Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2021 — Online, CA/US
Policy Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
If you can't beat the argument, you generally deserve to lose.
(I'll never insert the reading of an argument I happen to know into the debate for you. This practice always irritated me when certain people did or encouraged this. I'm not supposed to make arguments, you are.)
Very tech over truth. However, the less intuitive an argument is, the more you have to do to explain why it matters and why you win.
Generally I'm fine with anything, but I place a strong emphasis on clarity and explanation. If an argument is dropped or mishandled, explain what it is and how it effects the outcome of the round. The more doors you close in final rebuttals, the better your chances are of winning my ballot.
Order in Which To Pref Me:
- Planless Aff v Topicality
- Plan v K
- K v K
- Policy v Policy (Despite having experience in this, I don't believe I do enough traditional research to be the best judge)
- I'm more inclined to vote on theory arguments than the average judge.
- Clarity > Speed
- Impact Comparison and Solvency Mechanisms matter
- I'm super attentive to the flow, and I strive to minimize judge intervention.
- I've voted on arguments I don't believe in plenty of times.
- I have zero issues voting on suspect impact turn arguments if they are won.
- Clarity is more Important than Speed
- In Clash of civs debates, it helps to say what debate looks like in relation to an interpretation of the topic.
- In clash of civs debates, neg loses when there is a poor articulation of an impact or effort to neutralize aff offense. Aff loses when there is poor explanation of an alternative model of debate or how the ballot changes what we do.
- In K v K debates, presumption is under utilized --- the less you link the less you probably solve. The neg needs to explain clear distinctions between the aff's tactic and/or theorizations and what the alt does or does not do.
- In K v K debates, I welcome debates on other procedurals like aff condo bad, vagueness, and various spec arguments that are designed to at least limit what the aff does and secure link to neg positions.
- No need for too much hostility and confrontation.
- I would rather not judge debates about things that didn't happen in the debate.
Notre Dame '21
University of Southern California (USC) '25
I have ran plenty of different things from reading the Horse-trading PTX DA and the Courts CP to a Moten K aff throughout my competitive career. (Notre Dame AK, Notre Dame AY). That being said the way I develop arguments has been heavily influenced by my coaches/judges that I have received feedback from, which includes Christina Phillips (Tallungan), Joshua Michael, Aron Berger, Raam Tambe, Nate Graziano, Maddie Pieropan, and many more.
I was a 2A
I prefer the pronouns: he/him/his
My email is: email@example.com
My internet is not the best so my camera may be off. That means it is your responsibility to ask for verbal confirmation that I can hear you and that I am ready to flow before you start speaking. This is good practice anyways.
Speak slower online. You already know this.
I will clear you twice, and if you still are mumbling at 67230864 words/min, I probably will not flow anything substantive and give a lot of leeway to the other teams answer.
I don't know the topic! At all.
Never my strong suit,
This is a huge topic that makes me very sympathetic to innovative T violations. This doesn't mean you can get away with reading bad definitions.
Caselists are important.
I like specifc/adv CPs.
If you know Brian Snitman you know how process CPs have been an essential part of my learning of debate. With that being said process counterplans are most likely cheating, you just have to do the work. 90% of teams don't do line by line on the theory debate which is frustrating for me to sort out, most of the time resulting in a negative ballot.
I will not judge kick unless instructed to do so.
Specific links > Generic links -- sometimes that's not possible when politics sucks, but I will be more happy when your link is specific to algorithmic assessments of race or how Joe Manchin perceives native policy.
Lots of my neg rounds sophomore, junior, and the last half of senior year were critical arguments. A few that I have gone for are Settler Colonialism, Security, Marx, Agamben, Conquest (Tiffany King). That being said, don't presume I know what your specific theory of power means and how you articulate your specific kritik.
Explain your alt. If it changes too much I will be unhappy.
A dropped floating pik is game over, but I lean towards f-piks are bad.
I will not judge kick the alt unless instructed to.
I read one for a little bit. I feel they can be very strategic as long as you have robust defense to topicality. Again, don't assume I am versed in your lit-base.
FW vs K-Affs
Not my cup of tea. That being said read FW if you wanna read FW
Debate is a competitive activity in which teams strategically research and strategize in order to perform well in a competitive sense.
I presume fairness is an internal link unless and until you explain it as an impact -- what that means is it should be impacted out in a thorough enough way to where I feel comfortable feeling that the affirmative reading a non-topical aff is bad.
Do line by line always, but especially on FW -- If you lose me because you are jumping all over the place I most likely will not catch everything you say.
Condo is a debate to be had. Don't make your interp arbitrary, but I'm open to anything.
If ASPEC/whatever SPEC arg is an incomprehensible blur in the 1NC and/or you didn't ask for the actor in cross-x this is not a voter. If you have a shell with impacts and warrants, then I will be more sympathetic.
Most other theory arguments are reasons to reject the arg, not the team, but you can convince me of cross applications and what these theoretical violations justify for other aspects of the debate.
If you make an RVI (IDC what activity) I will be extremely unhappy.
Be respectful of people's preferences in terms of gender/sexuality/identity/etc. If not your speaks will suffer.
Don't clip. Cheating is bad and makes debate worse for everyone. If you have evidence of clipping/if I catch it, I will take appropriate action.
Make fun/reference my friends if you know them. I will be disappointed if you try and fail. If you do a good job I will be happy.
2AR/2NR judge instruction is paramount. It makes the decision faster and I have to do way less work finding ways out for both teams, and will noticeably improve your speaks.
Events other than Policy:
*Clearly not my cup of tea, so do not expect me to know all of the niche protocol of your event. That being said, I feel a lot of my experience from Policy can transfer towards a fair adjudication of LD, PF, etc. My request is focus on the big picture and good debating, and not the technical nitty gritty stuff.
*To clarify, for Policy, do whatever you literally want
Policy debate, kritikal
SDSU Comm major
Current Trojan Debate Squad member 23/ '24
NDT / CEDA qual
Your work towards making your speeches clear for my flow will be reflected in my ballot.
Please include me in the email chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Kamiak (all teams)
performance/id pol k - 1
structural k - 1
theory - 2
larp/policy - 2
(LD) phil - 3
(LD) trix - 4
I debated for Kamiak HS in Mukilteo, WA and briefly debated for Wake Forest. I started debate in middle school, and throughout my career, I have earned 17 total TOC bids, qualifying in both LD (3 times) and Policy (1 time) and most recently cleared to quarterfinals of GSU in 2019 (my only college tourney). I have experience in both policy and LD debate on both the local and national circuit. I primarily read kritikal arguments, but trust and believe I can follow you and have experience in policy, phil, and theory stuff.
THIS PARADIGM IS WRITTEN FOR POLICY BUT MOST THINGS IN HERE APPLY TO LD TOO. LD SPECIFIC THINGS ARE NOTED AS SUCH.
yes put me on the chain (email@example.com)
Pronouns: black/black or they/them
[Voices Update] - In round robins speaks matter more, so I will give actual speaks. None of the extras apply, but the minuses certainly do.
Speaks are wack and arbitrary and I don't think they are a good tiebreaker. I wish tournaments would use opp wins as the first tiebreaker instead and I will die on that hill. With that being said, I'm a bit of a speaks fairy unless you do something blatantly offensive in which case speaks will go down down down down down faster than Jay Sean can sing it. And, if you don't get that reference then strike me ;)
+2 speaks if you bring me iced coffee w/ sugar and lots of cream because judging is wayyyy more tiring than competing
+1 speaker point for 2 well executed West Wing references throughout the debate - tell me what they were after your speech so I can keep track or in case I miss it.
+.5 speaker points if youre in LD and you say "we meet" just because I think its wack that some judges care enough to take away speaks, and as someone who did both events it really annoyed me.
-1 speaker point if you misgender your opponent and they don't call it out. Repeated violations especially if its called out will lead to larger "punishments" or whatever.
-5 speaker points for saying "I'm not racist but..." or any variation.
tech > truth, but tech without some truth is rarely enough
(LD only) good tricks debate makes judging easy bad tricks debate makes judging hell // [post camp update] and I will not vote on shoes theory or any other theoretical violation about your opponents clothing and/or appearance (identity args exempt). Arguments like shoes theory and etc. are antithetical to the purpose of this activity and I guarantee you will not like your speaks or the decision should you try to read them in front of me.
if you're gonna larp (straight up policy) please for the love of God weigh impacts
A dropped argument is a dropped argument, but it's up to you to tell me the implications of it.
sass and shade are fun...apparently people think I'm a rude debater, but who cares. If sassy/"rude"/shade is your thing then feel free to do you when I'm in the back.
tl;dr - do you. I like to think I'm pretty tab and can evaluate any type of debate. Tech and the flow are probably more important to me than others who debated like I did in HS. I'm a pretty simple judge so if you weigh your impacts and tell a story in the 2nr/2ar you'll be fine.
TOPIC KNOWLEDGE: 7.5/10 - I've judged a fair amount this season but haven't been coaching as much so don't expect me to know what solvency advocates are shit or what the gold standard definition for reform is.
*Current LD topic - 6/10 - something about drones right?
we love that. If this is your thing then go for it, but if it isn't please don't make me sit through 2 hours of a bad k debate. I don't think that the negative (for most Ks) needs to win an alternative if they can prove that the aff sucks or that their structural analysis of the world is both preferable and incompatible with the 1ac. Also, chances are I understand and am familiar with your buzz words, but that doesn't mean you should rely on them to win the round. If I can't explain to the other team why their aff, performance, or implicit assumptions in the 1AC/resolution are problematic then it will almost always be an aff ballot. For the aff, I never understood why debaters don't go for the impact turn strat against certain K's. Obviously, I don't condone teams standing up and saying things like racism/sexism/etc. good, but going for cap good, fem IR bad, etc. is fine. Lastly, sometimes I feel as if 2as get so focused on answering the K that they forget to win that their aff is in some way a good departure from the status quo, which is to say please extend your offense in the 2ar.
For K aff teams, if you are losing my ballot to cap you are probably doing a lot of things wrong. I think most fwk/cap teams I've seen and most of those rounds I've been in has been underdeveloped on the cap side. The 2ac, if done correctly, should pretty much shut down the cap route. There's should be almost no way the 2n knows more about your theory and it's interactions with cap than the 2a does, which should make those debates pretty easy for you to get my ballot. Framework on the other hand...I feel like k aff teams need to do a significantly better job defending a model of debate, winning debate is bad, winning the aff is a prior question to the resolution, or etc. I tend to vote for framework in clash rounds (not because I enjoy or ideologically agree with it), but because the ^ things are often not executed well. Framework teams, please make sure the arguments the 2nr goes for are somewhere in the block and not just the same tired canned 2nr that somebody stole from Hemanth. Carded TVAs with proper extensions are pretty damning for the aff and your good research/engagement will likely be rewarded (either with speaks or the ballot). I think procedural fairness is an impact, and it will be somewhat of a hard sell to convince me otherwise absent the aff team putting in some work; this doesn't mean I won't vote on structural fairness ow or impact turns, but rather that you actually need to warrant, explain and extend those arguments. I'd much rather see a framework 2nr on limits/truth testing/procedural fairness than skills and policy education, but hey that's just me. I also think that framework teams need to engage in case significantly better than what most teams currently do. Tbh probably slightly better for policy teams in k aff v. fwk rounds and slightly better for k teams in policy aff v. k rounds.
k v. k rounds
I got u...win your theory of power, framing and relevant offense.
policy(LD - LARP):
weigh weigh weigh weigh! I think more than any other stylistic approach to debate, policy teams NEED to do more comparative weighing. You will likely be unhappy with my decision if I can't point to specific points on my flow to weigh between your competing nuke war/extinction/etc. scenarios. I love watching policy teams who have nuanced, fun and creative impact scenarios. Some personal preferences for policy rounds are below -
Judge kick/choice is just not a thing. I'm still baffled how teams win arguments on this; it always seemed like lazy debating to me, and you are probably better off investing that time on other parts of the flow. Obviously if its conceded I won't hack against it, but I can't promise it won't be reflected in your speaks. I think strategic 2nrs will know when to go for the CP and when to kick it and defend the squo, so I'm not inclined to do that work for you.
Live by the flow, die by the flow...I think I'm a pretty well-informed person when it comes to politics/IR, but I probably won't know enough to fill in the gaps of actual nuanced scenario analysis which means you need to weigh and make the arguments you want to hear in the RFD.
I'd much rather watch an engaging 3 off policy strat then sit through watching some poor 1nr try to kick 12 of the 14 off read.
T: I fucking love T. Go for it in front of me. Go for it often in front of me. Go for it well in front of me. Biggest mistakes I see teams going for T in front of me do if forget to extend internal links to their impacts and that's the tea (pun intended). If youre a "K team" and you beat a policy team on T let's just say you'll like your speaks. I think one of the reasons I find framework ideologically ridiculous is because I've seen some really non-T policy affs and I always get indignant - like the conditions aff on this topic or the Saudi aff on last years J/F LD topic.
(LD Only) Phil:
Usually pretty simple debates imho, but make sure you respond to your opponents fw justifications as well as extend your own. After judging almost nothing but phill working at NSD all summer, I feel like these rounds are nearly impossible to resolve absent actual responses/weighing. Also, I'd much rather watch a substantive framework debate between Kant and Hobbes than see someone use Hobbes to trigger linguistic skep and have to watch a six minute 2nr on it.
down for anything - weigh standards and win an abuse story. Here are some defaults (obv up for debate) See my note at the top about certain types of LD friv theory. I should clarify that my threshold in theory is slightly higher in policy than in LD and I'm not as open to friv theory in policy. I think policy is a more educational activity, and I don't want to see it go down a similar path vis-a-vis theory.
Text over spirit
meta theory = theory
theory = K
drop the arg
fairness = edu; both a voter
**Online update: if my camera is off, i am not there**
I think debate is a game with educational benefits. I will listen to anything, but there are obviously some arguments that are more persuasive than others. i think this is most of what you're looking for:
1. arguments - For me to vote on an argument it must have a claim, warrant, and impact. A claim is an assertion of truth or opinion. A warrant is an analytical connection between data/grounds/evidence and your claim. An impact is the implication of that claim for how I should evaluate the debate. debate is competitive and adversarial, not cooperative. My bias is that debate strategies should be evidence-centric and, at a minimum, rooted in an academic discipline. My bias is that I do not want to consider anything prior to the reading of the 1AC when making my decision.
3. framework - arguments need to be impacted out beyond the word 'fairness' or 'education'. affirmatives do not need to read a plan to win in front of me. however, there should be some connection to the topic. fairness *can be* a terminal impact.
4. critiques - they should have links to the plan or have a coherent story in the context of the advantages. i am less inclined to vote neg for broad criticisms that arent contextualized to the affirmative. a link of omission is not a link. similarly, affirmatives lose debates a lot just because their 2ac is similarly generic and they have no defense of the actual assumptions of the affirmative.
5. counterplans - should likely have solvency advocates but its not a dealbreaker. slow down when explaining tricks in the 2nc.
6. theory - more teams should go for theory more often. negatives should be able to do whatever they want, but affirmatives need to be able to go for theory to keep them honest.
7. topicality - its an evidentiary issue that many people impact poorly. predictable limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. saying 'we lose the [insert argument]' isnt really an impact without an explanation of why that argument is good. good debates make comparative claims between aff/neg opportunities to win relative to fairness.
8. clipping - i sometimes read along with speeches if i think that you are clipping. i will prompt you if i think you are clipping and if i think you are still clipping i will vote against you even if the other team doesnt issue an ethics challenge.
9. 2nr/2ar - there are lots of moving parts in debate. if you disagree with how i approach debate or think about debate differently, you should start your speech with judge instruction that provides an order of operations or helps construct that ballot. teams too often speak in absolute certainties and then presume the other team is winning no degree of offense. that is false and you will win more debates if you can account for that in your speech.
10. keep track of your own time.
unapologetically stolen from brendan bankey's judge philosophy as an addendum because there is no reason to rewrite it:
---"Perm do the counterplan" and "perm do the alt" are claims that are often unaccompanied by warrants. I will not vote for these statements unless the aff explains why they are theoretically legitimate BEFORE the 2AR. I am most likely to vote for these arguments when the aff has 1) a clear model of counterplan/alternative competition AND 2) an explanation for where the
I would prefer that debaters engage arguments instead of finesse their way out of links. This is especially awful when it takes place in clash debates. If you assert your opponent's offense does not apply when it does I will lower your speaker points.
In that vein, it is my bias that if an affirmative team chooses not to say "USFG Should" in the 1AC that they are doing it for competitive reasons. It is, definitionally, self-serving. Self-serving does not mean the aff should lose [or that its bad necessarily], just that they should be more realistic about the function of their 1AC in a competitive activity. If the aff does not say "USFG Should" they are deliberately shifting the point of stasis to other issues that they believe should take priority. It is reciprocal, therefore, for the negative to use any portion of the 1AC as it's jumping off point.
I think that limits, not ground, is the controlling internal link for most T-related impacts. Ground is an expression of the division of affirmative and negative strategies on any given topic. It is rarely an independent impact to T. I hate cross-examination questions about ground. I do not fault teams for being unhelpful to opponents that pose questions in cross-examination using the language of ground. People commonly ask questions about ground to demonstrate to the judge that the aff has not really thought out how their approach to the resolution fosters developed debates. A better, more precise question to ask would be: "What are the win conditions for the negative within your model of competition?"
Add me to the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Water topic update
I have very little topic knowledge. This has two implications for you
1. Obscure/schematic T arguments might not be the best strategy. If that is the 2nr, however, try to be crystal clear about everything.
2. Obscure/schematic CP competition arguments might not be the best strategy. If that is the 2nr, however, try to be crystal clear about everything.
I'm perfectly willing to vote for either of these things, and I'll do my best to evaluate these arguments, but know that the chances of me misunderstanding something are a bit higher than you might like.
Four most important things
Clarity >> speed
I am a bad judge for the K, I am a good judge for framework. Pref me as such or suffer the consequences.
I will eagerly vote on explicit judge instruction in the 2AC/block that's extended in the rebuttals (I will also boost speaks)
I think evidence comparison is the most important skill in debate, and a few smart pieces of evidence comparison can often decide a close debate for me
The aff gets to weigh the plan absent major concessions on framework
I will not vote on things that have happened outside of the debate I am judging, nor will I vote on personal attacks towards one of the debaters
The neg can read any CP they want and do whatever they want with it. I will likely only vote on theory if it is dropped or substantially mishandled
I have no moral or ethical issue with Russia war good/Spark flavors of impact turns, and I will evaluate them like any other argument -- I think there is value in learning how to explain why absurd arguments are absurd
You can (and are encouraged to) insert re-highlightings
28.7 is average for the pool barring some tournament rule about speaks
Email me with questions
The more you make it like policy debate, the better
That means spread, read a lot of off, read case turns, etc.
I dislike theory in Policy, and those feelings are magnified when it comes to LD theory
My pronouns are he/him.
Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time doing intake in the housing unit at legal aid and part-time at the Louisiana Children's Museum and Audubon Nature Institute.
Email chain: email@example.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)
If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always
I clap at the end of rounds
Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.
Spring 2023 Update:
- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.
- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.
- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.
Some general thoughts:
- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.
- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.
- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost
- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?
- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations
- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!
- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk
- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.
GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS
About me: I am an undergraduate at the university of Concordia and am majoring in both Anthropology and Foreign relations. I debated for 4 years (mainly doing PF) at Katy Taylor Highschool. I do have experience with LD, CD, and FX/DX but am most comfortable in judging PF. As of 2021 this is my 2nd year being a part of the Concordia Debate Society. During my junior year in high school I amassed three silver bids and one gold bid to TOC and participated in nationals in PF for my Sophomore, Junior, and Senior years. During my senior year I experimented around and did some LD, IX and DX where I ended up competing in nationals for LD and earned a NIETOC bid for IX.
Email chain: Jonathonblack766@gmail.com
- "Flay” judge I guess. About 90% of my decision is decided solely off the flow, but if neither side weighs or properly extends their arguments/warranting I will be forced to vote like a lay judge which means you probably won't like the decision.
- Don't spread unless you absolutely have to.
- Only read theory if an actual violation has occurred, if you run theory because you know your opponents can't respond to it properly, your speaker points will suffer. Severely.
-When reading overviews or when weighing always tell me beforehand where to flow them.
-I don't flow cross but will listen. If you think your opponent conceded something critical or said something that might be to your advantage make sure to bring it up in your speeches if you want me to flow it.
- More of a traditional judge
-Tech over truth majority of the time-just make sure your arguments are well warranted
- Don't run a progressive argument and expect me to automatically understand what you're talking about, I'm fine with theory or K's as long as it's not frivolous.
- I am fine with speed as long as clarity is good-if you're planning to spread to the point where it's nearly unintelligible you should strongly consider sending me a speech doc
-Don't read blippy arguments/warrants, i.e. one liners and expect me to buy it
-Do flesh out your arguments with warrants and analysis
5 Things to Remember…
1st-Sign Posting/Road Maps- tell me the order and where to flow
After constructive speeches, every speech should have organized narratives and each response should either be attacking entire contention level arguments or specific warrants/analysis. Please tell me where to place arguments otherwise they get lost in the flow. If you tell me you are going to do something and then don’t in a speech, I will be upset. Road maps should be simple, anything longer than 15 seconds and I am starting your speech timer.
I will evaluate any arguments under frameworks that are consistently extended and should be established as early as possible. If there are two frameworks, please decide which I should prefer and why. If neither team provides any, I default evaluate all arguments under a cost/benefit analysis.
Don’t just extend card authors and tag-lines of arguments, give me the how/why of your warrants and flesh out the importance of why your impacts matter. Summary extensions must be present for Final Focus extension evaluation. Defense to Final Focus ok if you are first speaking team, but you should be discussing the most important issues in every speech which may include early defense extensions.
The NSDA HS Unified Manual: pages 29-33 outline the rules around evidence. I will follow it carefully. I will evaluate all evidence presented in the debate as if its veracity is a voting issue, even if that issue is not raised by the competitors in the round.
Here is my list of requirements with regards to evidence. Failure to abide by these practices will result in a loss and very low speaker points. This section is non-negotiable. If any of these are an issue for you, you should strike me.
All evidence exchanged in an email chain must be a cut card, with a full citation present. No links to websites and instructions to “ctrl-F”. No random chunks of text with no tag or citation. A cut card. There are many guides to cutting a card available on YouTube.
Evidence must be produced within five minutes of its request, provided there are no technical issues. Failure to provide evidence after it is requested will result in either very low speaks and a loss or me not evaluating the argument associated with the evidence.
The evidence you send must also make the argument that you made in your speech. In other words, do not lie about what evidence says, and do not power-tag cards.
I will not end the round to enforce this, nor submit my ballot immediately. I will flow the entirety of the round and write out a decision as if the evidence had not been read so that both teams can take my comments post-disclosure and improve. However, the ballot will clearly indicate if you lost based on bad research practices.
Here is a list of my preferences when it comes to evidence. These are things that I think would be great norms for the community to set, and practices that I will reward with increased speaker points.
Quote evidence directly when it is first presented. I will not vote against you for paraphrasing. But, I will vote on the paraphrasing theory shell if argued persuasively (and I am predisposed to vote for it).
Level an evidentiary challenge against opponents who are misusing evidence. I will reward correct evidence challenges with a W and block 30s. Please do this if your opponents are lying about their evidence.
If both teams fail to ethically represent evidence in the debate, no team will get higher than a 26, neither side gets to tell me that their evidence is better, and all arguments become your own analysis, without cards."
Tell me when you start and stop prep, I am fine with flex prep as long as both teams are as well. If your timer goes off at the end of your speech and cuts you off, you may finish your sentence. I don't flow anything that goes over 15 seconds. ( barring extenuating circumstances such as wifi outages)
SPEAKER POINT BREAKDOWNS
30: Excellent job, you demonstrate stand-out organizational skills and speaking abilities. Ability to use creative analytical skills and humor to simplify and clarify the round.
29: Very strong ability. Good eloquence, analysis, and organization. A couple minor stumbles or drops.
28: Above average. Good speaking ability. May have made a larger drop or flaw in argumentation but speaking skills compensate. Or, very strong analysis but weaker speaking skills.
27: About average. Ability to function well in the round, however analysis may be lacking. Some errors made.
26: Is struggling to function efficiently within the round. Either lacking speaking skills or analytical skills. May have made a more important error.
25: Having difficulties following the round. May have a hard time filling the time for speeches. Large error.
Below: Extreme difficulty functioning. Very large difficulty filling time or offensive or rude behavior.
***Evidence ethics borrowed from Bryce Piotrowski.***
Note to LD competitors at the FBK tournament - I almost exclusively judge policy, but I've done LD in the past and am quite familiar with the format and traditional argumentation. Most of the below should be pretty applicable, less so the stuff about evidence.
Four years of policy competition, at a solid mix of circuit and regional tournaments. I generally do enough judging these days to be pretty up-to-date on circuit args.
Generally comfortable with speed but I tend to have issues comprehending overly breathy spreading. And please, for everyone's sake, make sure your tags are clear and don't try to give theory analytics at full speed. You can do whatever feels right, of course, but I can only decide based on what I catch.
Broadly, I default to an offense-defense paradigm and a strict technical focus. It's not exactly hard to get me to depart from those defaults, however. I'll vote for anything, and it doesn't take any 'extra' work to get me to endorse performance advocacies, critical affirmative advocacies, etc - just win your offense, and framework if applicable.
I'd love to be a truth over tech judge, but I just don't believe that's an acceptable default orientation for my ballot. That said, engaging with that preference and doing it well is a pretty convincing approach with me. This most often comes across in impact calc.
Evidence quality is extremely important to me. I tend to grant much more weight to card texts and warrants than to tags, and I'm perfectly happy to drop ev that doesn't have warrants matching the tag, if you articulate why I should do so. That said, I don't discount evidence just because I perceive it to be low-quality, and if it gets conceded, well, it might as well be true.
My bar for framework and T/theory tends to depend on what you're asking me to do. Convincing me to drop a states CP on multiple actor fiat bad requires fairly little offense. Convincing me to drop a team on A-Spec is going to be an uphill battle, usually.
Yes, put me in the email chain. But also speechdrop >>> email chains.
Experience: My personal competitive experience is mainly in IEs, though I have competed nationally in debate events and coached LD, Policy, and IE students. My debate background is primarily policy and NFA-LD.
In all forms of debate, my primary concern as a judge is to remove as much subjectivity as possible. In the interest of this goal, I vote almost exclusively off of the flow. This is not to say, however, that I will blindly flow your arguments without thought. Ex: if your opponent drops an interpretation in their T flow, that does not mean you can define the word to mean whatever you want.
In the interest of being flow-centric, I try not to make assumptions and do the work for you. I will judge based on what actually happens in the round, not what I assume you meant should have happened. If you want credit for running an argument, I need you to actually run that argument.
I really appreciate debaters who give clear overviews in the final speeches. I want to be explicitly walked through the round so far, and told step-by-step what arguments I should prioritize and why. If you make it easy for me to vote for you, you will be happy with the vote.
I believe Kritikal argumentation is a vital cornerstone of inclusive debate practice, and I generally consider the K to be a priori. However, as with everything, if you can provide me with a solid argument why the K is bad and you debate on that flow better than your opponent, I will still vote against the K. It's not about what I believe, it's about who is the better debater in that round.
As long as you are supporting your arguments with strong evidence and you are debating well, I will not vote against you simply because I disagree with your claims. If your opponent doesn't disprove it analytically, I will not vote against it simply because of preference.
(NOTE: there are obviously exceptions to these rules. I will not vote in favor of something like "slavery good" or "women's suffrage bad." Any argument that is inherently problematic or harmful to others will not get my vote, even if you argue it better than your opponent. You don't get to hurt other people for a ballot.)
This is not my own words; it was shared with me by a teammate and I believe in the system as a method of removing subjectivity in scoring. (Updated as of 11:22 AM on 12/12/2015.)
27.3 or less-Something offensive occurred or something went terribly wrong
27.3-27.7- You didn't fill speech times, didn't flow, didn't look up from your laptop, mumbled, were unclear, or generally debated poorly
27.7-28.2- You are an average debater in your division who based on this rounds performance probably shouldn't clear but didn't do anything wrong per se...
28.2-28.5- Based on this rounds performance you might clear at the bottom.
28.5-28.9- You probably should clear in the middle/bottom based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
28.9-29.3- You probably should clear in the middle/top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from above or below.
29.3-29.7- You probably should clear at the top based on this rounds performance. Same rules as above on moving in to this bracket from below.
(You can also be moved in to this bracket from an above or below point bracket by debating someone in this bracket and performing well or debating someone in the lower point bracket and performing poorly. Or you can move up in brackets by doing stuff that was compelling in the round, such as reading arguments I liked, made me think, were technically proficient, or generally did something interesting.)
Version for tournaments that force whole-number speaks:
25 - Something went awry
26 - Probably won't clear, but nothing was wrong
27 - Should clear at the bottom
28 - Should clear in the middle
29 - Should probably clear at the top
30 - Exceptional
If both speakers fall into the same category, the winner will bump up 1 point. A few random notes (I update these as things come up)
About Specific Issues (I update these as things come up in rounds)
Re: in-round abuse. I am extremely sympathetic to in-round abuse. If you treat your opponent's poorly and they read a theory shell about why that's a reason to reject the team, odds are fairly good that I'll buy into that line of argumentation. You can avoid this by not being a jerk to your opponents.
Re: post-rounding. I do everything in my power to give a clear and thorough explanation of the round and why I voted the way I did. I am happy to answer questions about the round and do what I can to give you a sense of how to improve moving forward. I am happy to spend as much time after the round as you need answering questions and discussing the round. HOWEVER, I guarantee that debating me post-round will not change my ballot. I always submit my ballot before disclosure. Post-round debating just creates a hostile space for judges and debaters alike, and it's not the image of debate that I want to create.
Re: evidence sharing. In ALL FORMATS I want to be included on the email chain or the speechdrop. Particularly in PF, I don't like the community norm of asking for evidence after the speech and taking a bunch of time off the clock to find and share evidence. Your speech docs should be put together before the speech, and you should send your speech to the email chain or send it in the speech drop before you speak.
Re: speed. I am completely fine with spreading, but YOU are responsible for clarity. I will call clear twice in a speech. After that, if I don't get it on the flow, then I don't get it on the flow. Speed is only okay as long as it isn't excluding anybody from the round. If your opponent asks for a slow debate, don't spread them out of the round, be inclusive first and foremost. But I personally love speed, so don't slow down for me, certainly.
I will vote for the team who debates better, regardless of what techniques are used to do so (so long as those arguments are not harmful to others.) WHAT YOU ARE MOST COMFORTABLE AND CLEAN DEBATING WITH IS MORE IMPORTANT THAN WHAT I LIKE. If you have any questions, coaches and students can contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org
add me to your email chain:email@example.com
Pronouns: She/hers They/Theirs
Experience: I did policy debate at Downtown Magnets High School for 4 years. I was captain of my team, broke to octos in the 2019 Urban Debate National Championship. I went to college on a debate scholarship, did parli and judged policy, parli and ld. I now work as a community organizer
What to run?: Literally anything. I ran kaffs my sophomore and senior year of high school and policy affs my entire junior year and now. I've run and gone for DAs, CPs, theory, T, and Ks.
What not to do?: Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, or any of the other isms.
What I'm not the biggest fan of: I also have a bias against inaccess. running like 6+ off, running an unnecessary amount of theory, leveraging your own identity in a way that pushes your opponents to bring their own identity into the round, spreading to the point of incoherency past the 1ac/1nc
this is unfinished if you have more specific questions ask before round but the TL;DR is I’ve debated a lot so run whatever and don’t be a jerk
I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years in high school. In college I competed in policy debate for four years at the University of Richmond where I was a three-time participant at the NDT. Since graduating from law school I have been practicing as an attorney in the New York state court system. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. To me, well-warranted arguments extended and explained in rebuttals combined with strategic control of the flow wins debates. Technical proficiency in terms of argument interaction is also appreciated. Well executed link and impact turns are also impressive. It won't change how I evaluate the debate, but in case you are curious, I was primarily a 2A/1N and ran everything from hard right, to soft left, to ironic affs as well as a full range on the neg. My email is jchicvak at gmail dot com.
2x ndt qualifier, ceda doubles x2
affiliations: berk prep (2022-), solon and saint ignatius (2021-22)
I primarily run policy arguments and coach critical ones.
will vote on 0 risk
I have found that aff teams are just not sufficiently extending solvency to any of their advantages, internal links, etc., thus the I find myself having a lower threshold for neg offense
speed is fine (I will only "clear" you once and then ill flow what I can)
call me matty or matt not judge (he/him)
don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc.
clipping = auto L an 0
unlikely to vote on things that happened outside of the round
I think K affs should have some relation to the topic and am less persuaded by debate bad arguments. you don't need a c/I to win. I am persuaded by both fairness and clash. the easiest way to my ballot is establishing external offense vs internal link turns and do real impact comparison. presumption isn't gone for as much as it probably should. contextualizing the links to how they specifically destroy the ability of the alt to happen will help you out a lot. don't assume I know any of your lit.
fine. you can win without an alt, however I prefer if you generate UQ from somewhere else rather then going for the k as a linear disad. I think teams spend way to much time on fw, in almost every case the aff gets to weigh the 1ac and the neg gets reps links.
I like well thought out advantage cps. affs don't utilize their 1ac enough when answering cps. condo is good, multi-plank condo is good. pretty much all other theory is probably a reason to reject the arg.
fine. I like complex stories with clear internal link turns to the aff or some form of cirvumvention/a solvency take out. teams who explain how the direction of x shapes the direction of y are much more likely to win a close debate. I will probably not read you ev during the debate, but if the final rebuttals include a DA, please send a card doc.
default to competing interps but its not hard to get me to vote on reasonability. the simpler the definition/the clearer the violation the better.
organization/signposting is important
I enjoy impacts turns/traps/double binds etc.
trailer park boys references = +.1 speaks
Hi i'm jared
Lane Tech 2016
- i help coached at wheeler hs in georgia alittle this year and rufus king here and there this year so topic knowledge is there. As I have judged the water topic a bit more here is some more articulated opnions:
Framework: You need to prove to me why an aff is not debatable, things like the industry da's, or the interstate compacts cp's seems like what the core neg ground is looking like whats its more the be. I need somewhat of a conversation of why an Aff makes it impossible. One off framework is probably not the best in front of me. Y'all need to probs look into like ivory tower args at least, how would the group of people you advocate for understand the args you are goin for, and how thats probs academic elitism and resinscribes the impacts you talk about .
K aff's : I need to understand what your aff does, and how it solves what it says you solve by the end of the debate. I ran these mostly while I debated, but I need to understand some relation to the topic, or why I should not care about the topic. But if it is the should not care about the topic route, you probs need to give give a ground list on the framework debate.
Theory: Alot of CP's are prolly cheating , once you hit 3+ condo that has some perf-con thats prolly bad.
to win my ballot beat the other persons arguments.
Quick Metaview to better understand how I view things.
1. K's/K aff's: Was my own bread and butter while I debated, will understand most literature basis but do not expect me to the work for you.
2. T's/Impact Turns': Underappreciated in debate , and I think are enjoyable debates if done well.
3. Politics DA : They are the intresting toxic thing that could go either way.
4. Policy Affs : If your aff relies on more intricate knowledge such as like a random court case more explanation the better.
5. Process CP's are probably cheating, but im more inclined to reject the arg than the team.
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
f.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
g. theory : please just for the love of god do not read more than 5 or 6 condo, at this point its a question of yes reasonability but at the same time I need to be able to figure out what your warrants are. More often that not if CP's are specfic they'll avoid most of the theory questions.
h. With topicality it'll always be an interesting debate that with good framing its good.
i. In a round where I have to be answering questions It probably goes more towards the K, and how I think the Ontology Debate works out.
Non-Policy Debate Section:
You do you, and I look at flows. alot of my views on arguements in debate are summed up below, but I am open to any non-traditional forms of any of the other types of debate as long as you are not racist. I tend to vote purely off the flow as long as something is not just a straight up lie(i.e "Trump was Good"). On theory issues i tend to default to whatever means the least amount of judge intervention.
Put me on the email chain - firstname.lastname@example.org
Notre Dame '21
PLEASE don't call me judge, Sarah is fine.
-I'd prefer if you have your camera on, but having it off is fine
-If my camera isn't on, I'm not ready
-Ask for confirmation that I'm ready before giving your speech
-time your own speech and prep
-tech > truth
-fairness > education
-I tend to place a lot of weight on evidence quality. I'll still vote on spin of course, but, if the debate is close, I usually look to the quality of both sides' evidence.
-I care a lot about judge instruction in rebuttals. It's really helpful and will get you good speaks
-I love impact turns, advantage cps, and well-debated disadvantages
-I don't like judging topicality or theory debates, but you should still go for it if you know it's the right strategy.
-I was a 2A, but my views are probably more in line with that of a 2N.
-Topical versions of the aff and case lists are good.
-A smaller topic is probably better than aff innovation.
-Competing interpretations > reasonability
Soft left affs:
- I'm predisposed towards extinction-level impacts, and I tend to think utilitarianism is the best framework for evaluating choices between policies. You're far better off spending more time attacking the link and internal link level of a DA than wasting a bunch of time on framing, which is usually a wash anyway. I think that a securitization-type framing argument is way better than some arbitrary "probability first" or "util bad" claim, BUT winning this requires meaningfully reducing the risk of the DA.
- My favorite debates are DA/case debates.
- I love politics DAs, but aff specific and topic DAs are even better. But feel free to read whatever contrived DA scenario you want. I'll vote on it if you win it.
- Pls do impact calculus - it makes my decision 1000x times easier
- Turns case is also super persuasive to me
- If you're going for a non-unique + link turn, actually explain why the aff resolves the link
- Impact out your solvency deficits or explain why the perm shields the net benefit
- I'm not a good judge for process CPs. Complicated competition debates are confusing to me
- I won't kick the CP for you unless you tell me to
- I will vote on theory, but you need to give examples specific to abuse within the debate and impact out theory in the 2AR
- cheaty fiat cps (ie Tsai should resign or Saudi should stop the war in Yemen) are definitely bad
- Agent CPs, 2NC cps, 50 state fiat, consult Cps, con cons, etc are probably good
- condo = good (but, again, I can be persuaded otherwise)
- perf con is a reason you get to sever your reps
Ks on the neg:
- i feel like my views on the k have changed a lot over the past few months. i like it more than i used to.
- cap, security, fem ir, and settler colonialism are the literature bases I'm most familiar with -- if you want me to vote on other things, i need lots of explanation
- i prefer specific links to the plan - the more specific, the better
- actually engage with the 1ac and spend time on case in the 2nr - i like when neg teams take lines out of the 1ac and/or recut 1ac ev
- floating PIKs are bad
- the alt should resolve your impacts and links
- i hate long overviews - your overviews should be short & contextualized to the aff
- I prefer that you read a plan & im probably not the best judge for you if you read an untopical aff, but I'll still vote for a k aff and I have several times in the past
- at least have some sort of relation to the topic
- just asserting that the USFG is bad is not enough to get my ballot
- k affs probably don't get perms - if the aff doesn't have to be topical, then Cps / K's don't have to be competitive, but this needs to be explained in the debate
Neg v. k affs:
- framework - fairness is an impact (but you have to explain why it is), TVAs are great, tell me what debate looks like in the world of the aff & neg and why your model is better
- presumption - go for it. a lot of k affs just don't do anything
- k's vs k affs - not great for this. if you're going to go for a k, pls do thorough explanations and impact out each of your links
- I'll dock your speaks if you're mean or rude to me or others in the round
Updated - Fall 2020
Number of years judging: 12
For the email chain: email@example.com
I want to be on the email chain, but I am not going to “read-along” during constructives. I may reference particular cards during cross-ex if they are being discussed, and I will probably read cards that are important or being contested in the final rebuttals. But it’s the job of the debaters to explain, contextualize, and impact the warrants in any piece of evidence. I will always try to frame my decision based on the explanations on the flow (or lack thereof).
Like every judge I look for smart, well-reasoned arguments. I’ll admit a certain proclivity for critical argumentation, but it isn’t an exclusive preference (I think there’s something valuable to be said about “policy as performance”). Most of what I have to say can be applied to whatever approach debaters choose to take in the round. Do what you’re good at, and I will do my best to render a careful, well thought-out decision.
I view every speech in the debate as a rhetorical artifact. Teams can generate clash over questions of an argument’s substance, its theoretical legitimacy, or its intrinsic philosophical or ideological commitments.
I think spin control is extremely important in debate rounds and compelling explanations will certainly be rewarded. And while quantity and quality are also not exclusive I would definitely prefer less cards and more story in any given debate as the round progresses. I also like seeing the major issues in the debate compartmentalized and key arguments flagged.
As for the standard array of arguments, there's nothing I can really say that you shouldn't already know. I like strong internal link stories and nuanced impact comparisons. I really don't care for "risk of link means you vote Aff/Neg" arguments on sketchy positions; if I don't get it I'm not voting for it. My standard for competition is that it’s the Negative’s job to prove why rejecting the Aff is necessary which means more than just presenting an alternative or methodology that solves better – I think this is the best way to preserve clash in these kinds of debates. Please be sure to explain your position and its relation to the other arguments in the round.
KRITIK LINKS ARE STILL IMPORTANT. Don’t assume you’ll always have one, and don’t over-rely on extending a “theory of power” at the top of the flow. Both of these are and should be mutually reinforcing. This is especially important for the way I evaluate permutations. Theories of power should also be explained deliberately and with an intent to persuade.
I think the topic is important and I appreciate teams that find new and creative approaches to the resolution, but that doesn’t mean you have to read a plan text or defend the USFG. Framework is debatable (my judging record on this question is probably 50/50). A lot of this depends on the skills of the debaters in the room. This should not come as a surprise, but the people who are better at debating tend to win my framework ballot. Take your arguments to the next level, and you'll be in a much stronger position.
Two other things that are worth noting: 1) I flow on paper…probably doesn’t mean anything, but it might mean something to you. 2) There's a fine line between intensity and rudeness, so please be mindful of this.
Email chain, pre/post-round questions: firstname.lastname@example.org
If you’re limited on time, do not stress! You'll be fine!
Congratulations on qualifying for the TOC! I look forward to judging you! I would like to make your final debates of the season as fulfilling as possible, so please let me know if you would like any accommodations. I won't mind if you request to not have an RFD, for example.
I competed in Policy and LD Debate for Dougherty Valley High School (class of 2020).
I'm a good judge for strategic and technical debate and will reward pro-gamer moves with high speaks.
I think that debate possesses revolutionary potential. Hard work, research, and the development of technical communication skills around a stasis point of clash (that should probably be guaranteed somehow) are very important requirements for successful high-school debates.
In my first years of circuit debate, I read ridiculous amounts of philosophy, mainly because I liked the edge. Although I have started to spend my time exploring other wonders, I don't think I have fully shaken off my Freirean roots. This information does implicate you; I intend on giving thorough RFDs and will try to fully understand every argument before I evaluate it. I will be glad to give feedback if you ask.
e-Debaters: please record every speech just in case. I flow off your speech, not the doc.
Quality>Quantity. Please collapse in the 2NR/2AR.
Compiling the doc is prep, flashing is not. Please 'clarify your flow' during prep or CX (e.g. "did you read X card?").
I accept spreading but clarity ∝ flow-ability ∝ memory. Please enunciate during online debates.
Hand-waving, grandstanding, etc. is understandable but usually unnecessary. If you don’t have any more doors to close, I would appreciate it if you would finish your speech early.
Please do line-by-line. Your speeches should follow an order. I am a fan of speeches that number arguments.
Credible and well-warranted evidence goes a long way. Citations must be complete (author name, title, date, and source if possible) or I will throw the card out. I find epic author qualifications to be quite persuasive, so include them if you want that advantage.
I dislike cards written by former debaters and coaches about debate. They come off as biased because their specificity arbitrarily discredits opposing views. I have also seen them replace student-based research, which I personally found to be one the most rewarding parts of debate.
If you have proof, you should stake the debate on an evidence ethics violation. Whoever's in the wrong gets an L 20.
If I notice (1) missing paragraphs/ellipses (2) miscut/mis-cited evidence, or (3) clipping, you auto-lose, even if no evidence challenge is raised.
My comments on arguments
I err against vague plans and counterplans that lack evidence. Debaters can’t define what their texts mean on their own, they need to support their interpretation with cards that comment on “normal means.” Against a vague plan, I would be more persuaded by no solvency and circumvention claims over spec theory shells.
I think the mandates of a plan text and CX clarification are binding. I like it when poorly written plan texts are punished with plan flaws and process counterplans.
To be honest, I think counterplans of all varieties are underutilized. I think my views with T and CP theory balances this for the aff.
Counterplan/competition theory is only persuasive when the affirmative contextualizes the abuse to the way the writing/literature of the topic divides ground.
Impact calc is a silver bullet.
I feel like it is much more likely for a plan to be less effective than for it to result in nuclear war or whatever the terminal impact of a DA is. These arguments are more persuasive to me than framing cards.
I prefer LD frameworks that focus on broad questions of ethical significance. I think it’s unnecessarily reductive to condense ethics into a value criterion/standard. For example, I think it’s totally OK to say that “liberty is a side-constraint on the State” as impact framing instead of a standard such as “upholding liberty.”
I tend to find the warrants in cards more compelling than purely analytic frameworks.
The comparative worlds versus truth testing distinction is strictly related to Topicality. All topics seem to make normative claims so the truth-testing paradigm has more in common with comparative worlds than most give it credit for. This implies that you can, in fact, defend the resolution as a “general principle” insofar as you win that (A) that’s what the words of the topic mean and (B) that’s good for debate. The downside to my view is that it validates linguistic tricks and moral skepticism, but these are very easy to answer.
I lean against voting on obviously non-substantial violations of fairness/education. Debaters must provide a compelling abuse story, even if a theory argument is conceded. In other words, I strongly default to reasonability; warrants for competing interpretations reverse this default and oftentimes serve as tiebreakers.
Disclosure is generally good. In disclosure theory debates, I err in favor of the side that is as cooperative as possible. I'm not saying that you should disclose everything that your opponent asks for, but I am saying that both sides should clearly (and politely) attempt to reach a middle ground outside of the round.
Paragraph theory is usually preferable to shells. Debaters tend to blitzkrieg through prewritten theory blocks—please slow down.
In LD, weighing should begin in the 1NC, especially when it comes to overlimiting versus underlimiting.
Good T debates point out how they interact with counterplan ground. Proving why the "AFF is key" is a challenging task that requires a lot of research—I am willing to loosen the grips of the resolutional text if the affirmative puts this into pragmatic consideration. If there is a prep problem in LD, it's because of the wording of the resolutions, not because of the reading of plans.
With that being said, I tend to find interpretations that reflect real-world controversies (the "topic-lit") more convincing than readings that make it easier to debate.
I want to judge these debates more. Please don't make me regret writing this.
Framework—affirmatives should get their case and negatives should get their kritik (unless convinced otherwise). "Fiat is illusory" is impact framing rather than an absolute disqualification of the 1AC.
You should have a link. Generous link explanations can compensate for poor argumentation elsewhere. Kritiks apply to many affs in debate (especially LD), but debaters tend to be horrible at thinking of links.
Many 2NRs lack aggressive impact calculus despite the fact that common K impacts tend to have stronger internal links to extinction than many AFFs do.
Presentation and evidence quality matter. You should try to explain your argument in every opportunity you get, rather than be evasive.
"Tricks" are only stupid if they are under-explained. Floating PIKs are almost always invalid and new 2NR arguments.
My pronouns are he/him. I've competed in debate for seven years - four years of high school Policy (CX) debate, and three years of college parliamentary (NPDA) debate. Since then, I've taught/coached both middle school and high school debaters in PF, LD, and Policy. Bottom line with me is do what you do best and what you enjoy most.
I consider myself a flow judge. That means the arguments you make in the round I'll evaluate, and I compare them to your opponents arguments and both of your interactions and clash with them/each other.
I don't have an issue with speed for the most part, but if your opponents ask you to slow down or to be clearer, please adjust accordingly.
I generally think you're in a better boat when your warrants for your claims are clearly explicated, which is easier when you somehow differentiate them from one another (speed makes that harder, so adjust accordingly).
Lastly, be respectful to your opponents and remember that you're here to have a good time. These things should be hand in hand.
I don't have any arguments that are just no-go's/non-starters for me. Any argument you make should just be well justified and persuasive.
On K's: I think a good kritik needs a robust framework for how I should evaluate the argument(s) in the round. Equally important is an explication of the solvency for the alternative, which can often times be under-developed or under-explained.
On T/Theory: I don't need proven abuse to pull the trigger on these arguments. Good T debates I think treat the debate on the components similarly to a DA, so take from that as you will. Also I tend to believe if you're going for T/Theory that should result in the other team losing the debate and not just an argument, you should go all in on that argument.
On non-topical aff's: I did this quite a bit during my time in NPDA, so I don't have anything against it. That being said, I think the Aff should have a clear and persuasive reason why they're not topical.
Include me on the email chain: email@example.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.
(Updated April 2023)
Email chain --- firstname.lastname@example.org
Please be nice.
Don’t pref me if you don’t read a plan and care about winning.
If I judge a fairness bad arguement I will immediately vote for the opponents in the spirit of unfairness.
If I can't flow you I will stop paying attention.
I try to make my speaks normally distributed(u = 28.4, sd = 0.5).
Prep ends when email is sent.
Topicality is primarily a question of truth.
Debate is better when debaters are business professional (applies to online debate).
Everything is probablistic unless dropped (existential inherency is true).
Policy debater at SLC West (2017-2021)
Vassar College '25
Coach for Northwood
Add me to the chain - email@example.com
General stuff -
- I'm open to any argument/argumentative style, and don't have any strong predispositions that will influence how I evaluate debates.
- Please call me Madeline, not judge.
- Tech > truth.
- If my camera is off, I'm not ready for your speech to begin. Also please keep your cameras on throughout the debate if you can.
- I was a 2N for all 4 years of highschool and ran policy arguments about 95% of the time. I read a variety of hard right and soft left affs, but can't say I love big framing contentions.
- Also not a fan of super long overviews for K's or framework.
- Organized line by line and clarity will be rewarded with high speaks.
- Fav kind of debate are fun impact turns.
- No death good.
- Most importantly, treat your partner and opponents with respect and have fun! :)
- Probs not the best on the water topic unfortunately, but any interp is winnable if debated well.
- I tend to lean towards competing interps but can be persuaded otherwise.
- Creative, aff-specific CP/DA strategies are my fav.
- Adv CP and impact turn is so fun.
- Include full perm texts in 2AC for any funky perms.
- Condo is generally good, but condo 2AR's are probs under-utilized. Don't spread crazy fast through your blocks and do LBL on CP theory.
- I am most familiar with cap, settler colonialism, security, and anti-blackness. I'm much less familiar with most other K literature; that doesn't mean that i won't vote on it, just be clear in explaining terms.
- Specific link analysis on both sides is key; links should not be explanations of structural conditions of the world, but unique warrants about why the aff directly makes an ongoing problem worse.
Paradigm for beehive bonanza 2023
B.A. in Anthropology from University of Utah
M.M. In Music technology from Southern Utah
What I find debate is a very intellectual, knowledgeable sport. what I find unique about high school debate is that if I can understand what you’re saying then I’m more likely to vote for your team if I find something interesting or unique then I’m going to have to take more time to evaluate it; dress for success.
Anyone can debate and push an argument my dilemma is as a judge is considering where you stand as a professional. I think that having the desire to uphold professionalism is important and doing that with confidence to your practice is what orients you toward a passionate career.
I invite you to keep your dialogue relevant.
Email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Debated 3 years of Policy at Kudos, 4 years at Northwood. Have done all speaker roles at some point, mainly was a 2N/1A.
I've gone for both policy and kritikal arguments.
K affs should be at least related to the topic.
You should be timing yourself. I will stop flowing if your time goes too over.
Have ev comparison - this is usually the fastest way to win debates.
Explain why your cards being true means their theory is wrong.
A DA by itself can win a debate, as long as there's sufficient turns/solves case analysis.
Treat it like a disad - compare standards and weigh them against one another.
I'm not against voting for theory, as long as it's debated well. I personally kicked the aff to go for theory a bit more times than I should have.
K's I've gone for: Lacan, Cap, Security, Berlant, Puar (in that order of familiarity)
When going for the K, the most important thing is to have specific analysis regarding the aff. In a k debate, the team that talks about the AFF more wins.
Tie your story together, instead of just "aff is like [x concept] and [y concept] is bad".
PLEASE EXTEND YOUR IMPACTS.
I've seen too many debates that are much closer than they should be because of a lack of extended impacts. The best link story without impacting it out is ultimately still not a reason to vote for your side.
I appreciate strategic argumentation instead of reading blocks - if they drop a turn, go for it instead of some other piece of defense.
Solorio Academy HS '19
-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: email@example.com
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.
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.
I don't have a pair of dime, but i got four nickels
T is not a voter
Fairness is not an impact
although i believe in my heart of hearts that disclosure is good, I don't care about your disclosure theory...
I vote against my personal beliefs all the time but I'll be honest and say that if i don't like something i'm looking for every opportunity to vote it down
As someone who grew up in a filipino,Chicano, and cherokee household I Healey dispise the way you settlers debate about decolonization.
I love debate, but i hate they way most debaters argue... NGL ... be cool not fake.
Make Art Not War
A quick guide to getting good speaker points:
-get to the point, and be clear about it
-"extinction" or "nuclear war" is not a tag
-a well explained, logical, argument trumps an unexplained argument merely extended by it's "card name"
-Ks need alts- i have a low threshold for voting aff when the neg is kicking their alt and going for a framework argument
-cross x is a speech-i figure it in as a substantial factor in speaker points
Here is an explanation of how I evaluate debates at a meta-level:
While I think there is value in the offense/defense framework for evaluation, for me to vote on offense there has to be substantive risk. Second, quality trumps quantity.
Also, "extinction" is not a tag line. I don't even like tag lines like "causes nuclear war." I need complete sentences, with claims and warrants.
Where does the evidence come from? there are not enough debaters talking about the quality of research their opponents are quoting.
Get to the point. On any given controversy in debate, there are relatively few arguments at play. Get to the core issues quickly. Point out the central logical/argumentative problems with a given position. I am much more compelled by a speaker’s ability to take the 2-3 core problems with their opponent’s position and use those fallacies to answer all of the other team’s advances. It shows you have a grip on the central issue and you understand how that issue is inescapable regardless of your opponent’s answer
Calling for cards: I will do this, but I don’t like to read every card in the debate. If you opponent is making well explained arguments you should be very wary of just saying “extend our smith evidence”.
Arbitrary interpretations are one of the worst trends in debate right now. If your interpretation of debate theory is wholly arbitrary and made up it doesn’t seem very useful for me to uphold it as some new norm and reject the other team.
Conditionality is good, it would take a very decisive aff victory with a very tangible impact (in policy debate).
While I'm fine with conditionality, I am persuaded by other theoretical objections (multi actor fiat, uniform fiat without a solvency advocate, etc). I also think that a theory argument that combines objections (conditional multi actor CPs) could be a reason to reject the team.
My personal belief is that the negative can only fiat the agent of the resolution, and that competition based off the ‘certainty’ of the plan (consult/conditions) is not productive. This does NOT mean I have an incredibly low threshold in voting aff on agent/actor cps bad, but it does make my threshold lower than most. To win these theory debates on the aff, see above point about cutting to the core 2-3 issues.
On topicality-you need tangible impacts. You’re asking me to drop a team because they made debate too unfair for you. “limits good” is not an impact. “They unlimit the topic by justifying x types of affs that we cannot hope to prepare for” is an impact. There must be a very coherent connection between neg interpretation, violations, and standards in the 2nr.
Counterplans: I spoke above about my theoretical beliefs on counterplans. I think counterplans should be textually and functionally competitive. I am sometimes persuaded that purely functional competition (normal means/process counterplans) should probably not be evaluated. If you’re aff and theory-savvy, don’t be afraid to go for theoretical reasons the process cp goes away.
Floating Pics/Word PICs- I’m great for the aff on these. I believe that every position has theoretical reasons behind it related to education and competitive equity. The aff counterinterpretation of “you can run your K/word K as a K without the CP part” generally solves every pedagogical benefit of those positions-this means the aff just needs to win that competitively these positions are bad for the aff, and it outweighs any ‘educational benefit’ to word/floating pics. I'm persuaded by those arguments, making it an uphill battle for the neg if the aff can explain tangible impacts to the competitive disadvantage the PIC puts them in.
The story must matchup. I will vote on such non-offensive arguments like: your uq and link evidence don’t assume the same group of politicians, you have no internal link, passage of that bill is inevitable, Trump has no PC etc. Of course I don’t vote on these in isolation-once again, refer back to my meta-approach to debate-you need to explain why that core defensive argument trumps everything else the neg is saying.
I’m generally not compelled by framework as a voter against a Neg K-I think all Ks have a gateway/framing issue that is much easier and more logical for the aff to attack. For example, if the neg reads an epistemology K you are much more likely to win reading a card that says “consequences outweigh epistemology” or “epistemology focus bad” than you are to win that the other team is cheating because of their K. Focus on answering the gateway issue so that you can leverage your aff against the K and get the decision calculus of the debate back in your favor. Subsequently for the neg the issue of ‘framing’ is also very important.
That being said, I don't like Ks that are just framework arguments. Ks should have alternatives that actually resolve link arguments. I'm not going to weigh a K impact against the aff if the K can't resolve it.
In the 2ac, don’t make a bunch of perms you have no hope of winning unless they are conceded. Perm do the alt is not a perm. Make 1 or 2 permutations and EXPLAIN IN THE 2AC how the permutation overcomes neg links/risks of the impact.
Ks are a great example of the “there are only 2-3 arguments” theory I subscribe to. If you’re debating a 1 off team, it’s much better for me if you don’t read 40 cards in the 2ac with as many different caveats as possible. Instead, read a good number of argument but take the time to explain them. What part of the K do they refute? How do these arguments change the calculus of the round? When you do this I put much more pressure on the neg block to get in depth with their explanations, which I find usually helps the aff.
T > Framework. Given that most impact turns to T come from pedagogical reasons, you need to prove that your interpretation provides space for the ‘good education’ the aff thinks is key to stop genocide/war/racism/turkeys. Topical version of your aff is compelling, as well as giving other examples of topical action that prove the aff could have accepted the parameters of the resolution and gained the same educational benefits. Then it’s just a matter of proving that competitively the K aff hurts the neg. Also, prove how your competitive equity impacts implicate their education impacts.
These are great. Impact defense is kinda meh unless it's real specific. Solvency and internal link answers are where it's at. Make alt causes great again!
It’s all about probability-magnitude is ok but only when you’re discussing it in terms of “our impact causes yours”. Extinction outweighs is trite because by the end of the debate all impacts are extinction or nuclear wars that easily result in another impact in the debate that has been claimed as extinction (nuke war hurts the environment, aff said that causes extinction). Probability is key. Establishing risk is where it’s at. A higher risk trumps a higher magnitude in most instances.
Cross Examination: it’s a speech, I grade it like a speech. Be funny if you can. Base the cross x on core issues in the debate, and base it on quality of evidence and establishing risk/threshold for various arguments.
Put me on the email chain please! firstname.lastname@example.org
A little about myself: I debated until my graduation in 2018 at College Prep (qualified to the TOC in policy). I'm currently a senior at the University of Chicago, studying data science economics and public policy. I've continued to be involved in high school debate, first coaching with College Prep, then with the wonderful people at Lane Tech. I am not familiar with this topic - explain acronyms and core topic controversies.
When I debated, I went for primarily: Politics DAs, Topic DAs, cheaty CPs, T, Impact Turns with Advantage CPs (bonus points if you execute this cleanly in front of me), and security/neolib/setcol/antiblackness. My tendencies did tend to be slightly more policy-leaning.
First, I was a flex debater in high school, and am a strong believer in debater flexibility and adaptation. My favorite teams to judge are ones that feel comfortable doing a host of things, like executing the K, going for framework, reading a variety of affs situationally, going for a core-of-the-topic CP and DA, committing to a T argument, or whatever else the round demands. When I debated, I made sure to always stick to this paradigm, and enjoy judging teams that do the same; reading a breadth of arguments in high school has helped me feel comfortable judging various styles of debate. Do whatever you do best and I'll listen.
Second, if you are a team that writes case negs to specific affirmatives at the tournament, and has nuanced aff-specific off-case and case arguments ... <3
My coach, John Hines, taught me two fundamental beliefs about what great debate looks like; these are the two things you should take away from this paradigm:
1) Line-by-line debating is not optional. I will be :( if you don't do/attempt line-by-line debating. Please try your best!
2) I like when debaters write my ballot for me, present nexus questions/framing issues, and do detailed impact calculus. Impact calculus doesn't just mean Mag/TF/Prob, but rather, instruct me how to understand the interaction between arguments. Tell me, why is this argument important? Use "even if" statements, weigh the quality of evidence/qualifications, and have an understanding of how different parts of the debate mesh with each other.
I vote on dropped arguments I don't believe in, speed is fine, use cross-x in your speeches, yes your opponent's cards are "terrible" but why are they terrible, evidence quality matters but I'm not going to read cards and interpret them myself.
I want to be judging: I will put in the same energy in listening and engaging with you as you did preparing for the tournament. However, I do not take kindly to rude debaters. There's been a trend in debate towards teams thinking that it's edgy to be rude/dismissive, curse excessively during the round, laugh at your opponents, or be generally hostile. "Respect is non-negotiable for me." (Ed Lee)
Case: I know this isn't usually a part of judge philosophies, but I wanted to include it because it's by far the most underutilized part of negative strategy. I am a sucker for teams that have specific prepped-out strategies to affirmatives, and use the case page strategically. If you're a K team, use the case page to leverage your kritik offense. Please please please impact turn.
DA: Great. The politics DA is a very strategic tool, and I love topic DAs. I have yet to see a very compelling topic DA debate on the CJR topic, and will reward teams that go for this strategy. Don't turn the 1NR into the 5 mins of cards, and instead explain your good evidence with nuance. As for the "link exists of a spectrum" thing, I think that you need to qualify your chance of a link and incorporate it into the risk assessment component of impact calculus. Solid defense against a terrible DA can be enough to create zero risk of a DA, but the same goes the other way. I will evaluate the disad holistically. For 2N's, think about how you're allocating 2NR time if you're deciding to go for a CP and a DA as a net benefit, make sure you're making (preferably) carded turns case/solves card arguments, and do good impact calculus.
CP: Amazing. Be tricky, solve the case. I lean heavily negative on CP theory. 2NC CP's are underrated. I think a CP should probably have a solvency advocate, but it need not be specific to the aff. Well-written advantage CP's and process CP's will exploit weaknesses in generic affirmative link/internal link chains and FIAT out of aff solvency deficits. You need to articulate sufficiency framing and offense/defense arguments in your speeches even though they're pretty intuitive concepts. For the aff, make smart theory arguments, have good, specific, solvency deficits and weigh them well against the risk of the net benefit.
T: T debates are great if done right. I hate it when T debates turn into scattered concepts thrown around without clear explanation. Answer questions that you think are intuitive: What's the line you draw about how big of a topic should be allowed (caselists are a solid way to answer this question)? Why are limits good? What's the relationship between neg clash and aff predictability? Why is your I or C/I undoubtedly reasonable, and what does reasonable even mean? One thing I love is when reasonability is articulated as an 'aff predictability' argument. Ask me what this means if you're confused by it. Evidence evidence evidence. The block and the 1AR should be full of quality definitional evidence, and I will be much more likely to persuaded by solid topicality evidence than weak topicality reasoning. Lastly, please don't read your blocks like the text of a card!!
Theory: These debates are definitely winnable, but they're often late-breaking and shallow. I agree with Ian Beier that teams are really bad at answering theory, so even if I believe that the neg should be able to do what they want, affs should consider theory if there's some level of neg abuse.
K: I'm familiar with the theories and basics of most core K's read on the debate circuit, like security, neoliberalism/capitalism, settler colonialism, afropessimism, and feminism. I need explanations that extend pass buzzwords, and I want you to contextualize the debate in terms of a specific link, a fleshed-out alternative, and a reason why it resolve the aff impacts; a good specific link debate will make your argument much more persuasive. If I have to pull out a new sheet of paper called "K overview" after the neg block, the 2N needs to do some serious re-evaluation of the way they're doing line-by-line debating on the K. I think that framework is extremely important in these debates, and I will always decide it first: I don't understand how I'm supposed to evaluate hypothetical extinction against a bad methodology. I have found myself in the back of the room for a lot of K debates this year, and I work with a lot of critical literature over the course of my research for Lane Tech, but my forte is more policy-oriented arguments.
K Affs/FW: While I lean negative on framework, I have seen a lot of solid no-plan affs on this topic, and understand the value of K affs in debate. In my voting record this year, I've actually voted against framework more times than I've voted for it, mostly because teams don't have good enough answers to impact turns. If you're reading a K aff you should: have a tangible link to the resolution, a good answer against TVA's, articulation of impact turns, defense of your method, and "a reason why you've chosen the debate space as the site for your epistemological project" (Maya Mundada). Work to really delve into your best two or three pieces of central offense -- I find that impact turns are more persuasive than a weak counter-interpretation and link turns. I'm equally convinced by both fairness and skills framework impacts. I aim to judge these debates as technically as possible - if you have a storytelling element to your 1AC, how can you contextualize it in terms of the sequencing questions of the affirmative? And finally, don't forget your aff solvency/method! For the negative, use smart defensive tactics like switch-side debating and TVA's, explain the flaws in the counter-interpretation (unlimited topic, links to aff offense, creates bad debates), and making smart arguments about limits, predictability, mechanism education, or clash. I would like to see more teams go for impact turns against K affs, or change up the way they're approaching clash.
1. I used to flow on paper, but I am flowing on computer for virtual debates so I can maximize the amount of content I am able to process.
2. I think folks underestimate how mic quality and connection issues impact an activity where people are speaking extremely fast. Please try and go slower during your speeches, especially on tags and analytics. There's a trend in policy debate towards incomprehensibility, but everyone just pretends they understand every word in speeches. I will miss things if you're going too fast, and I would be very content if we lived in a world where both teams would simply jointly agree to go slower as a collective. I understand this is somewhat unreasonable to expect in a competitive debate round lol.
3. Please turn on your cameras. I will always have my camera on during debates even when I'm not at my computer. (Message me for accommodations)
4. I give higher speaker points than most. If it's a good debate, my point range will be from [28.5, 29.5]. I want to reward you for the hard work you put in to succeed and be well-prepared. As such, I will put in a lot of effort to be a fair critic, since debaters deserve well-engaged judges for their most important debates.
Any other questions you have I'd be more than happy to answer before the round, or email/FB message me! Good luck y’all!
Updated 2023 Pre-Northwestern College Season Opener
Assistant Policy Debate Coach at UT-Dallas and Greenhill
Debated at C.E. Byrd HS in Shreveport, Louisiana (class of ’14). Debated in college policy for Baylor University (2014-2016) and the University of Iowa (2017-2019)
Have coached: Caddo Magnet HS, Hendrickson HS, Little Rock Central HS, Glenbrook South HS, University of Iowa, James Madison University
Email chain should be set up/sent before start time. Sam.email@example.com
Please be respectful of one another. We are all sacrificing our weekends to be here and learn, you can be passionate about your arguments without being mean, rude, condescending, hostile, etc. I’d almost always prefer you convince me that your opponent’s arguments are bad, not that they’re bad people. Chances are, none of us know each other well enough to make that determination.
Please prioritize clarity over speed.Everything else you can take with a grain of salt and ultimately do what you are best at, but me being able to understand you comes before anything else.
Debate is hard. People make it harder by making it more complicated than it needs to be. I like debaters who take complex ideas and bring them down to the level of simplicity and common sense.
Judge instruction, impact framing, comparison of evidence, authors, warrants, etc. or “the art of spin” is the most important thing for telling me how I should decide a debate. Making strategic decisions is important.
One of the things that makes debate truly unique is the research that is required, and so I think it makes sense to reward teams who are clearly going above and beyond in the research they’re producing. Good cards won’t auto win you the debate, but they certainly help “break ties” on the flow and give off the perception that a team is deep in the literature on their argument. But good evidence is always secondary to what a debater does with it.
I care about cross-x A LOT. USE ALL OF YOUR CX TIME PLZ
Organization is also really important to me. Debaters that do effective line by line, clearly label arguments and use things like subpoints are more likely to win in front of me and get better speaks.
High School Specific Thoughts
I work full time in college debate and as a result am less familiar with the ins-and-outs of the high school topic. Take that into consideration.
If you’re interested in doing policy debate in college, feel free to talk to me about debating at UT-Dallas! I am a full-time assistant coach there. We have scholarships, multiple coaches, and a really fun team culture.
CLARITY OVER SPEED APPLIES DOUBLE TO HIGH SCHOOL
Set up the email chain as soon as you get to the room and do disclosure. If you’re aff, ask for the neg team’s emails and copy and paste mine from the top of my paradigm. Let’s get started on time!
Please keep track of your own prep, cx, and speech time.
Don’t flow off the speech doc, it’s the easiest way to miss something and it’s super obvious. Don’t waste cross-x time asking what the did and didn’t read! Flowing is so important.
I don’t care what “style” of aff you read, I just care that it is consistently explained and executed throughout the debate.
I like most judges enjoy 2ACs that make strategic choices, smart groupings and cross applications, and effectively and efficiently use the 1AC to beat neg positions in addition to reading new cards.
2ACs and ESPECIALLY 1ARs are getting away with murder in terms of not actually extending the aff.
Pretty aff leaning on a lot of CP theory questions (Process especially, 50 states, agent CPs. With the exception of PICs), but usually think they’re a reason to reject the argument. You can win it’s a reason to reject the team, but my bar for winning the 2ac was irrevocably skewed by the existence of a single 1NC position is pretty high. I don’t really lean one way or the other on condo (ideologically at least, I have no clue what my judge record is in condo debates).
Neg Thoughts - General
I like negative strategies that are well-researched specific responses to the aff. I think case debating is super important and underutilized. Nothing is more persuasive than a negative team who seems to know more about the 1AC than the Aff team does.
The 1NR should be the best speech in the debate, you have so much prep.
The 2NR should make strategic decisions, collapse down, and anticipate 2ar framing and pivots. The block is about proliferating options, the 2NR is about making decisions and closing doors.
Like I said above, prefer aff-specific CPs to generics. Counterplans that only compete on immediacy and certainty and net benefits that don’t say the aff is bad are not my favorite. I definitely prefer Process CP + Politics to Process CP + internal net benefit, because the politics DA disproves the desirability of the plan.
Because of the above thoughts, I am more aff leaning on CP theory in a lot of instances, with the exception of PICs. I think PICs that disprove/reject part of the aff are probably good.
People say sufficiency framing without doing the work to explain why the risk of the net benefit actually outweighs the risk of the solvency deficit. You have to do some type of risk calculus to set up what is sufficient and how I should evaluate it.
I have no feelings one way or another about judge kick. Win that it’s good or win that it’s bad.
Counterplans vs K affs are underutilized.
Comparison is important and not just at the impact level. Telling me what warrants to prioritize on the uniqueness and link debate, rehighlighting evidence, doing organized labeling and line by line, etc. Don’t just extend the different parts of the DA, do comparative work and framing on each part to tell me to tell me why you’re winning it and what matters most in terms of what I evaluate.
Like I said in the neg general section, I usually prefer an aff/topic specific DA to politics, but those concerns can be easily alleviated with good link debating on the politics DA. Your link being specific to the aff/resolution is usually important especially for link uniqueness reasons. I typically like elections more than agenda politics just as a research preference.
Get in the weeds early in these debates and read a lot of cards. Don’t be afraid to read cards late in the debate either. Teams that get out-carded in these debates early have a tough time getting back in the game.
Recency, specificity, and evidence quality really matter for most every argument, but these debates especially. It’s pretty obvious when one team has updates and the other is reading a backfile
These debates get unorganized in a hurry. Labeling, line by line, using subpoints/numbers, and making clear cross applications are super important
I really like T debates vs policy affs. I think creative arguments like extra T and effects T are underutilized or at least often underexplained and that there are affs getting away with fiating a lot of extra-resolutional/non-resolutional things.
Typically default to competing interps, and I’ll be totally transparent here: reasonability is kind of an uphill battle for me. When people go for reasonability with an interp, I almost always understand reasonability as a standard for why the aff’s interp is good. If you’re arguing your interpretation is better because it’s more reasonable, how is that not also an appeal to competing interpretations? And in the other scenario, if you’re going for reasonability with a we meet argument, I feel like a lot of the time it just begs the question of the violation and it’s easy for the neg to frame it as a yes/no question, not something that you can kind of/reasonably meet. Ultimately superior debating supersedes everything. If you win reasonability, you win reasonability. But you are probably better off just winning the we meet or going for a counter-interp
Impact comparison on standards is super important. I don’t have any strong preferences in terms of how I evaluate limits vs precision, aff ground vs neg ground, etc. Those are things you have to win and do the work of framing for me.
For the neg: Case lists, examples of ground lost under the aff’s interp, examples of why the debates under your model over the course of the year, topical versions of the aff, etc. will all help me understand in practice why your interp is better for the year of debate on the topic rather than just in theory.
For the aff: A well-explained we meet and/or counter interpretation, a case list of things you allow and things you don’t, and explanation of what ground the neg gets access to under your interp beyond quickly listing arguments and saying functional limits check, explain the warrant for why your interp preserves that ground and why those debates are good to have. N
Not super persuaded by “we meet – plan text in a vacuum” without much additional explanation. If the aff reads a plan text but then reframes/clarifies what that means in cross-x, in 1ac solvency evidence, or in the 2ac responding to neg positions, I think it’s easy for the neg to win those things outweigh plan text in a vacuum.
I judge a lot of these debates, and I’m fine with that. I think debating about debate is useful.
Fairness can be and impact or an internal link, just depends on how it’s debated. For it to be an external impact, it needs to not be circular/self-referential, which I think it often is in terms of how teams execute it. “Debate is a game, so it needs to be fair, because games need to be fair, and without fairness we can’t debate” is a circular argument that lacks an impact. To me, the argument becomes more offensive the more teams emphasize the time commitment we all put into debate and why maintaining fairness is important for honoring that time commitment, or explaining why it’s important for participation.
If either side is claiming participation as an impact, you have gotta explain how voting for you/your model would solve it. I think that’s hard to do but I’ve seen it done effectively both with fairness and with K affs doing for access/participation outweighs. The impact is obviously very big, but the internal link is often sketchy and not flushed out, in addition to largely being untrue because things like budget cuts have a lot more to do with who can participate than any particular team reading any particular argument.
I prefer clash as an impact more because I feel like it gets to a bigger impact that is more at the heart of why debate is good and that it often causes the neg to interact with the aff more. Your warrants for why clash turns the aff should be aff specific – same with TVAs. Nothing hurts me worse than ultra-generic framework debating where the argument could apply to literally any K aff. The best way to win your model can account for the aff’s impacts is to use the language of the aff in your explanation of things like clash, Switch-Side, and the TVA.
Affs that have something to do with the topic and can link turn things like topic education and clash are more persuasive to me than affs that try to impact turn every single part of framework. You probably will need to win some defense, because so much of the neg side of framework is defense to the stuff you want to go for.
Having a counter-interpretation really helps me understand how to evaluate offense and defense in these debates. This does not necessarily require the 2AC to redefine words in the resolution, but rather to tell me what the aff’s vision of debate is, what the role is for the aff and neg, and why those debates are good. Even if you are going to impact turn everything, having a counter-interpretation or a model of debate helps me understand what the role of the aff, neg, and the overall role of debate are.
The more aff-specific the better. Links do not necessarily have to be to the plan (it would be nice if they were), but they should implicate the 1ac in specific ways whether it’s their rhetoric, impact scenarios, etc. 2NCs that quote and rehighlight aff evidence, read new cards, proliferate links, and give the 2nr options are good. If you are criticizing/kritiking the aff, you should quote as much of their evidence, indict as many of their authors, and apply your criticism to the aff as much as possible. The most common advice I give 2Ns going for the K is to quote the aff more
Making decisions in the 2NR is still important even when reading the K one-off. You cannot go for every link, framing argument, perm answer, etc. in the 2NR.
The best K 2NRs I’ve ever seen effectively use case to mitigate parts of the aff’s offense. If you give them 100% risk of the aff vs the K, it’s harder to win!
Kicking the alt/going just for links or case turns is not the move in front of me. There are almost always uniqueness problems and I end up usually just voting aff on a risk of case. Whether it’s an alternative or a framework argument, you gotta explain to me how voting neg solves your offense.
I have noticed that in a lot of K debates I find that both the aff and the neg over-invest in framework. I honestly don’t see a scenario where I don’t let the aff weigh the 1AC if they win that fiat is good. I also don’t see a scenario where I vote aff because Kritiks on the neg are unfair. If the neg is making links to the aff, the aff obviously gets to weigh their offense against those link arguments. I really think both sides in most cases would be better served spending time on the link/impact/alt rather than overinvesting time on the framework debate.
I don’t really understand a lot of the form/content distinction stuff people go for because I think that the way arguments about “form” are deployed in debate are usually not actually about the form of anything and almost exclusively refer to disagreements in content
Ethics challenges/Clipping/Out of Round Stuff:
In the case that anyone calls an ethics violation for any reason I reserve the right to defer/go to tab, and then beyond that I can only vote based on my interpretation of events. This used to really only apply to clipping, but I’ve been a part of a bunch of different types of ethics challenges over the years so I’ve decided to update this.
Clipping: Hot take, it’s obviously bad. If I have proof you clipped the round will end and you’ll lose. I don’t follow along in speech docs unless someone starts being unclear, so if your opponent is clipping it’s up to you to notice and get proof. I need a recording if I don’t catch it live, even if we are on a panel and another judge catches it. Without a recording or proof, I’m not pulling the trigger.
Be careful about recording people without their consent, especially minors. Multiple states require two-party consent to record, don’t get yourself in legal trouble over a debate round.
I don’t vote on out of round stuff, especially stuff I wasn’t there for. For clarification, I suppose there could be exceptions to this and my opinions on it have gone back and forth. If you feel that someone in the round has jeopardized your safety, made you uncomfortable, or anything remotely similar, I will do everything in to advocate for you if I witness any of the following. If I am not a witness, I will make sure that the proper channels are used to address the complaint.
This is obviously distinct from criticizing something that someone has said or calling people out for being problematic. I’m saying if something so bad has happened that we have to stop the round, I have to go to the tournament and my bosses and look at my options. For your safety and mine I am required to think about how I’m protected, and my role and qualifications as a coach and educator as it relates to resolving officially lodged complaints of discrimination or harassment.
Tech over truth but asserting that an argument is dropped/conceded is not the same thing as extending a full argument
My debate background is in policy, so I have much more familiarity with policy/LARP and Kritikal debates than I do with phil.
That is not to say you cannot win on philosophy in front of me, but you should try to frame it in language that I will understand. So telling me why your impact outweighs and turns their offense, winning defense to their stuff, doing judge instruction and weighing to tell me what matters and what doesn't.
Clarity is more important than speed. Slow down a bit on counterplan texts, interps, etc. Spreading as fast as you can through theory shells or a million a priori's means there's probably a good chance that I am not going to get everything
A lot of arguments in LD stop at the level of a claim - you can be efficient but you can't just blippily extend claims without warrants and expect to win
Not a huge fan of frivolous theory. I think most theory debates end up being a reason to reject the argument not the team with the exception of condo. But like I said, tech over truth so you can win theory in front of me, it just needs to be well impacted for why it is a reason to drop the debater and why rejecting the argument/practice doesn't solve
I've debated 4 years of policy in high school, messed around in parli for a few tournaments my senior year, and have very limited experience with OA and duo
Debated policy freshman and soph year, was flex my junior year and straight-up senior year (I spent a majority of senior year coaching Northwood teams through tournaments rather than competing).
I now do APDA at Hopkins
Jack Howe 2021: This is my first tournament since Cal of 2021. As such, you may nee to go a little slower so my ears have time to adjust because I haven't listened to spreading in 7 months. Please explain everything because I have 0 topic knolwedge!
Jack Howe 2020: I have 0 topic knowledge so please explain acronyms and CJR-specific terms
UNLV 2020: This is only my 2nd tournament on the topic, and I haven't listened to spreading since Jack Howe. You may have to go at 75%-90% speed towards the beginning of the first round just to get my ear acclimated again
I'm fine with anything being read in round just please don't say anything racist, sexist, transphobic, homophobic, antiblack, xenophobic etc. Your speaks will reflect it and you will lose the round.
Put me on the email chain please! My name is: firstname.lastname@example.org
tech > truth
Also in general, I believe that disclosure is a good practice.
Even though I was the 1N, I never seemed to take T in the 1NR. Please impact out beyond limits and grounds.
I've read some K lit but PLEASE do not ASSUME that I've read YOUR lit. Make sure you explain all the terms you're talking about. Don't assume that because I've read it I know what you're talking about. Please CONTEXTUALIZE the K to each aff especially in overviews. Please don't just read Harvard BS's overviews at me.
99% of the time you only need to win the alt or framework, not both.
Please contextualize the CP to the aff and explain how you solve it. It doesn't help for me to hear the same CP blocks that you used in previous rounds during this round. If the CP is really sketch then I am more likely to err aff on theory (ie 50 state fiat).
Despite going mostly K as a junior, I loved going for politics in the 1NR (especially elections disads). Ev quality is important (esp for uniqueness) but spin can overcome poor ev quality (esp on bad ptx weekends).
I'm a 2A so use that however. Remember to use your aff when you're answering different positions. You didn't use up 8 min of the 1AC for nothing! Also having an o/v probs helps to explain your aff. I don't really care if you read a non-traditional v a traditional aff, just make sure you're talking about the topic. That being said, if you're trying to read a policy aff that's tangentially related to the topic, I'm heavily persuaded by T.
I'm super down for performance debate, but if you do this, please remember your performance in round! I get sad when I watch performance teams under-utilize the performance that they read. Remember the strategic purpose of reading it in the first place
I've been on both sides of this debate. Even though I ran a non-traditional aff, please read this if you're most comfortable with it! I think FW is a great tool to check back against non-traditional affs. I generally think that fairness is an internal link, but if you impact it out right, I'll vote on fairness. Also, I think that FW tricks have become a pretty big norm so use em! That being said, if the aff has some cool FW tricks, I'd love to see em too! You don't NEED a counter-interpretation, but having one would be nice (unless you're just straight up impact-turning FW which I'm also down for).
0-26.9: Forfeit/Hateful language
27-27.9: Lots to improve in the debate
28-28.5: Probably go 2-4 or 3-3
28.6-28.9: Good debating, expecting you to go 3-3 or 4-2
29-29.5: Excellent debate, expect you in early elims
29.5+: You should win the tournament
I've never done LD so I'm not a fan of friv theory and if there's something specific to LD that's not in policy you'll need to explain it to me
PREF SHORTLIST: Ks > Policy >>>>>> everything else and if ur a trad debater pls strike me thank u in advance
Disclaimer: writing this completely from scratch as of 9/26/22 bc the other one was long & outdated & I didn’t feel like updating it.
anyways hi I’m James, if you don’t know me call me J. SFA ’21 & UT Austin ’25. I debated in cx/ld for 5(ish) years total & competed locally/nationally for all of those
- I start at a 28 & go up/down from there
- +0.2 speaks for pet reveals in the doc
- my verbal rfds are usually pretty long but please don't let me keep you, if you're hungry or if you have a team meeting or if you're competing in another event or if you literally just want to leave you're more than welcome to. everything actually important is written on the ballot anyway
In a nutshell:
- Yes chain: email@example.com
- Any pronouns
- Tech = truth
- speed is good
- theory is cool
- t-usfg is cringe & non-t affs are based (as long as they don't just lose to presumption)
- minus .2 speaks for each off in the 1nc that makes me use >6 sheets (LD) or >7 sheets (Policy)
- meme rounds are cool just make sure y’all are all in on it
- do not annoy me. Annoy me = nuked speaks. Things that annoy me:
o postrounding (please just email me after the round you can be as rude as you want just let me get food lol)
o being toxic to ur opponent
o not disclosing. New affs included. Brightline = if it requires a new tag then disclose that tag/cite. Idc about open-source but I will hack for any new theory in either cx or ld rebuttals regarding an arg that was presumably undisclosed for a strategic edge
o stealing prep. Yes I will notice
o reading things besides a k or policy, and this is the only categorical imperative I’m willing to entertain
- do not piss me off. Piss me off = L25 and I tell tab that you pissed me off. Things that piss me off:
o Being prejudiced/violent or reading args that attempt to justify it
o Evidence ethics violations
o Telling a group of people what to do when you don’t identify with said group of people (e.g. nonblack debaters who read afropess)
o Edelman. I don't have/want to elaborate further just don't lol
Questions? Comments? Smart-aleck remarks? Email me. K thanks glhf
2016-2018 Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League
2018- present CSU Fullerton
email chain- firstname.lastname@example.org
Frame the ballot by the 2AR/2NR and don't leave me shooting darts please.
Overviews really help me/you out unless they're longer than the debate proper-be concise.
Prep- Prep ends when doc is sent out or the equivalent of that. Let me know if there are any technical difficulties.
Spreading- speed is fine-go at it if thats ur thing. this shouldn't be exchanged for clarity/emphasis, and ultimately, persuasion. My face tends to be pretty expressive so use that to ur advantage.
Cross Ex- Humor is much appreciated so long as it doesn't offend ur opponent. Attack the argument not the debater.
I generally err on the side of tech over truth. However, too many buzzwords are kinda annoying and don't mean anything if you dont impact/flesh them out. I won't evaluate concessions for you unless you do it first.
Policy Affs- Spent most of hs reading these- read them at will. Internal link work and framing is crucial.
Performance/K Affs- Have a clear explanation of what the advocacy does and why it should precede a traditional endorsement of the resolution (vs framework). Presumption arguments are some of my favorite arguments. Being untopical for the sake of being untopical is sooooo not the move. Even if i think that ur aff is the most interesting/entertaining thing in the world, I can resolve that with speaker points. Offense. Offense. Offense.
Framework- Go for it. Slow down just a tad. Procedural fairness and education are impacts, I'm usually more persuaded by education but fairness is fine too.While I'm usually more persuaded by fairness as an internal link to something else, enough impact comparison can resolve that if ur not down with the former.
Theory/Procedurals- Go for it. I'm not one to love hearing theory debates but will vote on it if you do the work. These can get really petty. Usually not in a good way. Condo is probably good PICs probably aren't. Don't let that dissuade you from saying otherwise because I also love hearing pics and multiple advocacies. I'm a 2N if that is relevant for you.
DAs- Make sure to flesh out the internal links. Winning uniqueness wins direction of link debate. I prefer hearing isolated impact scenario(s) rather than a generic nuclear war/extinction claim although u can totally claim that as ur terminal one. The more specific the link the less spinning the aff can do, the less intervention I have to do, the higher ur chances of winning are. I find it hard to believe that there can ever be 100% risk probability but if the CP solves 100% of the aff you're in a much better spot.
CPs-Resolve questions like how does this solve the case and is this theoretically legitimate if it becomes about that. If you wanna be noncompetitive, you do you but be ready to justify that.
Ks- Tbh I would much rather judge a robust debate about the intricacies/consequences of a traditionally political action vs a less-than fleshed out k debate. Links to the status quo and not the aff are awkward. Generally speaking, im probably down for ur thing. Regardless of me being familiar with ur authors or not-do the work. Framing is super important. Does the alt solve the aff? let me know. You don't need to go for the alt to win
-a claim with no warrant is a pen with no ink
-know where u are losing but make it fashion
-dont be a jerk
pronouns - she/her
In high school I was a 2N and 2A with 2 different partners. I went to Meadows and graduated in 2021. Make me laugh so I'm not bored :)
Plan Affs - I read one in high school. Don't assume solvency is a given.
K Affs - I might know what's going on but assume I don't and explain the important stuff because I won't make those connections for you
T - ORGANIZE !! Yow won't win a T flow in front of me if you don't signpost and order your arguments. I'm not super familiar with the topic so precise, credited definitions will make my decision.
Ks - This is what I'm most comfortable with, explain your arguments and you'll be fine
CPs - I've never gone for a CP but as long as you have a net benefit and impact calc you should be solid
DAs - You're gonna have to do a lot of work to convince me your impact outweighs if your internal link chain is shitty
Overall: Have fun and don't take it too seriously
[any] I debated for four years at Eisenhower High School. I'm attending the University of North Texas as a sophomore, majoring in mathematics and minoring in linguistics. I tend to view debate rounds through a game-theory perspective and prioritize tech over truth (though every argument needs a justification and impact to matter). In high school, I ran policy affs and mostly went for policy strategies on the neg, though I feel comfortable with mostly every type of argumentation.
Add me to the e-mail chain: email@example.com
Please no overviews! If you must read them, make them very short. If I didn't understand your argument the first time, I'm not going to understand it from you speeding through a wall of text. Everything can and should be on line by line.
These graphs will be about my preferences, while the rest of the paradigm will be about more specific thoughts on strategy.
Team should adapt------------------------------X-Judge should adapt
(insert) Counterplans aren't fair---------------------------X----Counterplans are fun
Nothing competes-------------------------X------Summers 94
Conditionality good-------X------------------------Conditionality bad
Topicality is a procedural. It primarily comes down to impact calculus, in terms of limits, or some other neg standard, against game-playing-esque impacts of the affirmative. Other aff arguments (including we meet & reasonability) are just defense to the neg's impacts.
A true we meet arg means the aff wins the page; reasonability can be won and is best framed as a question of interpretations rather than a literal "reasonability" of the case. Grammar is an a-priori standard and an intricate explanation of the other team's interpretation not being grammatical or legally precise will earn high speaks.
Additional interps in the block can be very strategic.
A thorough case debate will result in higher speaks, as will a 2ac that's layered and efficient. A 1nc that spends a lot of time on case doesn't do much if all of their arguments are generic and answered well.
Collapsing the case debate in the block and reading the best literature for your arguments will usually put you far ahead of the aff, especially if you had a wide array of args on case in the 1nc. That being said, a 1ar (and often 2ar) collapse on case can also be very strategic.
Strategic concessions are underutilized on case, and can often take out entire disads.
Impact turns are fun, even large ones such as spark. "Oppression good" args are unacceptable. A block pivot to an impact turn will be rewarded.
Disads on case seem to be generally under-covered by the aff but have no less importance than a disad with a seperate sheet.
"UQ/link controls link/UQ" args don't make sense to me, but links tend to be the most important component. DA turns case args are very powerful (especially so if you have multiple), and they are even better if they are UQ or Link turns case rather than "war causes their impact." Timeframe is underutilized by the negative.
New 1AR arguments are unacceptable, e.g. a non-uq arg when there were none in the 2ac, and a 2n who calls them out as new will be rewarded. But an additional justification for an argument that was in the 2ac, e.g. a "DIB collapse inevitable--reliance on Congress" card is fine if you have any UQ argument in the 2ac; answering new block arguments is always fine.
An impressive 1nr on a DA will earn high speaks. Extending multiple warrants from each card for every component, having case-specific link walls, having specific cards against individual 2ac warrants, and being knowledgeable about the institutions and topic of the DA make it very difficult for the 1a.
Politics DA's (particularly horsetrading) are good, but "fiat solves the link--bottom of docket"-esque arguments can be persuasive.
"Cheating" counterplans are fine, but always susceptible to theory. Permutations can beat them too, but few people tend to make the correct perms against them. Perm shields link arguments aren't usually answered well, so don't be afraid for going for a perm and one or two other args if you're aff.
I default to "sufficiency framing," solvency deficits have to have impacts to matter. Judge kick might be an extension of condo, but it doesn't often win rounds. I can also be persuaded that it's bad (this argument has to be in the 1ar unless the block makes no mention of judge kick, of course).
Kicking planks and even combining counterplan sheets are fine, but there can always be a debate.
Internal net benefits are fine.
Kritiks are very powerful arguments. I am most familiar with Baudrillard, kritiks of capitalism and security, and psychoanalysis. However, any kritik is fine if you have a consistent thesis and explanation.
Links should turn case and have independent impacts. Alt should solve links, and alt solves case arguments can be very good. Even if the alt doesn't solve case, going for it as a "uniqueness counterplan" for an extinction level impact to a link is good enough to win even with little case offense if you win the perm debate and that the alt solves the link completely.
You don't need to go for the alt if you're winning FW and/or a link well enough. Permutations need to solve every link and must be theoretically legitimate and possible, i.e. negs should argue the alt cannot be accomplished because the aff engages in institutions that the alt makes obsolete.
Aff FW interps are usually not ambitious enough and should include more that factors the intangible internal link chains of the K out of the decision-making process, since the neg team is doing such against the aff. Basically one should say more than "let us weigh the aff", as an interp, but including that phrase isn't a bad idea. You can still lose if you win your FW interp, but it's far more unlikely. Incorporating the substance of the K into your FW interp can make it more powerful.
Link uniqueness is a good thing for the aff to push on, but the neg can solve it with claims about discourse or their alt solving the link. The aff should always contest the thesis of the K and the solvency of the alt, at least in the 2ac.
Dropping K tricks will lose the round against a clever 2n.
I don't have any qualms with these affs, but I also don't have any issues with T-USFG. Use the case to leverage offense against T; impact turns are the best arguments against it. Winning debate is a game, a TVA, or switch-side makes a negative ballot much easier.
Cap K against K affs is always viable. Good links in the block and theory comparison is crucial.
Case debate on K affs is not used enough by either team.
Can always be a reason to reject the team. However, "reject the arg not the team" will almost always suffice for anything that isn't condo. However, if you're losing a debate badly and the other team drops a theory interpretation, this could be your best path to victory, provided you have reasons they should lose the round.
If you don't want to go for theory, going for a 'remedy' can be useful and possible: e.g. "stick them with the counterplan", "don't evaluate planks that violate the interp", etc.
Condo offense typically doesn't increase with the number of condo they run. Qualitative reasons condo is bad are more persuasive, and even one condo can be abusive in the right circumstances. If you're going for condo, the 1ar should be spending significant time answering every neg standard, and the 2ar should be entirely condo.
You can go quickly in theory, but signposting is especially important.
Speed is not a problem, but you must be comprehensible. Clarity is more important, and efficiency can more than make up for pure speed. Have fun, and making me smile is never a bad idea. 28.5 will be my average points awarded. Being rude makes it worse for everyone. Let me know if I can accommodate you in any way.
Hi, I'm Ragya (Ragyajkaul@gmail.com). I debated in college policy for 4 years for UT Dallas, and also for 3 years in high school. Generally speaking, I'm really open to different arguments and love to hear new takes on arguments + the topic. I'm more familiar with different policy strategies, as I went for those a lot more in college, but feel free to read whatever you want. A quick rundown below:
DA's-- fine, I appreciate when the 1nc highlighting is actually coherent! More specific links obvi better.
CP's-- great, also can be persuaded by some 2ac theory args, esp when paired with solvency args or competition/perm args! I think absent a condo debate, I'll judge kick if need be.
T-- love these debates! Impact comparison is important!
K's-- amazing, I appreciate specific link explanation and cohesive explanations of your theory/thesis. Alternatives seem important, but I can also maybe be persuaded to vote for the k without. I feel like root cause/pre-req arguments aren't links.
K affs v fw-- these debates are interesting to me. I'm not super persuaded by fairness impacts (and still am TBD on the intrinsic good of "clash"). Questions about what debate should be or should look like are important!
Theory-- I'm open to a lot of theory args incl condo.
My paradigm is tabla rasa. I try to come in to every round with a blank slate and weigh the credibility of the debaters in the round by the basis of their arguments. I have competed and coached in all debate categories and am familiar with all styles and paradigms. I would rather see a good debate on-case than get caught up in a red herring of a round where the resolution is never even discussed, so if you're going to run a K or off-topic arguments, they need to be thorough and credible. Speed is no issue. I flow the round, but won't carry arguments across for you.
If spreading please consider sending written materials so I can follow along - if permitted. If spreading try to articulate so I can hear, understand and follow. I prefer competitors not interrupt opponents, including during cross-examination.
I have extensive college debate experience. I competed during my undergraduate years for California State University of Long Beach and Pepperdine University. My experience includes both team and Lincoln-Douglas formats. The Cross-Examination Debate Association (CEDA) was the primary format.
While competing in college, I often judged middle and high school speech and debate tournaments. My experience includes both value and policy formats. Upon graduation, I occasionally judged college tournaments over the years as a hired judge. The past 12-months, I have judged multiple tournaments hosted on virtual platforms. The formats include: PF, LD, CX, Parli, and Congress. I also competed in and have judged I.E.'s.
The following applies to all formats:
Speak clearly. I do not like excessive speed, but I can tolerate a moderately fast pace. Please bear in mind that excessive speed often can be muddled due to tech issues and connection speeds in virtual formats.
I like empirical evidence. You will not win the round by trying to win an emotional argument. Quality and well-sourced evidence often impact my decision.
I like a well thought out case that makes sense logically. I like to be able to connect the dots.
I prefer quality over quantity.
Clarify the key issues in rebuttal and explain why your side prevails.
I flow. However, if you wish to add me to the evidence chain my email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Do not be rude. It is acceptable to be assertive, but screaming, belittling opponents, eye rolling, head shaking and showing general contempt is not acceptable. You may win the round but rudeness will be reflected in speaker points.
Hi I’m Erika Linares, I currently debate for CSULB, I have around 2-3 years of experience of debating policy.
Yearish at LAMDL-2 Years at CSULB
my email: email@example.com
HOW TO MAKE IT EARIER FOR ME TO VOTE FOR YOU:
- Have a clear path on how you want me to vote on what argument and why you are winning it.
- Weigh it Out: Even if you dropped an arguemnt or arn't winning it tell me as to why your argument ouwweigh thos dropped arguments.
SPREADING: Please don't spread, while reading make sure to indicate when you are moving from arguemnt to the other, if you do start to go to fast I will say "Clear" and if its still not clear enough I won't flow it.
HOW I JUDGE:
I will start with tech to evaluate the debate and then if something is unclear I will use truth to figure it out.
If you have a ROB or FW as to how I should evaluate the debate then I will judge you base off that.
K- When running a K make sure that the link is viable and make sense, if I can't figure out how the K links to Aff by the end of the round I will disregard it.
DA- Again have a viable link for the DA.
CP- Make sure to explain how the CP solves for the impacts that it might bring up and the impacts to the aff.
T- I am not the best at T, but if you go for T make sure you have how they violeted and standard, and why there model of debate is bad.
Don't run tricks, I am not sure as to how I should evaluate them.
Been involved with the game in some way since 2008, do as you wish and I shall evaluate it in the way that I feel requires the least interference from myself.
Put me on the chain please: firstname.lastname@example.org, for the most part I do not look at the documents other than some cursory glances during prep time if a card intrigues me. I still may ask for specific cards at the end of the debate so I do not need to sort through each document, I appreciate it in advance.
I believe that debate is a communication activity with an emphasis on persuasion. If you are not clear or have not extended all components of an argument (claim/warrant/implication) it will not factor into my decision.
I flow on paper, it is how I was taught and I think it helps me retain more information and be more present in debates. Given that I would appreciate yall slowing down and giving me pen time on counterplan texts and theory arguments (as well as permutations).
The most important thing in debates for me is to establish a framework for how (and why) I should evaluate impacts. I am often left with two distinct impacts/scenarios at the end of the debate without any instruction on how to assess their validity vis-à-vis one another or which one to prioritize. The team that sets this up early in the debate and filtering the rebuttals through it often gets my ballot. I believe that this is not just true of “clash” debates but is (if not even more) an important component of debates where terminal impacts are the same but their scenarios are not (ie two different pathways to nuclear war/extinction).
While I think that debate is best when the affirmative is interacting with the resolution in some way I have no sentiment about how this interaction need to happen nor a dogmatic stance that 1AC’s have a relation to the resolution. I have voted for procedural fairness and have also voted for the impact turns. Despite finding myself voting more and more for procedural fairness I am much more persuaded by fairness as an internal link rather than terminal impact. Affirmative’s often beat around the bush and have trouble deciding if they want to go for the impact turn or the middle ground, I think picking a strategy and going for it will serve you best. A lot of 2NRs squander very good block arguments by not spending enough time (or any) at the terminal impact level, please don’t be those people. I also feel as if most negative teams spend much time reading definitions in the 1NC and do not utilize them later in the debate even absent aff counter definitions which seems like wasted 1NC time. While it does not impact how I evaluate the flow I do reward teams with better speaker points when they have unique and substantive framework takes beyond the prewritten impact turn or clash good blocks that have proliferated the game (this is also something you should be doing to counter the blocktastic nature of modern framework debates).
It would behove many teams and debaters to extend their evidence by author name in the 2NR/2AR. I tend to not read a large amount of evidence and think the trend of sending out half the 1AC/1NC in the card document is robbing teams of a fair decision, so narrowing in and extending the truly relevant pieces of evidence by author name increases both my willingness to read those cards and my confidence that you have a solid piece of evidence for a claim rather than me being asked to piece together an argument from a multitude of different cards.
Prep time ends when the email has been sent (if for some reason you still use flash drives then when the drive leaves the computer). In the past few years so much time is being spent saving documents, gathering flows, setting up a stand etc. that it has become egregious and ultimately feel limits both decision time and my ability to deliver criticism after the round. Limited prep is a huge part of what makes the activity both enjoyable and competitive. I said in my old philosophy that policing this is difficult and I would not go out of my way to do it, however I will now take the extra time beyond roadmaps/speech time into account when I determine speaker points.
I find myself frustrated in debates where the final rebuttals are only about theory. I do not judge many of these debates and the ones I have feel like there is an inevitable modicum of judge intervention. While I have voted for conditonality bad several times, personally my thought on condo is "don't care get better."
Plan-text writing has become a lost art and should invite negative advocacy attrition and/or substantive topicality debates.
Feel free to email or ask any questions before or after the debate. Above all else enjoy the game you get to play and have fun.
Competitor-- Winston Churchill (2008-2012)
Past: Jenks (2012-2015) Reagan (2015-2017) Winston Churchill (2018-2023)
Currently: Texas (2017-present)
My name is Ty, I use he/him pronouns.
I would like to be on the email chain. My email is email@example.com
I am currently a sophomore in college. I did policy debate for all 4 years of high school. I have judged mostly novice policy debate this year, so if there are any specific acronyms so I know what you're talking about. I am generally ok with speed, however, it has been a while, so please make sure that if you are speaking fast you are CLEAR.
As a debater, I mainly debated policy arguments rather than Kritiks, however, I will listen to your Ks if you choose to run them, I will need you to explain well why the K matters most in the round/why I should be voting for you based on the K. It will be more difficult to win on a K for me.
In order to convince me to vote for you please make sure you explain how I should evaluate the round, and why your team wins based on this framing. I don't want to have to extrapolate what matters most from vague comments that are not well explained. If you have questions about my opinions on specific types of arguments please ask before the round, but I will generally evaluate any argument as long as they are well-argued.
For LD: Keep in mind I did policy, but in general I will keep up with most differences quickly. Ask me any argument specific questions in room before the round starts.
Please do not be racist, sexist, anti-LGBTQ, anti-semitic, or otherwise bigoted and discriminatory in round.
*wear a mask if you are any degree of ill*
neutral or they/them pronouns // firstname.lastname@example.org
me: 4 yrs TOC circuit policy @ Blue Valley West ('19, surveillance, china, education, immigration) // BA Political Science @ UC Berkeley ('22) // [Current] PhD student, Political Science @ Johns Hopkins. did not debate in college.
coaching/judging: college prep (2019-present), georgetown day (2023-present)
judging stats: aff-neg, 109-128 [46% aff, 54% neg], sat 4x????.
non-policy: dabbled but will evaluate like a policy judge.
[me] I debated in proximity to/am influenced primarily by KU-affiliated/Kansas debate diaspora (ian beier, allie chase, matt munday, jyleesa hampton, box, hegna, Q, countless others, peers I had the privilege to debate against). i read heg affs as a 2A. I went for the K, impact turn & adv cp, and T as a 2N. I do not care about respectability, but ego posturing/nastiness and confidence/good faith are distinct. non-debate (personal) disputes go straight to tab, NOT me. I am a mandated reporter.
[rfd] I like an easy ballot - have not debated in 4+ years. I try to write an aff and neg ballot and resolve one of them with as little intervention as possible - read: judge instructions necessary. I only read cards *closely* if given a reason (debating from warrants, misrepresented ev, shrunken text, etc). Ev work, like Mac dre said, is not my job. framing the round through offensive/defense framing, presumption, models, etc. also helpful (if consistent). i flow on paper so slow down where it matters.
[online] do not start if my camera is off. SLOW DOWN; I will clear you once per speech.
[IRL] I'll clear u once per speech & stop flowing if i don't understand. my facial expressions reveal a lot about what I do/dont understand. track your own prep, but if you're bad at stealing prep (aka, I can tell), you will not like your speaks. cut my rfd short if you need to prep another round immediately.
[gen] debate is not debaters adjusting to the judge. do the type debate you are good at, not what you think I will like. I will meet you where you are, as long as you can explain your args. I like efficiency & will not punish a shortened speech unless its prematurely concluded. i do not read "inserts", teams are responsible for reading recuts or interpreting visuals/charts. I will not evaluate what I cannot flow. clarity > speed, tech > truth. content warnings/disability accommodations/etc should be made verbally before disclosure/round.
[ETHICS VIOLATIONS] Teams must call an ethics violation to stop the round. if verified, the violating team drops with lowest speaks. otherwise, the accusing team drops with lowest speaks. [clipping] clipping ballots usually necessitate recording, contingent on debaters consent & tournament rules. clipping includes being unclear to the point of being incomprehensible & not marking.**I am following the 1AC and 1NC - read every word of the card. seriously READ ALL THE WORDS!!!! if I notice clipping and no one else calls it out, I will not stop the round, but your speaks will reflect what I hear.
[case] yes. plan texts are my preference, but not a requirement. #1 fan of case debate. case turns too. does anyone go for dedev anymore?
[K-aff] okay, but not my neck of the woods. being germane to the resolution is good, or affs must resolve something or have a piece of offense. KvK debate is fine when i can keep up. don't miss the forest for the trees- ex: extremely thorough LBL responds to the 1AR but fails to contextualize to the rest of the debate. I find myself often w a lot of info but unclear reasons to vote. judge instruction prevents judge intervention.
[K-neg] sure. tell me what ur words mean. I'm familiar with most neolib/security/ontology-relevant K's. idk your white people (heidegger, bataille, schlag, baudrillard, wtv). K tricks r dope, if you can explain them
[disads] yes. impact turns are awesome. turns case analysis is also awesome. line by line? awesome
[cp] okay. slow down/signpost on deficits & impact out. "sufficiency framing" "perm do ____" are meaningless w/o explanation. I don't weigh the CP unless there's a risk of the net benefit. remember to actually "[insert aff]" in your cp text.
[T] yes, but no one is great at it. usually i am limits>ground in that the former does more to constitute the latter. default to competing interps. caselists are good. SIGNPOST. slow down, i need to hear every word. + speaks for T debate off the flow. Impress me, & your speaks will reflect it! [re: T vs. K-aff]: I admittedly lean neg for limits being good & personal familiarity of args. TVA's are persuasive. judge instruction is your friend!
[theory] rule of thumb: equal input, equal-ish output. aka, blipped theory warrants blipped answers. don't drop it. dropped theory (depending on how arbitrary the argument is) doesnt mean an auto ballot; if you want me to treat theory seriously enough to vote for you, YOU should too. do not expect a good rfd if you are speeding through theory blocks like you are reading the Cheesecake Factory menu. slow down,no i will not flow off the doc.
[speaker points] i am anti speaks inflation. everyone starts at 28. I drop speaks for the aforementioned, + disorganization, offensive/bad faith behavior. speaks are earned via efficient/effective speech construction, cx usage, succinctness, and strategy. 29.2+ reserved for exemplary debates. below 28 indicates more pre-tournament prep is needed.
[did you know?] if you drop offense in a constructive and read answers in the immediate cross-x, I will flow them. "leftover" cross time is not prep, but prep can be used to ask questions (but they don't count as cross).
email@example.com - email chain - please put me on it
---update - 2023 ---
if you want to read a k on the aff, i'm not the judge for you
if you want to read a k on the neg - and do it well - i am the judge for you
you cannot insert re-highlightings. you must read them.
---update - 12/5/2021 ---
- All impact turns
- Specific, well-researched K's
- Tag team for asking questions
- AFFs without a plan text
- Talking about your identity, race, sexual orientation, class, kinks, or anything of the sort
- Untopical AFFs
- Generic, unapplied arguments
- GBX-style process CPs
- Quantum Physics-based impacts
- Tag team for answering questions
---end of update---
---update - 11/7/2020 ---
reasons to strike me:
-you read a 1ac without a plan text
"27.5 if you think the 1ac is a strategy to survive."
-you talk about your identity in debates
-you read baudrillard
-you have 3-minute-long 2nc overviews
-you think a good 1nc can be made by a conglomeration of generics
---end of update---
vote from my flow |--------------------------------------X| read every card at the end of the debate
the 1ac can be whatever you want it to be |--------------------------------------X| read a plan
the cp needs a solvency advocate |------------------------X--------------| the cp doesn’t need a solvency advocate
pics are bad |--------------------------------------X| pics are good
condo is bad |---------------------X-----------------| condo is good
go for t |---X-----------------------------------| don’t go for t
k’s that link to every aff |--------------------------------------X| k’s that link to this specific aff
---end of update---
predispositions – if you accurately describe your evidence as phenomenal, i will reward you with extra speaks in proportion to how good your cards are. if you oversell your sub-par cards, i will be thoroughly disappointed. regardless of my biases, please just go for what you are prepared to execute and have the research on.
there are really only 2 things you need to take from this –
1 – do what you're good at
2 – do LINE BY LINE
"i vote on dropped arguments that i don't believe" -ian beier
things that bother me -
prep: please have the 1nr emailed out before 2nc cross-ex is over. you can go get water for -.5 speaks or you can use prep to do it.
topicality – love it. please read a good amount of cards. if you've done the research to support a well-articulated t argument, i will be overjoyed to judge the debate. although i generally default to competing interpretations, after thinking about it, reasonability is compelling if the 2ar accurately articulates why the neg interpretation is unpredictable and overly burdensome for affirmatives, which outweighs 2nr offense – this is especially persuasive if you have aff-specific cards in relation to the topic literature or legal question of the resolution. negatives that 1 – do thorough impact calculus external to ‘they explode limits – limits are good’ and 2 – give overwhelmingly extensive lists of the absurd affs their interp justifies are crucial. limits is an internal link to the topic-specific expertise the resolutional question is designed to impart.
theory – can be tedious to resolve, but i'm intrigued. 1ar's do not extend this enough. 2ar's that do the impact comparison, turns case analysis, and offense/defense framing on theory as if it were a da are very enjoyable. if theory arguments aren't well-articulated and are overly blippy, i am fine with simply dismissing them.
must disclose judge prefs theory – no, thank you. i am not sympathetic.
kritiks – the most intricate debates or the most mediocre debates – i mean this sincerely. if you are good at making a real argument, yes please. specific link work with intricate turns case analysis and examples relating to the aff win debates. reading a new phenomenal critical theory card will make my day - ie if you have done the research to support your argument, let's go. the more generic your k is, the less inclined i am to vote for you. if you are a team that goes for the k like a disad (techy, line-by-line, interacts with the case) i'll be happy to judge the debate; the inverse is true as well.
cp – wonderful.
counterplans with long texts – my favorite.
pics – they're the best. HOWEVER – they should be substantively different than the aff and have a solvency advocate.
process cp's – you're probably cheating.
states cp – teams overestimate the impact of their solvency deficits and underestimate the efficacy of theory as an answer. aff – please go for theory.
da – yes, please.
well-researched link evidence works wonders. taking a minute of the 2nr to detail turns case analysis puts you in a great position.
if you don't have a da, you don't have a da. 1% risk calculus won't make your link for you.
impact turn – please go for these if your evidence is recent and of high quality. this means not spark. doing thorough comparison between the data and qualifications of your cards versus theirs is how these debates are won.
"people should impact turn.... everything" -ian beier
neg v. k affs – if you're neg and don't win these debates, you're the exception. these are the hardest 2nr's, so i'm willing to grant some leeway.
presumption – make this argument.
framework – yes. compare your impacts at the internal link level and do intricate turns case analysis. i enjoy institutional engagement arguments vs identity affs and truth testing/fairness against more abstract affs.
the k – though i think it is an admirable strategy, unless you have hyper-specific evidence about the aff or its mechanism, you are highly susceptible to the perm.
k affs – good luck.
aff v. the k – you have an aff; that's all you have to defend.
affs lose to the k when they don't answer offense that is embedded in link arguments, lose the framework debate, letting them get away with broad and absurd generalizations, and going for too much.
execution – evidence quality doesn't replace the necessity of good debating. but i really do love good evidence.
zero risk – it’s not possible strictly in the sense of ‘zero risk’, because there is inherently a possibility of all events but it is possible to diminish the risk of an advantage or da to such a degree that it is not sufficiently significant to overcome from the noise of the status quo. i think the new fettweis card is pretty devastating impact defense. lots of neg da's are utterly ridiculous.
cx – if their cards are awful, or their da is incoherent, pointing it out is fun. being strategic in the rhetorical method you use to get the other team to say what you want, then referencing their answers in speeches to warrant arguments is persuasive and gets you additional speaks if what they said is truly applicable.
"be snarky if you want" -grace kuang
judges/people i admire - dheidt, tallungan, khirn, tyler peltekci, dan bannister, grace kuang, spurlock, matt munday, tucker carlson, forslund, scott brown.
bad args – 'racism/sexism good' args are obviously non-starters. i won't immediately dismiss 'death good' but if this is really the position you're in, you have more immediate problems than my judging preferences.
4 years at Greenhill
1 year at USC
Please put me on the email chain. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
I went for' policy' arguments in high school. In terms of categories of negative arguments (i.e. k,cp,da,etc.), I have no overlying ideologies or overt preference to what categories of negative arguments you must make.
However, there are debates that i've noticed that i personally enjoy judging and are interesting to me, and debates that i've noticed i do not enjoy judging and are not interesting to me. so if you are at all interested in my enjoyment:
examples of debates i have enjoyed judging: counterplans and disads, occasionally security, psychoanalysis one time
examples of debates i did not enjoy judging: baudrillard, death good, identity arguments, no fiat/fiat bad
if you plan to do anything from the latter category, please spend more time explaining your arguments because im not as smart as you!
The rest of this paradigm is mostly biases I've noticed about myself when I judge.
Condo - its good. Unless condo is dropped, not really worth going for if I'm judging you. Generally I err neg on theory - states cps, process cps, international fiat and pics/word pics are all okay with me. Private actor fiat, floating piks and multi-actor fiat are the exceptions where I err aff on theory.
judge kick - i won't kick the counterplan for you if you don't tell me to in the 2nr. if you tell me to kick it and/or read it conditionally i will. if you are aff and want me to not kick the counterplan, you should start that debate in the 1ar at the very least. ***if the aff reads and does not extend condo after the block, or at least a reason why conditionality being good does not necessitate that judge kick is also good, i will not be persuaded by judge kick bad in the 2ar.
Offense/defense - I think you can mitigate the risk of something to the point where it is inconsequential in my decision.
Framework/Topicality - I generally think of fairness as an internal link not a terminal impact but could be persuaded otherwise.
tag teaming in cx - its annoying to me but you do you
k affs – you shouldn't pref me. i don't like and don't often vote for these types of affirmatives.
If you have any questions, feel free to ask before the round or email.
UCSD Class of ‘23.
Treat me like a lay judge and I will be sad.
I can handle your speed.
I keep getting held over to judge out-rounds late on Sundays or Mondays, if you pref me high you are a part of that. :(
I've judged arguments ranging from french philosophers to the MBA politics disad, just do you and do you better than your opponents do them.
Debated at Peninsula in Policy 2017-2021
I'm not super familiar with this year's topic so make sure not to take topic-specific terms and warrants on camp arguments for granted.
I prefer that you read a plan.
Infinite condo is better than no condo.
If it's not condo, you have to do a good job explaining why X theory argument justifies voting against the other team rather than just rejecting the argument.
I will default to judge kick the counterplan unless told otherwise.
I'm not great for high theory.
Impact turn the K.
This is a new tabroom account so please excuse the lack of judging history.
I have participated in PF, LD and Policy within the 8 years of me being in the debate community.
Please email me if you have any questions as I continue to update my paradigm thank you.
OR - If you have any immediate question for PREFS you can always find me on facebook Heaven Montague
Tech or Truth?
I am a technical judge BUT I WILL NOT ACCEPT ANY ARGUMENTS THAT MAKE STATEMENTS SUCH AS RACISM GOOD AND ETC.
I am a parent judge who prefers debating by the five stock issues (but not a must).
This includes inherency, significance and harms, solvency, topicality and the disadvantage. (and counter-plan)
Please try not to SPREAD if you can help it.
As long as you speak clearly, stay on topic, be more convincing than your opponents, handle yourself well during cross-X, I'll vote for you.
NLHS Policy 2013-2017
UT 2017-2021 (just judging, no debate)
A&M Law 2021-
Email for chain: email@example.com
Email for contact: firstname.lastname@example.org
The easiest thing I can tell you about my paradigm is that I am tab. I'll vote on anything, and I essentially ran anything while I was in high school, so you're not going to lose me in running any of your favorite arguments.
Further in-depth stuff (this is primarily for policy, but can be cross-applied to LD (or PF I guess)):
When I say I'm tab that means that I will vote in any framework you give me, don't mistake that for if you win the framework you win the round (this is especially true in traditional LD). I have voted for teams that lose the framework debate, but still had better offense under the opposing framing. Therefore, you need to both win your framework and meet that framework better than the opponent to win the round. However, if you don't run a framework I default to an offense-defense paradigm where I vote on whichever team has managed to generate the most offense.
If you're baffled by a decision it is because you did not warrant. I am a stickler for warranting, especially in extensions, and if you don't extend a warrant, even over a dropped argument, then I'm not doing that work.
Like I said, I'm tab, so naturally I'm fine with/a fan of Ks. I am NOT a fan of 2NC/2NR overviews of kritikal buzzwords that do nothing to advance debate in the round. I'm not 100% read on all K literature, so if you're going to use technical terminology - define them, tell me how they relate to your alt, to the link debate, and to the aff. Line-by-line is generally much easier for me to flow and understand a K debate.
That being said, I would avoid reading one-off K in front of me. I won't vote down one-off K on face, but I find that it's not terribly strategic, and doubly so if you're the type to concede all of case by going for the one K. All of the eggs in one basket just isn't good strategy, and it's super boring to listen to.
People will talk about how you need a specific link - I'm not that type. If the aff has a good reason that you need a specific link then you should be able to provide one, but a good generic link to the topic, state, or debate will suffice without aff contest.
Stylistically I don't really care what you do. I can handle your spreading if you can handle your spreading. If you're unclear then don't spread. Furthermore, signposting is an absolute must between flows and cards. That can be as a simple as saying "next off" or "onto the K," and between cards inserting an "and." If I miss a card or argument that you didn't signpost clearly where I should've flowed it will not be evaluated, and that's on you.
Offensiveness in round is always bad, and I'll penalize any aggression appropriately depending on severity of the aggression. There are instances where you might just be ignorant which will only result in a minor speak penalty and a stern reprimanding in RFD. Above all, be polite to your opponents. You can be competitive, but don't be rude, especially in CX.
Redundancy isn't great. That means reading a bunch of repetitive cards, putting an explanation under a card that explains the card you just read, or just saying the same thing over and over. I get tired of this quickly and it does harm speaks. Card dumps seriously aren't persuasive or strategic about half the time. If you're card dumping like five new impacts onto a undercovered disad in the 2NC that's chill, but just reading like 5 uniqueness cards that all say the same thing isn't.
I evaluate speaks through strategy, not presentation. A 30 happens through really good decisions, time allocation, unique argumentation, etc. I can't tell you what exactly gets a 30, nor will I attempt to define it further decisively here, but I know it when I see it.
I don't err anything on any argument before a debate, so all theoretical objections are up for dispute. That being said, I've seen a lot of debates where people read two shells at each other (such as states bad v. good) and don't have any actual clash. If that is the ONLY sort of argumentation being put down on a theory flow before the 2NR/2AR, do not try to convince me to vote for theory because it'll end up being a wash, and I'll vote on presumption.
Speaking of presumption; I tend to vote it on it a lot because many people end up not winning anything. So in the case that there doesn’t seem to be any offense for any team I default to presumption. Most of the time for me that means neg, but if there’s an alternative advocacy on the flow then it goes aff. If you have a different model of presumption in mind - make it an argument, but otherwise that's how I vote.
Note about disclosure: I have an impressively high threshold for voting on disclosure, and there are a number of ways that debaters articulate disclosure that I find objectionable. Please do not make arguments for disclosure based on the capabilities of small/rural schools (especially if you are from a (sub)urban/large school). Moreover, please do not read interpretations that mandate your opponent post any sort of contact information on the wiki - I will not vote on this interp no matter how hard you're winning the flow.
I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for T, I will vote on T if you win it, but you need to win each part of the T: interp, violation, standards, and voters. (Theoretically you could get me to vote on a T with just an interp, violation, and standards if you win that a stock FW is good)
The "all three branches T" is really popular right now. I'll vote on it, but it's the worst T argument. Nothing uses all three branches because that's not how government works.
I don't think you absolutely have to have either of these in the 1NC to win; if you like em, go for em, and if you don't, don't. I'm not a person who's super convinced that things have to be super specific or anything like that - generic links are fine, just try to contextualize to the aff or give a good scenario analysis.
Please, god, do not sit at the door weirdly if I'm in the room waiting for my queue to give you agency. Just walk in. I'm the judge; you are ALLOWED to come in if I'm in here.
I don't care where you sit. I don't want to shake your hand before or after the round (especially true as of March 2020).
“My partner will answer that in the next speech” is NOT a cx answer, and if you use it it’s minus 1 speak.
Same thing goes for asking questions that are prefaced with "in your own words."
This is specifically for UIL tournaments: there's no such thing as "UIL style" and most "UIL rules" aren't actually rules. Any appeal to the UIL that aren't in any UIL handbook will not be flowed and is again, -1 speak.
- I don't judge this event nearly at all, but please just select sides in such a way that pro always speaks first. I get confused when it's reversed.
- Also, there's nothing I hate more than the PF convention of sharing evidence. Please just flash entire cases.
Competed in LD and WS at Plano East for four years mainly in TFA but also at some NatCircuit tournaments.
email@example.com put me on chains
These are all just preferences, TL;DR debate how you want to I might give the wrong rfd if I'm in the back of a tricks or phil round.
I should be able to make a decision looking only at your 2nr/2ar flows.
Be CIVIL and strategic and you will get high speaks -- online debate especially makes it difficult to differentiate between being funny and rude so please be respectful.
Shouldn't have to explain much here. Just do good weighing explaining how the DA turns case or case turns DA.
CP Theory is cool.
Give me some pen time between flows -- 1-2 seconds is enough if I have sheets in order.
Nebel is a meme but sure.
I'm good for this. I tended to go for 1ar theory a lot when I debated and I tend to think it's a good thing but that doesn't mean you don't have to answer the hedge if the 1nc has one.
Theory is not just a tool for norm-setting and can be used strategically
Friv theory doesn't exist b/c it forces intervention -- if you win an abuse story it obviously isn't 'frivolous'
Hate it and love it. Almost every 1ar I gave had a few of these arguments in it and I understand why it's needed especially considering how skewed the 1ar is. If you plan on going for it, it should still have a warrant and impact (i.e: condo is a voting issue vs it splits the 1ar destroying engagement key to fairness.)
Policy AFF vs K:
1. AFFs should make arguments as to why they get to weigh the case.
2. Alt solvency needs to be explained in the 2nr unless you are going for the K as a disad to the 1ac. Explain very clearly why they don't get the perm.
3. Assume I don't know the K lit, this is most likely a safe assumption as I've never gone further than reading Harney, and a little bit of Wilderson. I probably will be able to understand debates over more common arguments like afropess, setcol, cap, Puar, etc. But you need to err towards over-explaining anything complicated. (edit: sorta hate pomo)
K AFF vs T-FW:
I've been on both sides of this debate, very rarely read big-stick extinction AFFs alternated between egregiously non-t affs and soft-left affs. However, I went for framework a lot and think it is correct on a truth level, often find myself voting for it because very few teams have a good defense against framework.
1. Explain why voting AFF is a good idea non-contextual to FW. Having a nuanced defense against presumption can also be leveraged against
2. Impact Turns don't need a CI but it's strategic to have a competing model of debate that sets some limit or new stasis point for debate that is able to resolve some (if not all) of the offense coming off of T.
1. Don't spend much time on individual standards (Limits, prep, clash, etc) because let's be honest most K teams will just impact turn.
2. Spend more on explaining the terminal impact of your model. You should approach the round as a question "Why does fairness matter in a world of the affirmative? How do more fair debates solve the AFF?"
3. I don't think the TVA is a CP but it can be good to frame the TVA as advocacy that solves all their offense with the net benefit of clash/testing/engagement/fairness, etc. Think of it as a CP+DA 2NR, makes the offense you have to win so much less when you win the TVA.
4. Turning framework into a state good/bad debate on the case and leveraging that state good offense on T is a very good strategy and will be rewarded with higher speaker points.
I read almost exclusively Util and a Kant NC once or twice every topic. I find Phil debate very fun and engaging but I hate how they have died. Kant in the 1nc too often ends up as condo logic or skep in the 2nr which makes me sad but I end up having to vote on it.
Having a strong defense for your framing mechanism is much more useful than extending 6-7 blips to their method, just use the blip storm as a time suck so that you can spend more time on your own flow.
Welp. I will vote for these but I am kinda awful at flowing through them.
This covers exclusively substance or LARP debates, anything else will be in the LD section of my paradigm. Here is a short version if you don't have much time to read through everything before the round: (all the LD paradigm applies here too)
ill evaluate anything and evaluate arguments however you tell me to in round. These are just my preferences/defaults as to what I believe is good for debate.
Defense has to be extended through speeches
2nd rebuttal needs to frontline everything you want to go for, this doesn't mean you can't kick out of arguments, you just need to
Weighing is never new
New offense past rebuttal is kinda sus.
I have done PF as a middle schooler and occasionally at some locals. I didn't go for the K much when I did LD and almost exclusively LARPed so I feel pretty comfortable judging this event. However, there are definitely a lot of 'procedurals' that PF messes up pretty badly and you need to be mindful of if I'm in the back:
a. Sticky arguments are stupid. You can not make arguments in the last two speeches that weren't extended the speech prior. There is no logical justification for this except that it forces you to extend a bunch of different conceded arguments in which case you can just extend one of them quickly and since it's conceded and explained it is true.
b. Second Rebuttal should frontline everything. Obviously you can concede defense to answer turns on arguments you aren't going for but if you want me to vote on an argument later on, you need to answer everything.
c. Link turns aren't offense w/o UQS. Obviously, this isn't the case for Linear DA's without uniqueness but just keep in mind that if you don't straight turn an argument then your opponents can just say UQS overwhelms the link (insert explanation) and kick the argument which makes your link turn a glorified piece of defense. If you are going for an impact turn this isn't a problem.
d. Weigh. PF'ers spend too much time weighing in the wrong ways. "my impact is bigger" and "My impact has a fast timeframe" isn't weighing. Weighing should be comparative, and not just at the impact level because from what I have seen most PF rounds will end up with the same impact level and no external impact like extinction. Internal link arguments (i.e: CC = crop shortage = ag industry collapses = recession) and x turns y arguments are much better allocations of your time and will be rewarded with high speaks. Remember you only need one good weighing argument, not seven bad ones.
Updated for Economic Inequality Topic
E-Mail Chain: Yes, add me (firstname.lastname@example.org) & email@example.com. I do not distribute docs to third party requests unless a team has failed to update their wiki.
Experience: Damien 05, Amherst College 09, Emory Law 13L. This will be my seventh year as the Assistant Director at Damien, and my second year as Director at St. Lucy's Priory. I consider myself fluent in debate, but my debate preferences (both ideology and mechanics) are influenced by debating in the 00s.
This Year's Topic: I generally believe that the point of the resolution is to force debaters to learn about a different topic each year. So I think that debaters who develop good topic knowledge -- i.e., debaters who understand economics as a complex field of academic study and can analyze how different policies would affect the economy at different levels -- will have a massive advantage on internal link debating.
Debate: I am open to voting for almost any argument or style so long as I have an idea of how it functions within the round and it is appropriately impacted. Debate is a game. Rules of the game (the length of speeches, the order of the speeches, which side the teams are on, clipping, etc.) are set by the tournament and left to me (and other judges) to enforce. Comparatively, standards of the game (condo, competition, limits of fiat) are determined in round by the debaters. Framework is a debate about whether the resolution should be a rule and/or what that rule looks like. Persuading me to favor your view/interpretation of debate is accomplished by convincing me that it is the method that promotes better debate, either more fair or more pedagogically valuable, compared to your opponent's. My ballot always is awarded to whoever debated better; I will not adjudicate a round based on any issues external to the round, whether that was at camp or a previous round.
I run a planess aff; should I strike you?: I have a ideological predisposition to the neg, but I try to leave bias at the door. I do end up voting aff about half the time. I will hold a planless aff to the same standard as a K alt; I absolutely must have an idea of what the aff (and my ballot) does and how/why that solves for an impact. If you do not explain this to me, I will "hack" out on presumption. Performances (music, poetry, narratives) are non-factors unless you contextualize and justify why they are solvency mechanisms for the aff in the debate space.
Evidence and Argumentative Weight: Tech over truth, but it is easier to debate well when using true arguments and better cards. In-speech analysis goes a long way with me; I am much more likely to side with a team that develops and compares warrants vs. a team that extends by tagline/author only. I will read cards as necessary, including explicit prompting, however I read critically. For me, cards are only as good as their highlighted warrants so you are better off with fewer well-highlighted cards than multiple under-highlighted cards. Well-explained logical analytics, especially if developed in CX, can beat bad/under-highlighted cards.
Debate Ideologies: I think that judges should reward good debating over ideology, so almost all of my personal preferences can be overcome if you debate better than your opponents. You can limit the chance that I intervene by 1) providing clear judge instruction and 2) justifications for those judge instructions; the 2NR and 2AR are competing pitches trying to sell me a ballot.
Accommodations: Please email me ahead of time if you believe you will need an accommodation that cannot be facilitated in round so that I can work with tab on your issue. Any accommodation that has any potential competitive implications (limiting content or speed, etc.) should be requested either with me CC'd or in my presence so that tournament ombuds mediation can be requested if necessary.
Argument by argument breakdown below.
Debating T well is a question of engaging in responsive impact debate. You win my ballot when you are the team that proves their interpretation is best for debate -- usually by proving that you have the best internal links (ground, predictability, legal precision, research burden, etc.) to a terminal impact (fairness and/or education). I love judging a good T round and I will reward teams with the ballot and with good speaker points for well thought-out interpretations (or counter-interps) with nuanced defenses. I would much rather hear a well-articulated 2NR on why I need to enforce a limited vision of the topic than a K with state/omission links or a Frankenstein process CP that results in the aff.
I default to competing interpretations, but reasonability can be compelling to me if properly contextualized. I am more receptive when affs can articulate why their specific counter-interp is reasonable (e.g., "The aff interp only imposes a reasonable additional research burden of two more cases") versus vague generalities ("Good is good enough").
I believe that many resolutions (especially domestic topics) are sufficiently aff-biased or poorly worded that preserving topicality as a viable generic negative strategy is important. I have no problem voting for the neg if I believe that they have done the better debating, even if I think that the aff is/should be topical in a truth sense. I am also a judge who will actually vote on T-Substantial (substantial as in size, not subsets) because I think there should be a mechanism to check small affs.
Fx/Xtra Topicality: I will vote on them independently if they are impacted as independent voters. However, I believe they are internal links to the original violation and standards (i.e. you don't meet if you only meet effectually). The neg is best off introducing Fx/Xtra early with me in the back; I give the 1ARs more leeway to answer new Fx/Xtra extrapolations than I will give the 2AC for undercovering Fx/Xtra.
Framework / T-USFG
For an aff to win framework they must articulate and defend specific reasons why they cannot and do not embed their advocacy into a topical policy as well as reasons why resolutional debate is a bad model. Procedural fairness starts as an impact by default and the aff must prove why it should not be. I can and will vote on education outweighs fairness, or that substantive fairness outweighs procedural fairness, but the aff must win these arguments. The TVA is an education argument and not a fairness argument; affs are not entitled to the best version of the case (policy affs do not get extra-topical solvency mechanisms), so I don't care if the TVA is worse than the planless version from a competitive standpoint.
For the neg, you have the burden of proving either that fairness outweighs the aff's education or that policy-centric debate has better access to education (or a better type of education). I am neutral regarding which impact to go for -- I firmly believe the negative is on the truth side on both -- it will be your execution of these arguments that decides the round. Contextualization and specificity are your friends. If you go with fairness, you should not only articulate specific ground loss in the round, but why neg ground loss under the aff's model is inevitable and uniquely worse. When going for education, deploy arguments for why plan-based debate is a better internal link to positive real world change: debate provides valuable portable skills, debate is training for advocacy outside of debate, etc. Empirical examples of how reform ameliorates harm for the most vulnerable, or how policy-focused debate scales up better than planless debate, are extremely persuasive in front of me.
I think that debate's largest educational impact is training students in real world advocacy, therefore I believe that the best iteration of debate is one that teaches people in the room something about the topic, including minutiae about process. I have MUCH less aversion to voting on procedurals and theory than most judges. I think the aff has a burden as advocates to defend a specific and coherent implementation strategy of their case and the negative is entitled to test that implementation strategy. I will absolutely pull the trigger on vagueness, plan flaws, or spec arguments as long as there is a coherent story about why the aff is bad for debate and a good answer to why cross doesn't check. Conversely, I will hold negatives to equally high standards to defend why their counterplans make sense and why they should be considered competitive with the aff.
That said, you should treat theory like topicality; there is a bare amount of time and development necessary to make it a viable choice in your last speech. Outside of cold concessions, you are probably not going to persuade me to vote for you unless you have done actual line-by-line refutation and you have formed a coherent abuse story that is solved by your interpretation.
Also, if you go for theory... SLOW. DOWN. You have to account for pen/keyboard time; you cannot spread a block of analytics at me like they were a card and expect me to catch everything. I will be very unapologetic in saying I didn't catch parts of the theory debate on my flow because you were spreading too fast.
My defaults that CAN be changed by better debating:
- Condo is good (but should have limitations, esp. to check perf cons and skew).
- PICs, Actor, and Process CPs are all legitimate if they prove competition; a specific solvency advocate proves competitiveness but the lack of specific solvency evidence indicates high risk of a solvency deficit and/or no competition.
- The aff gets normal means or whatever they specify; they are not entitled to all theoretical implementations of the plan (i.e. perm do the CP) just because they do not specify.
- The neg is not entitled to intrinsic processes that result in the aff (i.e. ConCon, NGA, League of Democracies).
- Consult CPs and Floating PIKs are bad.
My defaults that are UNLIKELY to change or CANNOT be changed:
- CX is binding.
- Lit checks/justifies (debate is primarily a research and strategic activity).
- OSPEC is never a voter (except fiating something contradictory to ev or a contradiction between different authors).
- "Cheating" is reciprocal (utopian alts justify utopian perms, intrinsic CPs justify intrinsic perms, and so forth).
- Real instances of abuse justify rejecting the team and not just the arg.
- Teams should disclose previously run arguments; breaking new doesn't require disclosure.
- Real world impacts exist (i.e. setting precedents/norms), but specific instances of behavior outside the room/round that are not verifiable are not relevant in this round.
- Condo does not automatically allow severance of the discourse/rhetoric attached to the offcase. You can win severance of your reps, but it is not a default entitlement from condo. There is a difference between testing the aff from multiple perspectives, and severing your reps.
- ASPEC is checked by cross. The neg should ask and if the aff answers and doesn't spike, I will not vote on ASPEC. If the aff does not answer, the neg can win by proving abusive ground loss via moving target or spikes.
TL;DR: I would much rather hear a good K than a bad politics disad, so if you have a coherent and contextualized argument for why critical academic scholarship is relevant to the aff, I am fine for you. If you run Ks to avoid doing specific case research and brute force ballots with links of omission or reusing generic criticisms about the state/fiat, I am a bad judge for you. If I'm in the back for a planless aff vs. a K, reconsider your prefs/strategy.
A kritik must be presented as a comprehensible argument in round. To me, that means that a K must not only explain the scholarship and its relevance (links and impacts), but it must function as a coherent call for the ballot (through the alt). A link alone is insufficient without a reason to reject the aff and/or prefer the alt. I do not have any biases or predispositions about what my ballot does or should do, but if you cannot explain your alt and/or how my ballot interacts with the alt then I will have an extremely low threshold for treating the K as a non-unique disad. Alts like "Reject the aff" and "Vote neg" are fine so long as there is a coherent explanation for why I should do that beyond the mere fact the aff links (for example, if the K turns case). If the alt solves back for the implications of the K, whether it is a material alt or a debate space alt, the solvency process should be explained and contrasted with the plan/perm. Links of omission are very uncompelling. Links are not disads to the perm unless you have a (re-)contextualization to why the link implicates perm solvency. Ks can solve the aff, but the mechanism shouldn't be that the world of the alt results in the plan (i.e. floating PIK).
Affs should not be afraid of going for straight impact turns behind a robust framework press to evaluate the aff. I'm more willing than most judges to weigh the impacts vs. labeling your discourse as a link. Being extremely good at historical analysis is the best way to win a link turn or impact turn. I am also particularly receptive to arguments about pragmatism on the perm, especially if you have empirical examples of progress through state reform that relates directly to the impacts.
I think that research is a core part of debate as an activity, and good counterplan strategy goes hand-in-hand with that. The risk of your net benefit is evaluated inversely proportional to the quality of the counterplan is. Generic PICs are more vulnerable to perms and solvency deficits and carry much higher threshold burden on the net benefit. PICs with specific solvency advocates or highly specific net benefits are devastating and one of the ways that debate rewards research and how debate equalizes aff side bias by rewarding negs who who diligent in research. Agent and process counterplans are similarly better when the neg has a nuanced argument for why one agent/process is better than the aff's for a specific plan.
- Process CPs: I am extremely unfriendly to process counterplans where the process is entirely intrinsic; I have a very low threshold for rejecting them theoretically or granting the aff an intrinsic perm to test opportunity cost. I am extremely friendly to process counterplans that test a distinct implementation method compared to the aff. Intentionally vague plan texts do not give the aff access to all theoretical implementations of the plan (Perm Do the CP). The neg can define normal means for the aff if the aff refuses to, but the neg has an equally high burden to defend the competitiveness of the CP process vs. normal means. There are differences in form and content between legislative statutes, administrative regulations, executive orders, and court cases; I will vote aff on CP flaws if the neg's attempt to hot-swap between these processes produces a structural defect.
I do not judge kick by default, but 2NRs can easily convince me to do so as an extension of condo. Superior solvency for the aff case alone is sufficient reason to vote for the CP in a debate that is purely between hypothetical policies (i.e. the aff has no competition arguments in the 2AR).
I am very likely to err neg on sufficiency framing; the aff absolutely needs either a solvency deficit or arguments about why an appeal to sufficiency framing itself means that the neg cannot capture the ethic of the affirmative (and why that outweighs).
I value defense more than most judges and am willing to assign minimal ("virtually zero") risk based on defense, especially when quality difference in evidence is high or the disad scenario is painfully artificial. Nuclear war probably outweighs the soft left impact in a vacuum, but not when you are relying on "infinite impact times small risk is still infinity" to mathematically brute force past near zero risk. I can be convinced by good analysis that there is always a risk of a DA in spite of defense.
Speaker Point Scale: I feel speaker points are arbitrary and the only way to fix this is standardization. Consequently I will try to follow any provided tournament scale very closely. In the event that there is no tournament scale, I grade speaks on bell curve with 30 being the 99th percentile, 27.5 being as the median 50th percentile, and 25 being the 1st percentile. I'm aggressive at BOTH addition and subtraction from this baseline since bell curves are distributed around the average. Elim teams should be scoring above average by definition. The scale is standardized; national circuit tournaments will have higher averages than local tournaments. Points are rewarded for both style (entertaining, organized, strong ethos) and substance (strategic decisions, quality analysis, obvious mastery of nuance/details). I listen closely to CX and include CX performance in my assessment. Well contextualized humor is the quickest way to get higher speaks in front of me, e.g. make a Thanos snap joke on the Malthus flow.
Delivery and Organization: Your speed should be limited by clarity. I reference the speech doc during the debate to check clipping, not to flow. You should be clear enough that I can flow without needing your speech doc. Additionally, even if I can hear and understand you, I am not going to flow your twenty point theory block perfectly if you spit it out in ten seconds. Proper sign-posted line by line is the bare minimum to get over a 28.5 in speaks. I will only flow straight down as a last resort, so it is important to sign-post the line-by-line, otherwise I will lose some of your arguments while I jump around on my flow and I will dock your speaks. If online please keep in mind that you will, by default, be less clear through Zoom than in person.
Cross-X, Prep, and Tech: Tag-team CX is fine but it's part of your speaker point rating to give and answer most of your own cross. I think that finishing the answer to a final question during prep is fine and simple clarification and non-substantive questions during prep is fine, but prep should not be used as an eight minute time bank of extra cross-ex. I don't charge prep for tech time, but tech is limited to just the emailing or flashing of docs. When you end prep, you should be ready to distribute.
Strategy Points: I will reward good practices in research and preparation. On the aff, plan texts that have specific mandates backed by solvency authors get bonus speaks. I will also reward affs for running disads to negative advocacies (real disads, not solvency deficits masquerading as disads -- Hollow Hope or Court Capital on a courts counterplan is a disad but CP gets circumvented is not). Negative teams with case negs (i.e. hyper-specific counterplans or a nuanced T or procedural objection to the specific aff plan text) will get bonus speaks.
Updated 4/11/23* Email: firstname.lastname@example.org
Me - I debated for Clovis North from 2012-2016. I debated for Cal from 2016-2018. Prior coach for Clovis North and BAUDL. Current coach for Leland High School.
Debate: Debate is a game, maybe it's more than just a game. I find myself adjudicating lots of these debates, and I find these discussions very interesting. Tell me what I should prefer. Some personal thoughts of mine for sake of transparency: I would like to believe that while we are all here to win, debate does have value to influence beliefs, inspire others, serve a platform for performances, and offer community for some. However, it is almost indisputable that competition, maybe for the sake of gamesmanship or maybe not, sustains the activity because it enables debaters to do what they need to do to win. Other side notes: I am indifferent to either a 9 off or 1 off strat, but what you decide to do might demonstrate some validity for conditionality arguments. Teams that treat their speeches as a story rather than a speech doc tend to be more engaging.
Topicality: The more you articulate your impacts or what the neg ground looks like in the world of the affirmative the better. If you want to run more than 3 T arguments, be my guest. Though when teams do this, explanations naturally tend to become repetitive. I will let the debaters choose if I will be weighing competing interpretations over reasonability or vice versa as long as you give a reason why one is better than the other.
Disads: Impact framing such as time frame and case turns are very persuasive arguments to me. External impacts also help me weigh the disad easily.
Counterplans: Do read solvency cards, or at least have a clear articulation of how the CP solves the aff. I don't necessarily need a specific solvency card if exploiting a plan flaw or reading a PIC. Net benefits to the CP vs external add-ons against the CP are often where I hang my decisions. Affirmatives should use their advantages as disads to the CP and pick out solvency deficits from the counterplan text.
Theory: It's a strategic procedural argument. I don't necessarily have strong feelings toward any theoretical positions. I am okay with teams reading 10 off or PICs that do the aff and spend 1 less dollar. However, this gives the other team more credibility if they read theory, but you could care less if you feel confident defending your position. I judge theory the same as I judge any other argument on the flow ie: impact calculus.
Framework/K Affs: - I've been on both sides of the argument, and I tend to judge these debates the majority of the time. For framework, offensive reasons why your interpretation matters in the debate and what the aff does to affect the general principles of the game. I am persuaded by arguments that list what specific affs under their counter-interp explode the limits of the topic. TVA's gain a large advantage over your opponents for strategic reasons. Both theoretical and substantive framework are great so long as you demonstrate your impacts whether that be fairness, movements, etc. Fairness can be a terminal impact. However, fairness can also not be an impact. Tell me what I should think of fairness and persuade me. Otherwise, movements/policy education are also great impacts. For K affirmatives, have some relationship to the topic whether that be negative or positive. Explain why you chose not to go through with traditional policy affirmatives and/or what model of debate you envision to be better. Impact turning framework or having internal link turns with residual offense are absolutely fine arguments.
Kritiks: Most of my experience lies here, but that doesn't mean i'll favor or give you leverage on your arguments in any way, it just means I know the literature enough to give better feedback and etc. High theory is strategic and fine but do be careful about buzzwords that aren't explained and assumed to be made true. Kritiks must be context specific to the aff. Just some of the authors I have knowledge of that might be useful: Marx, Wilderson, Lacan, Deleuze, Baudrillard, Moten, Kroker, Puar, etc.
Performance: Can be very strategic and enjoyable. However, you must have reasons why your performance was good and necessary. I will not allow speech times to be broken or interrupted, mid-round coach interventions, or anything silly of that sort - debate is an argumentative competition, just beat them at it.
Case: Probably one of the most underrated arguments people go for nowadays. I think case-turns, impact defense and solvency deficits are perfect. They lower the threshold of any risk to vote aff as well as give me reasons to weigh your other off-case positions more. I am willing to vote neg on presumption.
LD/Public Forum/Parli: I will likely view the debate from a policy perspective. This does not mean you have to change your style of debate. For example, this does not mean LD debaters need to change their value-value criterion structure and the same applies for public forum and parli. After all, you should do what you do best. However, because of my policy background, technicality and quality of evidence is super important to me. You may also decide to spread and/or read a plan, counterplans, disads, kritiks, and performative arguments. I will vote on these arguments even if unconventional in the practice. However, the other side may assert a theoretical argument that spreading has no place in a non-policy context. They could also assert a framework argument that policy and critical debates are bad alternative models of debate. If you do lean into a policy/K debate, then please feel free to read the rest of my paradigm above. In short, I am fair game and will evaluate such arguments as long as it is justified.
- Ask permission to record
- Don't clip cards
- Have fun! I recognize debate is competitive, but life is much more than debate. There is a clear line between passion and aggression. Give the proper respect to the other team and if for some reason this becomes a problem, it will be reflected in your speaker points.
she/her. You can call me Carla, "judge" is tacky. Yes, email chain: email@example.com
I debated policy for four years in high school for Sage Ridge School. I coached Greenhill sophomores for the 2017-2018 season and now work with Gulliver Prep. I do not feel the need to detail my debate career.
Update for virtual debate: If you can, please turn your camera on, and keep it on for the whole debate. I totally get that it is not possible for some, so this is not required.
Above everything else in this philosophy, I believe that debaters must be humane to each other. I will not hesitate to vote against a team for using language that is racist/ableist/transphobic/sexist/homophobic/etc.
I'm not picky about a lot, but here are a few things that you should know.
TLDR: Read what you want. This is your debate, not mine. Do the better debating, and you'll get my ballot. That being said, too many of the rounds I judge are far too similar. If you are looking to try out a new or "risky" strategy, I will likely find that exciting and reward you with high speaks.
Ks: I love K debate. However, high-theory is not my area of expertise. I will listen to you, but you must explain your argument thoroughly in order for me to vote on it. Also, no death good arguments please.
T: I will admit I am probably not the best judge for very technical T debates. I think I am more sympathetic to reasonability arguments than most judges.
FW: If you are reading framework, remember that you are on the side of truth. So use it. Oh, and I actually like to judge framework debates. A lot.
Misc: The best final rebuttals write my ballot out for me. Make "even if" statements!! Tell me how to weigh one thing against the other. This is the easiest way to win my ballot and make my decision as clean as possible. Concessions happen all the time in high school debate, but you can't just say "they dropped this" and expect that to be the winning argument. You have to impact that out for me and tell me why that matters in the context of my decision.
LD judging update 01/09/21: I've judged LD a few times before and found that from my policy background, impact calculus is very, very important to win my ballot. Everything above still applies but the TLDR is you do you, and I'll be flowing.
PF judging update 09/25/21:
Key point: You should take prep to flash evidence. I am tired of it taking 20 years for PF debaters to flash evidence on non-prep time. If you do not do this, I will dock your speaks.
I've judged about 30 PFs debate as of this update, and I found that impact calculus is key to winning my ballot. Tell me why your argument matters. What are the consequences of a world where the pro/con does or does not exist? Why should I care? If you have any questions, feel free to email me.
I've been an assistant coach at Ferris High School for four years now. I've coached and judged for Ferris at the local, state, and national level.
Tech over truth. Speed is great, I've never had to clear anyone. I don't want to intervene so please do enough work to justify a vote for you (see below, this isn't a problem in most high level debates but if there is heavy framework argumentation in the debate it will be like a breath of fresh air for me). I've voted on Policy, Theory and Kritikal arguments in the past. I like CX debate. I judge because I enjoy the game. Flashing isn't prep but please don't spend too long doing it, a timer should be running for as much time as possible during a debate to preserve fairness and for the good of the tournament schedule. I try to be as attentive as possible so if you have any questions or concerns please let me know before the round starts.
I know that the paradigm so far has been pretty non-specific and not really that helpful but I try to be as much as a blank slate as possible. When it comes to my actual biases, I'm not overly fond of generic procedurals or any arguments that could be described as gimmicky by someone reasonably acquainted with CX. That doesn't mean I won't vote on a procedural but I would probably be more sympathetic towards arguments made against a procedural so long as there isn't a blatant warrant for the procedural to be read.
I'm not particularly tied to any philosophy when it comes to how I should make my decision or what the ballot signifies. Disturbingly often, I'm frustrated by the lack of framework arguments made in rounds and the general lack of instruction about my role is, what my ballot signifies, and what I should be doing when I make my decision. In those sorts of rounds, I'm usually left to make a decision about what I should value most in the debate which is uncomfortable and leaves room for "judging errors" if the framework I was presumed to have assumed but wasn't told to take wasn't taken. I understand that my paradigm should describe the framework that I bring to a round before any arguments have been made, but I am generally apathetic towards most arguments when presented in the abstract. It isn't my job to come to the debate with a well built schema of what should and shouldn't be valued (that is what impact calc and framework arguments are for). In the absence of framework my decision is based off of what arguments I think would be most easily defended in an rfd.
In the unfortunate absence of any framing:
In the absence of any framing to go off of, I suppose I am usually most swayed by the biggest impacts in the round, as most judges are. Those impacts most usually come from policy arguments but can also stem from kritikal arguments as well. I think that a lot of time in rounds is wasted on the link debate, at least in my debate community, which leads to frankly boring debates with excessive defense. I don't vote on defense, there is no reason to (not linking to the negative is not a reason to vote affirmative, it's at best neutral). I like offense heavy debates with well developed off case positions from the negative and well made affirmatives.
My flow is really dense. I write down as much as I am physically able to in every speech. I think that email chains are nice and I appreciate being sent cases. I keep time and will stop speeches that go over time with some leniency. I still encourage everyone to keep track of time within the debate to ensure that everyone is accountable. You can address me as judge, I don't like being referred to directly in a debate round because it breaks my emersion and is at best a waste of time to try to get my attention/ add emphasis to a point when I am already writing down what you are saying. Outside of the round Kyle is fine.
Preparing for a round where I am judge:
Do not fret over anything I said in the sections above. The biggest concern of mine that I bring to a round before anything has been said is the tournament schedule. Please arrive on time. When considering what to run in front of me please consider what would be the most strategic answers to your opponents case. Be polite and respectful to all parties involved. I want to have a pleasant time.
But most importantly of all,
Follow Your Heart.
Disclaimer: inexperienced policy judge
I am fairly lax as it comes to judging. Strictly a flow judge, I will not be filling in any details or gaps in logic. Open to any style of argument. There are a few considerations to keep in mind: in most instances I'm looking at tech over truth (unless the evidence provided is particularly egregious), clarity over speed - please and thank you; I am not very familiar with k's, the nature of them, or how they are debated, I apologize in advanced for any misinterpretations. Analytics are fine, please clearly distinguish those arguments from cards. Beyond this I don't ask for much other than a clean and cohesive debate.
My name is Mekha Rousseau. I'm 26 years old, attending Pepperdine university's GSEP master's program with a major in Social Entrepreneurship and change. I started debating in 2010 during high school and throughout the university. I served as a judge and a coach for schools in Rwanda from 2016 - 17.
Some of my achievements in Debate include;
2012 9th best speaker nationally
2016/2017 National Debate Champions
2016 National Best Speaker – Interuniversity Debate Championship
2017 East African Debate Champion
2017 East African debate Championship Best Speaker
As a judge, I consider myself a moderately educated citizen, and I'll not take any facts with no evidence. I expect debaters to provide enough proof of their arguments and speak in a way that I'll understand what is presenting(Not fast).
Last updated 11/4/2022:
I mostly judge policy, for other events, go to the bottom.
Please add me if you are starting an email chain: steve _at_ interlakedebate _dot_ org
CX / Policy Philosophy:
Michigan will be my first tournament on the NATO topic so don't make assumptions about what acronyms or specific knowledge. I do have an IR background, but please explain things.
If you are a policy team, I am likely good for you. If you are a team that runs Ks on the neg or K/Soft left impacts on a policy aff, I am probably fine for you. If you run a K-aff, I may or may not, please read below.
First and foremost, I judge based on the flow. I will do my best to determine the winner based on what has been said. This makes line-by-line refutation and dropped arguments important. I will do my best not to impose my opinions and values into the round. That being said, I am not strictly tabula rasa. See below for exceptions. By default, I will take a utilitarian approach.
I want to see clash. This means that negatives should not ignore the 1AC. Affirmatives need to respond to the negative positions as they are presented not just read a generic block that only sort-of applies. If you are merely extending your own cards and not responding to the other side’s arguments, your speaker points will be lower.
I am fine with speed, but you need to be clear. Remember that, as a judge, I often do not have a copy of the evidence and especially the analytics on my computer. If I can't hear the words as you read the cards, you are going too fast for your ability. If I am going to judge on the flow, you want to make sure my flow matches what you said. This is especially important when it comes to theory. Reading your theory block at full speed guarantees that I won’t be able to flow it all. Slow down on theory.
Be nice. I will react negatively if you are arrogant or rude to your opponents. This applies to your partner as well. I do not want to see the debate personalized. Feel free to attack and characterize your opponents’ arguments as you like, but refrain from attacking your opponents themselves. Their arguments may be *-ist. Your opponents are not.
My pet peeve is flowing. Rather, teams that don’t flow. If you have to ask about whether your opponents read each card or if you respond to positions and arguments that they didn’t read, your speaks will be docked.
I enjoy the occasional theory debate, but it must be developed well. Everything you say needs a warrant. Develop your arguments if you want me to consider them. I am unlikely to decide an entire round based on an issue explained or extended in less than five seconds.
I am unlikely to find *-spec persuasive unless there is in-round abuse. I do find vagueness more interesting each year as teams make their plans less and less specific.
I will vote on topicality. I evaluate it as a technical argument, no more dominated by truth than any other type of argument. I find myself drawn to the definitional debate over other aspects of T. That means you should focus on standards, definitions, and the fallout from those. I’m more persuaded by limits than ground. I will be unlikely to vote for reasonability unless there is a standard to determine whether something is, or is not, reasonable. I am unlikely to be persuaded by arguments that tell me to ignore topicality.
It is my belief that the resolution must play a critical role in scoping debate and allowing for clash. To that end, while I will vote for a critical aff, I expect it to be germane to the resolution. Affs which are anti-topical will lose if the negative carries a reasonable version of that argument through to the end.
This is my home turf. I want to see clash. Spotting the affirmative their advantages and trying to outweigh them with disads is not a good strategy. Contest the internal links and/or impacts. Run solvency takeouts. These make your off-case much more persuasive.
I am happy to vote on kritiks. You need to explain how I should be evaluating the k versus the case. Teams should feel free to challenge the a-priori status of the kritik. There needs to be some kind of benefit to the world of the alt. At the end of the day, I will be weighing it against the case. A K without an alt is just a non-unique, linear disad.
I expect that critical arguments will be supported by the evidence. This should go without saying, but I have seen teams give entire 2NCs that are not based on anything but their own opinion. Analogies and extrapolations are fine, but the basis for the analogy or the extrapolation should be in found in evidence.
Running a kritik is not an excuse for sloppy debate. I see too many kritik debaters that rest on truth over technical and ignore the structure of the debate. Direct refutation and line-by-line are still important even in the kritik debate.
I was primarily a policy debater in my day. I have judged many critical rounds and read some of the authors. My knowledge of them is reasonable, but if you run something outside of the common ones, explain it clearly.
I try not to impose my views on the debate, but that requires debaters do a good job in the last two rebuttals crystalizing the issues and telling the story of the round. "We win the entire flow" is not usually true and is not a good way to weigh the issues. Tell me why your winning of the disad overwhelms the advantage of case or why their rhetorical slight is more important than structural violence. Make sure there is a traceable lineage to your arguments. I am strict on new arguments from the 1NR onward. Tell me that it’s new and, if true, I’ll strike it. You must tell me though. If you don’t, it counts. I will do my best to protect the 2NR from new 2AR arguments.
If you watch me, I tend to emote my opinions.
Many have asked: Tag-team CX is fine. I only request that the person who is “supposed” to be cross-examining be part of the conversation.
I debated policy in high school and CEDA (policy) in college for a total of seven years, including four at Whitman College. I coached college policy for one year at the University of Puget Sound and have been coaching policy debate at Interlake High School since 2012.
Public Forum Judging Philosophy:
I don’t judge PF a lot so assume that I’m not deeply educated on the topic. That said, I read a lot of economics, politics, and philosophy so I am likely to be familiar with most arguments.
The best description of me is likely as a progressive, flow-oriented judge. I will be adjudicating the round based on who presents, and extends, the better arguments. I will try my best not to intervene. If you didn't say something, I won't make the argument for you. Sounding good making shallow arguments won’t earn you a win. In the end, I want to see clash. Don’t just tell me why you are right, you have to also tell me why they are wrong.
A few points that might matter to you:
1. Speed: Keep it easily comprehensible and you will be fine. In reality, I doubt you will exceed my threshold. If you do, I’ll yell clear.
2. Dropped arguments: There is no punishment for dropping your own arguments. Obviously, don’t drop something your opponent is turning.
3. I think definitions should be used strategically to define what interpretation of the resolution you will be defending.
4. I will reward clever debating. Show me how the arguments interact. Defend ground that avoids most of your opponent’s thrusts.
H.H. Dow High School 2019 - I competed in policy for three years
I prefer to be on email chains - firstname.lastname@example.org
Spreading is okay, however I would prefer if you would slow it down so I don't miss anything. I am familiar with all kinds of debate, but I prefer traditional debate. If you have any questions, feel free to ask me before round.
Policy Debater at CSU Fullerton 2 years (2009-11)
High Debate Coach for 3 years (2010-2013)
Debate Judge for 10 years (2010-present)
High School Math and Physics Teacher ( 2018- present)
Email chain: email@example.com
Short version: I want to see and hear what you are good at doing. You pick your style and convince me that you know what they are talking about.
Brief recap of what general debater think of me;
A lot of people have pegged me as a certain kind of judge—crazy, in other words. While I may be crazy in the head, I don’t think that I judge rounds in a particularly different way than other judges. I, like other judges, VOTE for which team did the better DEBATING. How I come to this conclusion is much the same as other critics: I allow myself to be PERSUADED by the rhetorical force of one or another team’s ARGUMENT. You need to win an argument and a reason why that argument means that I should vote for you. Feel free to choose whatever type of argument you prefer. Virtually everything in the round is up for debate in front of me. But I will also be hesitant to vote on arguments that fly in the face of reality.
Some fine details;
(1) Kritik: Don’t assume that I have read and/or understood your author. If the argument isn’t in the text of the card, then you need to make sure that it is comprehensible in your analysis or explanation of the card. Also, remember that the evidence is not the argument by itself.
(2)How I flow: I believe in the debate. That is, I flow it, and I believe it occurs. However, I don’t even try to line everything up in the debate—I just flow from the top down on each sheet of paper (Excel spreadsheet). Know your argument and give detail on it, your analysis, spin, and articulation are all important and I follow that as much.
(3)Policy debate is like chess. Debate at a reasonable pace for yourself so that you don’t forget or drop arguments. Clash with the other team, debate is not in a vacuum. Debate with a lack of clash makes it harder to judge because I feel like have to intervention and connect the dot myself. Lastly, like in chess, you can’t win with all your pieces. You will have to lose some pieces, know what you are losing and wining in a sophisticated way.
(4) Value and meaning isn’t implied. You need to frame “Framework” how I view arguments and what I value. Tell me how you want me to see the round and why that is important over the way your opponent views.
Frequently Asked Question (FAQ):
Question: Can I read an aff without a plan?
Answer: Sure but do you really want to have a framework debate over policy implementation?
Question: I hear you’re a K guy and like K, I normally run DisAd and CP so do I need to pull out my K?
Answer. PLEASE DON’T. The worst thing you can do is run an argument that doesn’t fit your style and strengths. If you are a straight up, line by line, politic disad kind of debater then go for it. I don’t vote for the K anymore than I do the DisAd. A good argument with articulation and explanation will do you more than running something that you can’t explain.
Question: Is it true that you never vote on Theory or Topically?
Answer: I did the math, I have voted for theory or topically maybe 2.5% of the time since I started judging, that is like 4 out of 170 rounds. While it’s a hard sell because I lend toward looking at real in round abuse.
University of Southern California '25
Add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Policy debate (2N) at Niles West High School for four years (2017-2021).
Tech > Truth
I went for only policy arguments during my high school career.
T: I am pretty 50/50 on this and I love good T debates. CI>Reasonability unless there's very very little neg offense. Plan text in a vacuum = no.
DA: The more specific the better. Politics is fun.
CP's: Read them. Debate them. Lean AFF on consult/process CP's. PIC's out of the actions of plan are probably good.
K's: Links should be specific to the actions of the plan.
Neg vs K Affs: The role of the affirmative is to defend hypothetical government action. Debate is a game.
Impact Turns: Love them.
Theory: Everything but condo is a reason to reject the argument.
If you opensource everything, let me know before the RFD and I'll add .2 to your speaks.
"Did you read X card?" is cross ex
Shotty highlighting = new 1ar answers.
Compile a relevant card doc at the end of the round
Usually, I judge interpretation events such as dramatic interpretation, prose, and storytelling. At times, I have even judged congress; although, I much prefer speech.
For debate activities, I believe that I would be considered a lay judge. My experience is limited to the speech events so you will be required to time yourself and manage the flow of the round.
Some quick notes for any debate competitors that I judge:
- Please talk clearly and slowly; I will not be able to understand "speed reading."
- Take steps to ensure that your grammar is correct. I am an English teacher so speaker points will be awarded based on grammar and clarity. In particular, please make sure that your cases include proper subject-verb agreement; as well as the appropriate pronouns. Additionally, a lack of punctuation will result in heavy speaker point deductions.
- Use rhetorical appeals in your speeches (Pathos, Logos, Ethos, Kairos, and Topos).
- Do not assume that I have prior knowledge on a certain topic; if your topic is referencing a historical piece of literature, please provide detailed analysis.
- I expect for you to have a deep understanding of your evidence with a thorough explanation for each study and statistic.
- If you make political arguments please do not venture into the territory of misinformation.
My experience with judging online speech has been very positive and I hope that it translates well to debate. Good luck, and remember that you should always aim to behave like the best of those among us.
"There is nothing noble in being superior to your fellow man; true nobility is being superior to your former self."
- Ernest Hemingway
My preferred pronouns are they/them.
I debated in the NDT-CEDA policy circuit for 4 years.
I believe the topic is always being negotiated, not static. Much like a German Shepherd, framework is not always policing, but it may lend itself to such a service. Debates come equipped with norms, but those are not law.
High School 2020-21
Speed is fine, but go only as fast as you can handle. Conditionality is generally okay. Everyone in the debate should be timing. I have ADHD so I am terrible at remembering to press start. Rely on my timer at your own peril.
I like to hear critiques explained through history and current events. Examples are the easiest way to make a complex concept simple enough to evaluate in the short span of time we have together.
Police apologists whose arguments rely on the fear of the criminal will gain little traction on my ballot. Discussion of crime requires nuance as it easily becomes anti-black very quickly given the history of politicians using thinly veiled "tough on crime" platforms to wrestle over power. Read the links below and avoid an automatic L.
The Willie Horton Ad
Please email me your speech documents. I have judged over a 1000 HS and College Debates over the last 18 years. I am a lawyer and lectured this past summer on this year's HS topic at Institutes for the NY UDL and the DC UDL Coaches Workshop and at Summer Institutes at the University of Michigan, Gonzaga, Georgetown and Harvard.
If you run a K, and actually have an ALT that can be proven to SOLVE a problem - - - any problem - - - it would be the first one I have heard that does solve a problem in 18 years of judging debates and then you might get my ballot, but probably not depending on how well the AFF does. If you are AFF and have a Plan that SOLVES a problem without creating more or larger problems - - - you might well get my ballot, depending on how well you debate during the round.
I listen to arguments, favor clash to determine who does the better job of debating, and no matter the chosen framing or style of either or both teams, I judge the debate based on what is said during the DEBATE by the Debaters.
I began high school judging in 1973.
I started judging college debate in 1976.
Between 1977 and 2002, I took a vacation from debate to practice law and raise a family.
Since 2002, I have judged between 40 and 80 Rounds a year in High School and had brief stints judging college and professional debate while "coaching" for the University of Redlands, my alma mater, in, I believe, 2010.
You can debate your own stuff, but I am not a theory fan.
I believe I have voted NEG on topicality four times in 18 years, twice in non-traditional AFF debates and once at the Kentucky RR when I thought the AFF made a mistake and I also thought the NEG made them pay, although a very competent and distinguished judge who was also judging the same round felt differently. So, even in the one traditional debate round where I voted NEG on T, I was probably wrong. I believe in AFF creativity, reasonability which guarantees predictability.
BUT (and and this is a CAPITAL BUT) I like/strongly prefer substantive debates ABOUT the topic area, so long as the Plan is a reasonable illustration of the Resolution.
People who listen and answer arguments well get great speaker points. People who are nice and friendly and not jerks also like their speaker points.
I have had teams run K's and all kinds, types and nature of CP's. The PERM Debate really makes a difference in a K and CP Round. I am not the most philosophically literate humyn being on the planet, so please explain your esoteric K and your even more esoteric K responses.
Cross-Examination is IMPORTANT, so please ask questions, get answers and ask more questions. When responding, please listen to the question that is asked and ANSWER it. No need to fight or argue. Ask questions, Get Answers, move on.
For the clash of civilization people who want to know more about my feelings and leanings, perhaps the best information I can give you is that I listened to a recording of the final round of the 2013 NDT and would have voted for Northwestern had I been judging. The framework debate in my mind flowed Negative.
I enjoy DISADS and case debates. I am particularly fond of hidden Case Turns that become huge Disads.
I know how hard you work and will attempt to work just as hard to get things right.
Collin Smith -- email@example.com
Most of my argumentation has been on the K side of things in debate. My research interests, however, are very broad, and I do not really care what form your arguments take. As a judge, I value specificity, evidence comparison, and in-depth explanation. I generally decide debates by identifying key points of offense and sifting through the evaluative mechanisms set up by either team to discern whose impact matters more, and how I should conceive of solvency.
Affs – do what you want, read a plan or not, talk about the topic or not – I don’t care. Aff’s with plans – don’t assume I know your acronyms (I judged at a camp, but I have not done a lot of topic research). Affs without plans – be sure to explain your method early in the debate and use impact/solvency examples or have an explanation of why traditional notions of solvency don't apply.
Framework – I will vote for it, I will vote against it. I think neg teams win these debates when they win clash/debate-ability as an internal link turn to aff and some type of procedural impact, but I see the utility in switch-side or topic education arguments in some contexts. Neg’s also need to win a framework comes first/case doesn’t matter argument. I think the aff is set to win these debates when they win an impact they can solve, an impact turn to the neg’s interp, and apply that disad to the 2nr’s arguments. I do not think a counter-interpretation is necessary, though often it is quite useful.
Kritiks – here for it, do it well.
DA – I think uniqueness is more likely to overwhelm the link than for the link to determine the direction of the uniqueness.
Theory - It is hard for me to vote on condo bad without explicit examples of in-round abuse, but I can definitely be persuaded as to why other theory arguments are reasons for me to reject an argument or give the other team some type of flexibility.
Tech v Truth – If an argument is conceded, it is probably true but needs to be explained again in your next speech. I think the best 2NRs and 2ARs tell the judge what the most important aspect of the debate is and why, then win that issue. These framing questions tend to implicate how I evaluate technical concessions, or at lease to what extent I should care about them with regards to broader framing questions.
***PLEASE, I BEG YOU, if nothing else, read my note about speed/clarity!!! This issue is paramount in online debate!***
"Accept that you're a pimple and try to keep a lively sense of humor about it. That way lies grace - and maybe even glory." - Tom Robbins
Hello! I'm Skye. I graduated from Concordia College where I debated on their policy team for 4 years. I am a CEDA scholar and 2019 NDT participant. In high school, I moved around a lot and have, at some point, participated in every debate format. I have a degree in English Literature and Global Studies with a minor in Women and Gender Studies.
I have experience reading, coaching, & judging both trad policy arguments and Ks.
I have been coaching going on 3 years and judging for 6. I am currently the head policy coach at Wayzata HS in Wayzata, MN. I occasionally help out the Harker School in San Jose, CA and UMN debate in Minneapolis, MN. My full time job is at the Minnesota Urban Debate League, where I am serving my second Americorps VISTA service year as the Community Debate Liaison.
I love debate and I have loved taking on an educator role in the community. I take education very seriously, but I try to approach debates with compassion and mirth, because I think everyone benefits from it. I try to be as engaged and helpful as I can while judging, and I am excited and grateful to be part of your day!
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org for email chains. If you have more questions after round, feel free to reach out :)
Top 3 Notes!
1. I FLOW ON PAPER AND HAVE POOR HEARING. I am OK with spreading, I think speed makes for much more in depth and rigorous debates, but with great speed comes great responsibility…
- please use a microphone in a headset/headphones if you have the tech, the laptop mics also pick up echoes and it makes it way harder than it needs to be for my ears
- please send out analytics if you are at all willing
- please send out marked docs at the end of your speech
- please SIGN POST & give me 1 second to move onto the next flow
- please use different intonation and sign posting to indicate you are going onto the next argument on the flow to give me the cue to finish up and move along with you so I can keep an organized flow. Not all speeches will be organized the same way, but if I know where to put things so they line up, then we are all in a better place.
- In the 2A/NC & rebuttals, spreading your way through analytics at MAX SPEED will not help you, because I won't be able to write it all down, or even really process the very dense argumentation and smart things you are saying.
If it gets to the RFD, and I feel like my flow doesn’t incapsulate the debate well because you did not accommodate me, I am very sorry for all of us, and I just hate it. I am not afraid to tell you I did not get everything or missed something. To me, that is on the debater, not the judge. There are way too many people in this activity that like to pretend they can hear every word no matter what. I am not one of those people. This is still a communication activity, and I earnestly believe the debaters should keep that in mind.
2. When it is time for the RFD, I go to framework first. If any framework arguments were extended in the rebuttals, I will reach a conclusion about who wins what and use that to dictate my decision making. I will always do this, without fail, I promise you. If there aren'y any, or the debaters were unclear, I will default to a very classic policy debate style cost-benefit analysis.
3. I default to evaluating debates from the point of tech/line by line, but arguments that were articulated with a warrant, a reason you are winning them/comparison to your opponents’ answers, and why they matter for the debate will significantly outweigh those that don’t.
"tag teaming cross ex": sure, just know that if you don't answer any CX questions OR cut your partner off, it will likely affect your speaks.
Clash debates, K aff: Fairness is probably not your best option for terminal impact, but just fine if articulated as an internal link to education. Education is very significant to me, that is why I am here. I think limits are generally good. I think the best K affs debate from the “core” or “center” of the topic, and have a clear model of debate to answer framework with. So the side that best illustrates their model of debate and its educational value while disproving the merits of their opponents’ is the side that wins to me.
Clash debates, K on the neg: As I’ve mentioned previously,framework will really guide my decision, so I encourage debaters to invest time there. The links are really important to me, especially giving an impact to that link. I think case debate is slept on by K debaters. I have recently started thinking of K strat on the negative as determined by what generates uniqueness in any given debate: the links? The alt? Framework? Both/all?
K v. K: Framework, friends, framework. Without framework we are but scurvy-ridden sailors in a sea of K goo. It may be helpful to know that I think of perms as a test of the links/competition, and not so much as an advocacy.
Ks, general:I feel that it can be easy for debaters to lose their K and by the end of the debate, I’m not sure what critical analysis actually happened in the round.No alt needed if you're worried about that, as long as there is framework/framing that supports it. I also think situating your K in/to the context of debate clarifies things for me quite a bit.
Condo/Theory: I am not opposed to voting on condo bad, but please read it as a PROCEDURAL, with an interp, violation, and standards. Anything else just becomes a mess. The same applies to any theory argument. I approach it all thinking, “What do we want debates to be like? What norms do we want to set?”
T: Will vote on T, please see theory and clash v. K aff sections for more insight, I think of these things in much the same way.
Plans/policy v K: Although I am personally ideologically predisposed to critical arguments in the ~real world~, I increasingly do not feel this is the case in debate. I also think there is an artificial polarization of k vs. Policy ideologies in debate; these things are not so incompatible as we seem to believe. Policy and K arguments are all the same under the hood to me, I see things as links, impacts, etc.; these worlds are not so polarized to me. I do think it is a good idea to clue me into what all your acronyms, initialisms, and topic jargon means, though.
policy, general:I am a simple soul here. I like refutation, LBL, evidence analysis, and collapsing down in rebuttals. You know, good debate.
LD, random arguments about wearing shoes or whatever: Please don't read ridiculous things that benefit no one educationally, that is an uphill battle for you.
Read no cards-----------x------------------------Read all the cards
Conditionality good---------------x---------------Conditionality bad
States CP good-------------------------x---------States CP bad
Federalism DA good---------------------------x--Federalism DA bad
Politics DA good for education --------------------------x---Politics DA not good for education
Fairness is a thing----------------------------x--Delgado 92
Try or die------------------------------------x-----What's the opposite of try or die
Clarityxxx--------------------------------------------Srsly who doesn't like clarity
Presumption----------x----------------------------Never votes on presumption
Resting grumpy face-------------------------x----Grumpy face is your fault
CX about impacts----------------------------x----CX about links and solvency
AT: ------------------------------------------------------x-- A2:
I am a former student debater with the University of Miami British Parliamentary Debate Team and continue to judge BP at college level, I have also been judging policy (among other formats) high school tournaments for 6 years now.
A Note on PF/World Schools and other lay formats:
Although I am usually a tech judge, when the format dictates a lay judge I will judge as a lay judge. That means that if you spread or run a K in a PF round, you will be dropped. LD I dont consider a lay format, so go all out if you wish.
I judge mostly based on what's on my flow, so good organization is key to winning with me.
Signposting is good, fully flushing out an argument before moving on is good, being all over the place is a sure way to me missing something. Tying several arguments together to a single theme is good and gives your team a strong team line upon which I can judge, but make that connection known, dont expect me to tie your loose ends for you, thats a sure way to an L.
Please make sure to flush out your arguments, if you dont give me a reason that an argument is true (whether by using facts or theory), I wont judge on it.
Misrepresenting your oppositions arguments may be good enough to win you the debate (if they dont call you out on it), but it sure wont win you any speaker points. While we are on the topic of misrepresenting, no card clipping, heavy penalties will apply.
Towards the end of your 2AR/2NR speech, make sure to close off the debate and tell me why you think you should win, tell me what you want me to vote on and why.
Although evidence is expected, dont hide solely behind it, give me reasoning as to why your position is better than your opposition. Debate is about more than just reading cards, its about applying your own critical thinking.
Topicality: Run topicality only if you have a case for it, remember that the burden lies with the negative to show why the affirmative definition is abusive, and it better be a good reason. Show me why the debate is worse off as a result of affirmative's definitions, dont just say that it is. Also be sure to provide your alternative interpretations, the best way to win a T argument is to show what the debate should have been vs what the affirmative made it out to be.
Counter-Plan: CP's are always fun, but remember to show that your plan is either mutually-exclusive or better than CP+ or else affirm gets it. Also make sure to show how your plan is different from the affirmative. Plan must be clear and concise. Conditionality is fine as long as you dont contradict yourself and give room to affirmative to debate it, anything else is abusive. More than 2 conditional args is abusive and will be judged down.
Kritik: Another very fun thing to judge, make sure to explain your K well. Dont just tell me that the paradigm that the affirmative accepted is bad, show me specifically how the plan worsens the outcome as a result of your kritik and its implications. Doing anything less will not win you the argument. Keep in mind that I am generally not a fan of heavy-theory rounds, any theory arguments presented must be grounded in real solvency.
2AR/2NR: NO NEW ARGUMENTATION IN THE LAST TWO SPEECHES. New argumentation wont be judged on and will heavily influence speaker points. The only exception to this is as rebuttal to new argumentation brought up in the previous speech, that said its a fine line, so tread carefully.
Cross-Ex: Open CX is fine, but will impact speaker points accordingly. When asking questions, allow the person to answer, avoid interruptions if possible.
Ethics: Dont clip cards, dont mis-represent evidence, dont use insults, be respectful to opponents/partners/judges/audience. Ethics violations will heavily influence speaker points.
Speaker Points: I will generally limit myself to 25-30 speaker points (although I reserve the right to go below that for serious ethics violations). Generally my points will fall somewhere along a standard distribution curve, so 26-28 on average. In general I will look at the following in no particular order: Technical proficiency, argumentation, clarity, engagement with opposition arguments, jokes/puns (we all like to laugh every once in a while).
Email - email@example.com.
Overview - 1) I judge all debate events; 2) I agree with the way debate has evolved: progressive debate and Ks, diversity and equity, technique; 3) On technique: a) Speed and speech docs > Slow no docs; b) Open CX; c) Spreading is not a voter; 4) OK with reading less than what's in speech doc, but send updated speech doc afterwards; 5) Clipping IS a voter; 6) Evidence is core for debate; 7) Dropped arguments are conceded but I will evaluate link and impact evidence when weighing; 8) Be nice to one another; 9) I time speeches and CX, and I keep prep time; 10) I disclose, give my RFD after round.
Lincoln-Douglas - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop debater for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) PICs are OK; 5) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition and impact of definition on AFF/NEG ground wins; 6) Progressive debate OK; 7) ALT must solve to win K; 8) Plan/CP text matters; 9) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 10) Speech doc must match speech.
Policy - 1) I flow; 2) Condo is OK, will not drop team for running conditional arguments; 3) Disads to CPs are sticky; 4) T is a voter, a priori jurisdictional issue, best definition wins; 5) Progressive debate OK; 6) ALT must solve to win K; 7) Plan/CP text matters; 8) CPs must be non-topical, compete/provide NB, and solve the AFF or avoid disads to AFF; 9) Speech doc must match speech; 10) Questions by prepping team during prep OK; 11) I've debated in and judged 1000s of Policy rounds.
Public Forum - 1) I flow; 2) T is not a voter, non-topical warrants/impacts are dropped from impact calculus; 3) Minimize paraphrasing of evidence; I prefer quotes from articles to paraphrased conclusions that overstate an author's claims and downplay the author's own caveats; 4) If paraphrased evidence is challenged, link to article and cut card must be provided to the debater challenging the evidence AND me; 5) Paraphrasing that is counter to the article author's overall conclusions is a voter; at a minimum, the argument and evidence will not be included in weighing; 6) Paraphrasing that is intentionally deceptive or entirely fabricated is a voter; the offending team will lose my ballot, receive 0 speaker points, and will be referred to the tournament director for further sanctions; 7) When asking for evidence during the round, refer to the card by author/date and tagline; do not say "could I see your solvency evidence, the impact card, and the warrant card?"; the latter takes too much time and demonstrates that the team asking for the evidence can't/won't flow; 8) Exception: Crossfire 1 when you can challenge evidence or ask naive questions about evidence, e.g., "Your Moses or Moises 18 card...what's the link?"; 9) Weigh in place (challenge warrants and impact where they appear on the flow); 10) Weigh warrants (number of internal links, probability, timeframe) and impacts (magnitude, min/max limits, scope); 11) 2nd Rebuttal should frontline to maximize the advantage of speaking second; 2nd Rebuttal is not required to frontline; if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline 2nd Summary must cover ALL of 1st Rebuttal on case, 2nd Final Focus can only use 2nd Summary case answers in their FF speech; 12) Weigh w/o using the word "weigh"; use words that reference the method of comparison, e.g., "our impact happens first", "100% probability because impacts happening now", "More people die every year from extreme climate than a theater nuclear detonation"; 13) No plan or fiat in PF, empirics prove/disprove resolution, e.g., if NATO has been substantially increasing its defense commitments to the Baltic states since 2014 and the Russian annexation of Crimea, then the question of why Russia hasn't attacked since 2014 suggest NATO buildup in the Baltics HAS deterred Russia from attacking; 14) No new link or impact arguments in 2nd Summary, answers to 1st Rebuttal in 2nd Summary OK if 2nd Rebuttal does not frontline.
Affil: Baylor, Georgetown University, American Heritage and Walt Whitman High School.
If you think it matters, err on the side of sending a relevant card doc immediately after your 2nr/2ar.
**New things for College 2023-24(Harvard):
Weird relevant insight: Irrespective of the resolution- I am somewhat of a weapons enthusiast and national security nerd.
Yes, I am one of those weirdos that find pleasure in studying weapon systems, war/combat strategy and nuclear posture absent debate. Feel free to flex your topic knowledge, call out logical inconsistencies, break wild and nuanced positions etc. THESE WILL MAKE ME HAPPY(and generous with speaks).
In an equally debated round, the art of persuasion becomes increasingly important. I hate judge intervention and actively try to avoid it, but if you fail to shore up the debate in the 2nr/2ar its inevitable.
Please understand, you will not actually change my mind on things like Cap, Israel, Heg, and the necessity of national security or military resolve in the real world...and its NOT YOUR JOB TO; your job is to convince me that you have sufficiently met the burden set forth to win the round.
Internal link debates and 2nr scenario explanation on DAs have gotten more and more sparse...please do better. I personally dont study China-Taiwan and various other Asian ptx scenarios so I will be less familiar with the litany of acronyms and jargon.
Tech>Truth (default). I judge the debate in front of me. Debate is a game so learn to play it better or bring an emotional support blanket.
Yes, I will likely understand whatever K you're reading.
Framing, judge instruction and impact work are essential, do it or risk losing to an opponent that does.
There should be an audible transition cue/signal when going from end of card to next argument and/or tag. e.g. "next", "and", or even just a fractional millisecond pause. **Aside from this point, honestly, you can comfortably ignore everything else below. As long as I can flow you, I will follow the debate on your terms.
-My first cx question as a 2N/debater has now become my first question when deciding debates--Why vote aff?
-My ballot is nothing more than a referendum on the AFF and will go to whichever team did the better debating. You decide what that means.
-Your ego should not exceed your skill but cowardice and beta energy are just as cringe.
-Topicality is a question of definitions, Framework is a question of models.
-If I don't have a reason why specifically the aff is net bad at the end of the debate, I will vote aff.
-CASE DEBATE, it's a thing...you should do it...it will make me happy and if done correctly, you will be rewarded heavily with speaks.
-Too many people (affs mainly) get away with blindly asserting cap is bad. Negatives that can take up this debate and do it well can expect favorable speaks.
More category specific stuff below, if you care.
From low theory to high theory I don't have any negative predispositions.
I do enjoy postmodernism, existentialism and psychoanalysis for casual reading so my familiarity with that literature will be deeper than other works.
1. You don't necessarily need to win an alt. Just make it clear you're going for presumption and/or linear disad.
2. Tell me why I care. Framing is uber important.
My major qualm with K debates, as of late, mainly centers around the link debate.
1. I would obvi prefer unique and hyper-spec links in the 1nc but block contextualization is sufficient.
2. Links to the status quo are links to the status quo and do not prove why the aff is net bad. Put differently, if your criticism makes claims about the current state of affairs/the world you need to win why the aff uniquely does something to change or exacerbate said claim or state of the world. Otherwise, I become extremely sympathetic to "Their links are to the status quo not the aff".
Security Ks are underrated. If you're reading a Cap K and cant articulate basic tenets or how your "party" deals with dissent...you can trust I will be annoyed.
- vs policy affs I like "sneaky" CPs and process CPs if you can defend them.
- I think CPs are underrated against K affs and should be pursued more.
- Solvency comparison is rather important.
Good Topicality debates around policy affs are underappreciated.
Reasonability claims need a brightline
Perhaps contrary to popular assumption, I'm rather even on this front.
I think debate is a game...cause it is. So either learn to play it better or learn to accept disappointment.
Framework debates, imo, are a question of models and impact relevance.
Just because I personally like something or think its true, doesn't mean you have done the necessary work to win the argument in a debate.
Neg teams, you lose these debates when your opponent is able to exploit a substantial disconnect between your interp and your standards.
Aff teams, you should answer FW in a way most consistent with the story of your aff. If your aff straight up impact turns FW or topicality norms in debate, a 2AC that is mainly definitions and fairness based would certainly raise an eyebrow.
Email Chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
FC 2018-2019 Parli & Policy Debater
CSU Long Beach 2020-2022 Parli & Policy Debater
CEDA & 2x NPTE Competitor (National Rank: 14th lol, as if that means anything)
I am a former burnout parli and policy debater. That means that I have not read a single news article, listened to a single political podcast, or read a single scientific journal since graduating. Instead my time has mostly been spent going clubbing, raving, and traveling.
How many rounds do I have on the topic? Zero :) cite & explain the context of your evidence.
During undergrad I was barely a K debater and sort of a soft left aff debater. While a lot of my advocacies were v performative aka "embrace eroticism", I truly like hearing straight up policy debates more often than not, or at least I'm prob the judge you want in straight up v K debates. My current mode of thought tends to be more of a pragmatist. I see debate as educational sure, but I also am the type of person that now defaults to believing the state to be inevitable, etc. Rachel as a judge is a lot more grounded and lukewarm than Rachel as a debater.I am not a fan of Theory debates just bc you can. If you run like 6 off with most being theory I'm probably going to tank ur speaks, but I won't necessarily vote you down. With that being said, I don't see debate as a game, but more educational than not. Usually my impacts talked about the educational importance of the type of knowledge we produced in a debate round. I believe that to be true.
Role of the Ballot: You define what the role of the ballot is. The duality of debate is this: there are rules meant to be followed and rules meant to be broken, neither being mutually exclusive. Tell me how I should be voting, I am fine voting in nontraditional means as long as you win the argument that is how I should vote. This means evidence and reasoning. Although I try to be as impartial as possible, I still have a few methodologies that I default to when deciding a round:
Please have clear spreading before you try to pick up speed.
Extend your arguments to keep it in the debate. If it isn't extended, I won't vote off of it. That also means if it's brought up in constructive but not extended in rebuttals... well...again, won't vote off it. Especially true for the 1AR 2AR speeches.
Weigh your args. I need to see some impact calculus. A round can be changed all based on the framing of args. Explain why the arguments you're winning outweigh the arguments your opponent is winning. With that being said, try to keep framing grounded in the reality of the debate.
Evidence. Go beyond the tag and tell me the story of the debate.
Feel free to run a K or K Aff. A good link story is everything! For the K Aff just throughly explain how your Aff links to the topic, if that is your Strat. If you reject the res all together that's great! Let me know why your education is critical to the round and/or why procedural fairness shouldn't matter. I give the Aff a lot of leeway and T usually goes for Aff (I don't like you throwing out Ts just to waste time and if its clearly a topical Aff, don't do it).To win the K, you must be able to tell the story of the alt effectively. I need to be able to see what the alt tangibly does and how it would change the world, the debate space, etc. That doesn't mean I think alts are vague, that means I think debaters are vague about their alts. Key distinction.
Identity/Race Args: Love them. Will be sympathetic to them, but I have and will vote against them. Good debating comes first before the argument ran however Truth > Tech. I don't equate good debating to purely tech. I've met lots of good debaters who maybe are losing the line by line, but know how to tell the story of the round so that they still win. I love arguments that especially talk about queer theory (pls no straight-up Edelman :'( ive heard him so much), eroticism, and latine/latina identities. However I'm not a fan of identity politics. If your arg is centered around you needing to win because of your identity, that won't win me over.
Don't run identities args you don't identify with. This reproduces marginalized communities' suffering as fungible in order to win a ballot. Lame, I'm not a fan.
Cps. Run your CP. I'm not particularly convinced by condo bad theory and probably won't vote on it unless someone is running more than 3 advocacies...even then...eh. I'm a firm believer in Neg Flex, so you'll have to do some more work on condo bad for it to be a voting issue.
Theory. Please slow down, theory tends to have extremely condensed arguments and because of that it can get blippy. I'm most likely not the judge you want to run more than 3 theory sheets on. I have a high threshold for theory because I see proliferation of theory as harmful to the quality of debates. That being said, don't be afraid to run theory if it makes sense to you, just be prepared to justify it.
How to get high speaks:
-Don't give me roadmaps (I like to be surprised :^D)
-slur the tags ❤️
-Run Ks you made during pre-round prep
-read my partner's fw cards during the round
-actually just read my entire eroticism shell word for word I love it
-spend your neg block telling me the role of the neg bc i obvi have never debated
Okay actual speaks:
-any edm reference: nghtmre, illenium, zedd, mvse, subtronics, audien
-honestly if you're funny I'll give high speaks
-be smart over being aggressive (probably my biggest regret as a debater was taking things too seriously, have fun and let your arguments speak for themselves. I promise you a smart argument doesn't need an overly aggressive debater to win the ballot)
please include on email chain email@example.com
I did not competitively debate during my scholastic career, but have participated in moot courts and have been part of deliberative bodies.
I have strong background in history and Political science as well as many of the modern political theories and philosophies.
That said I put value on logical reasoning and command of your argument above all else. Quality if your argument over quantity of arguments or points made. Speak clearly and try to keep jargon to a minimum.
I value those whose arguments are well composed and logically structured and can control clash.
Caution on K, it has a place but not in some events. I look quite dimly at Ks in LD that fail to link to the resolution.
Also be nice, if you try to intimidate or otherwise game opponents I will take a dim view on it . Be courteous, and don't try to steal prep, I will not look favorably on that. Be ready to act or announce prep as soon previous speaker ends or cross is complete.
Assume that I have no topic knowledge.
Death is bad, suffering is bad.
Prep ends when the doc is sent.
Debated 4 years at Weber State University (2013-2017)
Four time NDT Qualifier, 2017 NDT Octa-Finalist, 2015 CEDA Quater-Finalist
Currently a Graduate Assistant at James Madison University
I believe debate is for the debaters, I am happy to listen to whatever your argument is and will do my best to adapt to you so you don’t have to change the way you debate. I would much rather you do what you are comfortable with than read an argument just because you think it is something I would prefer to hear. I debated for 8 years and have read and coached all different kinds of arguments, so you should feel comfortable doing whatever you want in front of me. Everything else I’m going to say is just my preference about debate arguments and doesn’t mean that my mind can’t be changed. The last thing I'll say here is the most important thing for me in debates is that you defend your arguments. You can read almost anything in front of me as long as you can defend it. I decide the debates based off of what is on my flow, and nothing else.
Critical Affirmatives – I believe affirmatives should have a relation to the resolution, but I think there are many different interpretations as to what that can mean. To get my ballot with a non-traditional affirmative you must justify why your discussion/performance is a better one for us to have than talking about the resolution or why the resolution is bad. I am sympathetic to arguments that the negative needs to be able to engage the affirmative on some level, and I don't think that "they could read the cap K" is good ground. Counter interpretations are important on framework and will help me frame your impact turns. To win your impact turns to any argument I think the affirmative should have some mechanism to be able to solve them. Overall, I think it is important for any affirmative to actually solve for something, having a clear explanation starting from the 1AC of how you do that is important, and that explanation should stay consistent throughout the debate.
Framework – I think negative framework arguments against critical affirmatives are strategic and love to listen to thought out arguments about why the resolution is an important form of education. Fairness and ground are also impacts I will vote on and I perceive them as being important claims to win the theory of your argument. I am easily compelled that the negative loses ground when a non-topical affirmative is read, and having a list of what that ground is and why it is important is helpful when evaluating that debate. Even if you don't have cards about the affirmative it is important that you are framing your arguments and impacts in the context of the affirmative. If your FW 2NC has no mention of the affirmative that will be a problem for you. I view topical versions of the affirmative and switch side arguments as an important aspect to win this debate.
Kritiks – As I reached the end of my debate career this is the form of debate I mostly participated in which means I will have a basic understanding of your arguments. My research was more in structural critiques, especially feminism. I have dappled in many other areas of philosophy, but I wouldn’t assume that I know a lot about your Baudrillard K, so if that is your thing explanation is important. If you have an alternative, it is important for you to explain how the alternative functions and resolves your link arguments. I would prefer links specific to the affirmative over generic links. I am not a huge fan of links of omission. You will do better in front of me if you actually explain these arguments rather than reading your generic blocks full speed at me. In method v method debates I think you need to have a clear explanation of how you would like competition to function, the sentence "no permutations in a method debate" doesn't make sense and I think you need to have more warrants to why the permutation cannot function or wouldn't solve.
For affirmatives answering critiques, I believe that impact turns are highly useful in these debates and are generally underutilized by debaters. I don't think permutations need to have net benefits, but view them as just a test of competition. However just saying extend "perm do both" isn't an acceptable extension in the 1AR and 2AR, you should explain how it can shield the links. As for reading framework on the aff against a critique, it will be very hard for you to convince me that a negative team doesn’t get the critique at all, but you can easily win that you should be able to weigh the impacts of the 1AC.
Counterplans – Please slow down on the text of the CP, especially if it is extremely long. I am fine with anything as long as you can defend it and it has a clear net benefit. If I can't explain in my RFD how the counterplan solves majority of the affirmative or its net benefit then i'm probably not going to vote for it, so start the explanation in the block.
Disadvantages – I enjoy a good disad and case debate with lots of comparison and explanation. I would much rather that you explain your arguments instead of reading a bunch of cards and expecting me to fill in the holes by reading all of that evidence, because I probably won’t.
Topicality - I really don't have a strong opinion about what it is and isn't topical and think it is up to you to explain to me why a particular aff makes the topic worse or better. I tend to have a pretty low standard of what it means to be reasonably topical.
Theory - I generally think conditionality is good. Other than that I really don't care what you do just be able to defend your arguments.
Finally, as I becoming older and more grumpy I am getting increasingly annoyed about stealing prep and random down time in between speeches. That doesn't mean you aren't allowed to use the restroom, just be respectful of my time. I will reward time efficiency between speeches with better speakers points. Especially if you can send the email before prep time is over. These are my preferences
--If a speaker marks the speech document and the other team wants the marked document that should happen after CX during prep time. If the other team cannot wait until after CX then they can take prep time to get the cards
--If a speak reads a cards that were not in the speech document and needs to send them out the speaker will take prep time before CX to send out the necessary evidence.
--CX ends when the timer is over. Finish your sentence quickly or take prep time to continue CX
I would like to be on the email chain – firstname.lastname@example.org
i don't know much about the topic
No spreading or I will drop the team.
Other than that, basically anything is fair game, just don't be mean to me or your opponents.
And include me in the email chain: email@example.com
I'm not like most judges, I'm a cool judge (.5 extra speaker points if you tell me what movie I'm alluding to).
I prefer policy arguments, but honestly, anything goes. Just explain your arguments.
ASK ME QUESTIONS BEFORE ROUND!!! DON'T BE SHY :) I only bite when I'm hungry.
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org
1) Who am I?
West High 2017-2021
Currently debating for Weber State University (shameless plug; We have tuition waivers for college debate. Get in contact with our DoD @ email@example.com)!
Please put me on email chains: Ethanwall2003@gmail.com
Teachers that have personally shaped how I understand and view debate: Matt Liu, Moses Baca, Miles Gray, Mike Shackelford, Anthony Trufanov, Lauren Johnson.
Right before the round? Read this: To quote Miles: "Judge philosophies are a bit silly because it is the exceptionally rare case where an issue must be resolved with reference to the judge’s arbitrary preferences. Usually the debaters make their arguments, one side presents a more comprehensive approach to the important issues and frames the close calls, and then judge votes for that team."
2) Procedural /meta stuff:
- Please start debates on time, to the minute. The 1AC should be sent with speaker prepared to speak before that minute.
- Time your own speeches, track your own prep, and do astute line by line/labeling/signposting.
- I flow straight down, and on paper. I appreciate strong communication habits. If its not on my flow, its not getting evaluated.
- I love debate! I smile, I nod, I shake my head. This is not necessarily an indication of winning or losing the round or any particular argument, I'm just vibing. If you make me laugh, bonus speaks for you!
- I will not read along with the doc as you give your speech. If you want me to know how awesome your evidence is, you need to do it justice when extending it.
3) Actual debating:
- I am comfortable with all arguments. I will adapt to you.
- I reserve the right to deal with ethics objections on an ad hoc basis.
- The final speeches are supposed to write my ballot for me so specific argument resolution and judge instruction is the best way to earn my ballot.
- I use the path of least intervention when deciding my ballot, starting from central pieces of offense in the final rebuttals.
- I am so tech over truth that if you tell me I should use truth over tech and there isnt a good answer to it, im game.
4) How do I decide debate rounds?
1 - I find that each debate has a few key questions that typically determine the direction of the round. If one of those key questions is entirely conceded and there are no cross applications that sufficiently answer it (or if those cross applications happen too late) I will usually vote against the team that has technically conceded the debate.
2 - Assuming there is clash, I will isolate those key issues of the debate and cross examine myself about how they happened in the debate. (what abouts, is this new, are there answers to answers unanswered) please note this is not a comprehensive list as most debates are different.
3 - Assuming it is this close, and that I have been instructed to read evidence, I will read evidence on those key issues to see how the evidence supports the answers to answers I have flowed through the debate.
4 - I will look at my flow to see if my record of the round corroborates my thoughts to the above.
5 - I will pause to fill in speaker points.
6 - I will wait a couple moments to see if anything else noteworthy pops into my head before I submit the ballot.
5) Speaker point guide:
- If you're good at debate, you'll get good speaks.
- If you are kind and emphasize community when you are in front of me, I will greatly reward you with high speaks. This is more important to me than any of the above bullets in this, or any category. We are all invested in debate. Debate should be fun and friendly.
1. Offense-defense, but can be persuaded by reasonability in theory debates. I don't believe in "zero risk" or "terminal defense" and don't vote on presumption.
2. Substantive questions are resolved probabilistically--only theoretical questions (e.g. is the perm severance, does the aff meet the interp) are resolved "yes/no," and will be done so with some unease, forced upon me by the logic of debate.
3. Dropped arguments are "true," but this just means the warrants for them are true. Their implication can still be contested. The exception to this is when an argument and its implication are explicitly conceded by the other team for strategic reasons (like when kicking out of a disad). Then both are "true."
1. Conditionality bad is an uphill battle. I think it's good, and will be more convinced by the negative's arguments. I also don't think the number of advocacies really matters. Unless it was completely dropped, the winning 2AR on condo in front of me is one that explains why the way the negative's arguments were run together limited the ability of the aff to have offense on any sheet of paper.
2. I think of myself as aff-leaning in a lot of counterplan theory debates, but usually find myself giving the neg the counterplan anyway, generally because the aff fails to make the true arguments of why it was bad.
1. I don't think I evaluate these differently than anyone else, really. Perhaps the one exception is that I don't believe that the affirmative needs to "win" uniqueness for a link turn to be offense. If uniqueness really shielded a link turn that much, it would also overwhelm the link. In general, I probably give more weight to the link and less weight to uniqueness.
2. On politics, I will probably ignore "intrinsicness" or "fiat solves the link" arguments, unless badly mishandled (like dropped through two speeches). Note: this doesn't apply to riders or horsetrading or other disads that assume voting aff means voting for something beyond the aff plan. Then it's winnable.
1. I like kritiks, provided two things are true: 1--there is a link. 2--the thesis of the K indicts the truth of the aff. If the K relies on framework to make the aff irrelevant, I start to like it a lot less (role of the ballot = roll of the eyes). I'm similarly annoyed by aff framework arguments against the K. The K itself answers any argument for why policymaking is all that matters (provided there's a link). I feel negative teams should explain why the affirmative advantages rest upon the assumptions they critique, and that the aff should defend those assumptions.
2. I think I'm less technical than some judges in evaluating K debates. Something another judge might care about, like dropping "fiat is illusory," probably matters less to me (fiat is illusory specifically matters 0%). I also won't be as technical in evaluating theory on the perm as I would be in a counterplan debate (e.g. perm do both isn't severance just because the alt said "rejection" somewhere--the perm still includes the aff). The perm debate for me is really just the link turn debate. Generally, unless the aff impact turns the K, the link debate is everything.
3. If it's a critique of "fiat" and not the aff, read something else. If it's not clear from #1, I'm looking at the link first. Please--link work not framework. K debating is case debating.
1. I'm *slightly* better for the aff now that aff teams are generally impact-turning the neg's model of debate. I almost always voted neg when they instead went for talking about their aff is important and thought their counter-interp somehow solved anything. Of course, there's now only like 3-4 schools that take me and don't read a plan. So I'm spared the debates where it's done particularly poorly.
2. A lot of things can be impacts to T, but fairness is probably best.
3. It would be nice if people read K affs with plans more, but I guess there's always LD. Honestly debating politics and util isn't that hard--bad disads are easier to criticize than fairness and truth.
Versus the K:
1. If it's a team's generic K against K teams, the aff is in pretty great shape here unless they forget to perm. I've yet to see a K aff that wasn't also a critique of cap, etc. If it's an on-point critique of the aff, then that's a beautiful thing only made beautiful because it's so rare. If the neg concedes everything the aff says and argues their methodology is better and no perms, they can probably predict how that's going to go. If the aff doesn't get a perm, there's no reason the neg would have to have a link.
Topicality versus plan affs:
1. I used to enjoy these debates. It seems like I'm voting on T less often than I used to, but I also feel like I'm seeing T debated well less often. I enjoy it when the 2NC takes T and it's well-developed and it feels like a solid option out of the block. What I enjoy less is when it isn't but the 2NR goes for it as a hail mary and the whole debate occurs in the last two speeches.
2. Teams overestimate the importance of "reasonability." Winning reasonability shifts the burden to the negative--it doesn't mean that any risk of defense on means the T sheet of paper is thrown away. It generally only changes who wins in a debate where the aff's counter-interp solves for most of the neg offense but doesn't have good offense against the neg's interp. The reasonability debate does seem slightly more important on CJR given that the neg's interp often doesn't solve for much. But the aff is still better off developing offense in the 1AR.
1. I've been judging LD less, but I still have LD students, so my familarity with the topic will be greater than what is reflected in my judging history.
2. Everything in the policy section applies. This includes the part about substantive arguments being resolved probablistically, my dislike of relying on framework to preclude arguments, and not voting on defense or presumption. If this radically affects your ability to read the arguments you like to read, you know what to do.
3. If I haven't judged you or your debaters in a while, I think I vote on theory less often than I did say three years ago (and I might have already been on that side of the spectrum by LD standards, but I'm not sure). I've still never voted on an RVI so that hasn't changed.
4. The 1AR can skip the part of the speech where they "extend offense" and just start with the actual 1AR.
My name is Darius White and I debated at C.E. Byrd High School for 4 year and debate for the University of Oklahoma currently.
Speaker Points: I generally give fairly high speaks, and I understand that their is going to be some rudeness in the debate, but try not to over-do because that will be a speak-point decrease. Also stealing prep, and speaking CONSTANTLY during your partners speech will drop your speeches quite a bit, but I usually try to be generous with the speaks.
Cross-X: I defer c-x being binding (unless told otherwise but they need to be nuanced, not tag line extensions of theory shells) and tend to flow c-x
After-round evaluation of evidence: I will try as best as possible to not call for evidence unless you are highly reliant on one piece of evidence in your last speeches, and/or evidence is into question (i.e. if you call for me to look at a piece of evidence after round), but other than that I tend to try to judge the debate on the actually speeches given by the debaters.
Theory: I have a high threshold for theory arguments and hate when teams spray through your theory blocks; I usually default to reasonability and reject-the-arguments-not-the-team
unless you win the abuse story i.e. I don't think one conditional advocacy destroys aff ground so just try to be reasonable and very persuasive when going for theory.
Disads/CP's: Impact calculation is always a good idea, and even though I am more on the K side of debate, I am down to listen to a really technical CP/DA as a net-benefit debate, so don't be shy to run these arguments in front of me. But, I feel that the CP does need a net-benefit for me to vote for it, so if the 2NR is just CP with no net-benefits, I will have a hard time finding reasons why I should vote for the CP. Turns case arguments on the DA are always tight.
Impact Turns: I really enjoy these types of debates, and they are very persuasive in my opinion, so if you got any in your files, I am down to listen.
Kritiks: I hate when teams read a random K that they have no idea what it means or says, and that is always a pet peeve. Don't run a K in front that you are not comfortable going for, but if you are very well at going for a specific criticism then do your thing because I am more familiar with this side of the debate. I feel that the alternative portion of the K is very under utilized and would like to be a debate I would want to see, but if your thing is going to turns case, then do your thing.
Framework: This is the argument I least agree with but if will listen and flow if required.
Flashing: I don't count flashing as prep unless you are taking hella a lot of time in which I will inform you that I am about to start your prep time; PLEASE PLEASE PLEASE, do not steal prep.
Random shit: I like jokes, and making me laugh usually gets you some where speak point wise. Using historical references is always a good idea and paints a better picture on the impact calc. Remember to jump your cards over before the speech, and if you read any new cards that aren't on the flash, flash them before c-x or before the next speech is about to start, this is not prep time.
If you have any other questions feel free to email me: firstname.lastname@example.org
Email me if you have questions and please put me on the chain: dylan.willett8 at gmail dot com as well as email@example.com. I coach for the Asian Debate League. I debated for UMKC. In college, I mostly went for framework, topic DAs, and an assortment of topic critiques. As a coach I mostly have spent the last year working on random policy stuff, but have spent a lot of time working with critical approaches to the topic as well.
Be bold, read something new, it will be rewarded if you do it well. Analysis of evidence is important. I have found that over the past few years I have grown my appreciation for more of the policy side of research not in an ideological lean, but rather I am not starting from negative with process counterplans, I appreciate clever disadvantages, etc. If you have good cards, I am more willing to reward that research and if you do something new, I will definitely be happy.
I begin my decisions by attempting to identify what the most important arguments are, who won them, and how they implicate the rest of the debate. The more judge instruction, including dictating where I should begin my decision by showing me what is most important will help determine the lens of how I read the rest of the arguments
I find that I am really annoyed by how frequently teams are asking major flow clarifications like sending a new file that removes the evidence that was skipped. Please just flow, if there is an actual issue that warrants a question its obviously ok, but in most situations it comes across as not paying attention to the speeches which is a bit frustrating.
I like good, strategic cross-ex. If you pay attention and prepare for your cx, it pays dividens in points and ballots. Have a plan. Separate yourself and your arguments here!
I am a big fan of case debates that consist of a lot of offense – impact turns or link turns are always better than just pulling from an impact d file.
I think that I mostly lean negative on theory arguments – I would be really sad if I had to parse through a huge theory debate like condo, but am willing. I think I start from a predisposition that condo, PICs, etc are okay, and change based off the theory debate as it develops. I think theory is an important part of an affirmative strategy versus good, and especially cheaty, counterplans. I don't think education is a super persuasive argument in theory debates I have found. Way easier to go for some type of fairness argument and compare internal links versus going for some abstract notion about how conditionality benefits or hurts "advocacy skills".
In framework debates, the best teams spend a lot of their speeches on these flows answering the nuanced developments of their opponents. AFF or NEG teams that just say a different wording of their original offense in each speech are setting themselves up to lose. I am interested in hearing what debates would look like under each model. I like education arguments that are contextual to the topic and clever TVAs and impact turns are good ways to get my ballot while making the debate less stale. I find the framework teams that lose my ballot most are those that refuse to turn (on the link level or impact level, in appropriate manner) AFF offense. I find the K AFF teams that lose my ballot most are those that don't double down on their offense and explain how the NEGs impacts fit in your depiction of how debate operates.
Ks, DAs, CPs, T, FW, etc are all fine to read and impact turn – as long as I am judging a round where there is some attention to strategy and arguments are being developed, I will be happy. Definitely willing to vote on zero risk of a link.
*****IF MY CAMERA IS NOT ON I AM NOT THERE******
I have a philosophy degree from Loyola and last debated for GSU (2n). I have a background in coaching, judging, and debating LD, PF, and Policy and I have been working at camps for 6 years (GDS, UNT, Hdc, and Snfi). Currently coaching for CKM. I will listen to most arguments as long as I do not find them offensive. I prefer clarity over speed- that being said I am perfectly fine with speed. If I have to call clear more than three times I will stop flowing. I will listen to pretty much any arg pending heinous claims. However, I typically only like to vote on theory arguments in which the violation can actually be resolved by the ballot. Can go either way on tricks, but I don't hate creative attempts at securing the ballot. Please for the love of everything... do not run a tva arg in front of me because we are both gonna be upset. My threshold for granting the tva is incredibly high and this is probably the only argument I really dont love hearing. It is unlikely I will vote on T. Definitely K leaning in terms of what I am most familiar with.
tldr; pref me as a k judge
My connection is not the best- please include your analytics in your speech doc and make my life a lot easier. Reduce your speed by 10-15%.
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org
Please add me to the email chain! email@example.com
I debated at Meadows for 4 years, qualifying to the TOC my junior and senior year. I'm currently pursuing my master's at the University of Virginia and continue to stay involved in debate - I've led labs at Cal for the past two summers.
Top level: Be nice and debate arguments you are comfortable with! I especially don't appreciate being overly aggressive/rude in rounds. Debate is hard, and everyone is trying their best - so please be respectful. Judge instruction + impact calc + not re-reading blocks in the 2nr/2ar are key to my ballot.
- Conditionality is good (but reading 4 cp's that don’t solve or compete with the aff doesn't help the neg)
- I am more likely to buy solvency advocate theory, multiactor fiat, etc than condo bad
- Both teams should point out when interps are arbitrary
- I think cps need to be functionally and textually competitive - cps that compete off certainty/normal means are probably cheating, but it's the aff's burden to prove that
- Word PICs - Read it as a K probably solves all your offense
- If you are actually considering going for theory at the end of the debate, don't just re-read 2ac theory shells. You need to engage with and answer the other team's offense
- I won't be familiar with every violation on the topic - so please clearly explain your interpretation and what a year of debating looks like under your interp
- Giving a case list of unpredictable affs that the aff's interp justifies is convincing
- Impact calc is really important. Just saying "limits" or "ground" isn't enough to convince me that I should vote down the other team
- Intent to define/exclude is important, but contextual evidence is also good
- Almost all of my 2nrs were some version of cap/neolib/militarism/ideology/postpolitics k. Given that, I think generic ks that don't engage with the aff produce some of the least educational debates
- this includes teams that just make "state bad" or "reform bad" links
- Reading a k isn't cheating - I think it is better for the aff to make arguments like "weigh impacts the aff solves v impacts the alt solves" or "consequences outweigh epistemology" on fw
- I won't vote on a perm if I don't know what it is - aff teams should explain how a perm overcomes the links rather than reading 5 perms in the 2ac that aren't explained
- Winning framework isn't enough - k teams should have specific links to the aff (whether that's their plan, advantages, etc) and an alternative that resolves their links/impacts
- The aff should never ignore good root cause debating - I think it can serve as terminal solvency deficits to the aff and a reason why the alt is better
- K debates that are very specific to the 1AC are my favorite debates to watch - but if your 2nc or 2nr could be read for multiple different affs on the topic - that's a problem
- Cps that are competitive and actually solve the aff are great
- Aff teams should extend theory on cheaty cps more often
- Strong solvency deficits o/w a small risk of a net benefit
- DAs with strong link stories and good ev are great, but spending 4 minutes on impacts doesn't make sense if there isn't an i/L (this probably means topic da > politics)
- Aff teams - cross x of the 1nc is a good time to squash laughable da's
- Defensive arguments that are executed well can take out a da - uq overwhelms the link, no i/L, aff not key, etc are all good if you explain how those outweigh the neg's arguments
- I'm definitely open to planless affs, but you should be able to explain what you solve (otherwise presumption args can be very compelling)
- For the aff: the biggest problem I've noticed in the past few rounds I've judged is that the 2ar just re-reads 2ac/1ar blocks in the 2ar on framework - so make sure you are actually being responsive to the 2nr. I think impact turning the neg's standards is usually a good idea.
- For the neg: I think fairness can be an impact, but you should prove that your interp gives access to the type of education the aff advocates for (that's probably more of a portable impact). You should also explain how fairness is an i/L to other benefits that are unique to debate. I haven't been too convinced when teams go for fairness as an impact on its own. TVAs are good.
- I enjoy k v k debates, but only when both teams actually engage with each other's arguments. Strong links (about method, theory, or another aspect of the 1ac) are reasons why I'm less likely to buy a perm. Otherwise every k v k debate becomes both cap and racism are bad, etc. Explain how the alternative takes a different approach to resolving both team's impacts.
- Please be respectful
- I definitely pay attention and flow questions
- CX is underutilized - Ask questions that actually help your arguments (otherwise it's just a waste of 3 mins)
- Being funny is always a plus
Please add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Read whatever arguments you are most comfortable with/think are most strategic, I’m fine with pretty much anything. Tech over truth in most cases. Line by line is very important. Speed is fine, but be clear. Warrants, clash, framing and impact calc are all appreciated. The debate is about you, not me, so do what you do best. Having said that, if you’d like some specific insights into how I evaluate rounds, continue reading.
- I’m perfectly fine with kritikal affs, but I have to understand what I’m voting for and why I’m voting for it. I believe the aff has to defend something and articulate why they have to operate outside of the resolution.
- Impact debate, especially in the framework debate, is where I like to see work done and what I will vote on.
- The K has to interact with the aff on a solid link level. Nuance the argument, I need more than "they said extinction", link to security. If the link level isn't tight I tend to give more leeway to the aff. I tend to decide the debate on framework and if the neg doesn't win the framework debate I tend to lean aff on k vs. case debate.
- I tend to think Policymaker unless I am explicitly told otherwise
- Although I may be well versed in the literature, I will not do the work for you. Please warrant your arguments.
- The more specific the better
- Impact calc and turns case arguments are appreciated
- I generally think CPs should compete functionally and textually but I can be persuaded otherwise
- Well researched, advantage CPs are highly looked upon, sneaky ones (PICs, 50 states, XO) need to be solid to win
- I default to competing interpretations unless told otherwise
- The impact debate is important. “The aff explodes limits” is not an inherent impact.
- Generally, a reason to reject the argument, not the team, but I can be persuaded to vote on theory if you give me a compelling reason to.
- More likely to go for performative contradiction/contradictory args are illogical!
- I love a good case debate
- I will always be impressed by a strategically utilized CX, its binding + entertaining
- Have fun, be nice