a debater, debate team captain, coach, and program assistant; My goal is to educate and build upon your knowledge of debate as well as help you grow as an aware and autonomous being. Debate has played a tremendous role in my growth and development; I hope it does the same for you. I do not disclose unless instructed to by the league however I do believe in giving meaningful feedback at the end of the round.

Respectfully,

Derrick Braswell

Jeff Buntin
Northwestern University/Montgomery Bell Academy

Feelings----------------------------------------X--Dead inside

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

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

Read no cards-----------------------------X------Read all the cards

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

States CP good-----------------------X-----------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-------------------------X----Politics DA not a thing

Always VTL-------x--------------------------------Sometimes NVTL

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Fairness is an impact-X------------------------------Fairness is not an impact

Tonneson votes aff-----------------------------X-Tonneson clearly neg

Try or die--------------x---------------------------What's the opposite of try or die

Not our Baudrillard-------------------------------X Yes your Baudrillard

Clarity-X--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Limits--------------------X--------------------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Resting grumpy face---X--------------------------Grumpy face is your fault

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

"Insert this rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

2017 speaker points---------------------X--------2007 speaker points

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Dallas-style expressive----------X---------------D. Heidt-style stoic

Referencing this philosophy in your speech--------------------X-plz don't

Fiat double bind-----------------------------------------X--literally any other arg

AT: --X------------------------------------------------------ A2:

AFF (acronym)-------------------------------------------X Aff (truncated word)

"It's inev, we make it effective"------------------------X---"It'S iNeV, wE mAkE iT eFfEcTiVe"

Bodies without organs---------------X---------------Organs without bodies

Redistribution affs must tax----------------------X--------Not required to tax

New affs bad-----------------------------------------X-Old affs bad

Aff on process competition--X-------------------------Neg on process competition

CPs that require the 'butterfly effect' card------------X- Real arguments

'Judge kick'----------------------------------X---Absolutely no 'judge kick'

Nukes topic--X-----------------------------------------Any other topic ever

Email: rcai2@cps.edu

Add me to the email chain.

A former debater. I'm fine with pretty much all arguments as long as they are well extended throughout, though I do prefer more policy-focused arguments. Heavily prefer tech over truth. I mostly flow on my laptop.

Views on each Args:

- Topicality

As long as the violation is well-argued and the standards are well extended, I will likely go for it.

- CP

No real preferences for anything. As long as the evidence and reasoning are fine and the NB is well done, I will vote for it.

- K

Most Ks are fine. If it is high theory, perhaps explain it more thoroughly. Not that into the literature. I would prefer a solid, well-explained Alternative but I could still vote for you if you conceded it properly.

- FW

Not my personal strongest suit but as long as the reasoning is clear, I will follow along

- Theory

Most theory args are fine as long as you can prove in round abuse or potential in round abuse. On condo, I am flexible to go for or against three conditional arguments.

As long as there is some professionalism in the round and respect from both sides, the round should go fine. Do your best or something. Don't meme. I'm just making this look longer than it actually needs to be. Have a good tournament or whatever.

Conor Cameron
ccameron3@cps.edu
he/him/his
Coach, Solorio, 2012 - present

 

TLDR: Better for CP / DA / impact turn debates

 

I'll do my best to evaluate arguments as made.  When the way I make sense of a debate differs from the way debaters make sense of a debate, here seem to be some common sources of the disparity:

1) I'm pretty ingrained in the offense defense model.  This means that even if the NB is dumb, if the aff cannot generate a solvency deficit against the CP, and the aff has no offense against the DA, I am highly likely to vote negative.  

Some notes: a) I do not think a solvency deficit needs to be carded; b) more difficult, but I could envision voting on analytic offense against a DA, c) I'm willing to vote on zero risk of the DA, but we'd both benefit from you taking a moment to explain why the offense-defense model is inapplicable in the debate at hand

2) I still think I have a relatively high bar for voting negative on topicality; however, I've tried to begin evaluating this debate more from an offense-defense perspective.  In my mind, this means that if the affirmative does not meet the negative's interpretation, and does not have its own counterinterpretation, it is essentially arguing that any affirmative is topical and is conceding a 100% link to the limits disadvantage.  I'm highly likely to vote negative in such a debate.  

 

General argument notes:
3) I'm probably more sympathetic to cheaty process counterplans than most.  

4) While I may complain, I do vote on the standard canon of negative kritiks.  Things like cap, security, standard topic kritiks, etc. are fine.  Extra explanation (examples, stories, analogies, etc.) is always appreciated, all the more so the further from my comfort zone you venture.

5) FW vs K Affs: I lean negative.  However, I judge few of these debates.  Both teams would benefit from accepting that I know very little here, slowing down, speaking clearly, and over-explaining (depth, not repetition) things you assume most judges know.  

 

Other notes
6) I judge because:
a) I still really enjoy debate.
b) Judging is an opportunity to continue to develop my understanding of debate.
c) I am covering my students' judge commitment so that they too can benefit from this activity.

 

7) Quick reference
Policy---X------------------------------------------K

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

Read no cards-------X----------------------------Read all the cards

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

States CP good----X------------------------------States CP bad

Politics DA is a thing-----X------------------------Politics DA not a thing

UQ matters most----------------------X----------Link matters most

Limits----------------------------------X------------Aff ground

Presumption---------------------------------X-----Never votes on presumption

Longer ev--------X---------------------------------More ev

CX about impacts----------------------------X----CX about links and solvency

Policy debate preferred. Please don’t read a K in front of me unless you actually understand what you are saying.

Please Note: Your speaker points will be docked if you are unnecessarily rude/condescending during cross-x.

My name is Jonathan Gabriel Cardona, I've debated policy for 3 years at Lane Tech in Chicago and I consider myself as a rather laid back judge. I’m fine with anything as long as I get the sense that you understand at least 70% of what you’re talking about (including satire). Clarity is crucial, show respect, and learn how to utilize each other for education. To me, the debate is extremely important at the ethical level. Don't be a jerk, please! You can be aggressive but don't confuse it with being disrespectful to your opponent.

A good relationship between the judge and the debaters is very important. I will be putting a lot of trust in y'all to keep time, including prep, and not stealing prep. If you can't for whatever reason, I will be more than happy to help you out in whatever way you need (i.e 5 3 1 rule, extra timer, I'll even give you my timer if need be.

I am there to determine the round, I expect the same amount of respect for myself and each other as if it were your own coach.

Besides the respect, I think the most important rule is to have fun! Be your own ice cream flavor whether you are 0-4 in your last round and you have 0% chance of breaking or you are debating in finals at TOC. It's just a round. Learn and I will be happy :)

jonathan.gabriel.cardona@gmail.com

I am no debate expert. At this point, debate enthusiast is probably a more fitting description of what I am. All that to say, hear me out and pref me accordingly. I was a policy debater for 4 years in the Chicago Debate League & I competed for 4 years on both the JV circuit and Varsity circuit for Samford University. It took me two years to learn that my talent and gift lie more with teaching debate and judging more so than my actual desire to debate. Had I applied myself a little more, I probably could have been a more competitive debater but meh- allegedly I'm an adult now and that's the past. Pay attention because this provides context for my actual paradigm; see below.

Debate is a game. Debate is a simulation. Debate is real life. Debate is an opportunity to model real life policy making. All of these things are true, and all of these things have a place in debate and deserve to be truth tested within the confines of the rules that exist unless you can articulate a reasonable argument that it is not. I will not tell you what arguments you can and cannot run. I think teams deserve the right to run the arguments that make sense to them, they are comfortable defending, and are prepared to argue. The real question is whether or not you are willing to do the work to earn my ballot.

I am a lazy judge. I will listen to you, and I will flow. I will vote on the arguments that make sense to me based on the work you do in the round. I will not go out of my way to prove I am competent by explaining high level theory knowing you will probably only retain 3 percent of what I say post round. While I will talk about the arguments, I will mostly provide feedback related to the procedural element of debate. If you see me in the back of the room, it is mostly as a favor to an old debate bud, which means that I am probably vaguely familiar with the topic, if at all, and have zero desire to spend time explaining how things came to be within the topic. If you have specific questions about the topic we can talk about it however, my goal is to ensure you receive the feedback you need to be a better debater- the topics change, the skills to actually be a good, competitive debater will not. After we have addressed the most important skills, I will talk about the actual round.

Arguments:

Again- Run the arguments you are comfortable with. If you can explain it and defend it, I will vote on it. Being a policy debater, from a very policy-oriented team, my typical wheelhouse of argumentation involved strong case arguments, disadvantages, T, and Counterplans with the occasional Neolib or Cap K. That's not to say I won't vote on anything else or refuse to commit to learning anything new- If you are going to run more high theory arguments, understand you will have to spend more time explaining the warrants in the cards and how it relates to the round. If you cannot do that, do what you do but good luck. You leave a lot of responsibility on me to figure it out and you may or may not like how I apply it to the round. I only draw the line with arguments that are discriminatory, hateful, and/or harmful. If it is from a place of ignorance, I will spend time to address it and enlighten you on why the arguments have no place in debate. If I feel it is done purposely to demean or hurt your opponent, I am prepared to end the round with a ballot in favor of the opponent enduring the abuse, severely dock speaker points of the perpetrators and I will address it with you and the coaches of both teams. I won't mince words. Consider yourself warned.

T and Procedural theory arguments are very valid debate strategies, however, be prepared to really spend time on it if you want me to vote on it. My threshold for these arguments is incredibly high given that a lot of teams aren't very good at articulating anything other than "our opponents dropped it." I need to know why the standards are important, I need to know what ground is lost, I need to know how this round sets the precedent for the remainder of the academic year on the topic. If you're going to commit to these kinds of arguments, commit.

Disads: Please make sure your warrants in the cards match the tags. I read cards. If it doesn't make sense, I am going to make fun of them. Tag your cards accordingly. Sincerely, Every Judge Ever.

Counterplans: You have the burden of proving you provide the better Alternative that is 1percent better than the plan. It is not enough that you provide an alternative. Do the work.

Kritiks: Not my favorite arguments in debate but again if that's your thing, have at it. You have the burden of proving why they are the starting point before we can even begin to acknowledge the aff plan.

I will not argue about my decision with you or your coaches. I said what I said.

More than anything, as a judge, my primary responsibility to facilitate a safe space for young people to have fun while discussing very important topics that shape the world around them. This is an extra-curricular activity and not anything that warrants stress and despair. While we are here, we are going to respect each other, learn together, and grow our skills. I will not tolerate any language or posturing that indicates otherwise.

All of these seem intuitive I think but alas... the opposite has happened enough to where for a while I entertained the idea that the quality of debate was rapidly diminishing. Jury's still out.

If you have any specific questions that I didn't cover here, please feel free to ask prior to start of the round.

FYI: My face tends to say everything my mouth won't. I have gotten pretty good at filtering what I say however, I am not responsible for what my face does when people start talking. Do with that what you will.

Den (She/They)

Email:
• For chain, please use crossxnight@gmail.com
• For personal inquiries, contact at dnisecarmna@gmail.com

Background:
• Community Coach @Kelly College Prep (Chicago, IL)
• 4 years of High School Policy Debate experience
• Judging Nat Circuit & UDL Tournaments since '19

Topic Comment(s)

Round Counter: 76

4/4 -- Let's have some fun. Except if you run the Death K. Then perish. Joking aside, run anything you deem fit. This is cities, you should never give your opponents mercy because best believe I never got any. ????

Overview:

I'm experienced with both lay/circuit styles of policy debate. Nevertheless, I default towards a tech over truth style of judging unless said otherwise in-round. In terms of judging preferences, I have none. As evidenced by my judging record, I'm primarily preffed by k-oriented teams. I have judged k v k rounds. I have judged k v fw rounds. k v heg good. Judging these rounds have led me to think of debate in a broader capacity. Despite set preferences, I'm capable of being in back of the room judging stock issues debate.

Overall, I'll do my best to judge rounds fairly. I wholeheartedly appreciate the opportunity to judge. It allows me to better educate myself and teach my students on topic trends and/or strategy innovation.

Chicago/UDL: To answer a common question I get... I judge a multitude number of debates (~40) a year. The debaters I've coached win top speakers & break at locals. My proudest achievement is one of my debaters winning the City Championships! Therefore, I'm confident I'm qualified to judge your round. If you ever have any questions about your rounds, please CC: your coach and reach me at dcarmona16@cps.edu since I'm a school district employee.

What I enjoy:

Disadvantages-- Specific links to affirmatives recommended but generics are fine as long as it's still applicable. In terms of the politics disadvantage, evidence recency takes priority. However, how politicians act > what politicians verbally express. Uniqueness overwhelms the Link is a strong argument.

Kritiks-- Always have specific links to the affirmative. Links predicated off the topic itself doesn't lead to any meaningful educational debate specific to the case being ran. However, that doesn't mean I won't vote for Links of omission if the opposing team fails to answer them. If your strategy entails going for the links as impact turns to the affirmative, tell me explicitly to judge kick the alternative. If the negative has to win that the plan is a bad idea, don't let the alternative weigh the kritik down.

Counterplans-- CP debate is pretty awesome. Multiplank Counterplans are good. Planks that are supported by 1AC authors are even better. I don't have a disdain towards process counterplans. If your counterplan is not carded/supported by evidence in the 1NC, those rounds shape to be an uphill battle for the negative.

Topicality-- For the negative to win Topicality, they must [1] provide a model that best adheres to the topic, [2] exclaim why the affirmative fails to meet that model, [3] flesh out why the negative's model of debate is preferable, [4] evaluating the flow through competing interpretations is best. For the affirmative to beat Topicality, they must [1] explain why they meet the negative's model and/or [2] provide a counter-model that's better for the topic, which leads to [3] more educational and fair debates moving forward. [4] Frame the debate through reasonability.

T-USFG-- Prefer the debate to be framed similar to topicality (better model of debate). However, teams going for the impact turn(s) are welcome to do so. Affirmative teams running an advocacy statement tend to go for "the negative's model of debate is inherently worse, therefore by default the judge should vote for the affirmative's model". Definitely, the best approach when 1ACs are built to counter FW by embedding claims on the game of debate and how to best approach the topic. However, I have seen my fair share of critical affirmative's that.. could be read on any other topic. Negative teams, emphasize switch side debate. Provide TVA(s) under your model of debate. Explain the affirmative's burden and the negative's role in this game. Convince me that the negative should be the one reading all these different theory of powers against teams defending a policy. If they break structural rules such as going over speech time, call it out. Procedural fairness leads to better education. Don't rely too heavily on portable skills, I typically buy claims that people rarely become policymakers after this activity.. I'm a graphic designer for reference.

***If your arguments are descriptive in its explicit/graphic content, please provide a trigger warning pre-round. Let's avoid going to tab at all costs and/or having a procedural ran on you. I will stop the round if the other team deems the environment as uncomfortable.

Hall of Famers---

Rats: Kelly Lin, Lisa Gao, Ramon Rodriguez

Learned From: Armando Camargo, Juan Chavez, Jocelyn Aguirre, Leobardo Ramos, Scott Dodsworth

Hi! I'm Sophie and I am so excited to judge your round. I have been debating policy at Boston College for almost 4 years now, I genuinely love the activity, and I consider myself to be a pretty blank slate when judging debates. I'm typically policy-oriented, but I have gone for Ks and planless affs in the past. Just hit me with whatever you like to debate and I'll do my best to evaluate!

I would like to be on the email chain please! My email is carterbc@bc.edu

If there is anything I don't cover below, feel free to email me or just ask before the round!!

Here are the main things you should know:

- I know basically nothing about the high school topic, so explain your arguments to me in a logical and organized way to be sure I don't miss anything big.

- I like hearing Ks, and I will vote on kritiks/K affs. That being said, I am not very well-read on the literature base, so be sure to really break it down for me. I'm a philosophy major and love hearing people get into the weeds of abstract arguments, but a clearly explained internal link chain is especially appreciated for more esoteric args.

- Spreading is fine, but please signpost and slow down for analytics/tags because my flowing is meh

- I love a little bit of classy trash talk in moderation, but being rude to your partner is my biggest pet peeve and will probably be reflected in your speaks.

Onto the specifics...

Topicality/Framework: I will vote on it. I love T and theory debates, and framework vs K affs is good. I like when debates get into the weeds on theory, but since I know so little about the topic, really break it down for me to make sure it makes sense and makes it onto my flow.

Conditionality: I'm old fashioned. I have a pretty low threshold for voting on conditionality, especially when the neg reads excessive conditional arguments.

K affs: Like I said above, I do not have a good grasp on a lot of the critical literature that comes up in debate at this point, so break it down for me. I generally don't like planless affs- debate is a game, and there are impacts to breaking the rules. It is the neg's job to tell me those impacts and convince me. Regardless, I like hearing Ks. Just debate what you're comfortable with and I will figure it out!

Neg Ks: ^^^ but also, alt solvency please! Be specific and spend enough time on the line-by-line.

Impacts: Framing the debate around impact calculus is big. Explain your warrants. My favorite debates to debate in and watch are ones where there is lots of clash on the impact flow!

Counterplans: Must be functionally competitive with the aff for me to vote on it. I like clever CPs, but if the aff can convince me the CP is cheating or abusive (words PICs, consult CPs...) I'm receptive to that. Also, I am generally grumpy about Cps with multiple planks, but you do you.

Most importantly, have fun and debate what you like to debate! Any other questions, just ask :^)

Kelvin K Castro
He/Him/His
add me: kelvinkennycastro@gmail.com
Emory University '23
Solorio '19

tl/dr:
- I love to see clash and engagement with evidence, read your blocks but do more than just that.
- I was mainly a policy-orientated judge, not to say I hate critiques and arguments of that genre, just that I'll not be as knowledgable or the best judge to have if that's a centerpiece of your style.
- Be nice to each other.
- I prefer topic-orientated strategies, if you could read your counterplan on any debate topic that should be a sign.
- I like offense-defense where it makes sense.
- Tech almost always beats truth.
- I'll save my feedback for the ballot, but please ask if you have questions or want it after the debate.

This is just a collection of my thoughts on debate, not a strict rule for what I think you should be doing.

Topicality:
- I'll always be less knowledgeable about your topic than you so going for topicality in front of me is probably not the best for any of us but do what you gotta do.
- In past I tended to find topicality hard to win by the negative but right now I'm unsure what the topic has or should be like.

K's (NEG):
- Needs to be explained.
- fw debates should have clash if it's a focus of the debate, stop forgetting it or overspending time on it. If it's a wash I typically default to weighing some of the aff.
- I usually separate the flow by (overview/fw/k-proper) but you don't have to.
- My knowledge of K’s is probably less than ideal if this is a center point of your negative strategy.
- Please don't just say "the overview answered it," to every argument. I think it's best to either directly reference what claim in the overview would respond to what or just do all that work as you go down the line-by-line. Trust me, you don't want me connecting the dots together for you on a ballot (if I try at all).
- Taking it easy on the line-by-line in the block is pretty wild for me and expect the 2nr's claims to be shot down as "too late to respond" in my ballot.
- Don't forget answering typical theory voters (floating piks bad, vague alts, etc.) this should be easy and extremely annoying to resolve in cases when the theory arguments go dropped and clearly not applicable to the neg's version of the K.
- I'd prefer explanation over card-reading in most k debates I'm in.
- I don't think you automatically lose without an alt in the 2nr.
- If your claims revolve around the reps/discourse/assumptions/etc. of the aff, PLEASE tell me what exactly you're referring to, picking out specific lines/choices of the 1AC/qualifications of authors/etc. will increase your speaker points in my book.
- Lastly, I probably won't understand your jargon.

Policy Affs vs K's:
- I don't vote on aff binary 'no k's' fw please stop reading this it isn't the early 2000s.
- Permutations are powerful but literally impossible to understand if you stick to tagline "do both" or "all other instances" jargon, please lay out what's compatible and how it would look like.
- Just as I hold a high burden for the neg to stick to line-by-line/direct references, the aff must equally respond to the neg.
- Even in these debates a conceded argument is a conceded argument.
- Stop calling everything a "link of omission" if it's blatantly not true.
- Any 2AR that overcovers the conceded case is helping no one.

K's (AFF/NEG):
- CX is extremely valuable and I will listen closely, I will pick up references to it if brought into a speech and reward that.
- Not a fan of calling people directly racist/sexist/etc. just for making policy arguments but I will feel no sympathy checking people if they're legitimately acting this way.

Counterplans:
- I tend to prefer the offense defense model. If the aff doesn't have any offense against the net benefit I tend to justify any solvency deficit in the neg's favor.
- I think sufficiency solvency framing should be answered by the aff but it's not a guarantee 100% solves case for the neg, you still got to do the work.
- Condo only theory argument I don't buy "reject arg not team." that's literally what they want... but if no one points that out I won't intervene. I'm generally in favor of condo being good. More than 3 condo positions get into hazy territory.
- Cheap shot theory arguments exist and can be won, but you shouldn't expect better speaker points because of it. RVIs are fake.
- Consult/Agent/PICs/etc. are all theoretically debatable. Do what you want and be good at it. In the case of process counterplans, the theory/perm debates will matter a lot, I'll expect more than just both teams reading your blocks and moving on without clash. Having a card saying "we're the core of the topic" is helpful but don't overassume its importance in contrast to better debating. Honestly reading cards on theory other than definitions is pretty confusing for me I really don't care if a professor thinks fairness is more important than education.
- Adding planks to a counterplan in the block seems fair to me. Block UQ counterplans are meh.
- I believe the aff gets to decide how they articulate the plan, which ultimately ends up being important in my analysis of PDCPs. I'll give leeway for the aff in 1ac cx for questions such as "who implements the plan." That being said, the neg should definitely be asking this regardless of the answer if an agent CP is one of your neg box options. This is a case where I lean towards truth in the case of what your solvency authors say if this becomes a center point for the neg.
- Having a solvency advocate is good, not having one isn't a dealbreaker if you can explain why.
- Presumption flips aff is real.
- PIKs are probably not good.
- FIAT is a funny concept and I'm open to hearing the explanations from both teams on it.
- 2ac theory is generally a non-risk to me but don't overdo it either.

General:
- Tech about always beats truth.I think this is less so the case when we get into topicality and theory debates. I find myself increasingly willing to hear out 'late' arguments if they're blatantly true, but I'll always try to prioritize the better debating and leave myself out of it.
- Generally, have a high bar for voting on presumption.
- I don't think every argument needs to be carded.
- The most important part of any offcase in front of me is generally the link and internal link, large disconnects between evidence are generally the issue and I'll be looking mainly at your explaination to connect the dots, without it I'll likely be highly skeptical of large jumps unless it's conceded. I reward teams that can point those out.
- Politics is on a case-by-case basis. You need the goods; evidence quality is highly emphasized in my decisions now. Additionally, if it's a bad politics DA I'll most likely hold the bar high for the neg if it's a straight case vs DA debate but don't think they're unwinnable especially when with a counterplan. I like to see evidence that postdates the other team's only if it actually says what you claim.
- It's fine to read 1 card DA's or K's but don't massively overhype what the card actually is saying in the tag or explanations. Especially the case for Econ DAs, I'm not an economist but I'm kind of bewildered by how the smallest of internal links suddenly leads to economic disaster and nuclear war.
- I don't envision this being a dealbreaker but cards that have 1-2 lines highlighting are highly suspect to me. I'd prefer better cards than more cards.
- The speed k or a variation of it is extremely non-convincing for me.
- I default to judge kick unless told otherwise.
- Expect me to want a card doc if the debate is close/important (break round) I won't ever ask for it but getting me one will help your speaker pts
- If you try to tell me you read cards you clearly didn't, your speaker pts will drop.
- I will read ev and use your guidance on the flow to decide comparisons but will mainly look at your explanation of it.
- Calling a card “bad” does not warrant me reading it, give me a thing to look for when I’m re-reading and you’ll probably do well when I’m explaining how I evaluated evidence.
- Smart choices and cross-applications will impress me. Bold decisions done with confidence will impress me. Your complicated vocabulary will not impress me. Belittling your opponents or cutting them off every opportunity during cross ex will not impress me.
- 2NR/2AR should be clear on what you want me to vote on. Big picture debate framing is what I like to see, but don't sacrifice what you need to do on the flow for this.
- Please don't bully your partners, debate is meant to be fun and cooperative. If it becomes obnoxious the harasser's speaker points will suffer horrendously.
- No -Ism's, as mentioned earlier I'll give the benefit of the doubt but if it's clearly intentional I'll drop the team.
- I'll trust yall to keep track of your own prep/speech times.
- Speaker Points- clarity is key, don't sacrifice this for speed. Taking forever after prep-time is called to send a document is a bad look.

I expect arguments to be listed in some format I.e 123 or ABC (it saves us all time)

road-maps are a must for every speech except the 1AC, it's the easiest to flow, and reading one doesn't really matter

you must know the definitions of Logos, Pathos, and Ethos and how to use them efficiently.

understand the key pillars of debate: Topicality, Timeframe, Magnitude, Impact, and Probability

advocate for yourself! I WILL NOT babysit your timers, if you need prep-time or tech-time you MUST ask for it.

Tag- Team is always okay!

keep your thoughts and arguments organized, do not jump back and forth on arguments in the first speeches! if your flow is confusing I will stop following it.

Highlights

Email: eric.clarke2019@gmail.com + swwpolicy@gmail.com

The 1AC needs to be in my inbox at the start time.

Good for Ks and policy. I prefer policy, but I'm fine with whatever.

I don't love evaluating theory debates to resolve the round, but I will. More below.

Love framework v K AFFs+ T v policy AFFs. Love = like hearing them, not that I'll automatically vote for it. Most good K AFFs have offense to framework embedded in the 1AC, so chances are if you hide behind framework without engaging case you'll lose terribly.

Good with speed. If you're unclear and I don't catch something, it is what it is.

Don't steal prep. If a timer isn't running, you shouldn't be typing, writing, or going over speech docs. I'm not usually pressed about watching debaters, but some people are so egregious about stealing prep that I can't help but notice.

Please track your time.

Experience:

Debated policy throughout high school and college (Georgetown). The strategy was usually policy, but I have some experience going for the K at both levels. I also have some experience judging PF and LD at the high school and middle school levels.

General:

If there are any unanswered questions, definitely feel free to ask me before the round starts, and I'm always happy to give follow-up comments after rounds if you shoot me an email.

Make sure acronyms are full written out somewhere in the card.

I'll usually be paying attention during cross to help wrap my head around arguments. Cross usually helps me contextualize the arguments being made (especially true for kritiks). Cross is binding. Cross is also where you can get a decent bump to speaks - go in with a strategy.

I won't read your evidence at the end of the round unless I'm instructed to. Debate is a communicative activity, therefore you need to be able to verbally convey the key warrants in a piece of evidence to me. If I have to read the evidence myself to find the warrants, you haven't done your job. I will also read evidence if there's an evidence indict. Please make evidence idnicts. A lot of people try to get away with reading terrible evidence, and you shouldn't allow it.

Kritiks:

I typically enjoy judging k debates. I can be on board with the concept and ideas of most kritiks, but you need to be able to explain it in a way where I understand all of the mechanisms and nuances tying it to the aff. At the end of the round, I want to be able to put the thesis of the kritik into my own words.

I'm not the biggest fan of kritiks that are gimmicky, BUT I will vote on it if you execute and do everything you need to on the flow. If you have to ask if your K is gimmicky, chances are it is.

Framework:

Absolutely love hearing framework speeches. Easily my favorite position in debate to talk about and listen to speeches on.

While I enjoy framework, know that neg teams won't have a leg up on the affirmative. They still need to debate it well. My personal feelings are irrelevant during the round. What ultimately matters is what both teams do on the flow.

Theory

I have miscellaneous thoughts about various issues. If a particular issue isn't listed, it's because I don't have strong feelings about it. None of these are set in stone (except condo). These are just starting points I have when thinking about these theory arguments, but I can always be convinced to change my mind. Just keep these predispositions in mind if you decide to go for the position.

a.) PICs bad - lean neg but can be convinced otherwise depending on the PIC.

b.) Process CPs bad - lean AFF but can be convinced otherwise.

c.) Condo - three conditional positions is where I become open to voting on condo.

d.) Perf con - neg gets multiple worlds + contradictory advocacies are fine as long as it's resolved by the block.

e.) Disclosure - I think it's silly unless the other team is genuinely being really shady with their disclosure practices.

Misc:

When thinking about your big-picture strategy in rounds, think about what would be the easiest thing for me to pull the trigger on. I love it when teams make my life easier by going for the most strategically sound combination of arguments at the end of the round.

Does fed follow-on mean states links to politics? Talk to me about it depending on the DA.

Tend to lean tech over truth

I prefer teams go for substance rather than spraying each flow with theory arguments and hoping one of them gets dropped.

Please be ready to put together and send a card doc that only includes the cards you think are relevant at the end of the round. I'll usually ask after the 2AR if I need one, but more often than not, I'm fine.

Speaker points:

Hopefully, nobody needs this reminder, but don't be rude. If you're blatantly disrespectful to the opponents and/or your partner, I will tank your speaks. I get that ethos is big for some teams, but that doesn't excuse being a terrible person.

Let your partner speak for themselves. Jumping in on occasion is understandable and expected. However, don't jump in to the point that you make me think your partner doesn't know what they're doing or talking about. More of a pet peeve than anything else.

Hey y'all

I debated for Lane Tech and am now finishing up college. I debated mostly black theory amongst other critical arguments but if you have the best framing and the best world to vote for, whether that be your policy plan or your K advantage, I will vote for.

Please tell me how many off before starting and I see no reason to censor yourselves within the round as long as a certain level of respect is maintained between competitors. Will vote on in-round DA's (our plan enacts real change through the discussion being held right now etc. etc.) and press your perms, they'll save you in the end.

Hi i'm jared

Lane Tech 2016

GSU'2021

- i help coached at wheeler hs in georgia alittle this year and rufus king here and there this year so topic knowledge is there.

to win my ballot beat the other persons arguements.

larger meta-framing issues :

a. dont be racist

b. aff prove why the status quo is bad - neg says its good or run your k or cp

c. ill dig a cp and impact turn strat with your 8 off strat or one off performance - ill listen to your arguements and look at it.

d. anything is probably could be voted on if not racist

e.I am probably truth is higher value than tech ,I'm not the most familiar with more techy policy args where slow down more of my knowledge is the K I'll try buy if im confused and look lost that means you are going over my head.

f. If you read framework , fairness is not probably a winnable impact in front of me. However some combination of needing to win how a political state based discussion of the aff would be much different combined with TVA and some combo of impacts would probably be alot of easier for me to vote on framework.

g. With theory just dont spread to fast through these shells.

LD :

1. Unwarranted/incomplete arguments are not arguments.

2. RVI - as long as it warranted ill listen to this,

3. add me on email chains : chicagofire2798@gmail.com

4. Here is my thing , you run your argument ,I'll listen and evaluate and compare them to the other team

5. As long as no argument or nothing done in a round is inherently racist , sexist , or makes the debate unsafe ill keep it to the flow and whoever wins it wins the ballot.

6. Im more truth > tech , but if the other teams doesn't call out the ridiculous with a good quick warrant or to then I guess , Ill have to evaluate it since the other team didnt leave much choice their.

Fisk University '24

NUDL Director of Programming

Conflicts: Skinner West|Lindblom Math & Science Academy

TL;DR

Identity K teams, you should pref me a 1, if you read Baudrillard you should put me at the end of your prefs or be willing to really break it down. I want to be on the email chain, (dailyndavisdebate@gmail.com). Read what your good at and I will evaluate it as best as possible. Although for pomo I'm more used to debating against then running so please assume I have very little knowledge of what you are talking about. Alternative solvency should be thoroughly explained, and if you're going to kick the alt in the 2NR tell me. I won't kick it for you even if you're winning the rest of the k flow. If I mention a card you want or you've seen it on my wiki please email me, I will gladly send it.

For teams going for topicality, I do hold topicality at a higher threshold meaning it should be the majority of your neg block and the entirety of the 2NR. I will not default to reasonability for either team if the argument isn't on the flow.

Tell me what you advocate.

tell me why it is not being done

tell me why it needs to be done

tell me why it is the best thing we should do

Experience

4 years policy debate (2003-2007), Chaminade College Prep (Los Angeles)

4 years policy debate (2007-2011), University of Southern California (Los Angeles)

2 years policy debate Judge/Instructor (2016-2018), Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League Summer Institute

1 year policy debate Judge (2019), Philadelphia Catholic Forensics League

FAQs

1) Is speed ok? Yes

2) Is tag team cx ok? Yes, but these are still speeches. You will lose speaker points if a) you do not show up for your own cx or b) constantly interrupt your partner's cx

3) Do you have any argument preferences? No. If you have more specific questions, ask before the round.

4) Is there anything you're not ok with?

a) If I believe anyone in the round is being rude or disrespectful to me, to your opponents, and especially if I believe you are disrespectful to your own partner, you will not receive anything above a 25.

b) Prep begins immediately after the last speech ends, prep does not end until you have pulled the flash drive out of your laptop or until you have emailed/uploaded your speech.

Hello!

Sorry if this paradigm is all over the place, I suck at these:)

Email: aaduran56@gmail.com

Please include me in your email chains! Although I want to be in the email chain, cards don't count for me unless you've read them out loud.

I have a pretty good understanding of theory and as a judge, I lean more towards policy-orientated arguments. However, I'm all for well-constructed/argued Ks. Please keep in mind that I'm not heavy on the literature! I'd rather you have a well-explained alternative. Take it piece by piece so I can understand why I should prefer the alt. The same goes for impact calc, I won't just vote off of a card that says "China will nuke us" I need you to explain to me why that is bad and worse than the aff's impacts.

I'm okay with speed, just make sure you're being clear. I'm not okay with humming.

I take into consideration every aspect of the argument, but I do vote on T or ASPEC if it's dropped and the negative emphasizes. Don't drop case. Don't drop theory.

I'm not picky when it comes to the types of arguments that you're running, but just make sure to signpost and read your tags clearly. I expect you to run your own time but I will do it for you if you're encountering any technical issues, just make sure to ask me!

When it comes to cross-examination, I expect teams to be respectful and not go over the top. You won't get a bonus from me for just being louder than the other person. It should go without saying, but please steer away from using any racist/homophobic/misogynistic vocabulary during any time of your speech unless it is vocabulary that you can reclaim.

Finally, just be respectful towards everyone in the space and have fun!

Tab Ras, with a strong preference for traditional policy arguments.

Affirmatives should have a topical plan with an inherent barrier, and prove/defend that their plan is better than the status quo.

Negatives should disprove this, prove the plan is not topical, or provide another compelling reason for me not to vote for the Affirmative.

Matt Fisher - Northwestern University, Glenbrook North HS
Updated: November 2020

Background

I debated for four years in high school and then four years in college. After that, I coached both high school and college debate for three years. I have not been involved in the activity since 2015, but I'm looking forward to judging rounds at 2020-2021 Chicago Debates tournaments.

Paradigm

I wrote the following list back in 2011:

- Clarity is underrated/undervalued

- Talking fast is not the same as true speed; true speed is measured by the number of arguments that the judge thinks the opponent has to answer.

- Debaters should combine technical proficiency with big-picture argumentation

- Extension of evidence/arguments must include an extension of the warrants - not just the taglines

- Specificity of arguments matter - no matter what the argument (links for a K, topicality violations/standards, theory interpretations, etc.)

- Impact comparison is essential - especially in the final rebuttals

- Evidence quality matters - a lot. Logical, intelligent analytics can beat bad, unwarranted evidence. Evidence comparison is a must.

- I'm not a good judge for 'cheap-shot' theory arguments or specification arguments because I think they detract from the educational merit of this activity

- I like well-researched, case specific strategies (who doesn't?)

Topicality: Topicality is a voting issue. I think both sides should strive to prove why their interpretation could sustain a yearlong debate topic - more than a self-serving/tricky violation (or counter-interpretation). Teams should back-up their interpretations and standards with evidence.

Critiques:

- the viability of the alt seems to frequently be under-debated

- 'no value to life,' 'extinction inevitable,' 'ethical d-rule,' etc. are all meaningless phrases by themselves --- they must be explained/compared to the other side's impact framing

- specificity of link matters

- historical comparisons are useful (*please* don't take this to mean that I want to hear how every aff replicates the logic of the Holocaust or Vietnam)

- specificity of the impact matters

Framework:

Affs should probably have plans; those plans should probably be related to the topic/USFG action. I could (obviously) be persuaded otherwise, but that is certainly my default. I'm not an 'auto-win' for 'policy' teams vs. 'non-policy' teams --- if you (policy team) cannot persuasively argue why the (non-policy) aff should engage in policy debate, you will probably lose my ballot.

When debating critiques...make sure that the resolution of the framework debate - if it's in your favor - actually helps you win the debate. Far too often, framework debates seem like useless distractions that don't really advance the ball for either side (that is, if you win FW, how does that affect the other side's arguments?).

If you have further questions, feel free to ask.

LAMDL Program Director (2015 - Present)
UC Berkeley Undergrad (non-debating) & BAUDL Policy Debate Coach (2011-2015)
LAMDL Policy Debater (2008 - 2011)

Include me on the email chain: jfloresdebate@gmail.com

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

TL;DR Do what you do best. I evaluate you on how well you execute your arguments, not on your choice of argument.

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

I believe debate is a space that is shaped and defined by the debaters, and as a judge my only role to evaluate what you put in front of me. There is generally no argument I won't consider, with the exception of arguments that are intentionally educationally bankrupt. I generally lean in favor of more inclusive frameworks, but do still believe the debate should be focused on debatable issues.

Most of my work nowadays is in the back end of tournaments, so I might not be privy to your trickier strategies. Feel free to use them, but know if I do not catch it on my flow, it will not count.

I'm a better judge for rounds with fewer and more in-depth arguments compared to rounds where you throw out a lot of small blippy arguments that you blow up late in the debate. My issue with the latter isn't the speed (speed is fine), rather I'm less likely to vote for underdeveloped arguments. Generally, the team that takes the time to provide better explanations, applications, and warrants will win the debate for me. This includes dropped arguments. I still need these to be explained, applied, and weighed for you to get anything out of it.

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

Feel free to read your non traditional Aff, but be prepared to defend why it is relevant to the topic (either in the direction of it or in response/criticism of it), and why it is a debatable issue. Feel free to read your procedurals, but be prepared to weigh and sequence your standards against the specifics of the case in the round. Either way, I'll evaluate it and whether or not I vote in your direction will come down to execution in the round. Articulate the internal links to your impacts for them to be weighed as heavily as you want.

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

Engage your opponents. Avoid being rude and/or disrespectful.

If you have specific questions about specific arguments let me know.

Hello, Welcome debaters!!

I'd like to be added to email chain: Saflores601404@gmail.com

I did debate for 4 years in Highschool. I now study at Pomona college. I Perfer K's and Policy and I dislike when Neg runs multiple arguments but drops most by the end makes my job harder and I do deduct speaker points for it.

Policy- I love policy affs although I am a sucker for anti-capitalist and anti-government readings.

K: I love all K's read as the neg and open to all k's

K affs: I am a little shaky on these but that aren't made or break in my opinion

DA's: I don't really like generic DAs but love case-specific DA's or if you have a generic but link specific DA then that is great!

DO LINE BY LINE PLEASE IT MAKES MY JOB EASIER AND MAKES YOUR SPEECH BETTER!

BACKGROUND- I debated at duPont Manual H.S. (1987-91) and Augustana College (in the NDT) (1991-94). I have been an asst coach at several Chicago high schools: Whitney Young, Lane Tech, Juarez, and Hope. I have been coaching and judging in the Chicago Debate League since 1999.

I am open to any type of argument and style as long as you make compelling justifications for why I should vote for your team. I WILL NOT do the work for you. Make sure that you are extending your impacts at the end of the round and providing some type of comparative impact calculus that frames my ballot.

I appreciate creativity over predictability . I get tired of weighing Nuclear War and a Politics DA.

Overviews are appreciated . Let me know what is most important in the round. If I have a messy rd, I use overviews in rebuttals to help whittle it down. (i.e. "There are 3 reasons why you vote for us this rd...." )

Anything that happens before the rd ( i.e. disclosures) is irrelevant to the rd. I don't consider lack of disclosures "abusive".

ROADMAPS- Give good ones- Tell me the order of the arguments of your speech. Roadmaps are used to help people put their flows in order. Don't just say something like, "I'm just gonna do a general overview of everything." That's not a roadmap. Give the order: "Topicality, DA, then Solvency...".

TIMEKEEPING You are welcome to time your own speeches, but I like to keep prep time , just in case.

TAG TEAM CROSS-EX: I think it is important for novices and jv debaters to learn how to think on their feet and answer questions on their own, so I discourage tag teaming. I allow it, but it may cost you speaker points.

TOPICALITY is a voting issue. it is not a time skew . T is important because it's like a separate arena in the round. There are a lot of ways to argue that aren't necessarily dependent on cards. Debaters need more brain power and have to develop more arguments while in the rd. T is my favorite stock issue. I was a "Topicality Jock" when I debated. LOL.

SPEED is fine if I can understand you. I will let you know if I don't. Be sure the tag lines to your cards are clear, and feel free to spew as much as you want during the text of the cards. Do NOT SKIP ("CARD CLIPPING") the important parts of text while you read it. If you stop reading a card before getting to the tag implications, I won't count it in the round. [Example: If the tag line says "Nukes lead to extinction" and you only read the first sentence of the text: "Certain scientists discussed nuclear power today." . That is not completely read.]

KRITIKS are fine with me. Explain it as though I am hearing it for the first time. Don't skip certain parts of it because it may be a popular K. Feel free to go crazy, as long as the LINK is explained. ! P.S. Personal insults are not arguments. They really aren't.

Know your arguments and evidence ahead of time. I have seen too many rounds where a K is shoved into a debater's hands right before a round, and the debater knows nothing about the K. Evidence isn't the only thing you need to win the round. You need to be able to explain the arguments and implications. I usually consider an "alternative paradigm" observation BEFORE stock issues (like T). I would like to hear in the rd reasons why the paradigm comes first, though.

I can become impatient and start prep time if someone's computer glitches take too long.

DISADS- Please remember to extend all 3 parts of a DA throughout the Neg block and 2NR. I'm not kidding.

COUNTERPLANS - If you go for the CP in the 2NR you must win it to win the round. This means extending all parts of it and explaining the Net Benefit.

END OF ROUND- I don't talk a lot at the end of the round. I write everything on the ballot. I also don't like to read cards at the end of the round. Don't ask me to unless you believe they are being misinterpreted. I have a problem with Huffington Post cites. I may need to see the quals of the author. I also will not argue with anyone about my decision.

Yes, email chain. debateoprf@gmail.com

ME:

Debater--The University of Michigan '91-'95

Head Coach--Oak Park and River Forest HS '15-'20

Assistant Coach--New Trier Township High School '20-

POLICY DEBATE:

Top Level

--Old School Policy.

--Like the K on the Neg. Harder sell on the Aff.

--Quality of Evidence Counts. Massive disparities warrant intervention on my part. You can insert rehighlightings. There should not be a time punishment for the tean NOT reading weak evidence.

--Not great with theory debates.

--I value Research and Strategic Thinking (both in round and prep) as paramount when evaluating procedural impacts.

--Utter disdain for trolly Theory args, Death Good, Wipeout and Spark. Respect the game, win classy.

Advantage vs Disadvantage

More often than not, I tend to gravitate towards the team that wins probability. The more coherent and plausible the internal link chain is, the better.

Zero risk is a thing.

I can and will vote against an argument if cards are poor exclusive of counter evidence being read.

Not a big fan of Pre-Fiat DA's: Spending, Must Pass Legislation, Riders, etc. I will err Aff on theory unless the Neg has some really good evidence as to why not.

I love nuanced defense and case turns. Conversely, I love link and impact turns. Please run lots of them.

Counterplans

Conditionality—

I am largely okay with a fair amount of condo. i.e. 4-5 not a big deal for me. I will become sympathetic to Aff Theory ONLY if the Neg starts kicking straight turned arguments. On the other hand, if you go for Condo Bad and can't answer Strat Skew Inevitable, Idea Testing Good and Hard Debate is Good Debate then don't go for Condo Bad. I have voted Aff on Conditionality Theory, but rarely.

2023-2024 EDIT:

**That said, the Inequality Topic has made me add an addendum to my aforementioned grievance about being on my lawn: running blatantly contradictory arguments about Capitalism, Unions, Growth, etc. are egregious performance contradictions that I will no longer ignore under the auspices of conditionality. Its not that I am changing my tune on condo per se, its that this promotes bad neg strats that are usually a result of high school students not thinking about things they should be before reading the 1NC. Its pretty easy to win in-round abuse when a Neg is defending Unions Good and Bad at the same time. I encourage you to try.

Competition—

1. I have grown weary of vague plan writing. To that end, I tend think that the Neg need only win that the CP is functionally competitive. The Plan is about advocacy and cannot be a moving target.

2. Perm do the CP? Intrinsic Perms? I am flexible to Neg if they have a solvency advocate or the Aff is new. Otherwise, I lean Aff.

Other Stuff—

PIC’s and Agent CP’s are part of our game. I err Neg on theory. Ditto 50 State Fiat.

No object Fiat, please. Or International Fiat on a Domestic Topic.

Otherwise, International Fiat is a gray area for me. The Neg needs a good Interp that excludes abusive versions. Its winnable.

Solvency advocates and New Affs make me lean Neg on theory.

I will judge kick automatically unless given a decent reason why not in the 1AR.

K-Affs

If you lean on K Affs, just do yourself a favor and put me low or strike me. I am not unsympathetic to your argument per se, I just vote on Framework 60-70% of the time and it rarely has anything to do with your Aff.

That said, if you can effectively impact turn Framework, beat back a TVA and Switch Side Debate, you can get my ballot.

Topic relevance is important.

If your goal is to make blanket statements about why certain people are good or bad or should be excluded from valuable discussions then I am not your judge. We are all flawed.

I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I don't think that being a "small school" is a reason why I should vote for you.

Kritiks vs Policy Affs

Truth be told, I vote Neg on Kritiks vs Policy Affs A LOT.

I am prone to voting Aff on Perms, so be advised College Debaters. I have no take on "philosophical competition" but it does seem like a thing.

I am not up on the Lit AT ALL, so the polysyllabic word stews you so love to concoct are going to make my ears bleed.

I like reading cards after the debate and find myself understanding nuance better when I can. If you don’t then you leave me with only the bad handwriting on my flow to decipher what you said an hour later and that’s not good for anybody.

When I usually vote Neg its because the Aff has not done a sufficient job in engaging with core elements of the K, such as Ontology, Root Cause Claims, etc.

I am not a great evaluator of Framework debates and will usually err for the team that accesses Education Impacts the best.

Topicality

Because it theoretically serves an external function that affects other rounds, I do give the Aff a fair amount of leeway when the arguments start to wander into a gray area. The requirement for Offense on the part of the Affirmative is something on which I place little value. Put another way, the Aff need only prove that they are within the predictable confines of research and present a plan that offers enough ground on which to run generic arguments. The Negative must prove that the Affirmative skews research burdens to a point in which the topic is unlimited to a point beyond 20-30 possible cases and/or renders the heart of the topic moot.

Plan Text in a Vacuum is a silly defense. In very few instances have I found it defensible. If you choose to defend it, you had better be ready to defend the solvency implications.

Limits and Fairness are not in and of themselves an impact. Take it to the next level.

Why I vote Aff a lot:

--Bad/Incoherent link mechanics on DA’s

--Perm do the CP

--CP Solvency Deficits

--Framework/Scholarship is defensible

--T can be won defensively

Why I vote Neg a lot:

--Condo Bad is silly

--Weakness of aff internal links/solvency

--Offense that turns the case

--Sufficiency Framing

--You actually had a strategy

PUBLIC FORUM SUPPLEMENT:

I judge about 1 PF Round for every 50 Policy Rounds so bear with me here.

I have NOT judged the PF national circuit pretty much ever. The good news is that I am not biased against or unwilling to vote on any particular style. Chances are I have heard some version of your meta level of argumentation and know how it interacts with the round. The bad news is if you want to complain about a style of debate in which you are unfamiliar, you had better convince me why with, you know, impacts and stuff. Do not try and cite an unspoken rule about debate in your part of the country.

Because of my background in Policy, I tend to look at things from a cost benefit perspective. Even though the Pro is not advocating a Plan and the Con is not reading Disadvantages, to me the round comes down to whether the Pro has a greater possible benefit than the potential implications it might cause. Both sides should frame the round in terms impact calculus and or feasibility. Impacts need to be tangible.

Evidence quality is very important.

I will vote on what is on the flow (yes, I flow) and keep my personal opinions of arguments in check as much as possible. I may mock you for it, but I won’t vote against you for it. No paraphrasing. Quote the author, date and the exact words. Quals are even better but you don’t have to read them unless pressed. Have the website handy. Research is critical.

Speed? Meh. You cannot possibly go fast enough for me to not be able to follow you. However, that does not mean I want to hear you go fast. You can be quick and very persuasive. You don't need to spread.

Defense is nice but is not enough. You must create offense in order to win. There is no “presumption” on the Con.

While I am not a fan of formal “Kritik” arguments in PF, I do think that Philosophical Debates have a place. Using your Framework as a reason to defend your scholarship is a wise move. Racism and Sexism will not be tolerated. You can attack your opponents scholarship.

I reward debaters who think outside the box.

I do not reward debaters who cry foul when hearing an argument that falls outside traditional parameters of PF Debate. Again, I am not a fan of the Kritik, but if its abusive, tell me why instead of just saying “not fair.”

Statistics are nice, to a point. But I feel that judges/debaters overvalue them. Often the best impacts involve higher values that cannot be quantified. A good example would be something like Structural Violence.

While Truth outweighs, technical concessions on key arguments can and will be evaluated. Dropping offense means the argument gets 100% weight.

The goal of the Con is to disprove the value of the Resolution. If the Pro cannot defend the whole resolution (agent, totality, etc.) then the Con gets some leeway.

I care about substance and not style. It never fails that I give 1-2 low point wins at a tournament. Just because your tie is nice and you sound pretty, doesn’t mean you win. I vote on argument quality and technical debating. The rest is for lay judging.

Relax. Have fun.

Avy Gaytan-Aranda

Solorio Academy HS '19

UIUC '23

Short Version

-Tech over truth

-No judge kick

-quality over quantity of evidence

-default my paradigm as a policymaker but open to all arguments

-clash is key to any good debate

-Neg gets presumption

-email chain: amoravyg@gmail.com

Long Version

Short background about me: I debated for Solorio academy(Chicago) for four years. I debated in both the UDL and national circuit. I ran mostly policy through the first half of my career, however my junior and senior year my partner and I became more flex. With that being said, I have debated the most sketchy counterplans all the way to postmodern Ks. I am not familiar with the new topic, my knowledge solely comes from judging so you must provide substance in your debates rather than just jargon.

Affs- K affs: Although I always liked and read Ks, I find it really hard to read K Affs. Not about understating, rather how they are used. Hence, when you read a K AFF do not just stand up and explain what is that you are criticizing but also explain the utility of the aff itself. Make sure to implicitly describe the need to not use a plan, and the need to have the discussions that are being had, because otherwise i will likely lean neg on framework. I genuinely don't have a preference for any form of affirmation of the resolution, you can do any form of performance in front of me.

-By any means feel free to run any aff that you want in front of me.

Ks- I want to hear a good explanation of it, defended well, also explain why it matters more than any other arguments in the round. How the alt solves better ..how the K fw suits best for the round...how it outweighs the aff..how it is a issue in the world of the debate round and the real world, etc. Neg, in order to have weight of the K trough the round, articulate a link, wait, articulate MULTIPLE links on the K, without a link you can't win K. Go beyond the techy sutff and K jargin and go further on, expand on the literature authors and their ideas, and connect them to the debate round, to engage not only with the people in the round, but to orient yourself as debater. In other words have a cohesive understanding of the K. Preference wise, even though I have been policy most of my debate career (so far), I do read K literature on my spare time, so with that being said, I am knowledgeable with Stuff like Wilderson, Sexton, Baudrillard, Agamben. The evidence of the kritik should be pretty extensive and well Also, I encourage to defends a solid solvency mechanism aka a strong alt, otherwise, I view myself judging a non-unique disad. Having a solid alternative is literally the most compelling thing when leveraging a framework and the impacts of a link because it makes it easy for me as a judge to prefer it over any fiated plan. With that being said I don't like voting for kritiks with weak alternatives, because I view it as a burden of the neg to prove how the alt overcomes the link story and the premise highlighted in the kritik, well at least explain how they substantially change the sqou described in the world of the K. Overviews are nice when making the extension of the K in the later speeches of the debate, however be aware of how long it's going to be, should be no more than 45 seconds.

- If you go one off K, do your thing, but a major thing! Learn how to split the block please.

- Any death drive, death good stuff is probably not good in front of me (not with that, nor I like that).

- I probably wont vote for you regardless of how well you defend if you read the following: Time Cube, death good, shreck.

Theory, theory is awesome, theory is the most amazing thing in debate. In my opinion theory debate is underrated and underused in modern debate. However if you are reading theory make it interesting. That being that I love theory on CP debates.

Regarding T, CPs, DAs, etc make sure no nonsense argument to waste time. By that I refer to, run an argument you are comfortable with and don't run random arguments just to catch the other team off guard ,be very strategic.....

- I am very sympathetic towards condo, because I believe in teams reading plus 6 off just to catch other teams not responding to args. However going for condo just because it was dropped is not enough to win my ballot, there has to be substance regarding as to why condo matters specifically in the context of the round and why it matter overall.

Be strategic...

For example....Don't run Baudrillard and a heg DA with a war impact, c'mon, it's pretty self explanatory why not.

CPs- Big fan of consults CPs, Not voting for a counter plan without a net benefit...Also, a MUST when reading a CP, don't just prove how phenomenal a CP is independently, but prove to why the CP is specifically competitive with the Solvency of the Plan. Consider not getting too caught up in the explanation of how the CP works, but rather include comparative analysis to the 1ac, and distinction to the net benefit. Also, yes counterplans could get messy and stuff but overviews are helpful in later speeches in the debate if you want to make the CP a possible 2NR strategy. For AFF teams, theory is phenomenal against counterplans in front of me, I tend to believe that just like the 1ac, the counterplan should be questioned and attacked as much as possible the 1ac. That being by either perms, CP specific DAs, theory, etc.

Multi-plank counterplans are really tricky and fun, however, they could get sketchy, I don't think plank kicking is a thing, you either defend the full counterplan or none of it.

- Functionally competitive CP's are better in my opinion; easier to defend and to debate thoroughly.

Theory on CP's such as agent, delay, or int. fiat probably have some truth value considering how abusive CP's could get, however I don't think that 5-20 second extensions are enough for me to vote for any of the theory arguments on CPs

DAs- Even if I believe your DA is bad/ or non uq, I will still give your 100% risk until proven otherwise.

-Not a fan of the courts DAs, because most of them a false and exaggerated. If you read these, please give me a good link story that is coherent to the aff, thus multiple links make it strong for not only picking fewer in the debate, but using them as case turns if mishandled by the affirmative. Impact analysis along with a strong internal link story will probably be the most important when trying to get my vote because it is up to the aff or neg to either prove why such impacts matter more or less than the others.

-Politics are nice.

T- if you are going for T in the 2NR, you better go for it all 5 minutes, I expect some serious analysis on T if you end up going for it in the 2NR. Definitely a winnable argument considering it is the negatives job to prove that the aff doesn't work/ is not topical to begin with.

- consider having a debate past the interpretation and the "they say-we say" stuff, but prove your voters as being true.

- By default I think reasonability is good, so it's your job to convince me otherwise.

- Set the bar as to why T is an independent reason to not evaluate anything but the argument in the round.

Framework- Awesome!!When reading/going for framework, please have a solid interpretation. Having a vague interpretation makes it hard for me as the judge to validate arguments you claim to solve for. Moreover, when going to framework please engage into a line by line, nonetheless I won't feel convinced that your idea of what debate should be is true or convincing. Why is voting the other team bad for debate? what are the impacts of not having your framework? what makes your framework best for the debate? Please answer these questions when articulating the argument in your speech. Additionally, I don't really buy the "screw debate", "f debate" "debate is bad" framings of debates and rounds. However I do like when frameworks present a challenging paradigm for the round such as "Debate should be a sight of x or y" or "engaging in this form of debate is key because..."

- I also think fairness is not an impact; coming from a small school, it is pretty evident that there is things outside the round that make debate pretty unfair.

Moreover, I find that now days framework debates are very reciprocal..either "aff should defend a hypothetical USFG plan", or "we should test the aff's orientation before anything". Those debates can get boring, try to expand and have creative interpretations, to have clashful and more concise debates. Which overall are way better than having broad big impact debates.

-impact wise...explain how procedural impacts outweigh pre-fiated impacts

Moreover, clash is always the key to a good debate round, thus making it not just educational to you as a debater but to me as a judge too.

In round stuff/Random

- PICs are fine with me but don't be abusive.

-Jokes are nice

-Never make fun of opponent

-Never card clip (although there is some leeway for novices)

-If I suspect any stealing of prep during flashing or w.e, I will be Conor Cameron with time through the rest of the round.

- Remember that debate is not a reading game, it's a thinking game. Thus, warrants win you debates not cards.

-AFF: always disclose affirmative case before the round if asked by the negative team.

Name Chris Gentry

Previous institutional affiliations and role

Appalachian State Debator 4 years, double member parli, experience coaching and judging PF. Policy, Parli

Add me to your email chain chris.gentry.e@Gmail.com

Former Coach Hubbard High School

Former Coach Harker Middle School

Current Chicago Debates Program Manager - 2 years

High school and college debater – graduated college in last 5 years

1.Clarity > speed:Clarity helps everyone, I am happy to listen to you spreading and will happily get most of it, just slow down on the tags so I know where we are if I get lost.

2.Neg positions: Overwhelmingly the biggest issue I see in debate is students poorly linking neg positions. cool your impact scenario is great but your link is weak so I struggle to care.

3. Cross x Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

What is your normal range for speaker points and why? What can earn extra speaker points for a debater? What can cost speaker points for a debater, even if they win the debate?

I give 27.5-30 points, 27.5 being for poor speech, less than 27.5 for abuse. You can lose points for demonstrated abuse in round or poor treatment of partner or opposition. You can gain points through good responses and effective response strategy

Do you say clearer out loud if a debater is unclear? Is there a limit to the number of times you will say clearer if you do? Do you use other non-verbal cues to signal a lack of clarity?

I will say clearer or louder 3 times.

Do you find yourself reading a lot of evidence after the debate?

Not a ton, mostly to confirm accuracy and understanding

Do you evaluate the un-underlined parts of the evidence even if the debaters do not make that an argument?

No, I need the argument to be made for why a thing matters, how it matters, and what it is that matters. I will only read the underlined parts of the evidence if I doubt validity

If you read evidence after a debate, why do you tend to find yourself reading the evidence?

To ensure proper decisions and to confirm accuracy if any cards feel like they are incredible.

What are your predispositions or views on the following:

Topicality.

As long as it is clear and warranted especially on ground loss. I need the impacts to be fully leveled out, and I need there to be solid arguments for fairness impacts.

Theory for the aff versus counterplans and/or kritiks

I definitely prefer critical arguments that are resolution specific versus the generic kritik, however I am fine with the generic kritik as long as you tie it well to your argument and the resolution being debated. I will vote on perm and theory if presented well. That said, I really like critical arguments when they’re not generic and the ideas are clearly articulated. Explain your ideas instead of just throwing terms around. Sure, I may know what the terms mean, but I need to know how you are using them to determine the functionality of the argument. I also think it’s important to not only tell me the importance of (or need for) the interrogation or deconstruction the criticism engages in, but also why should we engage with THIS specific interrogation/deconstruction and what, if anything, it seeks to solve, resolve, change, etc. In other words, don’t drop or omit solvency of the criticism.

Affirmative’s need to read a plan in order to win on the aff:

They don’t need to read a plan but they do need an advocacy that is different than the SQ

Performance teams that use elements other than spoken word (such as songs, dance, poetry, silence) to support their arguments

I find performance-based arguments to struggle on solvency. I find the nature of debate to sometimes be constricting to performance. I am not saying I won't vote for it, I just need you to explain why your performance produces in-round solvency in opposition to the performance of debating/criticizing or advocating for policies

I do think "performance" as critical metaphor can have access to rhetorical solvency, but it's harder for me to access literal solvency. So while I am not biased towards projects or performances so long as they are grounded in some context that is in round, I think they can still be interesting and get a ballot.

What types of debates do you enjoy the most and why?

I enjoy good K v K debates

I enjoy unique critical debates

I also have a large background in policy both in real life and in deate and am happy to handle policy args too

*Plz pardon the typos I can't spell/ Grammar

HISTORY

I debated for 2.5 years in High School doing policy debate in Southwest Missouri- mostly a lay district. I currently debate for Missouri State University in NDT primarily. Not to flex but I got 2nd in extempt debate at NSDA that one time

Conflicts: Greenwood Lab School

General Stuff

Feel free to ask questions after the round I should have to defend my decision as much if not more then you defend your arguments.

My utopian form of debate is lay debate (that does not mean slow) with politics and K's with no alt lol

Be nice but dont be too nice

Please know who the secretary of defense is @EC

"Cold Conceded" is a real term

CX is my favorite part of debate plz use it and plz make a fool of ur opponent

Extinction is maybe possible????

+.2 speaker point if u want to make fun of Rupaul fracking applicable to the debate, -.2 if it seems forced and I don't laugh :(

DAs

Specific links r cool.

Like PTX alot.

Turns Case args are hot and underused imo PLEASE MAKE THEM

CPs

Perms are underutilized imo

Default to Condo good all the time

PICS are good

Agency CPs are good if u have a good solvency advocate

Consult CPs r Bad

I do not like judge kick: If the NEG looses a perm and that shields the link somehow or the CP links to the NB and it makes its way into the 2NR u should be scared

Speaking of which CP links to the NB is fun arg u should make

Ks

Ill be honest I am probably not the judge you want- I have limited experience on K literature so if you do get me as a judge it will help both of us if you describe early what your K is criticising as well as what the alt does. I am rather inclined to weigh the AFF, but that DOES NOT MEAN EXTINCTION OUTWEIGHS. I generally believe that the AFF should choose what they want to talk about and, controversial opinion, prefer K affs over generic Ks on the NEG. I think K AFFs that are in the direction of the topic are super cool 2.

Specific links here 2 plz

I love watching K rounds but doesnt mean I am ur ideal judge fs

Ks I know a little bit about: Puar and Virillio that's it, that's the list

T

Im VERY AFF biased with T so make sure u r winning it before u make it the 2nr. Default to AFF is topical on reaonability but wont vote for it if the NEG wins reasonability is bad or the AFF shouldnt be reasonable/ your offense outweighs. In round abuse is good but not necessary. I think complaining about how you couldn't read your favorite DA or CP against this one aff is not persuasive to me.

AFF/Case

I debated soft left senior year on the arms topic and loves it.

Specific case card> Impact D any day of the week

Should be able to defend every word in your plan text

I cant think of a single round I have watched where I even considered a presumption ballot

For K affs plz be very explicit in either the 1ac or very latest cx what the u advocate for.

idk what else to put here just know your AFF and what it does/ Advocates for.

Last updated pre-NDT (3/26/24).

First-year coach for Georgetown (college) and Sidwell Friends (high school). Competed in policy debate for Georgetown University for 4 years. Did local-circuit LD in high school for 3 years.

This paradigm solely contains information on my predispositions and how I'll resolve debates in the absence of contrary instruction. The set of arguments for which I will not vote is vanishingly small.

I like debates where both teams respect each other and demonstrate they have put a lot of time and thought into their arguments, but I am largely agnostic as to the specific form and content that these arguments take. In other words, don't over-adapt.

egreerdebate@gmail.com

Overall Thoughts

-International relations and military strategy are not my areas of interest or expertise. You should err on the side of over-explanation when making nukes-topic-specific arguments. I am similarly uninformed about arguments related to economics and philosophy. I have a comparatively larger knowledge base about arguments related to law, elections/politics, domestic policy, and sociology.

-I prefer debates involving arguments about the topic. I think that policy debate should reward research and innovation within the topic area rather than incentivizing teams to recycle generics from year-to-year.

-Effective communication is imperative. Be clear; use numbers, emphasis, and sound bites to differentiate arguments; and focus on telling a cohesive story about why you win the issues that are most important for the debate. Don't be the kind of team that gets annoyed because I didn't think the one-sentence argument made 5 minutes into the final rebuttal was important for my decision.

-I'm not a disciplinarian. I will refuse to evaluate arguments about an opponent's behavior outside the debate. I have a high threshold for voting on procedural questions about an opponent's in-round behavior. Soliciting opportunities to make such arguments (e.g., by asking inflammatory CX questions) is a bad strategy in front of me.

-Ks are fine provided that they clash with core premises of the 1AC. At best, Ks are effective tools for grappling with and challenging the underlying assumptions of taken-for-granted worldviews. At worst, they are cheap shots that teams use to sidestep argumentative engagement.

-I rarely care about terminal impacts. Terminal impact calculus usually begs the question of the other levels of the debate. In a related vein, the argument that "extinction outweighs" is not an effective route to victory in front of me.

-I give speaker points in a normal distribution with 28.5 at the center.

T (vs. Policy Affs)

-I do not care about community norms. I will vote on topicality in elims of the NDT. I will vote on topicality against affs that were broken round one of the season opener. I see no reason why an interpretation's desirability would be affected by context within which an aff is read.

-The above does not mean that I'm "bad for the aff" in topicality debates - only that I think topicality is a germane criticism and that affirmative teams must take it seriously and answer it like any other argument.

-The thing I care about most in T debates is whether an interpretation is well-grounded in topic literature. Given equal debating, the person who is "correct" about what the words mean will usually win. By default, I view limits/ground arguments as a tiebreaker when two interpretations are equally plausible readings of the resolution.

-I haven't taken a grammar class since seventh grade. Please don't throw out random parts of speech with no explanation and expect me to understand.

-Neg teams are better served by speaking in terms of ground rather than limits. I care more about whether the neg has access to a set of cross-contextual topic generics than the number of case negs each team has to cut.

CPs/DAs

-Infinite conditionality is good. Persuading me otherwise is an uphill battle.

-I'm heavily aff-leaning on process CPs that do not include a reason why the plan is a bad idea. In other words, if I conclude that the "other issues" perm solves the net benefit, I'm unlikely to be a fan of your CP. If you can present a substantive DA to this perm (i.e., by proving that inclusion of the plan itself is undesirable), then I'm much more likely to vote neg.

-I default to thinking that it is illegitimate to fiat non-USFG actors, including the 50 states. It's much easier to convince me that 50 state fiat is legitimate than it is to convince me that international fiat or private actor fiat is legitimate.

-I don't judge kick unless the 2NR provides offense for doing so. Debate is about choices, and I won't make yours for you.

-I don't think anything can be "zero" risk. You're better off talking about risk in relative rather than binary terms.

-I won't vote for intrinsicness or theory against politics DAs unless dropped. Politics DAs are easy to beat substantively.

Ks (vs. Policy Affs)

-I have voted for Ks a disproportionate number of the times that they've been in the 2NR in front of me. When I vote neg, it's usually because the neg team invested a lot of time into a framework argument that mooted the aff offense, and the 2AR did not effectively argue that this framework argument was illegitimate.

-That said, I think teams tend to be over-reliant on framework. I would greatly prefer a debate which focuses on the desirability of the 1AC's underlying approach to politics in toto, to a framework debate. Neg teams should present aff-specific link arguments and case turns. Aff teams should present offense in favor of their assumptions.

-I don't find "you link, you lose" and "Ks are cheating" to be intuitively persuasive models of debate, but I will vote for either if executed well in the final rebuttals.

-Aff teams often spend large portions of their speeches making arguments about why the plan is good without investing sufficient time into winning that the plan being good is a relevant question for the debate. Arguments like "extinction outweighs," "perm double bind," and "alt fails" are not super useful when the 2NR is "vote neg because the 1AC as a rhetorical project was unethical." Instead, the 2AR should talk about why I should refuse to evaluate the 1AC solely as a rhetorical project.

-I think it is nearly impossible for the aff to "drop" a "floating PIK" because all aff framework offense is a reason why PIKs are illegitimate. If the aff wins that a plan-focused model of debate is good, then they have adequately answered the PIK because the PIK does not contest the plan's desirability. In contrast, if the neg wins that the plan doesn't matter, then almost all Ks are potentially plan-inclusive.

-Framework determines the threshold for alt solvency. If the desirability of the plan is a relevant consideration to the debate, the neg has a greater burden to produce an alternative approach to the world that would solve the impacts of the aff or solve another set of impacts that outweighs the aff. If the only relevant consideration is the desirability of the aff as a research object/scholarly project, the neg has a greatly reduced burden to explain what the alt means or does; in these instances, I treat "vote neg" as an alternative in itself.

-Fairness matters, but not as an end in itself. Aff teams must defend why fairness is necessary not merely for debate to exist, but for it to be a game worth playing.

K Affs and T/FW

-See the "Ks (vs Policy Affs)" section for thoughts on the fairness debate.

-Critique topicality, not the topic. Flaws in the topic are negative ground and therefore not offense against framework. Arguments such as "nuclear policy is imperialist" are relevant Ks of topical affirmatives, but they are not justifications for reading a non-topical aff.

-I hate arguments that rely on the premise that it's evil to defend or debate about things with which you personally disagree. College students do not have infallible understandings of the world. Debate intrinsically involves confronting the possibility that you could be wrong about your most closely-held beliefs - this is a feature, not a bug, of the activity.

-I prefer it when aff teams defend a specific model of debate. Speak granularly to the role your interp provides for clash/negation. Talk about core points of disagreement under your model and why this disagreement produces better debates.

Tips for Higher Speaker Points

-Read cards where the warrants are highlighted and point out where your opponents have failed to do the same.

-Send docs before ending prep.

-Don't send cards in the body of the email.

-Don't ask flow check questions (including "reasons to reject the team").

-Don't refer to the case pages as "advantage 1" and "advantage 2." I flow advantage names, not numbers.

-Don't read cards written by undergraduates.

-Don't reinsert rehighlighting unless the lines have already been read by the other team.

Former Community Debate Coach Von Stueben High School

No card cutting or presenting evidence selectively that it presents or leads to a false narrative about your opponent.  Being truthful is fundamental.  It's unfortunate that I even have to mention it, but it does happen, even by well skilled and experienced debaters. 

As you can infer from the debates listed below and other rounds from Speechwire, my limited experience at this point is best for traditional policy debates and not heavy theory (K's). If you are a pure K debate team, and all you like to do is run K's on both sides of debate, you need to strike me as a judge if you can. I have evaluated some K heavy debates, and I did a poor job evaluating them. While I appreciate and see the value of K's, I am not that good at judging them at this point, I continue to work on them, yet I still have the belief that the AFF must be defending the Resolution.

Debate Experience

I did not debate as a student, and this is my third year as an assistant coach in a urban high school policy debate program in Chicago. My son is a high school debaterYou are now probably not surprised that I am inclined (not rigidly) to believe that US hegemony and economic growth are good, and that death is bad.

I enjoy Topicality clashes, especially competing interpretations and I favor predictable limits over ground.

In-round Logistical Preferences

Spreading, if I can’t understand what you are saying, how do you expect me to flow? My preference is hybrid, spreading where you need to but slowing down for the points you want to emphasize. If I need you to slow down or better articulate your speech, I will let you know by saying "clear."

If you are sharing evidence electronically, do me the favor and make sure its in the order of your speech, especially if you are spreading.

I appreciate detailed road maps, sign posting, and expect the teams to run the debate (keeping track of time).

If I have to correct any unsportsmanlike behavior, you have already been penalized a 1/2 point and are one the way to losing another 1/2 point. After the 2NR, the Neg team should just flow the 2AR, there is one speech left in the round, so be polite and don't talk, put away your things, etc.

I am a huge fan of debate, I really respect your hard work, and will do my best for you.

Top Level:

Zero Risk is real but you need to be slaying them.

I care a lot about evidence quality and argument quality. An argument needs a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Cards should not be mistagged if they drop some trash claim that isn't supported by the evidence then they didn't drop anything they just ignored your garbage. I would prefer that teams don't ignore garbage, but appropriately call it out as garbage, and quickly explain why it is irrelevant.

Rules: This is taken from Ev No, and pretty much sums up how I feel: "No discrimination, sexism, racism, homophobia, transphobia, ableism, etc. Ask for and respect the pronouns of everyone in the room. Feel free to inform me before the round if you need accommodations. I try to keep the round a safe place. I will not hesitate to pause the round to call out/rectify an unsafe/unsavory situation and vote down or reduce speaks of the offending party, but fortunately that kind of thing is rare. I will entertain almost any argument, but if it's somehow offensive (e.g. minority needs to be kept out of the country, women are naturally inferior, etc.), I will need good reasons/framework to actually vote on it."

I ask that you:

- Be polite

- Do Line by Line

- Frame my ballot

- Engage the affirmative

- Be clear

- Signpost

- Have tags contain argument (ie not "Extinction")

Absent arguments for why I shouldn't, these are the positions I default to:

Presumption -- Neg

Judge Kick -- No

Consequentialism -- Good

Risk -- Probability x Magnitude

Unnecessary Suffering and Death -- Bad

Future Lives -- Irrelevant

Fairness -- Good and can be articulated as either an impact or an internal link

Demands of the state -- Arent affirming the state

Specific Arguments:

Kritiks: If your only link is one of omission or the state please do not read it. Reps K's are awesome. I feel pretty inclined to weigh the aff vs the alt, but K tricks do exist. Alternatives aren't required, but usually, without them, it's hard to win absent a robust push on framework. If you are nontraditional, tell me how I should evaluate your performance. I am a really good judge for specific kritiks, but if you are reading some backfile garbage I won't be happy. I am in general, more in the optimism camp then pessimism, but it's all good. I think the current meta of floating PIKS is garbage so here's what I have to say: If you flag your alternative as one in the 1NC, I won't vote on floating PIKS bad, because I think giving the 2AC the chance to answer it is fine. If you don't, I will be inclined to reject your Kritik. Not a big fan of Identity politics, but if you win it, you win it. On Debate is bad arguments, my beliefs can be summed up by this eloquent statement from Tim Freehan: "I do not like “debate is bad” arguments. I am not going to dwell too much on my reasoning, but, suffice it to say, the people who want to blow debate up certainly have no problems accepting their trophies and their TOC bids. It rings hollow to me." K affs with plan text are awesome.

DA: A well fleshed out disadvantage with comparative calculus is the cleanest way to win. DA/Case is my favorite 2NR. I get why it's necessary, but I hate the politics DA. If by the end of the block there isn't a specific link to the plan, it's probably too generic. Be comparative, and I care much more about the link and internal link than the impact. Make sure to leverage your internal link and utilize it to turn the affirmative. Thumpers are pretty neat.

CP: Consult/Condition needs a specific solvency advocate (ie Grand Bargain good, Consult NATO over Qatar just because its general arms control is bad). Otherwise, I believe that counterplans must compete at least functionally off the mandate of the plan. Textual competition can be debated. If you say your counterplan is competitive because you use the word ought I will be sad. Object Fiat is stupid. I am a fan of silly advantage counterplans. Having a card is not the same as having a solvency advocate.

T: Love it, especially vs policy affs. Good definitions and interpretations are great, but if you can beat them on T-Pearson good on you. Precision guides predictable limits and thus always comes first, unless your interp unlimits the topic. If you are an aff don't waste your time on reasonability, to some degree every judge will arbitrarily assign weight to each interp based on what they think is a reasonable vision of the topic, but I will try my best to avoid intervening. Also, remember that its the quality of affirmatives and aff ground that matters, not the quantity. Good judge for topicality.

Theory: Conditionality/Dispositionality (I don't really see how dispo is viable because against cheaty counterplans you don't have offence against its hard to win theory without also making a permutation to prove the counterplan isn't competitive) are usually the only reasons to reject the team, but I can be persuaded to stick a team with the counterplan or to drop somebody for Multiactor fiat.

Impact Turns: Yes. Read them. Seriously. Extinction is only good if its to save alien or animal life. However, if you suck at the impact turn and don't understand what you are reading and just throwing out cards, I will be sad.

guno/sean/judge. do with that as you will

flow.

guno.debate@gmail.com

+0.5 speaks given if you add me without asking. do with that as you will

be nice. don't do with that as you will. be nice.

don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc. don't do with that as you will. don't be racist/sexist/homophobic/etc.

don't read death good. don't do with that as you will. don't read death good

i've been equally a 2A and 2N, but i prefer being a 2A. do with that as you will

Topicality: I've had two T debates in my life. do with that as you will

Kritiks: order of understandability

--security---queer theory -------setcol---------------------other identity-----------------------------------------------high theory

don't drop fw

do with that as you will

K Affs: k affs have value but i don't think u shud read it as a novice. do with that as you will

fw/t-usfg are my bread and butter. went for it in every 1nr. do with that as you will

Disads: bread and butter. went for it in every 1nr. do with that as you will

Counterplans: literally never took it in the 1nr. don't drop perms. do with that as you will

Theory: don't drop it. go for it if they do. do with that as you will

30 speaks if you have a methane impact. do with that as you will

jokes abt ppl at gbn, gbs, nt, oprf, minn south, or uc lab +0.5 speaks. do with that as you will

u can read anyone from gbn's paradigm and i'll agree for the most part. sohan bellam's paradigm details thoughts about k affs that i agree wtih

Solorio ’21

Any pronouns are coolio.

cesargutierrez.email@gmail.com

If CPS: cgutierrez38@cps.edu

General:

Tech>Truth.

I'll usually vote on anything if well-articulated.

Impact calc is good.

Have fun.

Don't be a jerk.

Clarity over speed.

***Specifics***

Case:

Always important. I do think most teams nowadays are doing less of it. A good 2nr/2ar should always give me a story of what is happening and how I should evaluate it. Overviews are good... just don't forget the line by line. Tell me how the advantage interacts with the disad or kritik and what that means.

Disadvantages:

Love these. I always want a good thorough story of the DA [assume I don't know anything about it]. Turns case should always be there, tell me how your DA interacts with the aff [Don't just be like "Extinction turns the aff", tell me how your impact or Link specifically affects the aff. Blocks are good, just don't rely on them too much. I prefer impact analysis on top instead of an overview. Compare your cards to theirs, "Our card is more recent, qualified, etc...". Every part of the DA is important. You do have to win every part of the DA [Same for Advantages] If they drop a DA [or anything] don't just say "they dropped it", give me a reason why I should care, what does it mean that they dropped it, you get the picture. Link turns case is a really good argument.

Counterplans:

CP and DA is always a good move. Adv cp + impact turn = my fave. You do have to win the net benefit. Won’t vote on a Counterplan without it. 100 planks? Of course. Agent Counterplans are amazing, just make sure to establish competition. Love Pics, the aff does have to win the entire Plan is a good idea. Always remember to answer theory on the CP. Explain how you access the aff's internal links and do the work. Competition determines legitimacy for CPs - if a CP is a legitimate opportunity cost to the aff, aff theory arguments are a bit less persuasive to me.

Topicality:

If you do go for it make sure it's a full 5 minutes. None of this T, CP, and Disad nonsense. Impact out both your standards and theirs. Give me reasons to prefer reasonability and competing interps. Probably need examples of in-round abuse. ASPEC is pure banter. Just don't drop it 2as.

Theory:

This is always an important part of the debate. 3 condo is probably the max. Prove to me why rejecting the team is necessary. If you have to think "is this counterplan shady/cheating". It probably is.

Kritiks:

I find them interesting, explain your theory of power, philosophy, etc. Explain the alt very clear, and how it resolves the impact to the K. I am most familiar in the following, Cap/Neolib, Security, Settler Colonialism, Ableism. Links specific to the aff are amazing. [It has to be why the aff links and not the squo]. Long overviews? Sure why not but don’t just read it and be like “Line by line, done above, done above, done above”. Framework is important, don't undercover this in rebuttals. The vague alt argument isn't very convincing unless made iffy in CX. The alt needs to solve case, establish root cause claims. Not my Baudrillard < Yes, its your Baudrillard.

K Affs:

"Good luck to you" - Conor Cameron 2019.

Misc:

Roadmaps [This is copied from Argent Martinez’s paradigm who copied it from John Tao's paradigm—I agree with them both]

Please. There are four things I've been seeing that drive me absolutely insane - and apparently there's enough for me to even write about it.

1) Roadmapping the 1AC. Don't do it. It's not necessary. It's not a thing.

2) Asking if I want a roadmap. The answer is YES. The answer is always YES (with the exception of the 1AC, because, once again, don't do it).

3) 1NC roadmap - just tell me how many off, and then where you plan on going on. Don't tell me what the Off cases are, that's not necessary.

4) Roadmap by being clear and concise: "DA, K, Case in order of solvency then advantage one." Do not roadmap: "I'm going to go a little bit on solvency, and then maybe the K...and if I have time maybe the DA...."

Important:

Don't be a douchebag. If you are ableist, sexist, racist, etc. I will vote you down on the spot.

Former UC Lab debater and current Kenwood Academy coach (16-present)

jharduvel [at] cps [dot] edu

The most important things that you can do to get my ballot are:

1. Strategic overviews that explain how to resolve the key issue(s) of the debate
2. Comparative warrant analysis
3. Well-impacted arguments throughout

I strongly prefer to resolve the debate based on the flow rather than by reading your evidence and believe that you should do that explanatory work for me.

I will vote on whatever arguments that you wish to make. I'm more familiar with critical literature so if you're planning for a tech-y policy debate, be ready to explain your arguments thoroughly and do some storytelling in your overview.

Slow down enough on analytics that they are clearly flowable. I believe that there is a threshold you need to meet for me to vote for any given argument. Blippy extensions are going to give me significant pause and even if something is conceded, I need more than "They dropped condo and it's a voting issue for fairness and education!" to vote on it.

Topicality and theory: These debates should include clash, comparative analysis, and impacts just like any other part of the debate.

Kritiks: I prefer when debaters are specific on the link and alternative debates, and when they go for arguments like the K turns case or is a DA to case instead of vague impacts.

Counterplans: I am sympathetic to aff theory arguments against PICs, consult CPs, and process CPs. On the permutation debate, I tend to lean neg and assume risk of a link to the net benefit (unless I am told otherwise, of course).

Speaker Points: I reward line-by-line, comparative impact calculus, clash, creative argumentation, explanation of warrants, and smart analytics. I will deduct speaker points for oppressive language or arguments, rudeness, being purposefully evasive in cross-ex, excessive interruptions of your partner, and ethical violations. Clipping cards or refusing to provide the other team with access to your cards are serious violations, and I will deduct speaker points accordingly whether the other team points these issues out or not.

9th year head coach of Northside College Prep. I primarily teach novices but have obviously been out in the National Circuit madness with my varsity squads for the past decade also - so I'm familiar with bid circuit norms etc. I did not debate in high school, but have done my best to learn as much as possible about debate over my time in the game.

General preferences:

- FOR ONLINE DEBATE: PLEASE slow down slightly so I can actually hear you, and I strongly encourage you to send analytics even if you usually don't - if the mic drops out or I glitch, I bet you want me to see that you did in fact extend the dropped Condo violation etc.

- Don't be a jerk, during the round OR during the RFD. The idea that (adults or kids) people in the community think being known for being a post-rounder/jerk blows my mind. I will wreck your speaks for doing it, even if I pick you up. Just be nice, the whole world needs it right now.

- I vote on my flow, no matter how much I despise certain arguments or think they are stupid (with obvious exceptions like sexism is good etc). Understand though that it means I vote on what is on my flow, not what you thought you said.

- I've coached high-level teams that are both pure policy and pure K, and feel comfortable judging both types of debates (I've actually probably judged more high level K debates than anything). I'm probably a "soft left vanilla K policy-leaning" judge, if you want to shoehorn me.

- Fine for National Circuit speed on cards and clash, but please slow down a bit when reading a CP text, theory arg, framework interp, or making T args. I have not judged much recently, and I need to actually hear and process analytics.

- I am an English teacher first and coach second, which means I think your evidence should be good and qualified (not excessively power tagged or ridiculously underhighlighted or in the context of Australia). Feel free to crap on bad pieces of evidence the other team runs, and put me in a position to be able to throw it out by making smart args (through CX questions and then in speeches). Quality over quantity, children.

- I don't think tech and truth are mutually exclusive. I lean toward tech/dropped arg is true arg, but if you leave open-ended questions in the debate, I'm going to make a truth-based decision to resolve them.

K side preferences:

- I prefer affs with a plan (soft left especially), but I'm a fan of a good K aff also and will/have vote for them happily. However, I have a much greater skepticism for high theory (look, Baudrillard is dumb and trolling. I know his book, I get his theory, but we're not living in a simulation. In the words of a former debater "If I punched you, you'd probably say ow" kinda sums up my feelings on high theory)

- I think framework debates are interesting and important, and not structurally exclusionary, but if you win impact turns to framework I can be persuaded your way

- I think fairness is an impact to FW, although I'm more interested in debates about the educational potential/impacts of your framework when making my decision

- I think policy teams sadly never challenge the substance of K affs or thesis of kritiks enough - make case args and don't just read your FW blocks. I also love when teams try to boldly out-left K affs by reading sneaky word PICs, counteradvocacies etc - if you want to go 7 off against a K aff, I'm here for it.

- For the K on the neg, link debates need to be specific, sopull lines from their cards, set up specific links in CX, and read cards that aren't just links of omission. You need to prove the aff is making your issue worse in some way for me to pull the trigger on your K, even if I might think it's true outside of Debate World.

Policy Stuff

- I like a good counterplan debate, but do think artificially competitive process CPs and ridiculous multiplank CPs without solvency evidence are pretty unfair and am sympathetic to aff theory args in these rounds. For some odd reason, I love sneaky PICs.

- I love a run-of-the-mill disad or case debate, with the caveat that I am more comfortable assigning zero risk of a link to a truly dumb DA/case argument if the evidence is bad than most judges

- Ugh, topicality. My biggest issue with T debates (I'm admittedly not a great judge for them) is that debaters blast through T args with no consideration of whether I actually hear or understand them. In terms of preferences, I view T as a contest of competing views of the debate topic and activity i.e. which interpretation is better if the national community would be affected by my ballot. So, I look to competing interpretations first (and truly appreciate args on why interps are qualified or not, intent to define, etc), and for the love of God please impact out T clearly for me to make my head hurt less when I try to resolve the round.

- I usually think theory is a reason to reject the arg and not the team, but can persuaded otherwise (or, obviously, persuaded if they drop your cheap shot arg)

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

I have been coaching Policy Debate full time since 2014. Arms sales is my 7th year of coaching.

I view my primary objective in evaluating the round to be coming to a decision that requires the least “judge intervention.”

If debaters do not give me instructions on how to evaluate the debate, and/or leave portions of the debate unresolved, they should not expect to get my ballot. My decision will end up being arbitrary, and (while I will likely still try to make my arbitrary decision less arbitrary than not) I will not feel bad.

In the final rebuttals, debaters should be giving me a “big picture” assessment of what’s going on in the debate to give them the best chance to get my ballot. Extending 25 arguments in the rebuttals doesn’t do much for me if you’re not explaining how they interact with the other team’s arguments and/or why they mean you win the round. In my ideal debate round, both 2NR and 2AR have given me at least a 45 second overview explaining why they’ve won the debate where they dictate the first paragraph of my ballot for me.

Important things to note:

-I don’t ever think Topicality is an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-If you don’t signpost AND slow down for tags, assume that I am missing at least 50% of your tags. This means saying a number or a letter or “AND” or “NEXT” prior to the tag of your card, and preferably telling me which of your opponents arguments I should flow it next to. Speech docs are not substitutes for clarity and signposting.

-I'm probably a 7 on speed, but please see above ^^^^

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

-I would prefer not to call for cards, I believe it’s the debaters job to clearly communicate their arguments; if you tell me they’re misrepresenting their cards – I will probably call for them. But if I call for it and they’re not misrepresenting their evidence you’ll lose a lot of credibility with me and my cognitive biases will likely run amuck. Don’t let this deter you from calling out bad evidence.

-You can win the line-by-line debate in the 2AR but still lose the debate if you fail to explain what any of it means and especially how it interacts with the 2NR's args.

-Don’t assume I have any familiarity with your Acronyms, Aff, or K literature

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

-You’re in a bad spot if you’re reading new cards in the final rebuttals, very low propensity for me to evaluate them

-CPs that result in the aff are typically going to be a very hard sell, so are most other artificially competitive CPs. Perms are cool, so are time tradeoffs for the aff when this happens. If you really think you've got a sick techy CP make sure to go out of your way to win questions of competition/superior solvency / a specific link to the aff plan alone for your NB

-I think debate is a competition.

-the best “framework” arguments are probably “Topicality” arguments and almost probably don’t rely on cards from debate coaches and definitely don’t rely on me reading them after the round

-Impact everything out... Offense and Defense... I want to hear you telling me why your argument is more pressing and important than the other team's. I hate having to intervene... "Magnitude," "Probability," and "Timeframe" are not obscenities, please use them.

Arguments you shouldn’t waste your time on with me:

-Topicality = RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-Consult CPs

I am going to have the easiest time evaluating rounds where:

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

-weighing mechanisms and impact calculus guiding how I evaluate micro & macro level args are utilized

-the aff advocates a topical plan

-the DA turns and Outweighs the Case, or the CP solves most of the case and there's a clear net benefit that the perm doesn't solve for

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

-the 2NR/2AR doesn't go for everything and makes strategic argument selection

Presumptions I bring into the round that probably cannot be changed:

-I’m voting Neg on presumption until the aff reads the 1AC

-Topicality is never an RVI (*this is distinct from kritiks of the neg’s interp/use of topicality*)

-There is no 3NR

-Oppression of humans = bad (note: I do not know how this compares to the end of the planet/human race, debaters are going to have to provide weighing mechanisms for me.)

-Earth existing = good (note: I do not know how this compares to other impacts like oppression of humans, debaters are going to have to provide some weighing mechanisms for me.)

-I will have a very difficult time bringing myself to vote for any sort of Consult CP if the aff even mumbles some type of “PERM”

-Once the 2AC perms, presumption goes to the neg to prove the perm unworkable or undesirable if the CP/Alt is not textually/functionally competitive

Unimportant things to note:

-Plz read your plan before you read solvency – I will be annoyed and lost if you don’t

-I really enjoy author indicts if/when they’re specific – it shows a team has worked hard and done their research

-I really enjoy case specific strategies – I enjoy it when a team can demonstrate that they've worked hard to prepare a case specific strategy

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

-I’ve been involved in policy debate in some capacity for 11 years now – Education is my 5th topic coaching.

-I put my heart and soul into policy debate for four years on high school. I worked tirelessly to put out specific strategies for specific affirmatives and I like to see debaters who I can tell have done the same and are having fun. So, show me you know your case better than anyone else if you're affirmative, or on the neg, show me specific links and answers to the affirmative... I tend to reward this in speaker points. ...That being said, generics are fun, fine, and essential for the negative team. Feel free to run them, you will not be penalized in any way.

Specific Arguments

I'm good for just about anything that is well debated: T, Theory, DAs, CPs, Ks... I can even be persuaded to vote solely on inherency if it is well debated - if the plan has literally already happened, for the love of god please punish the aff.

That being said, I enjoy seeing a strategy in argument selection, and appreciate when arguments don't blatantly contradict each other (i.e. the DA linking to the CP, or Cap Bad and an Econ Impact on politics). Especially in the 2NR.

********************************************************

LD Paradigm

I am pretty tab when it comes to LD. My goal is to reach a decision that requires the least amount of judge intervention.

Signpost and slow down on tags. Slow down even more for theory args. Spreading through tags and theory interps is absolutely not the move if you want me to be flowing your speech. I will not be flowing from the doc.

Slow down. No, you don’t have to be slow and you should certainly feel free to read the body of your cards at whatever max speed you are comprehensible at. If you’ve used signposting, slowed down on tags and pre-written analytics, you’re golden. It's inexcusable and unforgivable to not have signposting in the 1ac.

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

-undisclosed affs that don’t defend the entirety of the resolution

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

-Probably not interested in hearing condo if it’s just 2 condo positions

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

I think that I have a low propensity to vote for most arguments regarding things that happen outside of the round or prior to the 1ac. I am not interested in adjudicating arguments that rely on screenshots of chats, wikis, or discord servers.

Questions, or interested in my thoughts on particular subjects not covered in my LD paradigm? Check out my POLICY PARADIGM above!

Public Forum Paradigm:

First speakers get to ask the first question in crossfire. If you ask about the status of this in round, expect to get one less speakerpoint than you would have otherwise.

File Share > e-mail chain.

Depth > Breadth. You only have four minutes to construct your position, would far prefer to hear 2 well-developed contentions rather than 3-4 blippy ones unless they are incredibly straight-forward. Much less interested in adjudicating “argument checkers” than most.

Hi. I debated at Glenbrook North HS in Northbrook for 4 years, 1.5 in policy and 2.5 in LD. I was the LD coach at Loyola Blakefield HS in Baltimore for 3 years followed by being the debate coach for Chicagoland Jewish HS in Deerfield, IL, New Trier HS in Winnetka/Northfield, IL, Bronx Science, Beacon HS in Manhattan, the director of debate at Mamaroneck HS in Mamaroneck, NY and currently the director of debate at South Shore International College Prep in Chicago. I've also worked at multiple debate camps and have been a private coach for multiple debaters. Trust me, I've seen it all.

Last updated 4/9/24. Changed some words and added my judge kick stance.

I'm fine being on email chains but I'm not posting my email publicly. Just ask before the round.

General stuff:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. I do not discriminate, I'm find with speed (though sometimes my flowing can be bad), fine with theory, fine with kritiks, whatever you want to do. It's your round, not mine have fun with it.

-Extensions are key! Every extension needs to have the word extend/pull through the flow/or similar wording attached to it. Then it needs to have a warrant for what is being extended, finally the extension needs an impact back to the weighing calculus. If that is the value/value criterion mechanism then it needs to impact back to the VC that is being used for the round. If that is some other mechanism, it needs to be impacted to that weighing mechanism (theory means voters I guess). That weighing mechanism and the warrants for the mechanism should be extended (In a v/vc model the vc should be extended along with the argument). If these things are not done then the arguments will not be evaluated in the same depth and I might not give you credit, or as much credit, for an argument that you may have clearly won on the flow. I guess in simpler terms I have a high threshold for extensions. Also, when extending please extend along with the warrant please compare your arguments to other arguments. The best extensions are not just argument extensions but have comparative weighing along with the arguments.

-Evidence is not inherently preferable for analytics absent some argument for why I should prefer that specific piece of evidence over a generic analytic. Debaters are smart and well researched on the topic (usually) and so should be able to have a command of what is going on equal to/greater than a lot of experts. Trust yourself and talk about why you are correct instead of some rando newspaper writer who has probably done less research than what goes into the typical 1AC.

- WEIGH! One of the things I'm almost always unsure of after a round is which argument to evaluate first. Do I look to the Disad, the spike, the contention 1? Most debate rounds involve multiple arguments that could "come first" and people telling me the order in which to evaluate arguments and which arguments are more important makes my life easier. It also means you'll be more likely to win because the argument that you're saying is most important/comes first is probably also the one that you're winning the most. WEIGH! Seriously WEIGH!

On Non-T affs:

You ought pretend to be topical. Topicality means different things to different people and I think that the topic and what topicality means can change in debate and in different debates. However, the aff should claim that they are talking about the topic. What the topic means to you and how it functions might be different than the "traditional" method and that's fine! How you make that claim or whether that claim is true can be (and should be!) contested in the round.

- Other thing: It has become very clear since 10/7/23 that settler-colonialism justifies mass atrocities. I will vote against it much as I vote against people who say or uphold racist/sexist/homophobic or other harmful ideologies.

- Feel free to come up to me at any tournament and ask me questions about anything, I can't guarantee you a great answer but I can guarantee that I will try to respond.

LD Paradigm:

Things I've noticed about my preferences for debate: (This is just a list of things I like, none of these are necessary to win a round but they do affect my judging)

- I tend to prefer debaters who debated similarly to how I debated. What does this mean? I debated in an old school national circuit LD style. On the aff that meant a very broad criterion with mutually exclusive contentions that I tried to kick out of as much as possible (usually at the end of the 2AR, I had one contention and maybe framework). On the neg, it meant a short NC, no more than 2 minutes, with extensive analytical responses to the aff. While it might not help you win the round, debate has changed a lot, it will help your speaker points.

- I like a 2AR that isn't on the flow. What does this mean? The 2AR should be more of a story speech that merely references the flow. A lot of weighing/crystallizing or time on voting issues.

-I like even/if stories. They tend to make the round clearer and make my life easier.

-LD debaters need to stop saying "we" when referring to themselves. You are a singular human being and not one half of a partnership. If you say "we" while referring to yourself you will lose 0.1 speaker points. I will also interrupt your speeches to ask "who is we?" Be prepared.

-I'm a leftist politically. Property rights arguments and other capitalist arguments are not particularly persuasive to me and I don't like hearing them. That doesn't mean I won't vote on them, it just means if you have something else it's probably a good idea to run it.

-I presume coinflip. That means if I can't find any offense or way to vote I will flip a coin to decide the round. I have done this quite a few times and never want to do it again but I'm not afraid to do it and if I think your round warrants it, a coinflip will happen. (That said the only times I've done it has been in rounds where there have been on offense by either side so as long as offense exists I will not flip a coin).

-I like philosophy, I am a philosophy major. That said I'm not good at flowing it, especially when spread at the beginning of the speech. So if you do read philosophy slow down a little bit so that I can catch your arguments.

-Going off that last point, my major is in continental philosophy; which means I take classes on all those critical authors you've wanted to use in rounds. Kritiks are wonderful! If you know what are you talking about, please run them in front of me. Ks do not need an alt, though it is preferable. Make sure to understand the interactions between your position and the position of what your opponent is running.

- Please start the AC/NC with I affirm/I negate. It doesn't take away from your word economy and it gives me a second to "catch up" and get used to your spreading/debating voice so that I don't miss your first argument. You don't need to re-state the resolution though, that's unnecessary.

-Something most debaters forget is that as a judge I do not look to see what you are reading while you are reading it. I don't read the cards on the email chain until after the round. Therefore, be more specific in signposting then off the Martin card 1..2..3 etc. Don't just say Martin, say what Martin said as well, because I might not have gotten the author name Martin but I got the argument they made. Also, be clear about where Martin is on the flow. If Martin is a contention 1 card, say that she is in contention 1. Virtual/Computer debate note: I do ask to be on the email chain but I don't read the cards on the chain until after the round so this still applies.

- Policy style arguments have started to come more and more into LD and people like running them in front of me. That's fine, I really like them. However, if you are running them you also take on policy-style burdens. For example, if you read a plan then you have to fulfill the 4 criteria of the HITS (if you don't know what that is, you shouldn't be running a plan. Also, considering the last person to lose on significance was Tom Durkin in the 1978 NDT, significance doesn't matter anymore). Most importantly, is that policy has a status quo whereas LD does not. That means that you need to orally give me the dates of evidence! If you're running a DA I need to know that the uniqueness is actually unique, if it's a plan that the inherency is actually inherent etc. Evidence without dates on it means that I won't give you credit for uniqueness or inherency claims that you need in the debate round. If your opponent points out that you didn't read those dates then I will give zero credit for any uniqueness/inherency claim and assume that your evidence is from 1784 and take away any offense that is based off of that plan/DA (I will also give said opponent at least a 29). So make sure to tell me those dates!

- I've recently read A LOT of social movement theory and have also been actively been involved in crafting strategy for a social movement. This has made me significantly more wary of most kritik alternatives. Kritik alts either make no sense, are not realistic, would never be adopted by wide ranging social movements, or are actively harmful to spreading social movements. It won't change how I vote, if the alt is won, but it does mean that common sense arguments against K alts will be considered more important. But if you look at my earlier stuff from Ks you'll see that I don't even think an alt needs to be read, so, you know, think about that risk.

- A priori/pre-standards arguments/other tricky-esque nibs. If you are losing everything else on the flow I need a reason to uniquely prefer your 3 sentences over the rest of the flow. If that does not happen I will find it very hard to vote for you over somebody else who is winning the rest of the round. Not that I won't evaluate the argument at all it will just be weighed against the rest of the round and if someone else is winning the rest of the round I will vote for the person winning the majority of the round. In simpler words if you go for an a priori, go for it hard. I'm not going to buy it simply because it is dropped.

- Metaethics. Basically, meta-ethics cannot be used as a "magic wand" to get out of framework debate. You still need to provide an ethic to meet your meta-ethic. Just saying my meta-ethical util comes before your ethical deont haha! is not enough. Language might be indeterminate but that doesn't mean we default to util (or deont) unless it's justified.

Since everybody asks me about how I evaluate theory here it is:

I don't mind theory, I will vote on it and I will vote on it in cases where I think no actual abuse has occurred or even times where the argument itself is patently non-abusive. But before you rush to pull out your three theory shells, I really don't like voting on it. Moreover, of all the decisions where people have argued with me after the round, 2/3 of them are because of theory. My paradigm seems to be different than other judges so I would say run theory at your risk. Now of course you're asking why is my paradigm different? Simple because I don't default to a monolithic competing interpretations framework, you don't need a counter-interp/RVI/etc. to win theory (though it is helpful and in a case of offense vs. no offense I'm going to default to offense). I'm not as technical on theory as other judges, simply saying my argument is not abusive, drop the argument not the debater, or even talking about reasonability will probably be enough to convince me to not vote on theory. In other words, I default to reasonability, though will be persuaded otherwise. Also, in a round between two equal theory debaters or even a round where both debaters have competent theory blocks, theory turns into a crapshoot (which, by the way, is most theory rounds) so while I will do my best to sort through it that doesn't mean my decision won't be somewhat random.

Also, I guess most LD judges don't evaluate theory this way so I should point this out. If you only go for theory in the NR/2NR or 2AR then the affirmative/negative does not need a RVI to win the theory debate because the only offense at the end of the round is on theory which means that I am merely evaluating who did the better theory debating and not worrying about substance at all. The RVI only comes into play if there is a contestation of substance AND theory at the end of the debate.

Policy Paradigm:

I will vote on any argument, in any weighing mechanism provided. My main philosophy is it's your round not mine so do what you want. I think a lot of how I judge policy is probably transferred from LD so look there for good stuff. One caveat to that, if there is something that seems very specific to LD (like saying "we" for example) do not bring that into a policy context.

Obviously I have some caveats for that:

First and foremost is that LD is most of what I've debated and coached. Though policy kids have this outdated version of what LD is, there is now every argument in policy in LD also with extra stuff too! I am fine with speed etc. Don't worry about that but I'm still a LDer at heart so be prepared. I've been mostly coaching policy since 2018 or so meaning that I've caught on to a lot more of the nuances of policy debate. At this point I coach more policy than LD so this is changing.

The other important take away is that social conventions of what you can and cannot do in LD and policy are slightly different. For example, RVIs in LD are not joke arguments but made in almost any theory round (though I don't like RVIs in policy). LD does not have the concept of overviews in the same way as policy and what is considered "line by line" is very different. I've been able to figure out most of these biases but occasionally I'll mess up. Just be aware.

I default to reasonability on T and theory issues.

I don't know why this has become a thing but apparently people don't say AND or NEXT after finishing cards in the 1AC or 1NC. You still need to do that so that I know when to flow.

I just learned what this term means but apparently I judge kick if that matters to you (and I think I'm understanding the term correctly)

Utilitarianism is moral philosophy that evaluates the morality of actions based on the consequences. This means that small scale/structural violence impacts are utilitarian because we care about the consequence of structural violence. Stop saying these arguments are not utilitarian or answering them as if they are not utilitarian. They are.

I expect clear and compassionate communication. 

I am a tabula rasa judge who will allow the debaters to determine how I should evaluate the round. It is important for the debaters to explain to me how I should evaluate the round. I do my best to keep an accurate flow, and I make my decision for each round by how the debaters evaluate the round based on the flow. Debate the way you debate and most important, have fun!

I'm a Vanderbilt University Biomedical Engineer from the class of 2015, who grew up as a Chicago public school student, and one of those few people in the debate world who was introduced to formal debate as an adult.

I am an assistant debate coach at a Chicago Public High School, and have focused only on Policy debate. Most of my engagement has been through Chicago Debate League, and I would encourage you to look into it to understand my experience. My debate Mentor is Jonathan Horowitz, if you'd like to glance at his paradigm as well.

I consistently see debaters underutilize CX. This is an amazing opportunity to identify gaps in your opponents arguments, please use it. Make your questions pointed and clear. Ask a second question if the first isn't landing.

Avoid overly relying on your cards as individual items, they should be part of your argument as a whole, and I see this get lost sometimes.

As Neg, make sure you're responding to all arguments actually made by Aff, not the arguments you think they're going to make.

K's are fun to judge but make sure you have adequate evidence to support, and that that it leads some where. Don't let esoteric discussions distract from the fact there is a resolution you're debating under.

Be cautious of using statistics and numbers if you can't answer questions around their context.

For impact, make sure you are explicit in your conclusions, not implying them.

It is the burden of your rebuttals to explain how each argument interacts and why the way everything falls means I vote for you. This approach especially rewards good comparison of evidence and internal warrants. A good rebuttal should lay out your proposed RFD for me.

I'm a fourth-year debater. My pronouns are she/her/hers, they/them/theirs, and e/em/eirs
I'm an anarchist.

if you misgender me or others consistently or otherwise make debaters uncomfortable, I'm likely to consider docking speaks, if it's clearly making someone uncomfortable, I will stop the round

I love answering questions about concepts or arguments after the round if you want tips after my RFD!

FW

I'm not particularly partial to framework that demands USFG action as the limit of aff discussion. K affs are a solidly predictable entity within debate, if you must go for framework, handle the case, and I'd advise a TVA. Aff offense on fw is best addressed via case answers and providing a model that allows the aff some way to win.
Predictability is not really a viable internal link argument when there are previews

Limits is an ok internal link to fairness I guess Absent a reason why the limits imposed by the neg's interp are the best model, assume I think your interp is arbitrary in the face of a counter-interp that creates a comparable amount of ground

Aff should have a counter interpretation for fw that provides some model of debate I can actually picture. I'm open-minded as long as you can manage line-by-line on the flow (I default to "neg interpretation plus our aff" if the neg cant answer "no in round abuse")

Ks

This here is the double-edged sword of me as a judge, I understand the K rather well, and I'm likely already familiar with whatever you might run. The good news is this means you don't need to simplify for my sake, and I'm going to pay attention to the nuances of the theory. The bad news is I will hold you to a somewhat elevated standard. If you make a claim that's counter to your thesis, I won't miss it as easily as others. Generic links are ok as long as you can contextualize them to the implementation of the affirmative. Plan links are advised but not required. If you want me to kick the alt, tell me, same goes for treating links as disads to the plan.

Being a prospective philosophy major, I'm familiar with a lot of authors outside of debate, and will likely come in with some understandings on popular K authors beyond their use in debate, keep that in mind. Cultural theories of race, class, and gender, metaphysics, and anarchism are my main interests

My favorite 3 authors are Francois Laruelle, Fred Moten, and Andrew Culp

KvK
These debates often disappoint me, not bc I don't like them but because there's almost always more that could have been said.
I encourage Ks as the neg against K affs, but I want to see both teams dig into the scholarship, beyond that I'm a blank slate here.
Actually, wait... the one thing I do find hard to vote on is cap Ks saying "We need to use state institutions" alongside T-USFG. Trying to turn Marxism into a reformist replacement for radical thought is a hard sell for me.

T
Ok so I think T is fine, it's probably arbitrary in the face of previews, but I think ground is the main voter by default
If you're planning on T for your 2NR strat I should have some way of expecting that by the end of the block
Reasonbilty vs Precision is a fun debate
Competing Interps are good, but I can budge there

Counterplans
Delay CPs are bad
Process CPs are ok as long as you can explain how it's not the aff
Agent and Adv CPs are probably the best choices for winning theory with me
2NC CPs are only for answering 2ac addons or new impact scenarios, however, if you need to clarify the CP text in the 2nc I'll entertain it if you can provide some justification
Ill be honest I dont know how UQ CPs work so if you're going to go into that debate please be clear and concise

Novice

I am a constrained ethical policymaker for novices.

-Constrained: Topicality is a real issue. (Other theory arguments may also be acceptable - they should reflect policy processes or limitations.)

Note that this means that agent counterplans where there can exist no decision-maker who could choose between the plan and the counterplan are on theoretically shaky ground, and will be harder to convince me to vote for them. (Many international agent counterplans fall into this boat).

-Ethical: Moral obligations or reasoning can motivate my decision-making

-Policymaker: I want to choose the best policy action at the end of the round. Kritiks that operate at the policy-level are acceptable (and must include a policy-level alternative that does more than rethink or reject - you don't have to advocate specific policy actions, but your alternative must express policy goals or programs that could or should be advocated under the K).

Varsity

I am close to Tabula Rasa. Some caveats related to that:

-You can't access my knowledge - you may assume I have a 9th grade education and read a newspaper regularly. Anything more complicated than that will need to be explained in clear unjargonated language or I will pretend I didn't understand you.

-Teams have an obligation to make complete arguments. Arguments which are not complete in the speech they first appear are dead. The opposing team should point out how they're incomplete, but if I notice on my own I will stop flowing that argument and treat it as if it didn't happen. (This is usually as blatant as failing to argue an impact or a link, but if a team demonstrates and wins there's a logical failure caused by a missing internal link, it will kill the argument). Note that arguments can still be built upon with new impacts/harms and links later, but they must represent a logically complete and coherent argument when they first appear.

-You need to tell me how to weigh the round, especially when there's something more interesting than standard Cost-benefit analysis.

-I will vote to fulfill winning Role of Ballot/Judge or Moral Obligations as my means of determining the outcome of the round, regardless of which team that leads me to vote for.

That said, I tend to lean particular ways on certain arguments:

Topicality - I am sympathetic to Topicality arguments against blatantly untopical cases. Which doesn't mean I will always vote on T in such cases (I've certainly voted for plenty of such Affs in the past), but the affirmative will have an uphill climb if the negative argues it well. I find TVA arguments especially persuasive in such cases. (See also Kritiks - some of that applies to K Affs as well).

For any T argument, if you want my ballot on it, you need to win the interpretation/violation, give a good explanation of the impacts (voters), and win some standards which prove your interpretation solves the impacts. This stuff can get developed in the block, but just extending a shell isn't going to do it.

CPs - I love in-depth CP debates where the CP is directly responsive to the affirmative case. The CP has to make sense relative to the Aff, and has to have a valid process. The more specific the CP to the Aff, the better.

-Court CPs: The Supreme Court decides what the law is (Marbury v. Madison). I need a court CP to do this - it has to give a decision which explains the law, and then apply it in a way that works as a CP to the Aff. This is hard and it should be - SCOTUS is not magic. I will also find it much easier to vote for a Court CP which can specify the case taken up and ruled on. (Note these things apply to Court Affs as well).

-XO CPs: Need to prove the president has the power to specifically do plan

-Foreign Actor CPs: I'm a little leery of these, and the aff will have a lot of theoretical leeway in perming these.

Kritiks - I require a K to clash substantively with the aff.

-I will not vote for a K that is merely 'reject' or 'rethink'. The alt needs to be an actual alternative to the world of the plan. (A K Aff needs to lead to actions in the world at some point). I need to be able to understand how someone will or can live in such a world.

-I will generally not vote for PIKs. The K must cause me to vote no on the Plan specifically, or I will vote aff. (The Plan is the necessary point of clash and conflict for the K). (I will make exceptions for Ks which are basically asking me to punish behavior by the affirmative team in the round, but the behavior must be truly egregious, and I'll treat it at the level of a theory violation).

-I will not buy 'they didn't talk about / do anything about X' sorts of links. The aff itself has to link in an immediate and visceral way.

-I can easily be persuaded to be skeptical about links of the form 'plan is a part of X, X causes impact Y', especially when 'X' is a term whose definition varies wildly between authors. This is especially likely to come up with things like the Cap or Neolib and similar Ks. Much better if you can link things like plan to the impact directly, rather than relying on some general 'Plan is Cap, Cap causes the impact' type of argument. (More generally, I'm very open to more nuanced explanations of the evidence and the world over black and white depictions).

-The aff always gets to weigh plan action against the alternative. If the K happens at a discursive level (in-round voters), the aff should argue the discursive benefits of advocating for the Plan.

-I am skeptical of 'in-round solvency'. If you want to make such a claim, I need evidence that it actually works. Not just unwarranted claims it will or should work, but empirical evidence it does. (This definitely applies to K Affs as well).

-The purpose of reading evidence is to bring in testimony about the real world. But reading other people making argument doesn't add anything to the debate round, and generally involves long jargon-laden texts. I would vastly prefer if K debaters skipped reading cards from philosophers and made the argument themselves (preferably with little-to-no jargon). Do please still read evidence for any empirical claims you need to prove. Note also that Ks are especially likely to lack important internal link arguments (because they're snipping tiny amounts of text out of large bodies of work), and making the argument on their own would help debaters make complete arguments.

Evidence

I have strong feelings about evidence integrity in debate.

Evidence which is blatantly misrepresented will be treated as if it has not been read. This can cause arguments to fail outright (see arguments must be complete in their first speech), and I will invoke this even if it is not argued. Teams should still endeavor to point these things out - I'm not infallible. (Evidence which is well spun will not be penalized - the key difference is the original article must leave open the possibility of the interpretation argued).

If debaters notice other harms to evidence integrity, they should definitely bring them to my attention.

General

I tend to find cohesive negatives stronger than negatives which just toss out a ton of things. I tend to think negatives should advocate the CP or K Alt. I tend to find contradictory positions to decrease persuasiveness. (None of these are hard and fast rules)

At the end of the round, I'm generally looking for a comparison between two worlds, and I want to choose the better world. While 'better' is something the debaters can and should argue about, more depth and detail about the worlds being compared is a huge plus persuasively.

Update for Zoom Debate: I'm a hard-of-hearing judge so, if possible, including typed-up analytics in sent docs will help me flow you better. If I can't understand you, I'll unmute and say clear.

Email: Please add me to the email chain danielej2k@gmail.com

Background:

- 3 years debating at Purdue

- 4 years at Glenbrook North

Short Version: I'm down to listen to whatever arguments you want to read. My first four years I was a "policy" policy debater and at Purdue I've thus far been kritikal. As long as you know how to explain your argument without the use of strung together jargon - you'll be fine.

Longer Version:

Counterplans: I'm a big fan of well thought out PICs/Process CPs so long as they are specific to the aff. That's not to say I won't listen to your Consult NATO cp, but let's just say there are more persuasive ways to get my ballot. I don't default to judge kick unless I'm told to.

Disads: The bread and butter of policy debate. I love a good ol' DA case debate. I generally find it hardest to defend link uniqueness on this topic.

K's: I'm familiar with a lot of the 20th-century European philosophers and not so much with identity politics lit. My pet peeve with these arguments is when debaters throw a k in the 1nc without actually understanding their arguments. That's a good way to lose speaker points. Debaters who can clearly explain their k will be rewarded.

Clash of Worlds: I don't lean a specific way but do have a couple of thoughts

- Explain what my ballot looks like in the 2nr/2ar. How does debate change? Is fairness an intrinsic good? etc

- I'm persuaded by arguments that some impacts are really internal links. Explain to me why clash is good, not just that they "destroy clash".

Random Comments

- I absolutely love cx. That's a great opportunity to increase your speaker points

- Don't interrupt your partner unless they are going to lose you the debate

- Have fun! You're all here for some reason or another so might as well enjoy it

Eshkar Kaidar-Heafetz – He/They

Chattahoochee ’23 – Wenatchee Independent KK – UWG ’27

Email chain – esh5.atl.debate@gmail.com

213 Rounds debated, 67 Judged, 2X TOC Qual, 1X NDT Qual

Affiliations – Chattahoochee, Johns Creek, Brookfield East SM, Alpharetta

“K debaters cheat, Policy debaters lie. If you believe both, you should pref me highly. If you believe one of the two, you should pref me in the middle percentile. If you don’t believe either, go do PF” – Josh Harrington

_____

No one in debate should have to interact with their abuser. If a round is unsafe, please let me know before the round, I will go to tabroom and fight for whatever potential solution I can. This is something that should be taken up with tabroom, your coach, etc. and is not something I would want to have to adjudicate in the middle of a round. If you are someone who treats others like trash, is implicated negatively in a title IX investigation, etc., I should be at the very bottom of your pref sheet.

_____

Most important notes

Clarity is massive for me. I have a memory loss disorder along with minor hearing problems. This does not mean that I am unable to hear or process the spreading of any given round, but that your persuasive ability majorly goes down when I have to spend more of my time processing figuring our what you’re saying rather than focusing on the quality of your arguments and instruction. I don’t care how fast you’re going; I care how clear you are when going at that speed.

Highlighting in debate right now is maybe one of the most disgusting things I’ve ever seen. Your evidence should still be highlighted to be, generally, grammatically correct and highlighted warrants.

Everything about basic decency that you’ve seen in every other paradigm I believe in. Racism, homophobia, transphobia, etc. is unacceptable and will be given a L25, likely combined with an incredibly serious email to your coach.

Evidence ethics – clipping, miscites, cards cut with sentences omitted, cards cut that don’t begin and end at the start and end of paragraphs, changes to words in a card altering the meaning of the evidence are also an L25.

Also, I think highlighting words from the name of the article or book is ridiculous. Don't highlight cites...

_____

Arguments –

I wholeheartedly believe that I’m good for any argument. My high-school career included a lot of policy debates and even more K debates. My senior year, I exclusively went for disability on the affirmative, and our negative strategy included anything from conditions counterplans to kritiks to impact turns. I was both the 2A and 2N for four years. My college career has just started, but I primarily read queerness on the AFF when 2Aing and on the NEG when 2Ning, but when I was the 1A read a policy aff and when I was the 1N extended almost exclusively topicality or a PIK.

The only major threshold for evaluating if an argument should be read in front of me is if you’re willing to go for it, I dislike throw-away strategies.

Wipeout, spark, death good, whatever are all fine positions. I believe there is a difference between a post-fiat argument that centers around death being good, and a real world threat of violence (i.e., telling a debater to inflict harm upon themselves, threatening harm upon someone, etc.).

Specific arguments –

Disadvantages – I love seeing creative disadvantages or just ones that are articulated very well. My main issue with DA debates nowadays is I tend to see ones where, by the 2NR, many parts of the debate feel incredibly isolated rather than a cohesive story that I can sit down and say I understand. Debaters that are able to clearly articulate and define the link debate beyond just shallow extensions do much better in front of me when they fit that link explanation into the broader story of the AFF/DA.

Counterplans – Some of my favorite debates when the counterplan actually competes. I went for conditions and pics a lot of the time my senior year (probably at least 1/2 of my 2NRs), the sorts of debates for counterplans that I dislike are ones that get incredibly muddled in solvency/impact questions, ESPECIALLY if your evidence is not specific and you’re trying to write a plan text around generic evidence to make it work. I am not the world’s best judge for intense counterplan competition debates, but don’t let that deter you from going for what you want. I think delay is a silly cp.

Topicality – I honestly went through most of high-school HATING topicality debates but have now grown incredibly fond of them. As of my freshman year in college, topicality usually makes up nearly two-thirds of my 1NRs. What I think deters most debaters is a numbers game for interpretations, but I genuinely believe that an incredibly high quality interpretation is far better than a ton of short cards that barely say anything. Give me a solid caselist and view of what would happen for debate under the AFF’s counter-interpretation and do in depth evidence comparison and warrant comparison, because a LOT of topicality debates seem to lack these. Storytelling is so critical and underrated in T debates, I want to clearly imagine the world of the interp/counter interp.

Kritiks – My bread and butter, went for Ks a ton throughout all of high school. I’m familiar with most branches of literature, my weak spots are Baudrillard, Deleuze, Guattari and Derrida, but I am very well versed in nearly every other branch of lit. I think kritiks probably need aff-specific links (at least articulated/contextualized in the 2NC) and have no particular thought on if I should weigh the consequences of the plan or not. I hold Kritik debates to a much higher standard, because I know what a good K debate should look like and expect you to produce a good K debate.

Kritik Affirmatives – Love them, ran them exclusively both my senior year of H.S. and (as of writing this) freshman year of college. However, I am incredibly skeptical of most K-AFF’s ability to solve their impacts or solve/do anything at all. I am a judge who is completely willing to vote on a 5 minutes of presumption 2NR, because often times these AFFs don’t have a topic link, don’t do anything, etc. My favorite affirmatives are ones that defend actual material strategies, methods, etc. or at least are able to have a position that I feel is sufficient to beat back on SSD/TVA and presumption. I am not going to do the work for you. Last note – most of your authors probably hate each other and I think a lot of affirmatives fail to reconcile that, if you’re going to be reading an affirmative in front of me, the evidence/narrative should be cohesive. I like anything from more traditional K-AFFs to poetry to songs to completely uncarded ones, but understand I have a reasonably high threshold for solvency. For the negative, I love a well-executed KvK debate and will reward a high-quality one, but I am similarly amenable to framework.

Framework – Go for it, I don’t really care what impact you go for. I hate seeing teams over-rely on generic blocks and miss the actual content of AFF offense, so if you want to go for framework, I expect to see you spend time engaging the affirmative’s arguments, actually responding to the content of them, etc. Otherwise, you can see me checking out on something like a counter interp + risk of a DA more easily than I’d like to. I am very skeptical of a lot of KAFF's offense versus framework, you should maximize that.

__________

Miscellaneous

I am a small-school debater who handled running their program since 2021. If you need any help with your own, reach out to me.

Favs -

Kelly Lin, Allison Lee, Charles Sanderson, Patrick Fox, Avery Wilson, Srikar Satish, Sophia Dal Pra, Rose Larson, Astrid Clough, Jordan Keller, Robin Forsyth, Ash Koh, Geoff and Sarah Lundeen, Lauren Ivey, Kevin Bancroft, Grey Parfenoff, Blaine Montford, Austin Davis

Jake Kalinovskiy

Current debater at GBN

GBN 2022

jakdebate@gmail.com

-- add me don't ask

-- tag team cx is good

-- if I don't say anything/am quiet assume I'm good. I'll lyk if I'm not ready

Be interesting/funny = speaks + more likely to do work for you, I prefer to give higher speaks, don't give me a reason to doc yours.

I reward argumentative creativity, I've debated revisionism 50 times -- what makes you special?

- analytics are real arguments -- a smart analytic > unexplained card

- if you try to out-card them and just don't analyze it I really don't care how many cards you read.

- if you read answers to arguements that were in the doc but they didn't get to I will be disappointed.

- I like debate/K tricks if you understand them.

- a dropped argument is true if warranted/impacted out in the rebuttals

Debates about debate are my favorite, go slow: - this is my bread and butter, just please please please tell me why to prefer your model

T, Theory(all of it, condo especially), Framework = much love - the framework page goes aff or neg, that frames every other flow.

Case debate:

I'm probably going to start evaluating the debate here, probably a good idea to win case.

neg, if you don't have cards use analytics PLEASE

Framing: - also frames the rest of the debate (unless you tell me why it doesn't)

if its not case specific I care very little

debate changes value framing

if the disad is bad you don't need ThEiR lInK cHaIN is lOnG (this means connetta and all of the cards like it, just take it out of your 1ac, I will comment after the round how much of a waste of breath this is and no one needs to hear that lecture)

i LOVE the framing contention, but if you read one it needs to be a massive part of the debate. This has to be the hill you die on or its a waste of 1ac space

T:

love it

fairness is probably an internal link but so is nuclear war

Da:

- is your politics link unique? is it really? okay then go for it

- real disads: I'm down, have fun. Connetta is wrong

- 0 risk is a thing

Cp:

Pcp is a good answer to garbage

- Pcp is a T debate -- what does your model of debate look like?

I love garbage if it can beat Pcp

don't bother with solvency advocate theory

-- if you can finagle their aff away I respect it. they have to defend every aspect of the aff. (if it passes the Perm test its a viable option)

condo/judge kick:

I'm down for the condo debate -- I won't make up excuses to vote neg - I love debates about debate, if you create a spicy condo speech you will be rewarded handily in speaks

judge kick is the most abusive thing this side of the Atlantic, but if you don't answer it I have no choice.

impact turns:

- thebomb.com

- big stick affs don't get 'but killing people is bad' as an answer

K:

neg:

don't read it if you can't explain it in English -- K goop in the final rebuttals that hasn't been clearly defined in by the rebuttals will be ignored

if you're reading a framework K -- don't be weasly, the 2nr should be very clear about what you want me to vote on.

-- the neg has to have reps if you're reading a reps K.

if you fiat the alt -- I can be convinced that the pic is okay

have an alt

if you wanna read security abt an impact that isn't terrorism, I'm not your guy.

aff:

most Ks are incoherent and I'll vote on it without a second thought

neg link uniqueness and alt solvency are usually jokes

Kaff:

you're a novice. please don't

if you decide not to read my paradigm, it probably has pedagogical value but the neg ballot on T is looking delicious right about now.

Speaks:

- FLOW -- if you send a picture of your flow in the doc and I like it I'll boost your speaks

- I want to give you higher speaks

Add me to the email chain: addison.kane00@gmail.com

Pronouns They/Them or She/Her

Northside CP Class of 2018

University of Michigan Class of 2021

Currently Grad School @ University College London, doing a dissertation on queer geopolitics

Assistant Coach at Niles North (2020-2022)
-> Now a Remote Coach (2022-)

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

If I am judging you it means it is online and I am judging you from the United Kingdom. If it is past 10 P.M. where I am (I'm 5 hours ahead of EST - do the math), I'd prefer it if you debate at a slower speed.

I've judged multiple hundreds of high school debates at this point, in literally every medium, so I don't give any care about what style of debate you prefer. Just make creative, unique, and captivating arguments and defend those arguments well.

On framework:

I vote for framework quite a lot. It would be neat to do something creative with it and/or actually describe to me what your model of debate tangibly looks like outside of 'our model = fairness = inherent good'. Fairness to what end? What kind of scholarship does your model produce? What does it prioritize? What does it exclude? What community effect does it have? What skills do debaters gain that they can't gain elsewhere? Framework teams I've judged have hid behind these questions just to say "rules be rules, stop being unfair", which is only an argument if you win your ruleset has value in the first place.

It is also impossible to make me believe that debate does not shape individual subjectivity. It absolutely does. Anyone who genuinely believes otherwise needs to seriously look inwards on themselves and the rest of the community.

I also think debate is simultaneously a great activity and a very dangerous one as well - debate trains you to be a better reader/writer/researcher, it enables you to critically think about two sides of any argument, it allows students to make extremely valuable friendships, and its community can provide an insulated support system which can be an important safe haven for certain individuals. On the other side of things, I also believe and have witnessed the hypercompetitive nature of debate produce quite toxic and problematic personal characteristics in debaters as well, which has devastating mental health effects across the community. In framework debates, its both teams' job to convince me that your model of debate actively produces better/worse forms of these givens and/or other good/bad things outside of these givens. You can also try and convince me that some of these givens are more or less important than others, but you cannot convince me any of these givens are untrue.

Debate like people...please:

I think that debate is first and foremost a performative activity. I am increasingly frustrated by the ways in which online debate has produced a lot of ethos-less debate drones. Obviously I evaluate technical concessions and line by line, but the way in which I evaluate those speeches is filtered through the quality of your speech performance. What this means in a practical sense is, for example, if you're making an argument and sound like you have no idea if what you're saying is actually correct, or you are unable to hold the warrants up in cross-ex, I'm unlikely to vote for that argument, even if I could possibly justify it as a concession on the flow. Additionally, a convincing well-warranted analytic can beat pretty much any card, good and smart off-the-cuff rebuttals will usually beat out blocked out analytics.

Please read this:

Debate isn't life or death. Take breaks often, breathe, and relax. This activity can and will break you if you don't care for your mental health and wellbeing. If you're reading this doing prefs the night before the tournament or something, go do something nice for yourself that isn't debate.

Old Paradigm (use to determine your prefs at your own risk): https://docs.google.com/document/d/1lL8SwemB064RuWAg6HB_aJzitSJaE8U7GDib6NxW2l0/edit?usp=sharing

Last updated Sep 2020

Lexington High School '15, Dartmouth College '19

Add me to the chain: daehyun97(at)gmail.com

Debated 4 years in high school and 2 years in college, mostly on the national circuit. I’m probably not familiar with the topic, but feel free to check with me.

I read a variety of arguments when I debated. Dabbled in all sorts of K arguments but am most familiar with critiques of racism, capitalism, and security.

In clash of civs debates my voting record is pretty even - I do prefer T-USFG to framework, though.

Ask me if you have any questions about ideology / specific things you want to do.

Dae is pronounced as “day” not “die” or “judge”

People to make fun of: Conor Cameron (priority), Pirzada Ahmad, JJ Kim, Jeremy Rivera

Email: Briajia.l@gmail.com

Bri (She/her)

Policy/LD rounds

Background- Debated policy for 6 years. LD/Policy judge over 6 years.

Speed

Spreading is fine, please be sure to slow down on the tagline and when quoting evidence so I can properly flow the arguments in the round. I also recommend that debaters share the files before each speech just in case I miss anything on flows during the speeches. I also do not recommend fully spreading in the rebuttal rounds. At the end of the day, just try to be as clear as you are able to.

Adjudicating rounds

I am very traditional when it comes to policy debate and my judging style is very straight forward. If you are Aff please convince me how the Aff solves for its impacts. Be very cautious to extend solvency and impacts throughout the round. I would also recommended an overview at the beginning of the second affirmative speech.

Neg team should be careful not to be abusive and run frivolous off case arguments only as a time advantage. When there is multiple off case arguments in a round, the neg needs to let me know what they want me to vote on. Make sure all off case arguments have the components needed to win, a dis ad needs a strong link and impact and a counter-plan needs to have a net benefit for me to vote on it.

Kritik Rounds

I am open to non traditional Affs but are very hesitant to vote on them if they are not ran properly or explained in a way that I am able to understand. I think it is very important for the team to explain to me why running non traditional Aff is a better move than policy. Other than that I am open to all arguments and case types, as long as I have something to vote on at the end of the round. I really enjoy fun and creative K affs. I am very big on solvency and even though an Aff may not be policy it still needs to solve in some way. Please run what you like, it just needs to be clear. I have heard K affs for the first time that have completely changed my perspective on judging/debate. If you feel confident in your K aff then please run it. I always keep an open mind.

Neg teams that run Ks need to do a good job at explaining the K, also if there is an alt , you must convince me how the world of the alt solves and there needs to be very clear explanation. In other words, the alt needs to make sense. I do not recommend running a K that you do not fully understand, it will likely cause you to lose the round.

Assigning Speaks

I assign speech based on the clarity of the debaters in the round and the overall quality of the speeches from each debater. Debaters who are more convincing and strategic are more likely to get higher speaker points.

I sometimes doc speaker points if debaters are rude to each other in cross ex, there is nothing wrong with being aggressive or strategic in cross x but it needs to have a purpose. Let's have fun and be respectful.

Kritiks I like to hear: Afropess/antiblackness, settler colonialism, Security, Cap K, Anarchy, Disability K, Black Fem

FYI-(Please do not send me emails outside or after a tournament, Judges are only allowed to have contact with debaters during a round/tournament.) it’s fine to ask questions after a round on clarification or how to improve but please don’t post round me, especially coaches! Please be respectful. Decisions are final and I’ve already submitted the ballot before giving feedback per tournament rules.

email: bradmalis@yahoo.com. please include me on mail threads.

I debated at GBN from 1976-1980. My partner and I finished second at NFL nationals and won TOC.

Historically, I have considered myself a policy maker, but I did go to summer institute at NU and can be persuaded by hypothesis testing arguments.

first, thank you for participating in debate. it's a great activity. Much of how I think today on very important public policy matters is rooted in what I learned in debate.

Some thoughts on specific topics:

Policy making v K--I am not sure this is either/or, but in many rounds I have seen, it seems to be. I believe the central reason I am judging a debate round is to decide whether or not I should affirm the resolution. the affirmative by default needs to present a vision of water protection. the negative needs to tell me that the affirmative plan isn't needed. or it's a horrible idea. or there is a better way to do this that isn't topical. or all of the above. if the affirmative doesn't present something along these lines, it makes it very difficult for me to vote for them. if the negative doesn't argue against a plan for water protection, it makes it very difficult for me to vote for them. it doesn't mean I wouldn't vote for something different, but it is a harder bar to clear. if running a k aff or neg, please don't just tell me that something is awful. please present an alternative that is better.

i have since become more receptive to kritiks. i think i like them better on the negative, but if well presented and better argued, i'm in. i learn a lot from these debates. that said, i have heard from some teams running k affs that they want to get into traditional debate spaces and argue things that might not otherwise get heard. that gives negatives the chance to basically say 'fine, you have been heard, but we are here to discuss something else so the judge can vote negative'. then i worry that this discussion devolves into what i write about framework below.

Topicality--watching topicality debates is dull. I don't want to spend a lot of time hearing about what 'substantial' means. I think topicality is important in that it puts guardrails against what affirmatives can run. if a negative could reasonably have expected this case and has prepared for it, then just argue the case and beat it. i suppose the negative can do some sort of topicality shell, and if the aff botches it, go for it.

fiat--affirmative has fiat power, so I get to evaluate a world in which the plan exists. I don't have to worry about how much floor time this will take in the senate. or what doesn't get passed in the time that the congress is voting on this plan. the plan is deemed to have been enacted. I have heard counterplans that require other countries to act. not sure I extend fiat to that kind of thing.

counterplans--I am very cool with counterplans. they can be conditional. the negative doesn't need a totally consistent theory of the case to win. the negative gets all territory that isn't affirmative territory. if negative runs a disadvantage that can be applied to the counterplan, fine. if the disad is a good reason to vote negative, negative can punt the counterplan and win the disad. if the disad is somehow worse with the counterplan, then it gets more complicated. since affirmative gets to decide what we are talking about, the negative gets some latitude here. what counterplans can't be is topical. if the negative offers a topical counterplan, they are basically arguing in favor of the resolution, which is outside their lane.

framework--this might be related to the k thing above, but I don't much care for framework debates. telling me what is fair or not fair to present in a debate round isn't what this, or any topic, is meant to do. the topic is there so we can argue about it, not to argue about what is ok to argue about.

tech v truth--I think I am supposed to say here that I vote for how things are presented in debates and don't insert my prior assumptions into my decisions. this is generally true. please don't tell me that affirmatives shouldn't try to save lives because death is good. or that climate change is good. there are some things that I won't vote for. I heard someone argue that debate is a bad because karl rove debated and he is a bad person. while this argument isn't hard (in my opinion) to defeat, it's not the kind of thing I would vote for, regardless of my thoughts on karl rove.

other stuff--in late rebuttals, please use your time to focus on the stuff you can win the debate with. you don't have to win everything, and you shouldn't try to. please make my decision easier in that regard. if the debate is really muddled, you increase the likelihood of a decision you won't like.

please signpost and give me roadmaps. please make your tags easy to flow (very few words). please slow down a hair when providing a tag so I know it's happening. I write as fast as I can and do my level best to keep an organized flow so I can use it to make good decisions. any help you can provide in making it easier to flow is much appreciated.

I am fine with speed, but I need to understand the words. please don't read the evidence so fast that I can't make out the words. doing so forces me to read all of the evidence after the round, and I think it's unfair to both the opponent and to me. if you take out a couple of pieces of evidence to make the speech clearer, that's a trade you will win every time. also, if you get to the point where you are going so fast, you sort of hyperventilate, you wind up being less efficient getting words out. if your breathing gets in the way, try again at 80-90% speed. the goal here, in my opinion, is to get out the most words you can enunciate.

i try to vote on the issues as i interpret them. if i find that i am challenged in determining who won the key arguments, i will vote on who i think did the better debating based on how they presented their cases, how well they spoke, etc.

Finally, please respect your opponents. if they don't answer a cx question and you think they should be giving a better answer, do a gentle follow up and move on. don't badger. and then use that information in your next speech. no ad hominem attacks. if you feel your opponents made bad arguments, say so in a respectful way, but those arguments don't reflect on them as people.

Background: Georgetown University '23 & Northside College Prep '19

I competed in national circuit policy debate for seven years, qualifying for the NDT and the TOC. Currently coaching for Northside College Prep in Chicago and Richard Wright PCS in D.C (go urban debate leagues!).

Debate is not my full-time job; however, I do spend quite a bit of my free time coaching, judging, and cutting cards.

Yes, email chain: km1585(at)georgetown(dot)edu

I do not share speech documents from rounds I have judged. Please reach out to the teams who debated.

TLDR: You do you. No one can be truly tabula rasa, however, I intend to evaluate the arguments at hand rather than default to my personal preferences. Preferences about specific arguments are my defaults in the absence of adequate argumentation.

Be respectful toward one another. I am not afraid to dock speaks for unnecessary ad hominems or things of that nature.

I really like when debaters emphasize important parts of their speeches. This does not mean yelling.

There is no way for me to verify things that happened outside of the debate so I will not vote on them.

If you make any argument about the other team cheating, you need to stake the debate on it. I will end the round there and give 25s + Ls to the offending team. If you make that challenge and are incorrect or cannot prove your claim, you will lose and be granted 25s.

Evidence

Evidence quality matters a lot but only to the extent to which teams makes arguments about it. (Is the author qualified to speak on this issue (not an undergraduate)? Do they have an incentive to misrepresent certain information due to their own biases or otherwise? Is your article peer-reviewed?) However, I won't read cards from the speech doc UNLESS there is an unresolved back-and-forth on the evidence in question. I would highly prefer teams explained what their evidence says rather than asking me to read it afterwards.

Furthermore, explain the implications of qualification/date/etc when comparing. It's not enough to say "our evidence is more recent" without explaining why that matters.

Counterplans

I'm aff leaning on most competition questions - if you have doubts about whether your counterplan is competitive, make sure you are very confident in answering the perm. Conditionality is probably good and I'm generally OK with states (this does not mean you can just say "fiat" when responding to every aff answer). Theory debates on those questions are winnable, but should not be your first resort. Most theory arguments, aside from condo, are reasons to reject the argument not the team.

Disasdvantages

"Turns case" and "turns disad" arguments are usually under-explained, however, I'll reward thoughtful versions of these arguments even if analytical.

Topicality

Try to provide a clear picture of what debates will look like under the various interpretations in the debate. Negative teams will be best served by reading evidence that clearly substantiates their desired limit. Successful affirmative teams will have well thought out arguments about the intrinsic benefits of including their affirmative in the topic.

Kritiks

Specificity is a must, if not in evidence, then in application. I won't hesitate to vote on more generic or tricky arguments if they're dropped, but the bar is higher when the affirmative has a cogent answer. Affirmative teams should be ready with a good defense of what they say and do in the debate. Negative teams will benefit greatly with even a few well-thought-out case arguments.

The K is core neg ground against small affs. I’m unpersuaded by interps that exclude K arguments entirely. That said, I’m not great for FW interps that entirely exclude the plan. I believe neg teams must disprove the desirability of the plan, but not that they must do so solely with references to its narrow, fiated consequences.

I am very familiar with critiques of capitalism and settler colonialism, more so than I am with other genres of the K. Do with that what you will.

Performance/Plan-less/Other Labels

As above, do what you are best at and I will give the attention and thought I would any other argument. That being said, if you want to completely dispense with the plan-focused vision of the topic, you need a very compelling reason for doing so. In topicality/framework debates, clear links and clash at the impact level is most important. Simply saying the negative is denied disadvantages or the affirmative is denied ground is not sufficient. For the affirmative, your aff's solvency mechanism should not be an afterthought. For the negative, be sure to press on the scope of the aff's solvency claims as they are often disconnected from the impact.

Email: cmcclure2@gmail.com

I debated for Morgan Park High School from 2002-2004. I judged policy debates since 2004. I was an assistant coach for two schools in Chicago between 2008 and 2010.

The arguments that I haven't heard yet are Spark, ASPEC, and Timecube. I don't know if I want to hear those anytime soon.

Tag-team cross-x is fine as long as both teams agree to it.

Speed is fine as long as you're clear.

I don't have any preferences in terms of arguments. It's really based on how persuasive you are relative to how persuasive your opponents are (which is what debate should be about, right?).

As far as performance goes, or any role-of-the-ballot arguments, you should argue it the same way you would argue any other alternative advocacy like a counterplan: prove that your advocacy is best for debate and/or superior to your opponent's.

email chain: neilmeht4@gmail.com

I'd prefer to be on the email chain so if you can add me that would be great

Email: jmoran8@cps.edu jennifermoran2026@gmail.com

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

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

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

Top level:

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

Areas where I diverge from some nat circuit judges:

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

Stats:

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

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

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

My Knowledge:

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

K affs

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

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

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

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

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

Some other advice:

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

Topicality against policy affs

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

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

Speaker points

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

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

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

Ethical violations

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

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

uvm '26, gbn '22, 1n/2a for 3 years, she/her

put me on the chain mpaichdebate@gmail.com

i do not know the NATO topic well enough for you to assert something about the topic without explaining it

top level:

- i have zero tolerance for racism, sexism, homophobia, ableism or other harmful rhetoric - i will vote you down and deck your speaks

- tech > truth

- tag team is fine but dont speak over your partner or take up their cx

- debate is a game

- cx is binding

- i read a policy aff for basically my entire career but i read a k aff for some of senior year so i understand both

- instruct me in the 2ar and 2nr. please.

aff

- i definitely err towards affs with a plan (k affs or policy) but i can definitely be convinced that you don't need one

- impact turns are fun but death good isn't! i will vote you down

- win framing

topicality

- this was taken directly from joanna gusis's paradigm: grammatical precision > legal precision > contextual precision > overlimiting > neg ground > under-limiting > aff ground > topic education

- i have no clue what reasonability is -- it changes from a team to team basis, i will not vote on only this

- i will vote on plan text in a vacuum, just explain it well throughout the debate (it's not a hail mary in the 2ar)

disads

- specific aff links>>

- do lots of impact calc

counterplans

- you need a net benefit; solvency is not a net benefit

- i will not judge kick the cp, tell me to do it

- winning some mitigation of case makes it easier for me to comfortably vote neg

kritiks

- i love really good k debates -- i want specific links to the aff and in-depth explanations; i am not the best judge if your strat is to kick the alt in 2nr tbh (if you do kick the alt, you need to do work for me on why them Simply Linking To the K is worse than voting aff)

- if you read high theory i'm probably going to need a bit more of an explanation

- don't drop framework (or just disregard it on either side)

- plan specific links>>

theory

- hiding aspec in the 1nc is annoying. especially if you're debating varsity.

- condo is probably the only theory violation i will vote on -- whoever does the better debating will win

other (novice):

- jokes about people from gbn, gbs, nt, minn south +0.2 speaks

- if you add me to the chain without me asking +0.2 speaks

- don't stress too much and have fun!

Walter Payton ‘21

Top Level:

- Novice year is about learning how to debate, so be nice, keep calm, flow, and everything will be okay.

- Do impact calc and make sure to tell me the story of your advantage/DA in every round.

- Being rude is not cool and edgy; it's annoying. I will lower your speaks substantially if you're a jerk.

Affs

- I don't think I'm the best judge for a K aff. I find T USfg extremely persuasive in the context of novice debate

- I read a soft left aff. If you're reading one, you need to answer turns case analysis on the DA and extend specific framing arguments. Reading a bunch of framing cards and never extending warrants from them will make me sad.

DAs

- Impact calc and turns case are important.

T

- I have given a substantial number of T 1NRs in my time. I like T debates, just make sure to explain why your interpretation creates a better model of debate than your opponent's.

- Legal precision is the most persuasive standard to me, but you should go for whatever standard works best with your interpretation. Make sure to spend time in each of your speeches telling me which standard should frame my decision and why it should do so.

- Both teams should spend the rebuttals explicitly comparing the models of debate set by the interpretation and the counter interpretation. If the debate is clean and well impacted out, I'll give everyone good speaks.

CPs

- Not a huge fan of the process CP, especially in novice debate. I'll vote on it if you win but I won't be happy about it.

Ks

- Most familiar with your generic cap/security/biopower stuff and a little bit of set col.

- Explain your thesis clearly and spend a lot of time on the link debate. Links should be specific to the aff (a USfg link alone is not enough)

lakshethapremanand@gmail.com (add me to the email chain please :) )

prounouns: she/her

tl/dr: read whatever u want i don't care, warrant it out please, and do impact calc/impact comparison. if you make the round fun for me, i would appreciate that. think about your args and how they interact with ur opponent's args, don't just read blocks. have fun :)

Background:

- Policy debater for 4 years at Blue Valley North, graduated 2020

- Debating at Purdue University

- I'm a 1a/2n if that matters at all. I read K's in college but wasn't a huge fan of them in highschool. That being said, I'm a decent judge for high theory K's, and as long as you explain it well, I'll vote on it.

Okay now generally.

1. If you are making analytics, do not spread through them. If I don't get them on the flow, I don't evaluate them as an argument. Also, in general, just slow down 2 notches. Online debate makes spreading so much worse.

2. Conceded arg is not necessarily auto-winners, you have to explain the warrants, extend the card/analytic. explain to me why this is an independent reason that you should win the debate.

3. WRITE MY BALLOT FOR ME IN YOUR LAST SPEECH, I literally will vote on anything, if you feel like you're losing the debate, try your best to salvage it. Spend 2 minutes on an argument they dropped, go for another impact scenario, go for condo, theory, i don't care. I will not make my decision before the 2ar, so you are likely not losing the debate in my eyes until the last second of the 2ar.

4. Don't cheat, don't steal prep. be a decent human being :)

5. Don't be an jerk, if you make racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist comments during round, or in your speech, you're losing the debate. 

6. Don't talk over each other during cx, and don't take over your partners' cx.

7. If you want me to read a card after the round to help me make my decision, email me the card(s) in a separate document, and I'll do it.

8. Have fun! I literally vote on anything, if you want to go for death good, go for death good, warrant it out, and I'll vote on it. If you want to go for theory, go for theory. If you give me a warranted explanation as to why you win the debate on one card, I might just vote on that one card.

9. Make the debate enjoyable for me, go for weird arguments, or just make it a super easy ballot. I will listen to whatever you have to say. My ballot starts in the 1ac, and ends in the 2ar. Nothing before or after the round will count. I will not vote early, so if you feel like you're losing by the block, or by the 2ac, go crazy and just go for weird things. I'll definitely evaluate it.

Okay now on specific arguments.

Counterplans: Love to see it, generally. However, if it's a one line counterplan with no evidence, I'm going to hold it to a pretty high threshold.

Neg: Read a card on your counterplan, it doesn't have to be super long, but don't just skew the 2ac. If you read a piece of their ev to support your cp, i'm so down.

Aff: Don't just perm it, think about how the cp interacts with your aff. Warrant out an explanation for why the perm would work, not just saying "Perm do both", and moving on. Idc if you read perm do cp, or whatever other weird perms you want to do, just warrant it out and we're good to go.

Kritiks: I would love to see a good k debate but I don't want two people just yelling blocks at each other. If you can explain it well, I'll vote on it.

Neg: know how to explain your alt, and know how to answer framework. how does your k interact with the plan? why does it matter in the context of debate as a whole? if you're reading set col, and going for a decolonial pedagogy, why does that solve aff impacts? etc etc. idc if you have an in round impact, just explain why that either 1) outweighs the aff, or 2) solves the impacts of the aff.

Aff: Read framework, read a perm, I really don't care how you answer this. I believe that answering a K is easier than answering a good disad. I would also love to see the aff be really good at a framework debate. Honestly, go for whatever you want against a K, and I got you. If you don't understand the K, ask during cx. I will never think less of you for asking a question.

T: I LOVE a good T debate, but not many debaters are good at it, including myself. I will evaluate it, but I hold the neg to a high standard to explain why the limits/grounds are an independent voter, bc usually I will default to reasonability if not told otherwise.

Neg: If you make T a voter in the 2nr, I don't really care if you don't spend all 5 minutes on it. You can feasibly go for T, disad, case, or T, K, case. Just make sure you explain why T is an independent voter, and why your standards are the best for debate. Do evidence comparison. If you explain it well in the 2nr, it is an independent reason for me to vote neg.

Aff: Don't just read blocks. Tell me why your aff turns their standards, and how you cause more education/fairness, etc. I really don't mind if you pull up with a definition from Merriam Webster, but tell me why it's good for debate. However, if you don't do a good enough job turning it in the 2ar, I will vote neg.

K affs: kinda same as my kritik section, i read a k aff in college, i've been against k affs, i'll evaluate it as long as you give me a good reason to/not to.

Neg: if you make this a framework debate, I tend to vote pretty heavily on that. If you just go for fw in the 2nr, i don't mind. i treat this more like a T debate than anything, so go for it. tell me why i should reject the team and I will!

Aff: If you're reading a k aff, I hold you to a higher standard to answer why you're not going for the resolution, and why it's bad. don't just yell blocks at me, explain ur impacts in the world of the aff. Have fun with it, i particularly enjoy identity k's/k aff's, so if you do that, i will love it.

Disad: obviously, i will vote on a disad. i think disad/case 2nrs are underrated, and if you do that in the 2nr, i usually see some pretty good impact calc and impact comparisons, which makes my ballot super easy.

Neg: if you go for disad/case in the 2nr, go hard on impacts. impacts are the main voter for me, do impact comparison, impact calc, etc. i won't really vote on a 1/1000000 chance of your impact happening unless you tell me why i should. i'm not going to do your impact work for you. if the aff team doesn't answer one section of the disad, though, i will understand why you're going to spend a bulk of your time on that, but make sure to tie it back to the impact debate.

Aff: also go for the impacts, and the link debate. explain to me why your case outweighs and turns the disad. i will not vote on a 1% risk of your impacts happening either, so go for impact calc here. i tend to vote neg more on disads, but it's totally possible to win on a disad. read their ev, make analytics, go off.

Theory: I love love love theory debates, if you get into one, make it an independent voter.

I tend to not evaluate condo, only because I've never heard a good condo debate. If you want to make it a condo debate, go for it, but do a good job on it, don't just read blocks. I want to see it like a T debate, why is condo bad/good? Tell me.

if you have any questions, let me know! have fun y'all, debate is supposed to be a fun activity, don't put too much pressure on it.

Add me To Email Chain: Jeremyrrsolorio@gmail.com

Note this is the first round I judged so be considerable with terms

debated at solorio

Tech > Truth

Policy> K

DA + CP> Everything

Jokes>No Jokes> Jokes that are cringe

Having fun> No fun

Any other Questions= just ask me lol

Violation of a "ism" = This will result in lowest speaks possible, Automatic Loss and report to Tab

K Affs are a no go for me lol and most likely wont vote for them (85%)

BONUS POINTS

.3+ Points= Make a joke about Thano Hatzopoulos, If I don't laugh then no point

.1+ Points= Say "IU Love" in round in the beginning of the 2NR/2AR

.1+ Points= Reference Playboi Carti

.4+ Points= Reference JoJo

Put me on the email chain -- rrodebate@gmail.com

General Notes:

• Fiscal Redistribution topic -- Judged a decent amount by now.
• I will tend to follow the speech doc but I only write what I hear. Slow down on analytics please. And please sign-post!!
• Default tech over truth, unless told otherwise in-round.
• Can vote neg on presumption.
• CX is binding if you say it's binding.
• Only saying "they dropped x argument" is not an extension to said argument.
• Clarity > speed (obviously, but some of you...). (Note: I've recently made the transition from flowing on paper to laptop and I am significantly slower, so keep that in mind if you decide to spread analytics).
• Any intentional racist/sexist/homophobic/etc comments = 25, and I will vote you down.
• Feel free to ask me about any arguments pre-round that aren't on my paradigm.

Specific Arguments:

DAs - Specific links/internal links > generic links (if it's still applicable to the AFF it's fine).
Weigh the impacts please.

T - If they don't meet your interpretation explain why I should consider your interp over theirs. Please flesh out your standards.

CPs - CPs should solve enough, have a net benefit, and preferably carded, please. Otherwise I will probably vote on the perm.
Multi-planks are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). PICs/PIKs are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). Delay CPs are good if you say they're good (and vice versa). I think you get the gist.

Ks - Love specific links to the AFF, but Link of Omission is fine if not answered properly. The links should be properly fleshed out by the 2NR.
I'd say at the very least I have a basic (and I mean BASIC) understanding of some common K's (Cap, SetCol, AB, etc). I'm not that great with high theory stuff like Baudrillard but if you really want to read it don't let that discourage you from doing so. That being said, please explain your stuff instead of just using K jargon.
Specific alts > vague alts, but that doesn't mean I won't vote for it. Judge kick is debatable.

Theory - I can vote on theory but I wouldn't recommend going for it unless there is clear in-round abuse. Similar to the T, flesh out the standards and impacts. Two condo is good, Three+ can be sus. New AFFs bad is generally bad argument in my opinion (with the exception of tournaments that have AFF's preffed and rules around that). Can vote on perf-con. Aspec is funny. Disclosure theory -- eh.

K AFFs - Always incorporate all of your AFF throughout the debate. PLEASE be thorough on your solvency mechanisms.
Explain thoroughly how your permutation works when answering a K. Would prefer if you provide a role for the Neg/ a way for the Neg to engage with the AFF if they ask rather than saying "that's not our job." ROJ/ROB flesh out your standards so that I know why I should prefer your interpretation. Would prefer if you explain the jargon you use as much as possible because I may not know the words you're using. Reading a generic advocacy/K AFF that can be used in literally any other resolution is not necessarily my favorite and can be an issue if brought up by the NEG in the T/FW debate. I prefer when K AFFs teams get more creative with their advocacy statement and solvency mechanisms.
For the NEG:
I can vote on T-USFG/FW (preferably with a TVA(s)). The TVA does not have to be perfect. I also value SSD a lot as well, so please read it! Additional note: going for portable skills is a bit of an uphill battle for me, I tend to buy arguments that we won't end up being policy makers after this activity anyways. In general, just explain why your model of debate is better than theirs and you should be good.
I can also vote on CPs that solve and/or DAs/Ks that link.

Fiscal Redistribution Topic Thoughts:

Just thoughts I've had while judging this topic:

• Neg ground is trash.
• Cap K :D
• SetCol can cook!!!!!
• Firm believer that Single Payer is not topical.
• This Governmentality K is.... interesting........
• Degrowth job guarantees -- ._. say that again.

Policy Judging Philosophy—David Romanelli Loyola University Chicago

I have been judging for 28yrs (Old CEDA, NDT, CEDA/NDT, NPDA, and for the last 6 years BP). I have not judged a lot of policy in the last 6 years. This will be my first tournament on this topic.

I think the resolution is the focus of debate. If the affirmative team does not support the resolution, I have a very low threshold for voting neg. I like a well-organized flow. I prefer line-by-line debate. I prefer well developed arguments to warrantless tag line debate. I am not a fan of K debates unless the wording of the resolution demands it (the resolution is the focus of the debate). K affirmatives are generally not welcome unless the resolution demands it. That does not mean that the impacts have to be war etc. You can and should make arguments about how impacts should be evaluated. That being said, I also reject the policy maker paradigm. We can and should image a better world through debate.

Speed up to a point is fine (slow down on plan text, theory dumps etc.). Debaters should adhere to the guidelines of their institution and that of the host. Contradictions can cost you the debate if the other team knows why.

Topicality. I have no problem with T. There are a variety of ways you could win it. That being said, most will not. You need to explain how it works and answer their arguments. A well explained definition and violation with clear standards is the key to my ballot on T.

Counterplans C/P status is conditional unless explained or asked about;(I would ask). Net benefits are my default for competition.

It is your job to compare and contrast impacts. If neither team has in the debate and I am now forced to intervene. No one is going to be happy including me. I have no set way to decide these issues. Lots of dead bodies normally = victor

Sam Roth
Northside '15
University of Chicago '19


Background information
I debated for four years on the national circuit at Northside in Chicago, qualifying to the TOC twice. I was a 2N for two years and a 2A for the second half of my career.


If you're looking to quickly pref me:
-I'm a technical/flow-based judge
-I'm "good" for the K
-I'm sympathetic to framework on the neg


General thoughts-skip this if reading pre-round
1. I really like when debaters innovate and challenge assumptions like the offense-defense paradigm, traditional impact calculus, etc. This applies to everything from individual arguments to framing issues to overall strategies. I think these types of arguments make for more interesting rounds and give you an opportunity to demonstrate you can think and engage with opposing arguments beyond mechanically reading blocks. Too often I think debaters automatically accept simplified explanations for things and forget that we lose some nuance when we try to reduce it to tagline form. Take advantage of those weaknesses in your opponent's argument. This is also the best way to win if you know your stuff but, like I did, debate for a small squad and can't match the resources of some of your competitors.


2. Debaters are bad at flowing and speaking. This is true at just about every level of debate right now and it's the biggest problem most debaters have. It's a cliche at this point, but it's a shame how few debaters keep a good flow and maintain a logical form of organization throughout their speeches. I don't think enough debaters understand just how much their speaking habits and skills in these areas affect their win/loss record. A lot of close debates are lost because a speaker wasn't clear enough on how a particular argument interacted with what their opponent said, or because they simply weren't clear enough to understand. If you learn to flow without the speech doc, prep speeches around the flow, maintain this organization, and speak clearly, your chances of winning will be far higher.


3. Arguments don't get enough scrutiny. Although there's tons of information available through research, there's a tendency to make arguments based on general claims instead of specific facts and well-supported assertions. I think this problem exists in both "policy" debate and "non-traditional" debate. Often evidence doesn't come close to making a claim as extreme as the team advancing it. I've also seen a lot of cards that do defend their arguments but make vague, broad statements without much support. Neither of these strategies are effective. You should be able to defend your arguments, especially a 1AC, with a lot of specific evidence that you've read in depth, and call out other teams who don't do so.


Thoughts on specific arguments:


T-I tend to default to competing interpretations, but I haven't judged enough rounds or done enough reading on the topic to form any real preferences on specific arguments yet. I don't have an especially "high threshold" and I do enjoy literature-based, detailed T debates.


Kritiks-I love them on the neg. Not always a fan on the aff, and I'll admit I'm not a very good judge for those debates. I think effective K debate against a policy aff encourages a form of academic skepticism and critical thought that makes debates more intellectual and does a service to students. I think K affs tend to avoid the same level of depth, although I'm not dogmatically opposed to them if done well. I'll do my best to be tabula rasa, but like everyone else I have preconceptions and I think it's important to be honest about them.


Politics-in recent years, just a terrible argument. I barely saw a single politics disad my senior year that was even coherent. If you're going to go for politics every round, at least make sure the story of the disad makes sense as a whole, i.e. the link against a particular aff corresponds to the internal link story. I think the aff should incorporate analytic and carded arguments about why the disad is usually dumb into a more traditional strategy. Part of me is more sympathetic to intrinsicness arguments than a lot of judges are, but I've never seen it executed successfully unless it was dropped.

Theory-I hate egregious cheating counterplans. I've had plenty of debates and never heard a single good argument defending commissions, consult, Lopez, etc. I'm a tech-centered judge, so if you win theory I won't intervene and reject the counterplan, but it's not hard to convince me that these are abusive. I also lean aff on international fiat, but I understand the need for generics and can be persuaded either way. I think one conditional advocacy is fine, two is okay but contestable depending on the positions, anything more is really pushing it. This isn't just from a theory perspective, but also in terms of strategy I think it's silly to read so many offcase positions.  

Hello,

My name is Angela Ruiz Amaya, I am a Junior and an environmental geology major and Hispanic studies minor at DePauw University. I have been judging and coaching debate since 2020 and debated in high school. I have coached and debated at Phoenix Military Academy. My main interests are in social justice and Environmental justice. As a judge, I vote based on education. I want the debate that I am judging to be educational to everyone in the room and love to create that environment. Because of that, I am more than happy to answer questions about the framework of debate in a round AS LONG AS it doesn't affect your ideas/outcomes of the debate. I also take on an intersectional lense that allows me to focus on many different perspectives and try to practice that in both my voting and my interactions with debaters.

I vote on AFF based on strong answers to off-cases and analytical extension of the plan. Framework and extending it will lead me to vote more on the aff.

I vote on NEG based on off case that answers to the framework and plan and also creates new arguments and clashes. I vote usually on CP's, K's, T's, and theory arguments.

I put a lot of emphasis on analytical arguments, so CX and Rebuttals are my biggest voting blocks as I want you to tell me what your argument is rather than your evidence. I also vote based on impact calculus and use that as a significant argument for my voting.

I can spread quickly so please flow however you need to.

I hope to be a resource to future debates and hope we all have fun in rounds!

-Angela Ruiz Amaya

Northside College Prep '16 - University of Kentucky '20

Please add me to the email chain: mariaesan98@gmail.com

Judging Notes:

• Please keep track of your own prep
• Please be as quick with tech as possible - I will deduct from your prep time if this becomes unreasonable as I want to be respectful of the folks running the tournament
• No tag team CX - I really prefer to hear individual 1 v 1 CX clash and this helps me determine speaker points more easily
• Unless this is a reasonable ask, if you care about where a team marked their cards/what cards they did or did not read, then please be diligent about flowing that yourself - I have a very strong preference towards not sending out marked copies of speech docs when there were only one or two marked cards

I will always reward smart teams that can effectively and efficiently communicate their arguments to me. Engaging with your opponent, having a well-thought out strategy, and demonstrating that you’re doing consistent, hard work is what this activity is about. Please be respectful to both your partner and your opponents and give it your best!

Disads:

I like them a lot. There is such a thing as zero risk of a disad and there can be no link. Do impact calculus, have a clear link to the affirmative. Quality evidence is appreciated, though it's not the only thing! Being able to communicate what your ev says and why your ev matters is key!

Theory:

Conditionality is good.

Critical Strategies:

I am okay for critical strategies. However, I didn’t debate these so make sure to explain your authors to me. Affirmatives that do little engagement with the critique alternative are likely to lose. Critiques that do little engagement with the affirmative itself are likely to lose. Explain your links in the context of the AFF and your AFF in the context of the alternative. The perm is not always the best strategy and that is okay.

I am willing to vote either way on framework. I should be able to tell that you know and understand what the affirmative is if you are reading it. Framework is best when it engages with the methodology of the AFF and questions the state’s role in activism. I like topic education arguments.

My bias is toward kritiks and meta-debate, but I try to be as tabula rasa as possible.

Line-by-line clash/analysis is essential; so are roadmaps/overviews, signposting, and clear articulation of voting issues.

I love a policy-making impact calculus vs. ballot-as-ethical-action debate -- if you critique the USFG simulation impact calculus framework and advocate for an ethical obligation framework and real-world transformative politics, I will very much want to vote for you. But I'll still vote on hypothetical impact calculus unless you win the debate about why I shouldn't. I love in-round, real-world impacts, but you have to defend your framework interpretation.

I was a cross-x speed debater in high school and college, and pretty much exclusively ran kritiks (my hs partner and I broke to state finals running a performative ecofeminist kritikal aff in Missouri of all places). UTNIF debate camp heavily influenced my style. I have a PhD in English Literature with an emphasis in critical theory and performance studies.

I still flow on paper. I'm fine with speed, just make sure to signpost.

No sexism, racism, homophobia, climate change denial, etc.

Email for evidence chain: kschaag[at]gmail.com

Dougherty Valley '19

Email: davidsidebate@gmail.com

Overview

-Debate how you normally would debate in front of me: fast, slow, critical, etc.

-My judging paradigm is similar to Scott Wheeler's

-I primarily read policy-style arguments, but have gone for K's as well. If you are reading a K I've most likely hit it before, so expect a cursory understanding.

Disadvantages

-Almost all of my 2NR's have had this. Read them as you usually would.

-Politics DA's are probably educational. I lean neg on questions of whether fiat includes PTX.

Counterplans

-Default judge kick.

-Read sufficiency framing.

-Condo is good unless there is a convincing reason why the specific advocacies force aff out of making certain arguments.

-Lean aff on cheaty counterplans theory.

Topicality

-Default reasonability. However, I'm neutral about competing interps vs reasonability.

-Weigh standards (legal precision vs limits) and also voters (fairness vs education)

-Assume I have no topic knowledge so provide case lists and warrant what constitutes "core of the topic."

Kritik

-Don't take buzzwords for granted

-Specific link work + alt solvency explanation >>> generic framing + ROTB

-I don't take a particular stance on whether the aff gets to weigh case, but when the arguments boil down to "moots the 1AC" versus "epistemology first + fiat double bind" I find myself (reluctantly) leaning neg.

-If your strategy revolves around confusing your opponent you will confuse me as well.

K Affs + Framework

-I prefer if these are in the direction of the resolution but this isn't a hard rule.

-Your counterinterp to framework should be a robust, defensible model for debate.

-You get perms as long as you convincingly explain what they look like.

-Here are some of my preferences

-Education >>> Procedural Fairness, but I understand the strategic incentives in front of certain affs.

-Policymaking bad >>> Limits are a prison.

Theory

-Drop the argument. Drop the team is reserved for condo only.

you found me.

pretty much a lay judge atp.

Nikola (Nik) Stamenković Diez | (they/them)

Northwestern University '24 - John F. Kennedy HS '20 (Chicago Debates)

Email Chain (yes, add me): <nikola.stamdiez@gmail.com>

~Background/TL;DR~

Currently debate for Northwestern. Do what you do best. Gonna steal this from Buntin:

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

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

Read no cards---------------------------X--------Read all the cards

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

UQ matters most--------------------------X------Link matters most

Clarity-X-------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity

Presumption------------------------X--------Never votes on presumption

Longer ev----X-------------------------------------More ev

"Insert rehighlighting"----------------------X-I only read what you read

CX about impacts--------------------------------------X---CX about links and solvency

AT:-X-------------------------------------------------------A2:

AFF (acronym):-X------------------------------------------------------X-Aff (truncated word):

~Framework/Topicality~

What's your model of debate? Are models important? Fairness isn't an impact in of itself, but it could be if explained well. Limits is the most persuasive internal link. Impact calculus, argument comparison, and clash is central to these debates.

~Kritiks/Kritikal Affirmatives~

Specificity, a well-defined theory of power, and evidence comparison is important. Link work should be specific and contextualized to the aff. You don't have to win an alt in front of me. Judge instruction is key. Resist the K jargon. Long, obnoxious overviews are annoying. Don't assume my familiarity with the scholarship you're presenting, I want to see your explanation and reading of it. This is what makes debate fun & interesting!

Kritiks vs Policy Affs: Answering impact turns and defending against case outweighs arguments.

Kritiks vs K Affs: Make the link debate as specific and in-depth to the world of the affirmative. Work should also be done to explain why I should or shouldn't care if the alt solves the aff impact better along with substantial answers to DAs to your perms.

~Counterplans~

Counterplan competition is important. Competition can be garnered from cross-examination. Theory is great when debated well.

~Disads~

Properly explain each component of your DA and how it relates to the case. A good flushed out link story is necessary.

~Case~

1ACs are more likely than not terrible, absolutely terrible. I strongly believe teams should be debating the case. Whether or not it becomes entirely relevant or not at the end of the debate, case debating should be happening to some extent.

~Other~

Online debate: if my camera is off, assume I'm not in front of my computer.

Make the debate space safe. Show up, debate the arguments, learn, and make friends.

The easiest way to avoid misgendering individuals is using preferred names. Misgendering someone in or out of a debate round makes it astronomically more difficult to compete and perform at one's best.

Updated Jan 12th, 2024

Purdue '23

Email (set email chain up before round PLEASE): jonathansumita@gmail.com

TL:DR

LARP-1

K/K aff-1

Theory-2

Performance- 2.5/3? I haven't seen good performative style args in a WHILE and I've been out of the game. At your own risk ig.

Tricks- 4? Do people even read these anymore? Is this just theory?

OV:

Online debate is mid. If you're going to spread, go slower than usual- (75% of your top speed) because sound quality is not as good as it may seem. I am hard of hearing so please focus on clarity.

Experience: CX 4 yrs, LD 1.5 yrs. I did LD and then CX in non-circuit NW Indiana. I'm not as lay as you may think or as my appearance may give off.

General

By and large I agree with Calum Matheson's debate paradigm, in part it reads-

Do as thou will shall be the whole of the law. All styles of debate can be done well or done poorly. Very little offends me. If you can’t beat the argument that genocide is good or that rocks are people, or that rock genocide is good even though they’re people, then you are a bad advocate of your cause and you should lose. If it’s so wrong and you’re so right, then it should be easy for you to win. Is that really too high a bar? If so, then I have a 26.5 here for you. Do you like it? I made it myself. Just for you.

I'm pretty unpredictable tbh. I like most arguments but that is not what I will judge you on. Tell me why you should win and weigh. If you don't like impact calculus, tell me why I should weigh your arguments and not impacts themselves. I do not want to listen to 20+ minutes of why you should win on a T violation unless you flesh out impacts. I'll vote for most anything if it's done well and (better than your opponents).

Please don't read AI = NW/Extinction in front of me. I don't think it's a real argument.I can be convinced ofc.

Specifics

K: I read a lot of Baudrillard (badly) at Purdue. I really like nuclearism style arguments (Masco), affect style politics/ security arguments get me hyped too. I have a background in philosophy and I really don't care for consequentialism if you must know, but I can be persuaded.

Theory: Sure.

DA's: Love em. Clear links are good, strong internal link chains even better. Give me a story about this issue w/ case.

CP: Love them too. Provide a net benefit pls. Solve the burden of competition or the CP is toast.

T: This ofc is similar to theory but in essence use your best judgement with T, I'll be a hard sell if 'reasonability' is an argument that is made. Ie: "arms control" vs "arms" control is a different story.

Tricks: I don't really care. I'll vote on theory but you gotta go for it in the 2AR/2NR

RVI's:Carefully.

LD General: LD holds a part of my heart so I decided to list a few things.

1. Value structure is the most important piece of a LD debate round. I think this should go w/o saying but it really matters. You must extend and frame the round around your value structure. In LD you can win a round in 3 easy ways and all three revolve around the value structure. If you drop it, it will be very difficult to vote for you.

2. Prefer analytics over evidence. There is a reason the time skew in LD is so bad, it makes it impossible to read new arguments and do good line by line if you aren't spreading. If you read a piece of evidence, it must be very crucial to why I should vote for you. LD attempts to preserve this thing we call "clash" and I support it 100%.

3. Collapse arguments and offense down. The affirmative especially should be doing this in the 2AR. The Negative will try early in their 1NC to spread the AFF thin and what results is where the round goes. The AFF should not be responding to each and every argument, you should aim to eliminate the NEG offense and extend your own offense.

PF General: For Public Forum, there are some important things.

1. You should not be introducing new evidence in the summary speeches. I would even go so far as to say fewer pieces of evidence in the rebuttals, more analytics. Card-dumping is never fun to flow especially given many of you do not create evidence chains.

2. I do not particularly care about crossfire. I do however, pay attention to grand crossfire. With that being said, I will only flow what you tell me to.

3. Do not collapse down until you have kicked it. What does that mean? It means you have terminated any offense that particular argument held. I hate the response "It was a wash/stalemate" when there is clear offense on an argument that you are trying to collapse.

4. Always impact frame from case. Impacts are crucial to why I should care about either side. If you don't, presumption flips AFF and as said above, I will be forced to intervene. IF anything, weigh impacts in the round.

Speed: I can handle most speed and will signal (clear) if I cannot handle it. I will give you several chances to fix it before I stop flowing. (send your docs ofc).

Speaker points: I will generally follow tournament norm. Please note that speaker points are entirely subjective. They reflect how much I like a set of speeches as a performance / technical ability to argue. This means I'll most likely start at 27 and move in increments of =+-.1. If you want a 30, read a shell about it? idk do what you want dog.

Any questions about rounds or whatever, my email is at the top.

I have no preference. You can read what you want and spread, but make sure you speak clearly.

Put me on the email chain (WayneTang@aol.com). (my debaters made me do this, I generally don't read evidence in round)

General Background:
Former HS debater in the stone ages (1980s) HS coach for over many years at Maine East (1992-2016) and now at Northside College Prep (2016 to present). I coach on the north shore of Chicago. I typically attend and judge around 15-18 tournaments a season and generally see a decent percentage of high level debates. However, I am not a professional teacher/debate coach, I am a patent attorney in my real (non-debate) life and thus do not learn anything about the topic (other than institutes are overpriced) over the summer. I like to think I make up for that by being a quick study and through coaching and judging past topics, knowing many recycled arguments.

DISADS AND ADVANTAGES
Intelligent story telling with good evidence and analysis is something I like to hear. I generally will vote for teams that have better comparative impact analysis (i.e. they take into account their opponents’ arguments in their analysis). It is a hard road, but I think it is possible to reduce risk to zero or close enough to it based on defensive arguments.

TOPICALITY
I vote on T relatively frequently over the years. I believe it is the negative burden to establish the plan is not topical. Case lists and arguments on what various interpretations would allow/not allow are very important. I have found that the limits/predictability/ground debate has been more persuasive to me, although I will consider other standards debates. Obviously, it is also important how such standards operate once a team convinces me of their standard. I will also look at why T should be voting issue. I will not automatically vote negative if there is no counter-interpretation extended, although usually this is a pretty deep hole for the aff. to dig out of. For example, if the aff. has no counter-interpretation but the neg interpretation is proven to be unworkable i.e. no cases are topical then I would probably vote aff. As with most issues, in depth analysis and explanation on a few arguments will outweigh many 3 word tag lines.

COUNTERPLANS
Case specific CPs are preferable that integrate well (i.e., do not flatly contradict) with other negative positions. Clever wording of CPs to solve the Aff and use Aff solvency sources are also something I give the neg. credit for. It is an uphill battle for the Aff on theory unless the CP/strategy centered around the CP does something really abusive. The aff has the burden of telling me how a permutation proves the CP non-competitive.

KRITIKS
Not a fan, but I have voted on them numerous times (despite what many in the high school community may believe). I will never be better than mediocre at evaluating these arguments because unlike law, politics, history and trashy novels, I don’t read philosophy for entertainment nor have any interest in it. Further (sorry to my past assistants who have chosen this as their academic career), I consider most of the writers in this field to be sorely needing a dose of the real world (I was an engineer in undergrad, I guess I have been brainwashed in techno-strategic discourse/liking solutions that actually accomplish something). In order to win, the negative must establish a clear story about 1) what the K is; 2) how it links; 3) what the impact is at either the policy level or: 4) pre-fiat (to the extent it exists) outweighs policy arguments or other affirmative impacts. Don’t just assume I will vote to reject their evil discourse, advocacy, lack of ontology, support of biopolitics, etc. Without an explanation I will assume a K is a very bad non-unique Disad in the policy realm. As such it will probably receive very little weight if challenged by the aff. You must be able to distill long boring philosophical cards read at hyperspeed to an explanation that I can comprehend. I have no fear of saying I don’t understand what the heck you are saying and I will absolutely not vote for issues I don’t understand. (I don’t have to impress anyone with my intelligence or lack thereof and in any case am probably incapable of it) If you make me read said cards with no explanation, I will almost guarantee that I will not understand the five syllable (often foreign) philosophical words in the card and you will go down in flames. I do appreciate, if not require specific analysis on the link and impact to either the aff. plan, rhetoric, evidence or assumptions depending on what floats your boat. In other words, if you can make specific applications (in contrast to they use the state vote negative), or better yet, read specific critical evidence to the substance of the affirmative, I will be much more likely to vote for you.

PERFORMANCE BASED ARGUMENTS
Also not a fan, but I have voted on these arguments in the past. I am generally not highly preferred by teams that run such arguments, so I don't see enough of these types of debates to be an expert. However, for whatever reason, I get to judge some high level performance teams each year and have some background in such arguments from these rounds. I will try to evaluate the arguments in such rounds and will not hesitate to vote against framework if the team advocating non-traditional debate wins sufficient warrants why I should reject the policy/topic framework. However, if a team engages the non-traditional positions, the team advocating such positions need to answer any such arguments in order to win. In other words, I will evaluate these debates like I try to evaluate any other issues, I will see what arguments clash and evaluate that clash, rewarding a team that can frame issues, compare and explain impacts. I have spent 20 plus years coaching a relatively resource deprived school trying to compete against very well resourced debate schools, so I am not unsympathetic to arguments based on inequities in policy debates. On the other hand I have also spent 20 plus years involved in non-debate activities and am not entirely convinced that the strategies urged by non-traditional debates work. Take both points for whatever you think they are worth in such debates.

POINTS

In varsity debate, I believe you have to minimally be able to clash with the other teams arguments, if you can’t do this, you won’t get over a 27.5. Anything between 28.8 and 29.2 means you are probably among the top 5% of debaters I have seen. I will check my points periodically against tournament averages and have adjusted upward in the past to stay within community norms. I think that if you are in the middle my points are pretty consistent. Unfortunately for those who are consistently in the top 5% of many tournaments, I have judged a lot of the best high school debaters over the years and it is difficult to impress me (e.g., above a 29). Michael Klinger, Stephen Weil, Ellis Allen, Matt Fisher and Stephanie Spies didn’t get 30s from me (and they were among my favorites of all time), so don’t feel bad if you don’t either.

OTHER STUFF
I dislike evaluating theory debates but if you make me I will do it and complain a lot about it later. No real predispositions on theory other than I would prefer to avoid dealing with it.

Tag team is fine as long as you don’t start taking over cross-ex.

I do not count general tech screw ups as prep time and quite frankly am not really a fascist about this kind of thing as some other judges, just don’t abuse my leniency on this.

Speed is fine (this is of course a danger sign because no one would admit that they can’t handle speed). If you are going too fast or are unclear, I will let you know. Ignore such warnings at your own peril, like with Kritiks, I am singularly unafraid to admit I didn’t get an answer and therefore will not vote on it.

I will read evidence if it is challenged by a team. Otherwise, if you say a piece of evidence says X and the other team doesn’t say anything, I probably won’t call for it and assume it says X. However, in the unfortunate (but fairly frequent) occurrence where both teams just read cards, I will call for cards and use my arbitrary and capricious analytical skills to piece together what I, in my paranoid delusional (and probably medicated) state, perceive is going on.

I generally will vote on anything that is set forth on the round. Don’t be deterred from going for an argument because I am laughing at it, reading the newspaper, checking espn.com on my laptop, throwing something at you etc. Debate is a game and judges must often vote for arguments they find ludicrous, however, I can and will still make fun of the argument. I will, and have, voted on many arguments I think are squarely in the realm of lunacy i.e. [INSERT LETTER] spec, rights malthus, Sun-Ra, the quotations and acronyms counterplan (OK I didn’t vote on either, even I have my limits), scaler collapse (twice), world government etc. (the likelihood of winning such arguments, however, is a separate matter). I will not hesitate to vote against teams for socially unacceptable behavior i.e. evidence fabrication, racist or sexist slurs etc., thankfully I have had to do that less than double digits time in my 35+ years of judging.

Time: It's my expectation that teams keep their own time and mutually agree on how much time is left. If you want to tag team during CX, both teams should agree in advance of the round.

Experience: Kansas high school debate (camps at Stanford and Baylor) 1999-2002. One year of college debate (decided I wasn't all that into the hypoxic high-pitch humming of college speed debate).

Paradigm: Policy Maker. As such, I tend to view debates on a cost/benefit analysis to SQ. I want to see more than just a stock issue debate--the negative should bring DAs, CPs, Ks against the Aff. The affirmative should convince me that the world will be better if we enact the Aff plan. The negative should convince me that the world would be worse if we enacted the Aff plan.

Tip During Rebuttals: Be explicit in your voting issues. Begin with saying why the aff/neg should win and why the aff/neg should lose. For example, the 2NR/AR could begin with: "Judge, you should vote for [aff/neg] because of [1. 2. 3. etc.] and you should vote against [aff/neg] because [1. 2. 3.]."

I admire strong analytical arguments. See a logical fallacy? Call it out! The ability to step away from the cards and synthesize the information/evidence already provided into a compelling argument for/against a position will win high speaker marks. Show me you understand the issue and can think through it, not just read from a shell.

Speed: If you're audibly gasping for breath between paragraphs, you're going too fast. If you're speaking at a conversational rate, you're going too slow. I hope this helps?

Background: I'm a regulatory attorney. I make my living based on understanding regulations, federalism (authority/jurisdiction), and policy. If you know fism well and can work it to your benefit, use it. If you're shaky on fism, avoid it.

General about me: I debated CDL and a couple of invitationals for 3 years at Taft, acting as captain my third year, my email is maxtoaster@gmail.com. I'm a graduate of Lake Forest College with degrees in philosophy and psychology, and any pronouns are fine.

Please add me to the email chain if you chose to have one, and feel free to email me with any questions. I love debate and all the different strategies people employ, so I'm open to any arguments as long as you're having fun and aren't being a jerk to the other team, or running racist/sexist/homophobic/etc... arguments. And feel free to call me Max, not "judge" or "Mx. Tozer" or anything like that. I enter the round as a policy maker, and defaulting to reasonability, and continue to operate as such unless told to behave otherwise in round.

Disclaimer: I'll run down my beliefs about specific arguments here, but don't change your preferred strategy to pander to what you think I'd like after reading my paradigm. In my eyes all strategic approaches to a debate are valid, and I want you to argue the way that you're best at and will enjoy the most. I vote for the team that does the better debating, I won't vote against a team for running an argument I don't like or anything like that.

Case- case debate is fine and good, but as a tip, please don't forget to look at your opponents sources and dates. Aff, please do some storytelling. I'll put more weight on your harms if you tell me how we get there. K-affs are fine but I'd advise not running them if you are a novice, stick to what you understand.

FW- I LOVE myself some framework debate and will take them seriously into consideration when making my decision on the round, ROB's are great if you want to have one, anything that makes my job easier. That said, I recognize that framework can be used as a tool for silencing, and advise teams to be ready to defend their framework if their opponents bring this up.

DA's - All DA's have 100% likelihood unless I am told otherwise. DA's that don't have extinction impacts are refreshing and nice. It's in no way necessary, but I will give you and your partner +.2 speaks out of gratitude for mixing things up a bit if you run a DA with non-extinction impacts.

Theory - Awesome cool and great, but if you want me to take this seriously spend time on it in your rebuttals.

CP's - CP's are one of the most useful tools in debate, very strong, often short, and have a great potential for tying your arguments together. Because Cp's are SO good, I do believe they can get abusive, and I will vote on condo or other theory arguments if argued well. I'm not a big fan of PIC's, and the Cp's solvency should be competitive with the aff. The CP should solve better, if I think the aff and the cp both solve the same impacts equally well, I'll vote aff.

K - my favorite off case in debate, feel free to get as creative as you want with them. That said, the most important part of a K is the link. BE SPECIFIC why the aff links to your K, if you have an aff specific link read it, if you need to read a general link, elaborate on it in your own words regarding the specifics of the aff. Try to stick to K's you understand, and clearly explain your alt. nothing wrong with using a cp as a policy example of an alt.

T - I will vote on T, but you should tell me why I should vote on T in round. Explain to me how your opponent's aff specifically violates your voters, and explain the impact your voters have on the round/why they should be voters. 5 minutes on T in the 2nr isn't a bad idea if you want me to vote on it.

Other -

-I flow your speech, not your cards. Spreading is fine, but clarity is key, it's not my job to look over all your cards to figure out what you're saying if I can't understand you.

- Tech over truth 90% of the time, if something exceptionally absurd is claimed by one team, I will give the other the benefit of the doubt, but you should be fine.

- Don't be afraid to have a sense of humor. Debates are long, straining, and often repetitive, everyone in the round would be happy to have the formalities be broken for the sake of a joke.

- Speaker points: I try to stick to this scale - http://collegedebateratings.weebly.com/points-scale.html but I will add or subtract some points based on sportsmanship. Insulting your opponents isn't okay, don't do it.

Johnathan Trinh (He/Him/His) Update 4/3/2024 trinhjohnathan@gmail.com

I debated 3 years at Ogden 2 for the highschool team and then 3 years at Lane at the varsity level. When I debated i primarily ran Identity Based Affirmatives such as model minority,latinx body politics,queer theory, and fem. As Neg I ran either an identity K such as the ones listed above or cap plus policy.

Important to note this is my first tournament on this topic furthermore i was primarily a K debater in highschool meaning I would appreciate in policy heavy rounds for you to spend more time explaining how your evidence,plan,da’s etc plays out in the round and interacts with each other. This also mean if there is assumed knowledge from this topic that you think that i would know assume that I do not know it and spell it out for me. I would like to be in the email chain i’ll read the evidence to brush up on my knowledge but i will not weigh any information not said in the speech in my calculus.

Furthermore, just because i was a k debater does not mean i do not know how policy debates play out i employed a variety of strategies in my debate career and understand the intricacies of a strictly policy debate. Do not read a K infront of me simply because I am a K judge I will be judging you stricter because I was a K debater and I understand these arguments better.

Voting wise I have a large threshold for T/Framework arguments I believe it is on the negative team to prove without a shadow of a doubt that the affirmative plan is untopical/unfair meaning if you are going for T do alot of work in explaining why the Aff is untopical and it’s impacts on the round/debate as a whole. This doesn’t mean i will not vote on it but if you are going for T in the 2NR I expect the entire or at least a vast majority of the 2NR doing work on T again this is my first tournament on the topic so you would have to do more work on then usual in front of me. I have spent most of my debate career doing framework debates and it’s were much of my debate experience is in so do your work on both sides if that’s what the debate boils down too.

I’m sure there is something i’ve missed but I’ve been out of the game for a bit so please feel free to ask if you have any other questions!

Will Vote On

Everything as long as its impacted out.

K Affs as long as you prove what the aff does.

Will Not Vote On

Anything that is Racist, Sexist, and or makes anybody in the round noticeably uncomfortable.

Do

Experiment with your args as a debater and a judge the same old same old args get boring if you bring something new you will be complimented with speaks.

LINE BY LINE I love line by line.

Warrant out your arguments.

Connect your cross-ex to your speech if you pressure them hold them to it.

Don't

Yell at each other.

Expect me to read your cards.

Be rude to me or any other debaters.

Read a K infornt of me to win with no experience with it while it doesn't mean you can't break new args but please be practiced or knowledgeable.

MOST IMPORTANT

HAVE FUN AND BE NICE.

Yes, email chain: ju59@cornell.edu

Cornell '24

Solorio '20

I debated all 4 years of High school.

Since debate is a fairly liberal activity here are my Pronouns: He/Him as a judge Él as a Debater

Important notes about me:

• I do not like rude behavior, there are moments when you can assert dominance in a speech and during CX but it is your burden to know when it is appropriate and right.
• I am policy-oriented but that does not mean I am not versed in K lit so read what you are comfortable with
• I will only flow arguments that I hear so be clear
• Sometimes debates are learning moments to grow on our humanity we all make mistakes but be conscientious of all debaters. This means do not be racist and prejudice against other debaters
• Do not be arrogant, if you know you are better than another team this is a moment to be humble and give the other team a moment to learn. This does not mean throw the round but be aware of others ability to debate and reflect as a human
• Try your best and enjoy the debate
• Debate is about the need for change, give me the nexus question of the debate in your rebuttal and tell me why that is important
• DO NOT GO FOR T

I strongly prefer clear and articulate debate, spreading is fine as long as you send me your case (juriostegui357@gmail.com) and have a clear sign post, but please do not spread your rebuttals, if you made a key point in your rebuttal and I missed it, you might as well have not made it.

I strongly prefer off-case arguments preferably Disads and Kritiks and I tend to vote in favor of K affs unless the neg can provide a strong framework or on-case argument against them.

In all honesty I am open to anything as long as you have a strong support for your arguments, and as always clash is important for good debate.

A little about me:

I know many debaters reading this care about records and the sort to decide whether judges are worth a pref, especially with me having graduated some time ago. I qualified to the ToC my senior year in 2016, and finished with a 4-3 record. I debated out of a UDL school in Chicago, and the bulk of my final year was spent ironically flip flopping between critical args and framework. With that being said, I was all policy for the 3 years prior.

My paradigm:

Disads - Effective internal link debates are the name of the game. Useful for decisive impact calc and turns case args. It's more effective to leverage your internal link as a turns case arg "Gutting X program results in economic downturn and destroys X solvency," than it is to say "nuclear war turns the environment adv. because everything will be destroyed if it happens..." Getting to the second turns case scenario requires you to win the uniqueness, link, I/L, AND impact debate which at that point - the round should already be in the bag.

Politics Disad - Great. Good on you if you actually cut plan-specific link evidence that's both nuance and recent. You shouldn't rely on a spin of your generic 1nc link frontline to win the debate. The uniqueness overwhelms the link vs link determines the direction of uniqueness will usually be decided by the quality of respective cards. You're not gonna win the former if your updates for the tournament consist of a recent card that's one sentence long. On that same note, you wont win the former with a bad card that saids *Insert Random Dem/Rep interested in something remotely similar to the plan.*

Ks - Read anything you enjoy reading. Have noticed Affs tend to not attack the alt enough, and often end up getting pulled down a rabbit hole instead. If a team is pivoting to fw, especially with reps Ks to supplement for the alt, teams should avoid falling for cheap shot K tricks.It's also prudent to use your aff as the best offense (i.e. Heg aff vs. security K) relative to card/block dumping.

Performance affs/framework - I do not have a bias for either side, but I would preface that the former should really try to align with the resolution in terms of content . Aff teams should press against framework offense by questioning the underlying values that are otherwise taken as truth in normative debate (fairness, education, etc.) Neg teams should hold the aff to a higher standard in regards to solvency, and place a special emphasis on impacting out arguments (Why is deliberative discussion on set issues of policy importance? Why is your spectrum of fairness valuable?, etc.) To sum it up, the debate is going to come down to offense and as an extension of that - who can spin a more ideal vision of what debate ought to look like.


IMPORTANT (a few things):

1. I'm not super familiar with this years topic, so try to avoid or at least explain any acronyms that are commonly thrown around.
2. Try to spread at your natural flow (i.e. don't go faster than you can just for the sake of it).

3. Be respectful and try to avoid being snarky, especially in cx. It doesn't make you look cool or intelligent.

Please ask any questions if anything’s unclear – I’ll be happy you helped fix my paradigm.

Yes, I want on the email chain. My email is: avs197@gmail.com

Debated for eight years, in high school in Vermont and in college for UVM.

I did mostly PF in High School, and did Policy and Worlds in College.

Judging Preferences, tl;dr:

K-teams:

Tech vs. Truth: Closer to the truth side of the divide, obviously dropped argument has big impacts on the round but if your 2nr is "they dropped 'puppies -> nuke war'", well, good luck.

Cross-x is great, open is also great, also continuing during prep is fine imo. Debate with 8 min cx > debate with 3 min cx.

Pointing out flaws doesn’t require evidence, logic is fine. I did worlds, I already think evidence is overrated. Do more analytics.

I'm far more likely to yell clear at you during analytics, especially if not prewritten in doc.

I don't do "30 seconds prep", tell me when to turn it on and when you're done, don't want to police each instance of prep.

Do not argue with your judge. If you think they decided faultily, great, pref them lower / strike them. It sucks but is inevitable in such a subjective event and I don't want to argue with someone because they disagree with my decision.

Topicality:

· More 2nrs should be T, no one respects it enough.

· Potential abuse always most persuasive. Tell me what . Limits can be extremely persuasive if you do it well enough

· Neg should be able to provide a topical version of the affirmative under their definition

Framework:

· Always an option, never the best

· At higher levels, you should be prepared for common k-affs, and shouldn’t use framework as an excuse to not engage

· Affs shouldn’t just blow off framework, if you don’t engage in it you should have a very compelling reason why you’re doing so

· K-Affs should interact with the topic. Don't have to affirm state action, but if your kritik is legit it probably has lit on how it interacts with the topic too

Disads:

· I’m willing to vote on 0% of a link, but that’s hard to achieve. If you're minimizing the chance of the link, it’s probably easier to just beat them on impact calc.

Counterplans:

· Condo good – Neg should probably get ~2 worlds

· Multi-plank counterplans are very cool, unless you make each plank conditional which makes it no different than multiple counterplans.

· Status quo is always an option, but the Neg has to specify that if they want me to pull the trigger

· States/NGA is probably illegit, but voting on five second theory blips is bad

· PICs are cool, especially when you have a reason to pic out of some aspect of a convoluted plan.

Kritiks:

· They’re good for both use in the debate round and in making us better people, you’re not going to win “Ks bad”

· I'm too dumb to understand how most alts work, spend extra time here

· If you can't explain the alt in cx how is it supposed to work irl

· Serial policy failure is probably true, but explain why it hasn’t happened yet or what it looks like in the SQ

Case:

· Please do more case debate, most affs just aren't true or at least aren't getting anywhere near the impacts they promise

· I’m more than willing to vote Neg on presumption if you call it out.

Don’t say racist / sexist / ableist stuff in front of me, please. You’ll lose the round, 0 speaks, etc.

As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia

Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached (and taught math) at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL

Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer

HS Email Chains, please use: vayonter@cps.edu

College Email Chains: victoriayonter@gmail.com

General Thoughts:

1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.

2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.

3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.

4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.

Random Notes:

1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.

2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.

3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:

i. To prevent prep stealing,

ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),

iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.

High School LD Specific:

Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.

Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.

Public Forum Specific:

I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.