Jack Howe Memorial Tournament
2021 — Online, CA/US
Lincoln Douglas (TOC) Paradigm ListAll Paradigms: Show Hide
Last edited for ’23-24. This paradigm tries to be expansive as possible a) to avoid a slew of questions pre-round (it’ll happen anyway bc people have stopped reading these) and b) because most judges really aren’t transparent at all and I do have real preferences.
Email chains for lay rounds? No thanks, just flow. And make real arguments, regardless of form or content.
About: Did 4 years of LD at a high school you’ve never heard of, ended up learning circuit debate independently, currently a senior/master's student at UGA (studying what is basically just K lit) and not doing college CX but still actively judging and coaching LD—this means I'm reasonably familiar with the rez.
- Pronouns: they/she (basically anything that isn’t masculine)
- I listen to girl in red (iykyk)
- I don’t shake hands, pls don’t try and shake my hand after the round (thanks for your understanding)
Speaks (Numbers n Stuff):
- Go as fast as you want, just be clear, and slow down on interp texts, advocacy texts, and standards plz
- I won’t listen to arguments asking for extra speaks, I also tend to not disclose speaks
- I want to be on the chain, no need to ask: email@example.com
- I typically try to average ~28.5 relative to the pool, they’re always based off efficiency/strategy rather than the ableist method of evaluating “speaking ability”
Prefs Cheat Sheet:
K, Policy: 1
Theory and Tricks: 4
Trad: Your call (I would place myself around a 2 for these kinds of rounds)
*I prefer genuine ACs/NCs to tricks—a “Korsgaard AC” is best read as Korsgaard and not 3 min of goobledygook
TL;DR: engage, clash, and read substantive arguments that are well-thought out and you should be fine
Here are the most common things people look for, people have stopped reading paradigms:
- Paradigms are largely unhelpful bc they're all iterations of "fine with anything" and "do what you do best" - point blank, I do best with Ks and policy, understand philosophy which means I have a higher threshold for it (debate is so far removed from real philosophical deliberation that it hurts sometimes), and do not prefer tricks/friv theory - in general, I'm fine for arguments that are pedagogically responsible (warranted and have real value), bad for arguments that are frivolous
- A lot of my RFDs involve in-round explanation of some degree (in both directions)—well-warranted and explained arguments tend to fare better than meaningless walls of buzzwords and claims, and since debate is a communicative activity, I need to be able to understand and articulate your arguments
- Method and framing evidence has been atrocious as of late—it's underhighlighted and doesn't warrant what's in the tag—if I can't piece together what you're trying to say with the highlighted portion alone, I'm not going to fill in the rest for you—blitz through this at your own risk
- I will always disclose the decision (but not speaks) at the end of the round (if the tournament won’t let me, I will do it anyway if you email me afterwards) – all good judges disclose their decisions. It sometimes takes me a moment to type stuff up if the round was close. I will always try to give the “right” decision since I care a lot about giving quality feedback + results, but similarly, don’t aggressively postround me.
- Misgendering, general misconduct (like being racist or sexist) is a reason for me to damage your speaks at best, if you continue to do it, try to impact turn it, and/or willfully ignore it, neither one of us will like the end result
- Discourse violations are better read as kritiks than theory but I will vote on both (I tend to be slightly annoyed by the team/debater that used harmful discourse to begin with, so no need to worry about how you go about this)
- To add to the above: pls let me know if you have any accommodations that need to be met before the round (slower spreading than normal, preferred pronouns, etc.) to make the round as safe and inclusive as possible, debate is for everyone—I care a lot about student well-being and any accessibility concerns should be relayed in a manner you feel comfortable with (getting my attention or emailing me, whatever you need to do)
- Weighing is good. please do it. thx in advance <3
- Good K debates are the best types of rounds, but bad K debates are frustratingly difficult to resolve (i.e., pre-scripted 2NRs loaded with buzz terms that don’t frame anything for my ballot)—know your lit base (theory of power, topic links…the whole shebang), make it meaningful
- I have noticed a major uptick in criticisms of settler colonialism following the “open borders” topic from J/F 2023—if you’re going to read it, a) read the full text from which you cut evidence and actually read Tuck and Yang first (not just the abstract) and know what the 6 moves to innocence are, read la paperson 2017 (it does not conclude ‘state reform good’), b) have the historical knowledge to actually go for these arguments, c) perf-cons are incredibly damning in these rounds, d) center Indigenous scholarship in the round or read another position
- Fav lit bases are queer and feminist lit but if you don’t know these lit bases, they can also make me v sad
- I'm a material kinda person, which means I like to see material examples of theory in power in motion—always willing to vote on high theory arguments, but it is a near necessity that there be a connection to the material world
- Do impact analysis/weighing bc these debates can otherwise become messy, also do lots of link and alt work and don’t just talk past the Aff—lack of engagement and poor alt work are two ways to a good old-fashioned L
- Non-T Affs are always great but be ready for generic responses (and just make sure the Aff does ‘something’…I don’t really care what that ‘something’ is though)
- T-FW should engage with the Aff and explain what it means to affirm (“must defend only a policy” is a terrible argument and does not explain what it means to affirm), DAs to models of debate are underrated—tailor it to the Aff (ngl, I don't really take a definitive stance on what T-FW should look like, just make it good)
- Aff FW v. K: a) just bc you win that you weigh case, doesn’t mean you’ll win the round, b) state engagement good needs to be contextualized to the specific criticism, otherwise you should just debate at the link level—also, most state engagement good cards are really underhighlighted/underwarranted c) extinction outweighs is often a link but I’ll go either way on this one, d) only makes sense in policy v. K rounds tbh
- K v. K – always welcome but can be very difficult to evaluate without effort on your behalf
- Don’t be lazy—explain the perm (beyond ‘double-bind’ bc that means nothing) and explain the alt
- I do think that debaters should be held accountable for their discourse in-round—I prefer only going for discourse links when the link is egregious (like calling an immigrant an 'illegal alien'), and also think that word PIKs can be policing (basically: tread carefully, do this when it's necessary)
- Performances: can really matter in terms of how the Aff frames its engagement w/ debate + the world, but if it’s a 5-10 second “land acknowledgment” that takes place in your constructive and never gets brought up again, then idrc—performances have as much meaning as you articulate them to have, and can be as simple as playing background music to as complex as layering personal anecdotes/poetry in the round—you do you, I’m here for it
- Sure, did this for a while and it’s probably the most common type of round I judge, fine with however you carry out policy rounds though I much prefer topic-specific ptx positions and impact turns to generics like “x is the actor, extinction”
- Weighing = necessity (and beyond just “magnitude” if there are two competing extinction scenarios), I really like “even if”/relativistic claims to be made in these rounds (it’s never absolute…trust me) and doing evidence comparison/weighing is super helpful
- Case debate is great debate - contest the scenarios, solvency, and other details too beyond just impact D
- “Judge kick” seems rather goofy
- If you can read CP texts and plan texts at conversational speed, that’d be fantastic
- The 1AC probably needs to at least mention Util/SV (even if it’s just a one-liner), the 1NC should exploit Affs that don’t
- Extinction is overused in debate (won’t hack against it but like…do we need to be mentioning extinction on “standardized tests?”)
- I like tests of competition more than theory debates (plan v. CP perm debates are underrated), but if you go with theory, pls weigh against 1NC procedurals
- Less a fan of limits/fairness for the sake of limits—overlimiting is a thing, I prefer topic lit implications and warrants (and similarly this constrains semantics impacts)
- Losing influence in the meta, I did study philosophy for some of college and still actively keep up with philosophy,I prefer real-world style philosophical argumentation to shenanigans based on my experiences in actual philosophical inquiry
- I prefer sensical ACs/NCs to nonsense, not a fan of tricks disguised as philosophy, generally quick to understand what you're reading but many debaters do a very poor job of in-round explanation (just keep that in mind)
- FW justifications need real warrants - a lot of them like "performativity" are like really circular and never explain why the FW is actually true
- A lot of phil contentions don't actually align with their framing - Kantian philosophy, for example, would not conclude "taxation is impermissible under the criterion"
- Don’t quote things like source Kant (Korsgaard is cooler anyway)
- TJFs—mixed feelings, most of them aren’t fantastic arguments but I’m fine voting on them
- I heavily dislike AFC/ACC (debate is about clash lol), not fond of Truth Testing ROBs in place of FW debates
Traditional LD (Trad)
- I would consider myself a reasonably competent judge; I can evaluate whatever you’re doing just fine—traditional rounds are easier to evaluate if you weigh, give clash, and give voters at the end, but are more difficult to resolve in the absence of crystallization in latter speeches
- Please don't read arguments like "we must follow what is in the constitution and only what is in the constitution" as "this is ethical" - consider that you're reading an argument weaponized against queer people in front of an openly queer judge
- Counterplans are a good thing for debate, but many counterplans read in lay debates do not make sense
- Please say the name of the card BEFORE you start reading off the actual card—this makes it so much easier for me to flow (i.e., “Jones 20: blah blah”)
- I’m not a parent judge who cares about “speaking well” or “the values debate” – you should debate impacts instead of framework if the two don’t clash with each other
- Words in the rez =/= abstract principles of good
- The Aff must provide solvency to some extent (implied solvency doesn’t exist)
- “Where’s the statistic for x” is only a legitimate argument when dealing with utilitarian impacts
- I view the rez as a fluid idea—I don’t hack against any given arguments (except obv problematic ones), which includes “circuit arguments” (also, as a heads up: if your opponent is reading a kritik, you should probably not call it “[a] theory” or say “they didn’t have a value/VC” – these two things will tank your speaks)
- Full disclosure here - my ability to eval these rounds is entirely dependent on execution - if you actually do weighing (between standards, paradigm issue warrants, etc.), we're fine, if the opponent concedes something, make that the center of attention, if these things don't happen, brace for impact
- Overall: good for policy-type theory (condo, warranted spec theory like aspec, CP theory, etc.), bad for friv theory, won’t vote on out-of-round violations (beyond disclosure, which similarly needs a clear violation or I won’t vote on it) or theory where there is no in-round abuse
- Won’t evaluate arguments about your opponent’s appearance or other ad hom-type theory (please don’t), similarly have a very high threshold when theory is deployed to shut out hard convos, it’s bad for debate
- People need to SLOWWW DOWN when reading the interp text (conversational speed would be amazing)
- Reading more than 2 shells in-round (on either side) will usually lead me to question your strategic decisions
- I don’t apply defaults in theory rounds—read paradigm issues pls and thx
- Reasonability is always an option (please?) – similarly, I think it’s actually quite strategic to read reasonability as a paradigm issue for accessibility-type theory (must not misgender opponent, accessibility formatting, etc.)
- The RVI: have voted for one before, not an impossible battle, just not an easy one
- I have judged several debates in which there is a “misdisclosure” violation and it devolves to “they said-they said” – please: a) collapse to something else most of the time, b) explain at like 60-70% speed “I asked for x before the debate, they said they would provide it, and then y happened” – basically, make the violation super clear to me, and c) take screenshots that are definitive evidence - this isn't to say "never go for it," it's more so to say "go for it if you think an outsider (me) will get it"
- Disclosure has made debate better, but reading disclosure theory is an attempt to mandate equality when we should be focusing on issues of equity
- You don’t have to disclose performances
- I will not vote on disclosure at locals (as aforementioned at the top), if you think it should be enforced, we can have a conversation about it, but let's be honest: you just want a cheap tech ballot
- Learning about disclosure norms is a topic for out-of-round discussion but not one I ever feel comfortable adjudicating (i.e., rounds where disclosure theory is deployed when one team doesn’t know how to use the wiki)
- Genuine philosophical paradoxes (like stuff out of Socratic dialogues), innovative arguments, and creativity are okay—anything else is probably a non-starter for me, especially if it’s an argument that can be dismantled via any coherent thought (the key distinction is how much explanation is put into the argument…much like other styles in debate)
- I understand ethical paradoxes within the time constraints of a debate round much better than logical formulae/dense logic equations—blitzing through a paragraph of “if p then q” will leave my head spinning and a mess on my flow
- I seriously dislike the way Truth Testing gets deployed in debate, especially if you use it against Ks or K Affs (it’s violent) – I do think that identity tricks are a valid response to violent practices, although you can (and should?) also go for it as a link
Misc/Defaults for LD
- FW Defaults: Comparative Worlds, Epistemic Confidence
- Permissibility and presumption both negate at face value, unlikely to vote on permissibility affirming (given ‘ought’ in the rez), presumption flips Aff if the Neg reads an advocacy, but I seldom vote on either one
- Don’t care if you sit or stand
- If I am on a panel with two lay/parent judges, I apologize to everyone else in the room in advance
Sequoyah HS, Perry HS, Ivy Bridge Academy, Dean Rusk MS
Hey all, super excited to be judging! I have competed in, coached, and judged, public forum policy, policy, parli, and LD. I haven't competed since 2017 though. I'm currently a second year law student and I've already seen how learning how to create persuasive arguments is such an invaluable skill.
I only have two notes here. Talking fast/spreading is okay, but if it's so fast as to where I can't clearly hear your points, then I might end up missing the point you're trying to make. As a result, your point may might drop on my flow. I can't think of a professional instance where you would use spreading, so there are practical reasons to perhaps slow down a bit as well. I would suggest trying to avoid conclusory statements with no link. Walk me through how your points support the aff world or the neg world. Otherwise, I don't have any other biases/preferences. Good luck!
My Judging style is relaxed (Parent Judge), and I expect the same from contestants. I look for these qualities.
1. How well do you listen? Quality of listening becomes evident during rebuttals and cross examination. I pay close attention to how well a participant leverages opponents arguments to defeat the case (aff or neg).
2. Logic trumps everything. I look for solid correlations between value system and resolution.
3. Don’t use cards to impress the Judge. A good card which doesn’t do anything to support the argument is worthless. Cards are powerful, so use them wisely.
4. Personal affronts are an immediate demerit. It will reflect in speaking points. I will not brook even vague insinuations. Absolutely no personal attacks.
5. Please email me your cases at firstname.lastname@example.org
6. And lastly, please do not spread!
Please put me on the email chain.
I am excited to be your judge and I am here to listen to your arguments. As long as they not discriminate or exclude others, I will consider them whether you are reading a K-Aff or have 5 Disadvantages.
I am a former HS policy debater, I judged and coached before. I am familiar with the structure but not the current topic. Please explain your arguments well and remain respectful towards everyone.
For more specific questions, please email me or ask me before the round.
Framework is important to me. I would like to know through what lens I should evaluate your arguments. Why is your framework better than your opponent’s framework?
My email is email@example.com
I'm hired. Used to do Policy.
Good stuff to do:
- Avoid Cheerios and other sugary cereals
- Hydrate before + after every speech
- Get 8-9 hours of sleep a night
- Don't be mean to each other
As big or small and as outlandishly or by-the-book as you want - just make it matter.
I prefer you debate like I was dragged off the street and made a judge. You're probably smarter than me anyways.
Offense/Defense & Games. I'm TR until you say otherwise.
My RFD's are going to be as constructive and in-depth as I'm able to deliver on. If you think I'm going nowhere with whatever I'm saying during this time, please interject.
Add me to the chain firstname.lastname@example.org
Please subject the email "Tournament Name -- Round # -- Aff School AF vs Neg School NG"
She/her/hers… also good with they/them
Hey I’m Neda Bahrani and I am a current Junior at UC Berkeley. I used to debate Lincoln Douglas/Policy Debate with Dougherty Valley for 5 years. During my time on the team I was Policy Captain for DV and mentor our middle school team. I have competed in both LD and policy style debate through out high school as well as attended camps like CNDI and TDI.
Number your arguments PLEASE
Don’t be offensive. Debate is a game, and supposed to be fun, so don’t take yourself too seriously.
Tech > truth. BUT true arguments are better arguments.
Tricks/Spikes - just no. I won’t flow these.
Friv theory - also a no for me
3 + condo = bad (for LD)
5 + condo = bad (for policy)
You can also refer to my teammate, Savit Bhat’s paradigm if you would like more info than this ^.
Top Level Preferences:
I’m good with anything as long as you do link level analysis and impact out everything. Winning the thesis of your K, your aff, your affirmative, or even your violation is not enough for me to vote for you.
1 - Policy/T
1 - K’s/ K affs
2 - Phil (actual phil, ie nc’s)
3 - Theory
4 - Strike for tricks
1 - Topic Ks
1 - Security
2 - Set Col
3 - Identity Ks
4 - Anthro/Humanism
5 - Cap
6 - Pomo (Pomo’s are 6 for a reason, don’t pref me just bc “she likes Ks”)
I do enjoy a good K debate. On neg the K winning a turns case, solves case, or some impact ow arg is something I usually like to vote for. I dislike when the alt is intangible and cannot be the intricacies cannot be articulated in cross. You should be able to answer the question “What does the alt look like in the real world?”
This was the style of debate I primarily debated throughout high school. I usually went for “edgy” pics like the asteroids pic, womxn pic, etc. So yeh love those. Honestly at the end of the day it comes down to impact calc and whether you did it and answered the line by line. I like GOOD arguments. My team, throughout highschool, has always produced a really high quality of cards and affirmatives, and that is something I have come to appreciate as I start judging. I hate opening the doc and scrolling through and just being like, “oof this is just a bad aff.” Because those bad arguments are just easily beatable.
If your opponent requests a lay round and it's a ggsa tournament or a "usually" lay tournament you should default lay. However, if your opponent requests a lay round and you are entered in Var TOC at an invitational, I am completely okay with you saying "I won't go fast." That is sufficient for me.
If it is a lay round, I look to who does the most impact weighing.
At the end of the day, be nice and have fun. Debate means more than just your wins and loses.
I am a flow judge who debates in college policy and parli for MIT and BU. I am open to hearing all kinds of arguments. See below for specific guidance on arguments and conflicts.
Spreading: I am mildly hard of hearing and rely on some degree of lip reading to understand people so I ask that debaters not spread at their full capacity but just speak fast and I'll let you know if its getting hard to understand.
Signposting: please please please do it, when you're moving to a separate page or getting into links or impacts let me know so I can flow your argument as well as you have constructed it.
(Epistemology) Tabula Rasa: In general, yes. If you drop something on the premise that its absurd or untrue but don't let me know why I will not flow the arg your direction. I use conservative common sense theory in parli but am generally tabula rasa when it comes to what you can and can't drop without explaining.
--------------------------------specific questions and issues (all basically standard) ----------------------------
Theory and Kritiks: Love em in the right context. Standard form should be adhered to but please talk to me before round if you have specific questions or if you want to alert me about how you structure these args differently.
Neg Block Skew: some new off case and on case args in the neg block are valid unless 1AR collapses on theory. Egregious violations and skew will be noted on the ballot. Collapse in the Neg block.
Drops and Collapse: Don't drop important stuff w/o notification, collapse to your best/strongest args.
Presumption of fiat for policy resolutions: fiat grants agency of enactment and enforcement unless a specific issue is highlighted by neg (see: tabula rasa).
Monolithic plans/plan inclusive cp: valid (burden of disproof is on aff and moot args are valid in most cases)
Straight turns: if you run a disad and only offer defensive non-unique args and link turns a straight turn is valid and will be considered on the ballot, to ensure this is noted the opposing team should mention it in rebuttal and closing.
Topicality: sucks, but if someone is egregiously off-topic or skewing the topicality of the debate in some inherently harmful way you should make this arg for sure. Not a fan of topicality stock args if there isn't any specific atopical approach from a team tho (but of course i will abandon this bias to hear whatever debate occurs)
Offense/Defense: I vote on offensive arguments flowed through, if both teams only offer defensive arguments and rebuttals I will adhere to the least responded defense and largest defensive issues. Please do not make me vote on defense it is a messy game.
Anything else I can answer or clarify in the beginning of round! :)
Sexism, Racism, Homophobia, Ableism: no tolerance policy, if you engage in harmful behavior in round we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If your opponent is engaging in some kind of intolerance/harm that I do not notice (which may well be the case) let me know and we will stop the debate and take it to tab. If you are using microaggressions or coded harmful language in your arguments it will be reflected in the ballot.
I am currently coaching 3 teams at lamdl (POLAHS, BRAVO, LAKE BALBOA) and have picked up an ld student or 2. I am pretty familiar with the fiscal redistribution topic and not very with the federal lands topic.
I do have a hearing problem in my right ear. If I've never heard you b4 or it's the first round of the day. PLEASE go about 80% of your normal spread for about 20 seconds so I can get acclimated to your voice. If you don't, I'm going to miss a good chunk of your first minute or so. I know people pref partly through speaker points. My default starts at 28.5 and goes up from there. If i think you get to an elim round, you'll prob get 29.0+
Evid sharing: use speechdrop or something of that nature. If you prefer to use the email chain and need my email, please ask me before the round.
What will I vote for? I'm mostly down for whatever you all wanna run. That being said no person is perfect and we all have our inherent biases. What are mine?
I think teams should be centered around the resolution. While I'll vote on completely non T aff's it's a much easier time for a neg to go for a middle of the road T/framework argument to get my ballot. I lean slightly neg on t/fw debates and that's it's mostly due to having to judge LD recently and the annoying 1ar time skew that makes it difficult to beat out a good t/fw shell. The more I judge debates the less I am convinced that procedural fairness is anything but people whining about why the way they play the game is okay even if there are effects on the people involved within said activity. I'm more inclined to vote for affs and negs that tell me things that debate fairness and education (including access) does for people in the long term and why it's important. Yes, debate is a game. But who, why, and how said game is played is also an important thing to consider.
As for K's you do you. the main one I have difficulty conceptualizing in round are pomo k vs pomo k. No one unpacks these rounds for me so all I usually have at the end of the round is word gibberish from both sides and me totally and utterly confused. If I can't give a team an rfd centered around a literature base I can process, I will likely not vote for it. update: I'm noticing a lack of plan action centric links to critiques. I'm going to be honest, if I can't find a link to the plan and the link is to the general idea of the resolution, I'm probably going to err on the side of the perm especially if the aff has specific method arguments why doing the aff would be able to challenge notions of whatever it is they want to spill over into.
I lean neg on condo. Counterplans are fun. Disads are fun. Perms are fun. clear net benefit story is great.
If you're in LD, don't worry about 1ar theory and no rvis in your 1ac. That is a given for me. If it's in your 1ac, that tops your speaks at 29.2 because it means you didn't read my paradigm.
Now are there any arguments I won't vote for? Sure. I think saying ethically questionable statements that make the debate space unsafe is grounds for me to end a round. I don't see many of these but it has happened and I want students and their coaches to know that the safety of the individuals in my rounds will always be paramount to anything else that goes on. I also won't vote for spark, trix, wipeout, nebel t, and death good stuff. ^_^ good luck and have fun debating
I've been coaching and judging for 15+ years. So there isn't much I haven't seen or heard. I'm most persuaded by good debating. Please do not be rude or condescending. Please be clear enough to understand. Use your evidence wisely and whereas big impacts are good, realistic impacts are better. The point of debate, for me, is education and communication. Show me you learned something and that you can communicate in an intelligent, well thought out, cohesive manner. People can write out a hundred paragraphs about what they want but at the end of the day I've coached enough champions to tell you that's what it all boils down to. Most importantly, have fun! Love to see students progress and become the natural born leaders we know you all are! And to give some unsolicited advice from a seasoned coach, don't give up. It's may be cliche but somethings are said over and over for a reason. Keep trying, be consistent and you'll be successful! Good luck everyone!
I've judged over 100 debate rounds in the last 2 years at this point. I will flow the round. The biggest caveat is that you should not spread. It does not enhance argumentation and just makes the debate less engaging and less educational. I am putting this at the top of my paradigm. If you decide to spread, and as a result get dropped, that is your fault for not reading the paradigm, not a judge screw.
Pref Cheat Sheet
Traditional Debate/Lay- 1
Slow, Policy-Style debate- 4
Complex Phil- 4
Friv Theory- Strike
I hate Ks, not because I don't understand them, but because I think they are bad for debate education. I have the same stance on spreading, I see no point in cramming as much content as possible into a debate if i can't understand you. It is anti-educational.
I would like there to be an email chain, especially for virtual debates. add me to it- email@example.com If you do not make an email chain that indicates you did not read the paradigm and will result in dropped speaks :)
I like a good, reasonable argument
Not a huge fan of theory, don't run a super frivolous shell. If your opponent is running a frivolous shell make a good argument for reasonability & you should be fine. BUT, absolutely use theory to check REAL abuse.
Spreading- Don't like it. I'll say clear twice & then stop flowing & dock your speaks. It is better to err on the side of caution. If it is a big problem you will be dropped.
Kritiks- I don't like them. I would say don't run them.
Flowing- I flow the round, but if you speak too quickly, the quality of this will significantly deteriorate.
Speaks- Speaker points tend to be "low". Being nice = higher speaks, Being mean/rude = lower speaks. I judge speaker points mostly as if you were in a speech event. If you spread, you will have VERY LOW speaks (think 26). I do believe in low point wins if the tournament allows.
- telling me you won the debate (that is my decision)
- "we should just try" (no, if your opponent is proving active harms, we should not just try.)
- being rude to your opponent
- forcing progressive debate on traditional opponents, if your opponent asks for traditional, please do a traditional round.
Overall, you should run what you are comfortable with. It is better to run a case you know & are comfortable with than a case you don't know just to appease a judge. Just make sure everything is well warranted & linked, & we should be good!
I am a university professor with a Ph.D. in Philosophy and I am a parent judge. I prefer normal speaking speed. I pay serious attention to the Value Criteria and how well it is stated and how it relates to the topic being discussed. I teach Ethics so I am very familiar with most ethical theories used in debate. I have judged 27 rounds so far, including a National Speech and Debate tournament, but I still look at it from the perspective of a lay judge. Please be as clear as possible while making your arguments. I cannot judge what I cannot follow or understand - keep that in mind while choosing what type of case to run if you have me as a judge. Good luck everyone!
LD/Parliamentary Debate Coach - Cogito Debate — (2021-Present)
LD Brief Publisher - Kankee Briefs — (2019-Present)
Varsity Policy Debater — UNLV (2019-2021)
Varsity Policy/LD Debater — NWCTA (2017-2019)
-Put me (firstname.lastname@example.org) on the email chain (yes, even if its LD)
-Not a good K hack judge - I don’t know as much lit and think framework args are true. I won't not vote for a K, BUT don't be mad if I miss something or think aff centric rejoinder is cool
-Line by line muy importante. Keep speeches organized if at all possible and try to clean it up if you can.
-Tech > truth - I try to not intervene unless someone is intentionally excluding someone from the debate space
-I will yell “CLEAR” on Zoom if you’re unclear. If I can’t understand you, I won’t be blamed for less the suburb flows.
-Theory on any issue is okay, BUT slow down and give extra pen time theory. This includes more policy oriented arguments like ptx theory, but not LD trix like permissibility or NIBS.
-None of my preferences are hard rules and are just what I am biased towards. I will vote on any issue if need be
-Inserting rehighlighted ev is cool
-Write prep down on Zoom chat
-Tell me if I need extra paper for say an long K overview
-Creativity in quality arguments is rewarded
-Quote I stole from Gomez:
I will not give up my ballot to someone else. I will not evaluate arguments about actions taken when I was not in the room or from previous rounds. I will not vote for arguments about debaters as people. I will always evaluate the debate based on the arguments made during the round and which team did the better debating. Teams asking me not to flow or wanting to play video games, or any other thing that is not debate are advised to strike me. If it is unclear what "is not debate" means, strike me.
-I'm chill and don't care if you need a second for tech issues or to take care of something
-Quote I stole from Danban that is somehow now relevant, “ [I] won't vote for any argument that promotes sedition.”
-If you have any questions about my paradigm / RFD, please email me or just ask in person.
-I’m pro ptx DA gang though to be honest 99% of them are made up and don’t make sense
-Recency for ev helps. For example, please update your July econ UQ answers you cut at camp
-Utilize DA turns case and link turns case arguments more
-I usually err neg on CP theory since borderline abusive fiat debates can be fun
-Its probably best to functional and textual competition
-I think CP's with internal net benefits are neato
-Intrinsic and severance perms are more acceptable if the CP isn't as theoretically legitimate
-I’m cool if you tell me to judge kick the CP, but the 2AR can object if they want to
-Wouldn't suggest running them in front of me
-Ks should have specific links to the aff
-Links of omission aren’t a thing
-I like more consequence centric K debate (i.e. cap good/bad) as opposed to high theory Baudy quackery
Theory / T
-Hot take - most T args are rubbish except T-FMWK.
- Current thoughts on common theory issues
-Competing interpretations good and most affs T should be read against aren’t reasonable
-Functional limits args aren’t convincing if the plan is able to spike out of common DA's
-International fiat good
-Consult Process CP bad
-Perfcon not necessarily bad, but does likely justify severing representations
-Word PIKS bad
-Disclosure good, but probably not good enough to be something worthwhile voting on
-Caselists and specific explanations of what can / cannot be read under a certain interp are helpful
CX Specific Notes
-I think T-Substantial gets a bad rap - its likely necessary against most fringe affs unless you’re going for the topic K or disad, or very contrived CPs (not that there’s anything wrong with that
-I default to util = trutil and think teams running structural violence affs still need to answer disads regardless of the framework debate
LD Specific Notes
-I don't care if it's a lay debate or not, set up an email chain.
-Separate theory under/overview jazz from solvency and/or framework arguments
-Nailbomb affs are bad - theoretical spikes aren’t super justified
-Same with chunks analytical paragraphs that suck to flow - separate args please
-Since LD is weird, I’m cool with new theory args at any point in the debate if it is justified (e.g. judge kick the CP or the 2NR reexplaining the K as a PIK). Otherwise, try to introduce almost all theory arguments to the 1AC, 1NC, and 1AR
-I know a lot about whatever the current topic may be even though I do CX - you don't need to over explain stuff and can be somewhat fast and loose when explaining certain topic specific knowledge
-If you're second flight, I'm down if you come in and watch first flight. Otherwise, please be there when first flight ends, and know who your opponent is in case I don't know where they are.
-quote from Alderete I liked “LAWs Specific* References to The Terminator will be considered empirical evidence. References to The Matrix will not, because that is fiction.”
I am a parent judge and I have judged speech, PF, and LD. I prefer clear speaking, please do not spread. Please thoroughly explain and signpost throughout the round. Please no theories that are not relevant to the resolution.
I expect non-aggressive and friendly cross-examination and class. Be respectful to each other. Debaters should time their own speeches. I will time also and keep track of prep time.
this paradigm is primarily meant for circuit/toc style ld debate. if i'm judging you at a tournament that's not this (like la reina this coming weekend), please just do you and take everything below with a grain of salt)
sbrowndebate at gmail
background: mcdonogh ('08) policy debater & have coached debate ever since. i currently primarily coach ld (toc/circuit & chssa/trad) but am intimately familiar with ld, pf, & policy
my decisions are highly flow based***
i'm a great judge for technical, mechanical flow based line by line debate
***i'm an awful judge for card text speed analytics*** i promise to try my best, but i just can't get the words down with the precision that i'm typically comfortable with when deciding a debate. just being completely honest that i just cannot completely get everything (claims/warrants) down onto my flow if you're presenting these arguments at the same speed/vocal tone/variety as card quote text. and that this is likely to impact my decision because i'm not going to intervene to reconstruct the debate afterwards. if you want it on my flow, *****slow down a bit*****! *****this is true regardless of the style/meta of debate that you choose***** - please just slow down a smidge - i can't keep up (coke/pepsi challenge - i don't think anyone can)
i'm an excellent to great to good judge for most arguments that originate in policy debate, think: disads, cps, pics, kritiks, k affs, plans, not plans, theory, topicality, performance, etc
i'm an ok to mid to meh judge for phil - if your phil/kant is more card heavy, less paradoxy, i'd put me in the middle of your sheet. if this isn't you, i'd probably put me below the 65% get line. the more paradoxy you are, the more i'm going to need you to slow down and explain - i don't have the flowcabulary for what you're putting out and should debate as if i'm at the peak of the bell curve for intelligence and vocabulary
i'm probably not the best judge for t-framework/usfg/must "larp" against k affs - i'll vote for it, just being open/honest that i'm historically atrocious for this argument. for years i judged framework debates in almost every round at every tournament and i'm just kind of over it. i especially don't get framework interps in ld that say instrumental action only given the importance of value/criterion in the event
tricks - i honestly don't know what is or isn't a "trick". i personally think a lot of "theory" arguments are getting called "tricks" for no reason. like seriously, if some of these arguments are tricks then process cps are larp tricks. i'm not morally opposed to "tricks" or anything like that, i just think most of the arguments are not good and the threshold required for the other team to beat most tricks arguments is fairly low. last year this would have just said "no tricks" and that's it, but as i find myself judging more tricks debate (and honestly becoming way more dogmatic re: tricks), i have some thoughts: if you want to argue about whether or not the aff should have specified the role of the ballot in a delineated ac text that has 4 different components or wiki round report theory - you do you. i don't think these are compelling round winning arguments, but i'm not debating and if both debaters want to seriously debate this out, go for it? i just think these style of arguments are not strategic and very easy for the negative to zero. i find attacking the substance of the actual trick to be way more compelling than carte blanche statements about "tricks". for instance, if one debater says "must record speeches", the opposing debater is better off saying "presuming guilt before innocence on clipping is messed up" rather than "tricks" are evil
tricks/ethics please note: if you accuse someone of inflicting physical violence upon you/someone else, calling you a slur, something of this nature, clipping, et cetera, my decision/ballot will solely be about that accusation. you should strike me if your strategy relies upon purposefully accusing someone of something incredibly seriously that is not true in order to trigger a theory violation to "no new responses/paradigm issues/etc" from the ac that was conceded earlier in debate. accusations such as physical violence are incredibly serious - and so is purposefully making false accusations - and i will involve anyone i see necessary as i see fit
some random pet peeves:
"presumption" is not a trick - presumption is a theory in argumentation that dates back over a thousand years and has historically been used in policy debate (especially with counterplans) since at least the 1980s. it can be used trick-ily? but just because a team uttered the words "presumption" does not mean it is a trick
don't read evidence from debaters/coaches in debates about debate theory - this would not apply to quoting scholarly academic work from debaters/coaches - for instance, you could totally read cards about politics from nate cohn/silver or ip cards from anjali vats. however, i would prefer that you please try not to read evidence from a sophomore in college wrote on a debate camp's blog. just make the argument they're making. if your "evidence" is people debating about debate, just debate about it you don't need the "card" (their "authority" a "source" doesn't really get you anywhere)
speaker point floor typically 29.0
there is zero risk that i will win a gold medal in the 100m dash at the 2024 paris olympic games
Bakersfield High School class of 2017
Cal State Fullerton Class of 2021
2x NDT Qualifier
NDT Quarterfinalist - 2021
CEDA Semifinalist - 2021
Cal State Fullerton Assistant Debate Coach Fall 2021-Present
Peninsula Assistant Coach Fall 2023-Present
Previously Coached by: Lee Thach, LaToya Green, Shanara Reid-Brinkley, Max Bugrov, Anthony Joseph, Parker Coon, Joel Salcedo, John Gillespie and Travis Cochran
Debate Influences: Jonathan (Leo) Meza, Vontrez White, David Dosch, Danielle Dosch, Gordon Krauss, Curtis Ortega, Jay-Z Flores, Rayeed Rahman, Beau Larsen, Brayan Loayza, Oscar Rosas, Deven Cooper, Scott Wheeler, Taylor Brough, Amber Kelsie, Iggy Evans, Azja Butler, Cameron Ward.
If there is an email chain I would like to be on it:
College: email@example.com firstname.lastname@example.org
If you have any questions feel free to email me
Dont call me judge I feel weird about it, feel free to call me Jared
I did four years of policy debate in high school mostly debating on a regional circuit and did not compete nationally till my junior and senior year, debated at Cal State Fullerton (2017-2021)
New for 2023-2024:
Fiscal Redistribution: 8
Nukes : 0
LD Total: 32
There is not much new this year, I spent the summer doing a bunch of research with what should be the Jan/Feb topic for LD working at TDI and working closely with CSUF on producing things for them.
I think i will find myself judging LD more and a lot of the LD-esque things like RVIs and Tricks to me are not a thing so not trying to hear those things in a debate.
But I have gotten increasingly frustrated with the lack of explanatory power in K debates where there is not a sufficient link argument. I wouldn't say that I have a high threshold for the link debate but I genuinely think that this is the one part of the K that you cannot screw up. If you do well you will probably lose.
If your 2AC/1AR strategy when you are reading a K aff is to say that only this debater matters then you shouldn't pref me. This is not to say i don't enjoy critical affirmatives but I think that the aff needs to provide a model of debate (Counter interpretation), a role of the negative, and an impact turn to the negatives standards, absent those things in the 1AR/2AR strategy it becomes difficult for the affirmative to win.
I have gotten increasingly irritated of Ks not making a specific link because most 1NC cards yall read are ok and most 2NCs don't know how to make a link arg, so I have been defaulting aff more on a link level vs the K
As I am a full year removed from debating I have increasingly voted for fw more and more often and for me its just because the 2AC doesn't have the best answers and 1ARs miss important pieces of offense that are difficult to come back from, and most of the ground and clash args to me have some of the time just became true.
K: Love the K, this is where i spent more of the time in my debate and now coaching career, I think I have an understanding of generally every K, in college, I mostly read Afro-Pessimism/Gillespie, but other areas of literature I am familiar with cap, cybernetics, baudrillard, psychoanalysis, Moten/Afro-Optimism, Afro-Futurism, arguments in queer and gender studies, whatever the K is I should have somewhat a basic understanding of it. I think that to sufficiently win the K, I often think that it is won and lost on the link debate, because smart 2Ns that rehiglight 1AC cards and use their link to impact turn of internal link turn the aff will 9/10 win my ballot. Most def uping your speaker points if you rehighlight the other teams cards.
For Critical Affirmatives: I like them, in college and in high school I have read them if you're going to read them though I need a clear understanding of the method that is the most important to me. I find that most K affs lose their method throughout the debate and most times I usually end up voting on presumption because I am not sure what the aff does. I think as ive gotten older this is really true and I really hate it when the aff doesn't have any tangible examples of what their method looks like to hang my hat on which is how i feel that alt/aff methods are won.
K affs VS Framework: I think that the aff in these debates always needs to have a role of the negative, because a lot of you K affs out their solve all of these things and its written really well but you say something most times that is non-controversal and that gets you in trouble which means its tough for you to win a fw debate when there is no role for the negative. In terms of like counter interp vs impact turn style of 2AC vs fw I dont really have a preference but i think you at some point need to have a decent counter interp to solve your impact turns to fw. If you go for the like w/m kind of business i think you can def win this but i think fw teams are prepared for this debate more than the impact turn debate
Plan Based Affirmatives: For teams in HS, some of you are not reading a different aff against K teams and I think you should, it puts you in a good place to beat the K, I have seen some teams do it on the water topic but for the most part you are just reading your big stick policy aff against K teams. I enjoy judging the heg good aff vs 7 off debate, policy aff you do you.
Framework: Yall need to go for what is the role of the negative (RotN) to me I think this is more persuasive than like any type of fairness argument because really RotN is the internal link to any impact argument you are going to make and it means that all of their offense that they are going to go for about their education being better and why your model is bad its all internal link turned by making the arg that they dont have a role for the negative so their revolutionary testing doesnt matter with out a RotN
DA: 1NR on disads have become card dumps and i hate it, explanation is better than just reading a ton of cards like yes read your uq cards on politics but use your link evidence to have a deep explanation of the link. The more specific the disad the better which is not to say i hate the politics disad brovero was my lab leader and drilled me on the ptx disad but I do enjoy the politics throwdown
CP: kind of the same notes for disads the more specific the better, planks are not conditional, condo most of the times is probably good, unless is like 4 or more
1. Clash of Civs are my favorite type of debates.
2. Counterplan should not have conditional planks -theory debates are good when people are not just reading blocks - that being said - theory cheap shots are not always persuasive to me but given they are warranted and isolate a clear violation then it means you probably win the debate
3. Who controls uniqueness - that come 1st
4. on T most times default to reasonability
5. Clash of Civs - (K vs FW) - These are fun debates, 2ACs need the standard meta DAs to policy making and policy debate of course counter interpretations and other specific offense vs their standards. FW teams yall always have these long overviews at the top of the 2NC which I do enjoy but yall need to do more work on the line by line in some of these debates because simply cross-applying from the overview does not answer the 2ACs args.
6. No plan no perm is not an argument
7. FW teams need a TVA - this is not necessary but affs need to have some type of framing question on the TVA
8. Speaker Points: I try to stay in the 28-29.9 range, better debate obviously better speaker points.
Ideal 2NR strategies
1. Topic K Generic
2. Politics Process CP
3. Impact Trun all advantages
4. PIC w/ internal net beneift
5. Topic T argument
I expect to be judging LD a lot more this year with working most of the stuff applies above, but quick pref check.
1 - Larp/K
2. K affs
4-5. I do not like tricks or Phil
Most times i listen to music while writing my RFD and its most likely Drake --- +.1 if you make a Drake reference in your speech.
If you make a joke about Vontrez White +.1 speaker point.
If you have any more questions for me that I may have not answered on this page, please ask me before the round starts.
For email link chains: email@example.com
Current: Regional Coordinator for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League (LAMDL)
Debated 4 years in the Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate league
Coach and Assistant Program Manager for Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League for 2 years
Currently attending CSULB (not actively debating)
- I don't appreciate being post rounded. If you don't agree with my RFD after multiple attempts of providing a sensible explanation, that's on you. I will tell you to be a better debater, gg. If you'd like, I'm open to exchanging emails so as to not stall future rounds.
- If you run a critical affirmative with multiple methods and theories that don't blend well together or create a performative contradiction, then expect some less than celebratory speaks.
- If neither the aff or neg have any clashing impacts in the round, then you're forcing me to vote aff because aff is a 'good idea'.
- If you're aff and you read multiple perms against a K and say "extend the perm/s" in the 2AC without further context, I'm going to be lost.
- I'm open to any argument so much as you can defend it and make a persuasive case to me. But really, just do what you do best. If you want to run a policy affirmative with heg good and nuclear war advantages, great! If you wanna run a critical affirmative that argues the topic is anti-black, heteronormative, colonialist, anthropoecentirc, capitalist, etc., that's cool too! Just have a fun debate!
- I'm pretty generous with speaker points, but that doesn't mean you don't have to earn them.
- If I feel I have to evaluate a piece of evidence, I'll call for it when the round ends.
- I don't count sending speech docs as prep time.
- I'm not typically persuaded by critical language critiques. Unless the neg has a very good impact analysis and comparison of what using certain phrases or words looks like compared to the aff's impacts, then it's not going to contribute to my decision calculus. However, I'll listen to your argument and flow it like I would any other.
For LD: I have a policy background, but these days I judge more LD rounds than I do policy. I'll pretty much treat your round as I would a policy round. The only thing I'll say is
1. Be clear - really slow your spreading down, especially your analytics
2. I don't like cheap tricks, but they do often win rounds if it is not contested by the opponent. However, just because I don't like it, this doesn't mean I won't vote for it.
I believe the case is important. That being said, if you don't have an impact, then why should i care about voting affirmative? Also, if you have nuclear scenarios in your affirmative, please don't just say "nuclear war is going to occur" and expect me to consider it as an argument. If you say exactly that, then you have a claim without a warrant. You have evidence, and you need to be able to explain those internal links. As for critical affirmatives, i believe the case should be able to respond to any or at least most off cases the negative presents which is to say it should have built-in answers. For example, if you have an affirmative that discusses anti-blackness, then your case should potentially be able to respond to many offs like FW, T, Cap, Anthro, Settlerism, or any other incantation of high theory, etc. Just make you use your case to its fullest is all i'm saying.
They're cool; the more specific of a link you have the better the round will go for you. Although, I might consider a DA that's obviously generic if the Aff doesn't respond properly. As for politics DA's, you better explain those internal links.
These are cool too; I've voted for CPs before and i'll probably vote on them again. I usually don't however, because they're used as a time skew and/or lack any substantive explanation.
Alright, so these arguments I'm not so thrilled about generally because when I see T being ran it's ran with generic blocks that don't really say anything, but just makes the neg sound like they're whining. So what if the aff is untopical? Why should I care if they explode the limits of the resolution? Why is this key to education? Why does that negatively impact the round? These are things that I hold a high threshold for and these are things that need to be explained in a way that will make me vote for you. But, I'm open to hearing it and considering it if you can run it persuasively. PLEASE slow down on your analytics a tiny bit.
Yeah, I'll consider it.
I'm down for a FW round. I like seeing a lot of clash between the typical standards offered by the neg vs those of critical affirmatives. So, do some comparison and impact analysis like what fairness means for the neg and what the terminal impact is for them and what fairness means for the affirmative and what the terminal impact might be for them. Compare impacts, weigh them against each other and convince me who has the better interpretation of debate. Also, if you're running FW don't just rely on overwhelming the affirmative with evidence. Remember, quality outweighs quantity and at the end of the round and that's what gets my ballot. Take the time to explain your evidence.
I love these arguments; I suppose my preference of style might favor you if you enjoy deploying Ks. My understanding of the philosophies and theories of authors read in debate travel beyond the bounds of this activity, but just make sure you are explaining your criticism coherently because I won't do the work for you, nor will I reward butchered arguments. So, to reiterate, if you read Baudrillard and you're talking about the seduction of the object or some other, explain it in a coherent manner. I don't care if you're running Bataille and you're trying to be unintelligible. Just remember, I have to understand what you're communicating to me (unless not knowing is a reason to vote you up lol) in order to evaluate your arguments. A good K debater will find killer links against the case and will use the case against itself to win the round.
*I personally shift back and forth on args focused on author indictments. For instance, I will agree on criticisms of high theory authors such as Heidegger, DnG, or Nietzsche. However, when I see these arguments deployed, it often sounds like the team that runs them is whining. SO, I will side with these ivory tower authors if you can convince me that even if Nietzsche is white and has never been oppressed, self-overcoming or whatever is probably a good idea and that not doing the aff is life affirming or whatever.
I love the creativity of these arguments, so if you run these go for it. However, don't just perform for the sake of performing or because 'it's cool'. Always use your performance as a way of turning your opponent's offensive arguments. Tell me how to evaluate the performance in contrast to the neg.
Let's have a good round.
USC '25 (Debating)
Use speechdrop or whatever file sharing platform the tourney offers - it usually avoids the delays associated with email sending.
If not, add me to the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
TLDR - most of the stuff remains true, but I don't care about the nit picky stuff as much(i.e. I'd prefer being referred to as Dhruv, but don't care if you end up calling me judge)
I continue to love policy-oriented debates, but I've begun exploring/debating more the K more so I've begun to appreciate goodK debates more and more. I still think that K affs should be topic-centered, and those that will win in front of me will often redefine words rather than relying on impact turns vs T.
Fun debates/Debates where the atmosphere isn't hostile will receive high speaks: Innovative, fun, complicated, etc strategies that are executed well will be rewarded. That isn't to say you will be penalized for going for a "generic" strategy - if you can execute your strategy well, do it because I will enjoy that just the same.
Tricks - Strike me, don't really care to judge those debates because they're used in a way that's meant for the other team to drop them for you to win. It's the only predisposition I have vs any argument.
Phil - Good Phil = run it, but over explain.
1 - Policy, T, Impact Turn debates, Topic/Generic/Innovative Ks, T-USFG/Resolved v K affs, K affs with plan-texts, Cap v K affs
2 - K Affs(no p-text), T-FW vs K affs, Identity Ks, K v K
3 - High theory K/K-affs(i.e. Pomo)
I'm a current debater at USC and competed in LD and Policy throughout high school, I've been a 2N throughout my career, but have switched to being a 2A as of late.
I'm pretty comfortable for whatever you want to do(some exceptions)... I've run most arguments on the spectrum, from being solely straight-up my sophomore year, to practically one-tricking the Security K my junior year, and ending up debating flex my senior year.
I'm not fond of the "1- ... 2- ... 3-" stuff, but I guess it can be helpful so:
1- Policy(DA, CP), T, T-Fw vs K Affs, Generic Ks or Topic Ks(things like Security, Cap, Berlant, etc)
2- Theory, K Affs, K v K
3- High theory Ks, Pomo Ks, Identity Ks
4- Generic Phil(like Kant)
5- Phil other than Kant
STRIKE ME if your main strategy relies on making arguments that you can only go for if dropped(i.e. blippy theory arguments like Shoes theory, indexicals, and other tricks). Arguments must have a claim, warrant, and impact, I will not vote on anything that falls short of this threshold.
Please record your speeches and if the call drops, keep going and send the recording at the end of the speech. Also, please go 75% speed max, thanks :)
I love them, straight turns are amazing, impact calculus is a must, Ptx DAs are good, Turns case with impact calc is great(especially when there's timeframe contextualization with these).
I love a good counterplan debate.
CPs MUST have some mechanism of solving the aff in the 1NC itself, preferably a solvency advocate(card) but a simple line explaining how it would solve (if it's intuitive) works.
PICs do not need to have a specific advocate that advocates for the entirety of the plan excluding the thing being PICd out of.
Cheaty CPs are fine: process, advantage, etc are all good and valid.
I default to competing interps, DTA on everything but condo and T, Condo good. That said, those are just my defaults, I can very easily be persuaded the other way via good debating. Fairness is an impact, so is education.
SLOW DOWN on theory, please. If I don't catch something and it becomes the entire 2NR/AR, I will not feel too bad not voting on it... don't tell me I didn't warn you.
Err neg and DTA are really persuasive arguments in my opinion, unless there's some real reason for DTD.
Pragmatics>>>>>>Semantics - Semantics don't matter to me unless it's setting up an argument for predictability or precision or something like that.
Ks (on the neg) -
I really love good K debates with nuanced link works and the sauce. A lot of my 2NRs my junior year was the K, and the K was often present in the 1NC my senior year as well. That said, don't take it as an excuse to just throw out buzzwords or expect me to know what you are talking about. I will not do work for you.
I'm very comfortable with the generics or with topic-specific Ks, anything else must be explained to me(little more so than the generics). I'll really like it if your OV explicitly states your theory of power, and that will make the rest of your work on the K proper much cleaner and it will make much more sense to me. I think I catch onto the thesis of Ks pretty quickly, so if I'm not making any sense in the RFD as to why I voted against you, it's probably because your explanation was incoherent.
Speaking of OVs, please keep them on the shorter side... If you say "new page for the OV", I will not be happy... and neither will you with your speaks.
Default to Affs should get to weigh the case, can be persuaded otherwise.
Make ROB/ROJ arguments explicit and do weighing as if it is any other T/Theory arg.
Perfcon is an issue of condo UNLESS you are using the aff's responses to one position to garner offense for the other(as an ind voter)
Perfcon is a good argument to take out a lot of reps offense too(or to justify a severance perm), but it's very beatable.
PIKs and FPIKs are prob illegitimate
K affs -
I'm down to listen to a good K aff. Affs must be in the direction of the topic somewhat, not saying "no K affs" but rather I'm saying that there must be some connection between the aff and the topic that is made in the 1AC. A really good example of this was this one aff that St Francis read on the arms sales topic about Queer Militarism with definitions of munitions being related to queer bodies... not saying that's true but rather that I love clever strategies.
T-Fw is very persuasive vs K affs - movements, fairness, education, whatever you want to read. Tbh I have yet to see a good answer to movements.
PIKs vs K affs are strategic, probably won't vote for PIKs bad
K affs get perms
K vs K affs are interesting, so if that's your strat, go for it.
- I default Comp Worlds(tough to convince me otherwise), no RVIs(though that doesn't mean I won't vote on one).
- Condo is probably good, but it becomes somewhat abusive past 2
- Ks on the neg in LD: I am fine with new Link extrapolation in the 2NR(i.e. recuttings of the aff), esp if its breaking new. That said, you need to have some card in the 1NC that provides the thesis of those links
Good phil = read it, but err on over-explaining because Im not familiar w most of the lit.
Trix = L 27(not actually, but if you make me suffer i'll return the favor)
Good extensions of your Moen and/or Pummer evidence vs Phil should get you out of a lot of trouble
A lot of the paradoxes are terrible arguments, try to make intuitive responses to them
Theory vs trix is a very good strat in front of me
T-implementation vs "General principle" affs was my go-to strat, and I think that it is a good one
Grouping args(like calc indicts) is good and doing that little overview-y grouping work can help you in a lot of places, especially when going against blippy analytical walls.
I will not give you good speaks if you go for trix and will try to not vote on it in any and every way possible, so please just do not include it in the round itself, thank you.
The rest of the LD section should be the same as Policy
1. Please disclose on the wiki(open source w/ highlighting is best practice) if you are in Varsity unless you have some issues(either school-related or wiki troubles). Sending docs when requested is fine too, but suboptimal.
2. Prep time is whatever has been determined by the tourney, prep stops when you have finished saving your doc. If <= 3 cards, body is cool, anything more please send a doc.
3. I actually have no qualms about giving the "I don't get it" RFD
4. I don't judge kick unless instructed to, and justifying should(if contested) go past "it's a logical extension of conditionality"
5. Ev ethics challenge ends the round there, I will evaluate and the winner of the challenge gets a W30, loser gets an L27 (if it was a false claim) or L and lowest speaks possible if the challenge was true.
6. CARDS SHOULD HAVE AUTHOR QUALS. Though this is probably not a DTD argument, it's definitely a DTA.
7. Clipping challenges needs evidence(recordings, unless I notice it - then i'm your witness), but it's also the same as an ev ethics challenge. If I notice it and the opp doesn't, your speaks won't look so hot.
8. I will read your ev, so good quality prep gets high speaks in front of me.
9. If it's a lay tournament but both debaters want a flow round, go ahead and have fun!
10. If it's a bid tournament, I don't think you have to adapt to novices or non-circuit debaters. If theory was dropped, just extend it for a quick sec or two and continue the debate for educational purposes, that will earn you a ton of respect and good speaks.
11. If theory/T is dropped in a circuit round, I will be very unhappy if the next speech(if rebuttals) isn't that argument or if that speech is longer than 30 seconds tops...
12. Tech>Truth, except for things like racism good or the like. I will not tolerate any instances of racism, sexism, etc in round.
13. Sending a marked copy does not constitute prep, but requesting a doc where "unread cards are deleted" constitutes prep
Ultimately, just have fun and do you! If you have any questions, feel free to reach out to me at my email above!
I am an engineering major at UC Berkeley, and did debate all throughout high school and am continuing in college. The styles I have experience in are LD, Parliamentary, and PF
dont call me judge its awko taco "luan (lu-anne) is just fine)
spreading--make sure to flash the case. email chain: email@example.com
For Novice/non-TOC: Make sure to signpost so I know where you are.
Case wise: *below is mainly for open/novice, TOC do whatever u want*
Morality isn't a real value, if you are going to run it make sure to have topic lit.
I do not flow cross, so if something important happened, make sure to bring it up in your speech.
MAKE SURE YOU DO YOUR IMPACT CALCULUS! If you leave it up to me to decide, I will probably weigh everything wrong and that's no bueno for you.
VOTING ISSUES ARE EXTREMELY IMPORTANT. This is what I will 99% base my decisions on. If one of your voting issues have been completely refuted or turned, it is probably not strategic to only use that issue. Additionally, sometimes have a sole voting issue can be hurtful, for I might not have bought the argument.
Make sure your DA/Adv are all impacted out.
Counterplans, topicality welcome.
LD: yes, it is a values debate, but I am not a "traditional LD" advocate. Furthermore, sometimes losing the framework debate is strategic. You can lose the framework, but still win under your opponent's framework--use time wisely.
PF: please warrant all your arguments, and explain why winning an argument matters.
don't drop your whole case and run double-suicide k. (please) That ruins the educational value of debate, and it is you trying to clutch a win you don't deserve.
If you run 17 contentions just so your opponent loses the will to live, well that's on you buddy. quality over quantity.
A good Kritik is always appreciated IF AND ONLY IF you run it correctly. Assume I do not know the topic lit.
If you say *meow in your case I might give you an extra point.
I will buy all types of arguments as long as the evidence is there.
BUT I think disclosure theory is stupid, not a big fan of theory in general prolly wont vote off of it tbh unless its p solid and good
Good luck, have fun, debate well:)
Please add me on the email chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
Hi a lot of you already know me but I'm Amanda, FSU grad. Bachelor in Intersectional Women's Studies and Media/Comm. I competed in LD for four years (Im sure you can find my records somewhere idk, I've judged enough to be qualified anyway), I also competed as a varsity policy team for UMW my freshman year of college pre-covid. I worked at TDC over the summer and I privately coach some kiddos so I've been active in the activity. I also am the co-founder of the Latine and Hispanic Debate Foundation, follow us on ig @landhdebatefoundation
Im most comfortable with Identity K's, K v T-fwk, Method debates <3, LARP, and some phil.
Favorite things I've read/ judged: Borderlands, any Anzaldúa position, Crenshaw, Latine IdPol, Intersectional Fem, Set Col, Black Fem, Queer Pess, and NonT K Affs v T-fwk/Cap.
Least favorite thing: having to judge a round where someone is crying, please don't make someone in round cry. I've literally had a round where the aff and neg debaters were crying in front of me and it hurts my heart.
Alright here are some people I paradigmatically agree with: Deena Mcnamara, Charles Karcher, Delon Fuller, Joey Tarnowski, Elijah Pitt, Lily Guizat, and Isaac Chao.
Standing conflicts: Clear Lake MK, Clear Lake RM, Heights CT, Heritage Independent WT
QUICK hack sheet:
LARP : 2
Tricks: 5 ( i strongly urge you to not read these in front of me, definitely am tired of being the subject of a discord chat after someone loses a round because they didn't read my paradigm)
Traditional-I am perfectly alright with traditional debate. I loved it as a freshman and sophomore. Highly recommend preffing me for a lay judge. I value debaters making strats accessible for all debaters. Make sure that you are weighing and using that short 1AR/2AR to crystalize and extend your arguments. Nothing is ever implied, please use well-warranted args. I have so much respect for strong traditional debaters on the circuit but I will hold you to the same standards as I hold progressive kiddos.
LARP-I'm fine with LARP debate. Policy-making is cool, do whatever you want. Plan texts need a solvency advocate, idc what ur coach says. CP's are cool, make sure there is some sort of net benefit and also if you don't answer the perm I'll be very sad. DA's are fun as long as there is a clear link to the aff, also for the love of god weigh. Your UQ needs to be from like two days ago PLEASE, enough of UQ from five years ago.
K's- K's are groovy. I think non-t k affs are cool, just need clear explanation why that is good for debate. Don't like when it creates assumptions about your opponents identity because that just creates hostile rounds (that I have definitely had and they are not fun). Intersectional Fem Lit was my jam, everyone can read fem (it's not a framework that is meant to exclude people from reading it, love a good fem debate :))
Phil-I love good phil debates, I'm comfortable with standard Util v Kant and more abstract framework debates. I think if you go this route you need to win why your paradigm is ethically relevant, and then be able to win offense/defense underneath that framing mech. Love Derrida, Hooks, and anything that has a little philosophical spice.
Theory-I used to say theory debate was okay as I started to judge it more. I lied. Don't make this round a headache for me to adjudicate. I dislike when 5 shells are read with stat skew standards then is followed by a six page card dump on the aff flow.MAKE THIS EASY FOR ME.I think I need clear extensions of warrants if the debate winds down to theory v (insert anything) or theory v theory debates. By now I've realized that most kids sigh when they get me as a judge and they predominantly read theory, as long as you don't make it messy then I'll be fine lol. This is just a question of adapting, if you can't do that then work on it.
Tricks-This is probably my weakest place in regards to judging but that doesn't mean I won't try. If you want to pref me and read tricks then just make sure they are clear and there is an explanation somewhere in the round about how it functions in the round and I'll try my best to judge accordingly.I hate debates that are just sloppy tricks debate, if this applies to you then dont pref me at all like please don't pref me if you just want to meme around.
Performance-I have a pretty decent ability to judge a performance debate and I think they are pretty dope. However, I don't think that debaters need to degrade their opponent during a round to "get the point across" especially because I think that ruins the integrity of the round itself. If you are going to engage in an in-round performance, please extend it in rebuttals or else I fail to understand how it is important to the aff/neg.
Things to note about my judging preferences:
1. Please use proper pronouns when referring to your opponent-they are not an object, they are a person so don't say "it says". Also just be a nice person, it's not that hard to adapt strategies for opponents that may or may not have the same experiences as you (I will evaluate the round as such and even if you win, I will indeed tank your speaks for being hella exclusionary) :)
2. I STRONGLY hate 1AC disclo. It is the one thing that will absolutely send me into a spiral if I hear that round one. The 1NC is a reactive strat, for the love of god don't complain. Seriously, the only thing we cared about when I debated was past 2NR's so can we just please learn how to actually debate. xoxoxo your friendly 5 year out.
3. I don't understand why y'all think you need to be mean or give off 'debatebro' energy when debating critical args. I have no problem calling you on your BS. Im actually so disappointed that I've had to judge and hear about debates becoming so aggressive it becomes functionally irresolvable.
4. If you are from a prep group or big school, stg please read diverse args and don't docbot the same rebuttal in front of me. If I'm hearing extensions of args that have ink on them w/ no additional rebuttal I will bang my head against a table. Just think for two seconds and make some no-link args rather then spending extra time on an arg that doesn't apply to the position.
she/they, lay-uh, not lee-uh
A) I've competed and coached high school and college policy debate since 2008.
B) I've taught new novice students and instructed K-12 teachers about Parli, PuFo, LD, and Policy
C) I am an educator and curriculum developer, so that is how I view my role as a judge and approach feedback in debate. I type my RFDs, please ask your coaches (if you have an experienced coach) to explain strategic concepts I referenced. Otherwise you can email me.
D) I am very aware of the differences in strategy and structure when comparing Policy Debate and Lincoln-Douglas debate.
d)) which means I can tell when evidence from one format of debate [ex: policy -> ld] is merely read in a different format of debate for strategic choices rather than educational engagement.
heads up: i can tell when you are (sp)reading policy cards at me, vs communicating persuasive and functionally strategic arguments. please read and write your speeches, don't just read blocks of evidence without doing the persuasive work of storytelling impacts.How I Evaluate & Structure Arguments:
Parts of an Argument:
Claim - your argument
Warrant - analytical reasoning or evidence
Impact - why the judge should care, why it's important
Probability - how likely is it the impact will happen
Magnitude - how large is the harm/who will be negatively affected
Timeframe - when this impact will occur
Reversibility - can the harms be undone[Online Debates]
prewritten analytics should be included in the doc. we are online. transparency, clarity, and communication is integral in debate. if you are unclear and i miss an argument, then i missed your argument because you were unclearpre-pandemic paradigm particularities
for policy and/or ld:
1) AFFs should present solutions, pass a Plan, or try to solve something
2) K AFFs that do not present a plan text must: 1. Be resolutional - 1ac should generally mention or talk about the topic even if you're not defending it, 2. Prove the 1AC/AFF is a prereq to policy, why does the AFF come before policy, why does policy fail without the aff? 3. Provide sufficient defense to TVAs - if NEG proves the AFF (or solvency for AFF's harms) can happen with a plan text, I am very persuaded by TVAs. K teams must have a strong defense to this.
3) Link to the squo/"Truth Claims" as an impact is not enough. These are generic and I am less persuaded by generic truth claims arguments without sufficient impacts
4) Critique of the resolution > Critique of the squo
5) NEG K alts do not have to solve the entirety of the AFF, but must prove a disadvantage or explain why a rejection of the AFF is better than the alt, or the squo solves.
6) Debate is a [policy or LD] game, if it is a survival strategy I need more warrants and impacts other than "the aff/alt is a survival strategy" with no explanation of how you are winning in-round impacts
7) Framing is FUNctional, the team that gives me the best guide on how/why I should vote for X typically wins the round. What's the ROB, ROJ, the purpose of this round, impact calc, how should I evaluate the debate?
8) Edu is important. Persuasive communication is part of edu. when the debate is messy or close I tend to evaluate the round in terms of 1. who did the better debating, 2. who best explained arguments and impacts and made me more clearly understand the debate, 3. who understood their evidence/case the most.
9) Dropped arguments are not always necessarily true - I will vote on dropped arguments if it was impacted out and explained why it's a voter, but not if the only warrant is "they conceded _____it so it's a voter"
10) I flow arguments, not authors. It will be helpful to clarify which authors are important by summarizing/impacting their arguments instead of name dropping them without context or explanation.
The preferences below are a reflection of the way I debated in high school and the way I coach students, not the way I evaluate debates 100% of the time. Most of them can be changed through persuasive argumentation. I’m just going to vote for whoever wins the round.
Debate should be fun and I want to see you have fun and excel at what you do best. Please don't adjust your debating too much to me. I regularly vote for arguments and strategies I passionately disagree with and vice versa. No matter what strategy you defend, act as if my prior knowledge of it is close to 0. Even if you're right, I will judge and hold you accountable for warranting your arguments as if my knowledge was in fact 0. I treat judging as a serious obligation and no matter what you do, I'll give you my full attention and effort!
1) Disclose. Full text is a bare minimum to win in front of me.
2) I will not vote on any argument about events outside the debate (I consider disclosure pertinent to the debate). Death good, arguments about your opponents appearance/clothing, and facially offensive actions end the round. I am not comfortable using my ballot as a moral judgement on students.
3) Fair Play. Miscut evidence, clipping, reading ahead, outside communication, evidence fabrication, etc are cheating. Accusations without proof mean you lose. “Evidence ethics” ends the round.
4) I won't vote on arguments I can't understand in the speech they're first made.
5) Show up to round on time. Prep ends when the doc is sent. Flow clarification is prep/CX. Marked docs should be sent immediately after the speech. If your opponent did not mark any cards in their speech, but did not read certain portions of the speech doc (i.e., skipped certain cards entirely), you must start prep before receiving a marked doc. If, however, your opponent marked cards, you may wait until you receive a marked doc to begin prep. The reason I have different policies for these circumstances is that the former is just flow clarification, whereas the latter actually affects the way you answer arguments.
1) I don't want to judge rounds about heinous tricks. I enjoy judging Phil debates but think they benefit from more explanation and less tricks.
2) In general, I lean neg on CP theory. Creative counterplans are underutilized. Creative perms are too. Judge kick makes sense to me, but is not my default. I'm not opposed to voting on condo, but err heavily neg, and I don't find hail-mary condo 2ARs fun to judge. To make it a viable 2AR, condo should be more than a sentence in the 1AR.
3) "Not defending implementation" doesn't make sense to me.
4) I err neg in K Aff vs. T debates, but my judging record in these debates is fairly even. Thoughts:
Aff: I think affirmatives have a burden of "affirming" something - I’m easily persuaded that pure pessimism is neg ground and presumption is winnable if the aff doesn't do anything (I don't know why this is almost never the 2nr). When answering T, counter-define words and have a debatable counterinterp ("discussion of the topic", "only our aff", etc. don't count - they wouldn't make sense in any other T debate). An effective strategy against framework should explain what your model of debate looks like, not just why your aff is important.
Neg: Listen to the 1AR - when I vote aff, it’s usually because of technical drops. Neg usually under-develop the TVA, but I find having one less important than a lot of judges do.
5) A kritik should disagree with and disprove the aff - you should be able to point out specific lines in the aff the K disagrees with. “Pre-fiat” does not mean anything. Answering the case is important. Weighing is important. The K should turn and outweigh the case, even if it’s an indictment of the representations the aff uses rather than the consequences of the plan. The 2NR should incorporate K tricks - they are smart and underutilized.
6) Independent voters don't exist. All arguments need to be tied to a specific framing argument.
7) Tired of hearing the same topicality debates over and over again. If it's just a dressed up version of plans bad (Nebel/T-a/etc) I'm probably not the best judge for it (although I vote for these arguments all the time). I don't think complex grammar debates are the best way to set the limits of the topic.
8) Random paradigmatic things:
- 1AR doesn't get add ons. 2NR doesn't get new uniqueness, links, etc.
- Insert re-highlighting: sure
- "You didn't read a fairness voter" isn't super compelling to me w.r.t. paragraph theory. It seems obvious to me that both sides should have a roughly equal shot at winning, all things equal.
- I will disregard any argument about my "jurisdiction" as a judge.
I like multi-position negative strategies, any rate of delivery is fine, ill decide theory arguments and primacy of impacts based on the arguments in the round.
Please have emails ready for an email chain; you need to give your opponent a complete copy of your cards read so that they can read the unredacted version of your evidence. There are many reasons for this, Id like that also. Most tournaments imply this, notify me before the round starts if you have a problem with sharing evidence and we will resolve the issue before anyone invests their time in the project.
I also think that rapid rate of delivery and procedural fluency are not political issues; they are skill sets that should be developed If they are not already.
For Chicago Debates:
0. I am a 2nd year college student at the University of Chicago. I graduated high school in 2021, and coached Mission San Jose for a year. I flow on a computer.
1. I was told that most debaters will not be reading paradigms, but in the case that you do, don't be daunted by the length of this or if you don't understand anything. Your main takeaway should be that I do not care about what arguments you read, and you should debate how you most feel comfortable. Ask me before the round if you have questions about my paradigm.
2. I have not judged debate in over a year, but speed should not be a problem for me (although I will clear you if I need to).
3. Please feel free to reach out at the email below if you have any questions. I know the tournament does not allow disclosure, but I will try to give as much feedback as possible, and I can give more detailed feedback later if you send an email after the tournament.
Bio: Loyola '21. TOC (x2)
Top level: Tech > Truth. Strategic decision making > Pandering to me. Good tech will override any preference I have below. I'll only intervene if there are arguments of equal strength without weighing claims to resolve them. In these situations, I look to evidence first, then truth.
Misc: Sometimes emotive; always flowing (but not off the doc). Not a fan of one-line cheap shots. You have my consent to record, but ask others. I don't keep time. 100% fine with post-rounding (time permitting).
Banned arguments: Death good, oppression good, and out of round things (besides disclosure)
Argument history: Affs defended a plan and mostly big impacts. Negs were almost strictly policy: sometimes 6+ off, sometimes 6 minutes of impact turns, but usually something in between. K when policy ground was scarce. Sometimes read wacky things like Trump good, consult UN, and riders.
DA: Terminal impact calc >> strength of link barring instruction. Topic disads are good. Politics and riders are fine, but I understand intrinsicness (Read This). Uniqueness puts the straight turn in a much better place. Zero risk on ridiculousness like 2014 midterms. I like it better when turns case is earlier. New 2AR and 2NR weighing always.
CP: Fine for anything with a net benefit. Competition and solvency are neg burdens. Lean neg on most theory. Lean aff on most competition (Read This). Judge kick requires instruction.
Case: Case debate, impact turns, presumption, analytics, and/or re-highlighting are appreciated. Read re-highlight for offense. Insert for defense. No preference between soft left and big stick.
T: Slightly lean against bare plural arguments for clash/predictability reasons. One aff a topic is a terrible model. Model/vision of the topic is more persuasive than "9 factorial affs" in a vacuum. A staunch believer that the neg needs definitions otherwise we get infinite T debates.
Theory: Save for literal double turns or technical drops from 1AR shells, not good for the condo 2AR. Easier to convince me the abuse is unreasonable rather than to use competing interpretations.
K: Better for teams that utilize K tricks than those that wax poetically about society. Read cap, security, complexity, abolition, and anti/post-humanism during my career. Roughly familiar with other meta lit and their answers. Imo neg needs either solves/turns case, framework, unsustainability/inevitability, or a robust external extinction impact to win. I'll probably vote aff on case o/w otherwise.
K affs: Skeptical about framework's ability to cause either genocide or grassroots movements. Affirmatives need a counter interpretation/model of debate. Negatives need to answer case. Affs gets perms.
Phil: Will evaluate fairly, but more experienced with the util side. Epistemic modesty makes sense.
Other Things: Will only evaluate warrants highlighted. K Framework needs to be in the 1NC. Paragraph theory with education and fairness assumed is fine. Unqualified to judge (but will begrudgingly evaluate) tricks and frivolous theory.
Policy Things: 1AR gets new cards to answer new block arguments.
Speaker points: Will not punish for humor, sarcasm, or minor cursing. Will disclose points if you ask. 28.8-7 breaking. Current [28.75] average.
Mariel Cruz - Updated 9/20/2022
Schools I've coached/judged for: Santa Clara Univerisity, Cal Lutheran University, Gunn High School, Polytechnic School, Saratoga High School, and Notre Dame High School
I judge mostly Parliamentary debate, but occasionally PF and LD. I used to judge policy pretty regularly when I was a policy debater in college. I judge all events pretty similarly, but I do have a few specific notes about Parli debate listed below.
Background: I was a policy debater for Santa Clara University for 5 years. I also helped run/coach the SCU parliamentary team, so I know a lot about both styles of debate. I've been coaching and judging on the high school and college circuit since 2012, so I have seen a lot of rounds. I teach/coach pretty much every event, including LD and PF, but I have primarily coached parli the last few years.
Policy topic: I haven’t done much research on either the college or high school policy topic, so be sure to explain everything pretty clearly.
Speed: I’m good with speed, but be clear. I don't love speed, but I tolerate it. If you are going to be fast, I need a speech doc for every speech with every argument, including analytics or non-carded arguments. If I'm not actively flowing, ie typing or writing notes, you're probably too fast.
As I've started coaching events that don't utilize speed, I've come to appreciate rounds that are a bit slower. I used to judge and debate in fast rounds in policy, but fast rounds in other debate events are very different, so fast debaters should be careful, especially when running theory and reading plan/cp texts. If you’re running theory, try to slow down a bit so I can flow everything really well. Or give me a copy of your alt text/Cp text. Also, be sure to sign-post, especially if you're going fast, otherwise it gets too hard to flow. I actually think parli (and all events other than policy) is better when it's not super fast. Without the evidence and length of speeches of policy, speed is not always useful or productive for other debate formats. If I'm judging you, it's ok be fast, but I'd prefer if you took it down a notch, and just didn't go at your highest or fastest speed.
K: I like all types of arguments, disads, kritiks, theory, whatever you like. I like Ks but I’m not an avid reader of literature, so you’ll have to make clear explanations, especially when it comes to the alt. Even though the politics DA was my favorite, I did run quite a few Ks when I was a debater. However, I don't work with Ks as much as I used to (I coach many students who debate at local tournaments only where Ks are not as common), so I'm not super familiar with every K, but I've seen enough Ks that I have probably seen something similar to what you're running. Just make sure everything is explained well enough. If you run a K I haven't seen before, I'll compare it to something I have seen. I am not a huge fan of Ks like Nietzche, and I'm skeptical of alternatives that only reject the aff. I don't like voting for Ks that have shakey alt solvency or unclear frameworks or roles of the ballot.
Framework and Theory: I tend to think that the aff should defend a plan and the resolution and affirm something (since they are called the affirmative team), but if you think otherwise, be sure to explain why you it’s necessary not to. I’ll side with you if necessary. I usually side with reasonability for T, and condo good, but there are many exceptions to this (especially for parli - see below). I'll vote on theory and T if I have to. However, I'm very skeptical of theory arguments that seem frivolous and unhelpful (ie Funding spec, aspec, etc). Also, I'm not a fan of disclosure theory. Many of my students compete in circuits where disclosure is not a common practice, so it's hard for me to evaluate disclosure theory.
Basically, I prefer theory arguments that can point to actual in round abuse, versus theory args that just try to establish community norms. Since all tournaments are different regionally and by circuit, using theory args to establish norms feels too punitive to me. However, I know some theory is important, so if you can point to in round abuse, I'll still consider your argument.
Parli specific: Since the structure for parli is a little different, I don't have as a high of a threshold for theory and T as I do when I judge policy or LD, which means I am more likely to vote on theory and T in parli rounds than in policy rounds. This doesn't mean I'll vote on it every time, but I think these types of arguments are a little more important in parli, especially for topics that are kinda vague and open to interpretation. I also think Condo is more abusive in parli than other events, so I'm more sympathetic to Condo bad args in parli than in other events I judge.
Policy/LD/PF prep:I don’t time exchanging evidence, but don’t abuse that time. Please be courteous and as timely as possible.
General debate stuff: I was a bigger fan of CPs and disads, but my debate partner loved theory and Ks, so I'm familiar with pretty much everything. I like looking at the big picture as much as the line by line. Frankly, I think the big picture is more important, so things like impact analysis and comparative analysis are important.
GFC update (9/22):
please go slow and explain <3 these are my first rounds since last spring and I’m pretty unfamiliar with the topic specs right now so over explain in front of me!
jw patterson update (10/21):
Things I'm going to start dropping your speaks for - 1. counting down before your speeches 2. calling me judge/ms. curry(misgendering me)/any formality - please just call me Ausha(Aw-shuh) or don't refer to me lmao (asking "judge ready?" is okay)
^if you do this i'll know either a. you didn't read my paradigm (bad) or b. did read my paradigm and just aren't respecting it (also bad)
Hi! I'm Ausha
I'm a current sophomore at American University majoring in a mix of poli sci/econ, probably going to do some form of debate here too. In high school I did 2 years of policy and 2 years of LD, running stock and critical args in both. I finished top 50 at NSDA Nats in 2021 and was the WA state LD champion.
Put me on the email chain if you make one : ausha.L.email@example.com
tldr -- Run whatever you want to run. I'll listen. I'll vote where you tell me to, that's your job in the rebuttals.
Don't do/say anything racist, sexist, homophobic, Islamphobic, etc. It'll 100% result in an L20. If at any time during the debate you feel unsafe, feel free to email me and i'll end the round and deal with it accordingly
Policy/LARP - 1
Basic Ks - 1
T - 1
Uncommon Ks - 2
Phil - 3/4
Other Theory - 3/4
Tricks - strike
1. online - go maybe 80-90% max speed and definitely start a little bit slower in case the audio is shady. also plz locally record your speeches in case either of our internet cuts out !
2. disclosure - I won't vote on disclosure unless the violation is super egregious. i was literally the only circuit debater at my HS and i couldn't afford programs like debate drills, etc. so if you're in a similar boat i will def be empathetic towards you in these rounds. On the flip side if you're from a school that has a massive team and try to run the small school arg i won't buy it (interlake i am looking @ u)
3. tech > truth - please be super clear about signposting especially online. even if your opponent straight out concedes something, I still need extensions of a warrant and some weighing for me to vote on it
4. speed - speed is good, slow down on plan/cp texts, interps, etc. I'll yell clear or just ask for the doc post speech if I feel like I missed anything too significant (if it wasn't sent already). If your 1ar is entirely analytics please either slow down or send them in the doc
5. Ev ethics - if u suspect ur opponent is clipping cards, let me know after their most recent speech. it'll also require some sort of recording for proof. Yes stake the round on it, or you can run a theory violation on it and it'll be nicer for everyone
Argument Specific -
tricks - strike me. i won't go for any of the "neg doesn't get CPs" or "eval the debate after x speech". i think they're genuinely cheating, a bad model of debate, and incredibly exclusionary and i will die on that hill
t/theory - I love t, please run it. I spent a lot of my time in policy going for t in the 2nr so I'd say this is where I'm pretty comfy judging debates. I have a pretty high threshold for other theory, especially super friv theory like font size
LD specific: I didn't run a ton of grammatical stuff like Nebel in LD but if you run it well and explain the violation clearly, it's a pretty good shot I'll vote for it. i've come to the realization i don't particularly love theory 2ars if it's only introduced in the 1ar. I think it's made for some pretty shallow debates, but again, i will vote on it unhappily
Defaults: Competing interps, DTA, condo good, PICs good, yes RVIs (note: this doesn't mean i won't flip, you'll just have to debate it)
trad (LD) - will get through these rounds unhappily, but please spice it up a little bit. Make me not want to rip my ears off. Explain phil well, i've never ran one of these cases but i've won against them if that means anything to you. please do comparative work otherwise i will have no idea how to weigh. (Post GFC outrounds, please do not go top speed for kant I NEED you to slow down and explain how everything interacts with each other)
CPs - please make them competitive and have some sort of solvency evidence unless it's some a structural issue (ie taking an offensive word out of the plan text and replacing it). i use sufficiency framing for weighing the cp against the aff meaning you'll have to do more analysis than just "cp doesn't link to the net benefit" in the final rebuttal for me to vote on it. I think both internal and external net benefits are good.
DAs - I enjoy unique, nuanced das. I really like politics and i'll buy them pretty easily if there's a good link to the aff. Should have an overview in the final rebuttal and the block shouldn't be just reading new ev and not answering line by line.
ks - go for it! I like them if they're ran well but make sure you know that your own lit. I'm most familiar with generics (setcol, cap, security), Foucault, a little Edelman, and Baudrillard, any other high theory ones you should explain more though. open to pomo but never really ran it during high school and only hit it a couple times.
k affs - I like these, i ran more than a few. They don't have to be topical, but I think it's easier to win on t if they're in the direction of the topic. I mostly end up going for k v k against these affs but i also run fw in the 1nc, see the t section above if you have questions about that. tvas can be deadly so please blow it up if T/FW is your nr strat!
performance - never ran this, but always enjoyed watching these rounds. Tell me why the 1ac is important in the debate space and win T and it'll be a super easy aff ballot. negs be careful and please don't say anything offensive <3 but i feel like a different K or pik is always a better bet than fw against these
I think i tend to give relatively high speaks averaging between a 28-29. Things that'll boost your speaks: nice pics of aubrey plaza at the top of the speech doc, good organization, clear weighing, and strategic decisions
+.5 for flashing analytics
Add me to the Email Chain: MD16@albion.edu
I debated in high school at CRSJ from 2018-20 through SVUDL. I debate Policy and LD.
I am currently attending Albion College in Michigan.
Currently I am a judge for SVUDL and DUDL. I was given the opportunity to debate from a UDL and I am more then willing to help any UDL students. I understand what it takes coming from a UDL, so I just want everyone to have fun and learn.
Speed: I am fine with speed but please make sure it's clear for me to understand. If I don't understand I will say clear three times and you'll have to hope for the best.
Kritiks: I am fine with Ks but I had limited exposure to Ks themselves. If you chose to run a K that is more complicated or nuanced please do the extra work of explaining it for me, I hate assume things and it might not always work in your favor.
Topicality: If your opponents run something unfair, call it out and run topicality. I will actually listen and it matters, I've had too many parents judges just dismiss it because they just like the other arguments my opponents where making.
Theory: Please make it clear and reasonable. It may be better to have a doc sent out as it would be easier for me to follow. I will probably vote on Education, access, or fairness. Sometimes you don't have the same opportunities so I just want everything to be fair for everyone. Now, I personally don't like frivolous theory but if you chose to run it I will do my best to put my bias aside.
CP: Okay Okay... my favorite cp of all time is the Canada counter-plan. My friends ran the Wakanda counter-plan on the 2019-20 topic and I always loved how passionate they were about it and how they knew every aspect about it. They put a lot of work into it and it helped our whole team understand it and to get a new perspective on it every time.
CX: I am fine with tag-team CX. I don't usually flow CX, if it's a definition then I'd probably write it down. When the time runs out, please wrap it up and be respectful to your opponents. If your opponent doesn't answer your question, call it out.
DA: I am fine with anything, make sure it makes sense. I would rather you run 2-3 solid DAs then 6 or 7 and then drop them.
If you made it this far then yess, this might help you see what I might like and probably will vote on.
Please Please Please make sure if you are running anything that is as clear as possible, I don't want to assume things because you work hard on your cases and if I have to assume something it might not help you.
I want a good informative debate, I want everyone to learn something new and have a good time. Everyone has a different perspective on the world and everyone's voice is valid. Do not discriminate against anyone, debate should be inclusive and accessible to everyone. With that if there is discrimination in the round I will take it to tab, I will definitely will not stand for racism or Ablism, everyone matter and every voice is important. Do not make something up too, that is just abusive and hurts every community.
My favorite Ks of all time is Anzaldua and Afro-futurism, learning these two really helped my debate team really grow and helped us understand our place in the world. I am chicano so Anzaldua hit on a personal note. I really care that everyone is represented in debate and if your argument are about structural issues then this space is for you because if we are educated then we can find solutions.
I am a parent judge.
I will drop you if you spread or run theory/k's. I cannot evaluate circuit LD so it is against your strategic interest do debate as such in front of me.
Speak as clearly as possible. If I don't understand your arguments I can't vote for you.
Please signpost so I can flow your arguments properly. I don't evaluate cross so make sure to bring any important arguments up in your speech.
Be respectful and enjoy the debate!
INCLUDE IN EMAIL CHAIN! Ggonzalez0730@gmail.com
CSUF policy debate 5yrs (2010-2016)
The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League 2yrs (2008-2010)
Currently: Coach and Program Manager for The Los Angeles Metropolitan Debate League
I engaged and debated different types of literature: critical theory (anti-blackness and settler colonialism) and policy-oriented arguments during my early years of debate. I am not very particular about any type of argument. I think that in order to have a good debate in front of me you have to engage and understand what the other team is saying.
My experience in college debate and working with UDLs has taught me that any argument has the ability to or Critical arguments. All of them have a pedagogical value. It’s your job as the debater to prove to me why yours is a viable strategy or why your arguments are best. Prove to me why it matters. If you choose to go for framework or the politics DA, then justify that decision. I don’t really care if you go for what you think I like and if you are losing that argument then it would probably annoy me. Just do you.
Framework vs. Plan less or vague affirmatives
As a critical affirmative, please tell me what the affirmative does. What does the affirmative do about its impacts? If you are going for a structural impact, then please tell me how your method will alleviate that either for the world, debate, or something. I don’t want to be left thinking what does that affirmative does at the end of the 2ar because I will more likely than not vote negative.
I don’t mind framework as long as you can prove to me why the method that you offer for the debate, world, policy, etc. is crucial. Please explain how you solve for "x" harm or the squo goes. I promise you this will do wonders for you in front of me. I will not be doing the work for you or any of the internals for you. As long as your argument has a claim, warrant, and evidence that is clear, then what I personally believe is meh. You either win the debate based on the flow or nah.
Seems rudimental but debaters forget to do this during speeches.
If I can't understand what you're saying when you are speaking, then I'll yell out "clear" and after the second time I yell out clear then I won't flow what I can't understand. I will also reduce your speaker points. I tend to have facial expressions during rounds. If you catch me squinting, then it is probably because I can’t understand what you are saying. Just slow down if that helps.
DA+ Counter Plans
Cp have to have a net benefit.
I need specific impact scenarios--just saying hegemony, racism, global warming, and nuclear war does not win the ballot please explain how we get to that point. I really like when a 2AR gives a good explanation of how the aff solves or how the affirmative triggers the impact.
Make sure to articulate most parts of the DA. just bc you have a big impact that doesn't mean much for me please explain how it relates to the affirmative especially in the rebuttal. impact comparisons are pretty good too.
Not my strong point, but if you are going for this which I understand the strategic reasoning behind this, then explain the "why its bad that X thing" and how that should outweigh anything else. Also, slow down during these debates especially on the interpretation.
Speaker Quirks to watch out for:
Being too dominant in a partnership. Have faith that your partner is capable of responding and asking questions during CX. If you see them struggling, then I am not opposed to you stepping in but at least give them a chance.
For the most part, my paradigm applies to much of the args made in this sector of the activity a couple of things that you should mindful of when you have me as a judge:
1) I appreciate disclosure, but any theory args that are made about disclosure I don't appreciate, especially if I wasn't in the room to make sure neg/aff accusation are actually being saiD. If I'm not in the room its just a case of "they said I said." If you have it in writing, then I guess I can appreciate your arg more. I would still vote on it, but its not a decision I am happy about.
2) Time: LD leaves a lot of unresolved problems for me as a judge. Please make sure:
aff with plan text *make sure to not forget about the plan solvency mechanism and how you solve for your harms. this should be throughout the debate but especially in the last speeches. I understand there is an issue of time but at least 30 sec of explaining aff mechanisms.
sympathetic towards time constraints but be strategic and mindful of where to spend the most time in the debate. Ex: if you are too focused on the impact when the impact is already established then this is time badly spent.
If you are concerned with the affirmative making new arguments in the 2AR have a blip that asks judges not evaluate. Because of the time (6 vs 3min), I am usually left with lots of unresolved issues so I tend to filter the debate in a way that holistically makes sense to me.
DA (Reify and clarify the LINK debate and not just be impact heavy)
T ( make sure to impact out and warrant education and fairness claims)
Hello, if you are reading I want to wish you the best of luck at the tournament today. My name is Javier Hernandez. I did LD for 3 years. I graduated with a B.A. in history and political science from UCF. Currently, I teach English and am starting a debate program for St. Michael the Archangel Catholic School. If yow will be spreading at the tournament today, please email me at firstname.lastname@example.org. For the most part, I care less about what you run and more that it's run well and relevant to the topic. K's and theory are fine as long as they don't feel superfluous, but I feel less comfortable evaluating them than I do CP's or DA's. I want a clear voter's in round as I've seen many close rounds where debaters fumble crystallization and it causes them to lose my ballot.
As far as speaks are concerned, don't worry too much. They are somewhat arbitrary and for that reason I take a relaxed approach. You start at 28 and go up or down based on what arguments you present and how they are presented.
If you have any questions PLEASE feel free to ask me any questions about things not included in my paradigm before the round.
I formerly debated for San Diego State University. I mostly did circuit Parli, but I sporadically competed in NFA-LD, IPDA, and a few other formats. I placed 5th at the NPTE and 3rd at the NPDA and I'd like to think that I know my way around most arguments. That being said, I believe that all judges have biases, and I have included mine below.
I'm down for most any argument you want to run and will evaluate the round based on my flow. I consider debate to be game and the different arguments we use to be strategies in that game. My favorite debates usually occur when both teams run well warranted arguments that they are comfortable with; the debate should be wide in the beginning and narrow in the end. If you explain what you're reading, collapse hard, and be respectful we'll all have a grand time.
1) General Stuff
A. Speed: I am cool with speed and will call for either slows or clears if I need it. I prefer if interps, ROB's, and plan texts be read slowly and appreciate some pen time in between pages. If the format of debate is carded and you want to blaze it, please provide a speech doc. I also appreciate if speed is used appropriately; don't make someone who's debating for the first time want to quit after their first tournament.
B. Partner Communication: I think that partner debate is a team event and therefore don't care at all if you communicate with your partner in your speech. That being said, I only flow the person who's speech it is.
C. Protecting: For Parli, I will try to protect in the rebuttals but if the round is fast there's a chance I won't recognize a new argument as being new so please call points of orders. I also strongly believe that shadow extensions are new arguments.
D) Intervention: I believe that judge intervention is bad; therefore, I will judge strictly off the flow unless something egregious happens (flagrant sexism, racism, etc). I will try to do as little work as possible so please weigh your arguments and tell me how to vote. I maintain that truth is determined by who wins the flow so even if you are objectively "right" if your opponent beats you six ways from Sunday on the flow I will probably still vote for them.
E. Speaker Points: Debate is a game and I award speaker points based mainly on strategy and execution. Warranted, nuanced analysis with substantive clash is the fastest path to high speaks.
F. Collapsing: Collapsing is a good idea, please do it.
G. Signposting: Signposting is a good idea, please do it.
A. Impacts: I always prefer if the impacts are terminalized in the round, the more specific they are the better. I'm not gonna lie, I usually go for nuclear war/extinction in every round I can but I also love the nuanced, topic specific impacts. In terms of impact calculus I usually default to Magnitude>Probability>Time frame but I will vote however you tell me to vote. I also just love impact calculus in general, the more direct comparison and internal link work the better.
B. Counter Plans: I am very familiar with with most of the common types(delay, PIC, consult, 50 states, etc), and generally think counter plan debate can be super interesting and educational. That being said, the counter plan needs to have a strong net benefit (either a disad/case turn you avoid or an external net benefit) and you should articulate why your counter plan captures the advantages and resolves the aff. See Kritique section for perms.
C. DA's: Love them, read lots of them. Explain how they turn the aff.
A. General Stuff: I read a ton of theory, and I am very familiar with topicality and framework arguments. In my opinion, if you are going for theory you should collapse to it - if you want T to be a voting issue, there should be 12 minutes of T in the block. That being said, bad topicality is really really bad, so read these arguments at your own risk.
B. Abuse: I have no problem voting on potential abuse so long as it is well explained and the other team doesn't tell me not to. If you can articulate proven abuse then you're pretty sure to get my ballot
C. RVI's: I think RVI's need to be explained when they are first said in order to be legit voting issues. Spreading 7 random RVI's on a theory shell probably isn't the best way to get my ballot.
D. Competing Interps/Reasonability: I almost always default to competing interpretations over reasonability; I think to win reasonability you need clear reasons why an offense defense paradigm is bad in addition to a clear brightline for what it means to be reasonable.
E. MG Theory/Condo: I'm open to pretty much any type of MG theory you wanna run but I'm not gonna be a happy camper if the PMR is 5 minutes of new offense that wasn't in the MG shell. I'm fine with conditionality, I'm also fine voting on condo bad theory. I assume that all advocacy's are conditional unless otherwise stated.
F. Disclosure: I'm super down to vote on disclosure if it is well executed. I always disclosed whenever I competed in evidentiary debate, but I will listen to arguments that disclosure is bad.
A. General: I'm game for listening to whatever you want to read so you do you. My favorite K's are usually structural in nature with concrete alternatives. The only thing to note is that I don't have the most extensive lit base, (Marx, Berlant, Agamben, Fanon, a little Deleuze) so please explain whatever your lit is otherwise I probably won't understand it. This bit is important because I generally will not vote for arguments that I don't understand. If after the round I still don't understand what the alternative actually does than I probably won't vote for you. The only arguments I am not super confident evaluating are performative aff's or K's.
B. K Aff's/FW-T: K aff's are fine so long as you can actually win that they are fine in the round. I also generally prefer that the answers to framework aren't just generic cross applications from the aff. I go for FW-T in most of my rounds so do with that what you will; I'm totally down to vote for FW-T but I also hold teams to a pretty high standard for justifying why topicality matters in the context of the aff.
C. Perms: I typically consider perms to be a test of competition but I'm down for evaluating perm's as an advocacy if you give me compelling reasons why. I also don't think perms are especially offensive on their own; I would rather vote on a piece of offense, like a link turn, than on just a permutation. When answering the perm you should provide specific reasons why the perm doesn't resolve the K or causes some external impact; I think the argument that "the links are independent DA's to the perm" is rather lazy and nonsensical absent more concrete explanations for why the link means that the inclusion of the aff makes the alt non solvent.
Harbor Teacher Preparation Academy '21
UC Berkeley '25
Pref--I am a fairly new judge for LD so please slow down on theory/ dense arguments
-Lax with prep but don't steal time sending out docs
-IF it's NOT ON THE FLOW ur args are a blow
-don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, etc or you lose period
-tech > truth
I have been in policy debate for all 4 years of my high-school career. I competed in the Urban Debate Leauges and finished as the City Champion for LA and moved on to semi's of Nationals. When I did compete we ran lots of critical arguments on rhetoric, setcol and afropess so I am most familiar with that literature. tabula rasa
I lean aff in reasonability. Unless you're really down for a T debate in the 2nr I say you cut it in the block because I start to tune out.
I enjoy these when they are impacted out well.
-assume I have no clue what your literature is and explain it to me like such
-you need to explain to me clearly why the aff's ontology/ epistemology/ reps etc are bad and why that should come first in the round
-you need to tell me why the aff's ontology/ epistemology/ reps etc are bad and what that implies
-you need a lot of comparative work and internal links that get impacted out for me to evaluate and vote for it
-if at the end of the round I don't know how that alt functions or the value of my vote for the K, I'm comfortable voting aff
I'm looking to judge rounds with lots of clash and fruitful debate---- that means I prefer smaller more cohesive arguments than 10 off
-you can affirm the resolution in any way
***-read arguments that you are familiar with not the ones you think will just win you the round****
Extra speaks if
-you're a good persuader not just a good debater
-clear & concise
I am blank slate. tabula rasa. What I hear is how I judge.
I want to understand you while speaking (I’m in sales) and I want you to debate each other for the topics presented in the round. I will not read any files unless there is a clear distinction of misunderstanding.
I started judging my two kids' speech and debate tournaments in high school. I judge IE's, LD, and Policy. And have continued judging these tournaments after my kids moved on to college.
I prefer that you speak loud and clearly. However I do not have a preference on speed. You may flow as fast or slow as you see fit.
Simply, debate is a very fun game that I used to play and enjoy watching. Do what you do best. I will vote for you if I think you win. And please be nice to your opponents.
As far as preconceived notions of debate go, here are a few of mine:
(1) I think the topic should be debated.
(2) I enjoy case debates and plan specific counterplans.
(3) I usually don't have speech docs open during the debate so your clarity is important to me.
Conflicts: San Marino (not coaching)
Experience: HS/Circuit- LD 2 years, PF 3 years, CX 1 year
PUT ME ON THE EMAIL CHAIN:
If the panel includes other lay judges - I am a lay judge. Please adapt to the other judges.
Regular dbt paradigm (you should at least skim this): here
I have completed the cultural competency credential and I am ready to deploy the skills in debate rounds. Remember, your words have power.
Please uphold positivity in the round. I give speaks from 20-30 but I will almost never give 30 speaks. If you are perfect you deserve a 30 but I have almost never seen anyone deserving of a 30.
I think that the best debaters are those who effectively utilize ethos, pathos, and logos in their speeches.
progressive arguments - read at your own risk
Online Debate: In the event, you get cut out, I will ask that you resume your speech from whatever your opponent or I last flowed.
- Do not attack your opponents, attack their arguments.
- If you are rude, offensive, disrespectful, racist, sexist, etc I will tank your speaks and possibly drop you if it's a big enough issue. Debate is competitive, but that doesn't mean you can be mean.
If there is a problem or you think something is wrong (like shady evidence), tell me ASAP so we can pause the debate if needed and solve the issue. If there is a disagreement about the content of a card, I will call for the card at the end of the debate.
- LD!! Framework: I want to see strong justifications (please have a card, don't just run framework without having a card, it seems like you haven't researched the topic or don't care about the debate at all) during the framework portion and strong links to the framework throughout the debate.
- When you extend, don't just extend tags, extend cards + impacts or just impact in case time is low.
- When you are making refutations use blocks and evidence! If you don't have blocks, please make some blocks. I like evidence, but I will settle for analytical arguments if both sides don't have warrants.
- Signpost during your speeches and cite the year & author (the last name is fine if you want to give credentials to weigh the evidence that's great!) of your cards. It's ridiculous how many people don't, I'm literally just hearing the resolution and I have no clue what the common arguments so if you start refuting things without specifying what it is, I'm not gonna try to play connect the dots to figure out what you're doing. It's not hard, I'm sure most of you can do it.
- Once you drop something, you cannot come back to it. *If your impacts are better, I might disregard. If you're good on the flow, you have good impact calc, but you drop one non-crucial argument, I might disregard.
- If you bring up an argument in cx but don't later in the round, then it's useless.
- Tech > Truth
- Slow down on analytics and tags!
- specify on link stories
- Do the impact comparison so I don't have to do all the work thx
- tell me what the NB is and how it solves!
- do the line by line well
- debate skills > talking pretty, you can be a polished speaker AND a flow debater
- If you bring up new evidence or new arguments in a later speech where the opponent does not have a chance to respond, I will tank your speaks (you won't walk out with anything higher than 24) same thing for new evidence, don't bring new evidence when the other team will not get to respond. That's bad faith and I will drop your speaks and potentially even your side if it becomes a key argument.
- I really really hate when you tell me how I should be voting, I am pretty sure I can vote for myself, so use that time to build your arguments, your links, etc.
- I am fine with speed, be like Eminem if that's what ya want, but I do not want to watch spit fly and just hear heaving. If you are going too fast for me to understand, I'll just say clear. If you don't slow down, I won't be able to flow so when you extend or cross-apply, your side will be missing pieces
- If you make me laugh, it will boost your speaks :))
Debated for Fullerton Union High School - policy for 4 years
- 2a for my entire career only ran affs with plans. 2a's be creative. I want to give you credit, but you have to justify it. 2ns flag stuff and close doors.
- 2n senior year, only went for politics, process CPs, and T. Not too much T as a 2n tho, but I love it. Ev matters. Predictable Limits >
- cheating CPs are fun, but have a good theory block. If I don't catch your args and the 2a goes for theory, I will assume it wasn't said. I won't fill in gaps.
- not a fast flow. Explanation and clarity plz.
- I'm probably not the best for K affs. I didn't understand them when I debated at a high level, so the threshold of need for explanation in debates is probably much higher, but I will vote for them.
- I went for FW against K affs. Fairness impacts need to pair with an arg about why fw is good for skills or something.. try to solve their offense plz and not just complain.
- take advantage of drops
Who are you and what are you doing in my debate round?
I'm a grad student who studies Mathematics. I did High School and College LD. As a tldr, I vote based on what's written on my flow. I vote for the debater that has access the most impactful offense in the round. There are not any positions that I will refuse to vote for, but of course like all people there are some positions I have a harder time voting for than others (if you have a question about a specific position, ask me before round). It's your job to make sure why the arguments you are going for get you the ballot.
How do I evaluate debates?
Offense gets you access to the ballot, good defense denies your opponent access to offense. If you want my ballot, then by the end of the debate you must tell me 1: what piece of offense do you have access to, and 2: why that piece of offense outweighs whatever your opponent has. I think good debaters use a strategic mix of offense and defense.
How do I feel about spreading?
I am a fan of spreading. When I debated, I did both fast and slow debate. You do you. Try not to be exclusionary to other debaters though.
If you are unfamiliar with spreading, and your opponent is going too fast for you, call out "speed!". If your opponent is unclear, call out "clear!". If your opponent does not even make an attempt to slow down or clear up after calling out "speed" or "clear", I will decrease their speaker points, and I'd be open to any theory argument against them made in your speech.
How do I feel about K's?
I read K's and I like them. There are some authors I know better than others (If you have a question about a specific author, ask me before round), but that does not mean I will not vote for an argument I haven't heard before. You need to tell me how to frame the round and how to frame impacts (why is the K prior to the aff?).
I need clear alt solvency. I feel like this gets way too glossed over in most K debates. In my experience I have noticed a lot of aff teams too afraid to point out the flaws of the alt-mechanism, and most neg teams seem to just presume that their alt will solve. Negs need to clearly explain what the alt does, what it solves, and how.
Also, Negs, I believe creative and nuanced arguments against the perm beat generics any day. Conversely, I am a huge fan of aff teams which get creative with the perm.
How do I feel about Theory?
I probably have the least amount of experience evaluating theory compared to other debate arguments. That being said I will evaluate it like any other debate argument. Ultimately, I default to theory prior to any other argument because I view theory as a meta discussion of the debate. That being said, in round I can be persuaded to evaluate, for example, K prior to theory.
Make sure you have a clear violation. Make sure your standards link to your voters.
When answering theory, it helps when you have a clear counter interpretation and standards, but if you clearly do not violate I view a we-meet as terminal defense.
Proven Abuse or Potential Abuse?
I am willing to vote on potential abuse, but can be convinced otherwise.
Competing interps or reasonability?
I am biased toward competing interps but if it is well argued I will not be opposed to viewing T through the lens of reasonability. I think my only issue with reasonability is that I have a hard time wrapping my head around what counts as 'reasonable'.
Random debate opinions:
I'd vote on disclosure - but I would also not vote on disclosure if someone gives me good reasons why disclosure is bad.
1AR theory is under utilized IMO - I enjoy 1AR theory in debates.
Reading DA's/solvency takeouts to a K alt is the easiest way to beat a K in front of me IMO. I think it's also the best way to squeeze more education and clash out of such debates.
Author indicts (such as: "your author is a bad person" args) need an impact. Tell me the implications of the author indicts for the larger argument. In other words - why is the moral failings of your opponent's author offense for you?
Well warranted analytics beat cards with bad warrants, but I can be persuaded otherwise.
If your opponent reads theory/T at you and just states that Education and Fairness are voters without giving a reason why, you should say that "my opponent never reads an impact to fairness and education".
Impact turns are underutilized.
I really like detailed DA's - but you don't have to read them this way.
In K v K rounds, it's probably strategic for negs to read "no perms in a methods debate". I've seen too many K v K rounds where the neg loses to an amorphous perm which resolves all of their offense.
I debated LD/Pol for Dougherty Valley grad 2021. bidround 2wice and choked 2wice. super washed. conflict for dv.
He/Him or They/Them or whatever you want to call me so long as I can tell you're talking to me.
judges/coaches need to take a step back and stop involving kids in weird debate politics; this activity should remain an educational space and adults should be there to guide students, not use them for some facebook high school ld group clout.... most of yall who do this are 30+!!!
prefer speechdrop instead of email but i dont really care that much
If you insist on an email chain: email@example.com
If you have questions for me after round: firstname.lastname@example.org or message me on facebook
Disclosure is mandatory and a true argument to an extent. if your interp is annoying ill be annoyed. full osource with highlighting makes the most sense. jv/novice disclose as your coach lets you. var should disclose. var vs novice do not read disclosure
if i say i won't flow an argument, i won't flow it.
Tech > Truth with some exceptions below.
I like: Policy > Theory/T = Topic/stock Kritiks > other ks >> nonT = Phil strike me for tricks
It has been a while since I debated and I am not familiar with a lot of critical literature anymore. If you still want to go for a more "entry level" kritik such as cap or security or a topic specific one, please explain the kritik with descriptors and not buzzwords. a lot of kritiks are probably true arguments though, so if u can explain it in a way that is easy for me to understand it im very comfortable voting off of it
topical k affs are great arguments. NonT vs fwk is repetitive but fun to evaluate. KvK can get messy but if you keep it clean and explain with descriptors rather than buzzwords i can evaluate them well.
NonT affs by nature are not good arguments. Clash and fairness are probably true arguments. The only reason id have fun evaluating these debates is because of fwk, but if fwk is gone for well, i dont usually vote aff.
if memorizing/reading a pre-prepared buzzword-filled 2nr is ur method for going for the k, dont read the k. preparation is important, but u need to actually know what youre debating. if you cant explain the k without an aid, youre better off not reading it
If the 1AR reads a framework interpretation to weigh the aff against the K, I will ALWAYS weigh the aff against the kritik.
I will not flow tricks (skep, logic, truth testing, indexicals, etc). I will not flow the RVI unless the initial shell is something like Nebel or shoes theory. friv theory is a trick -- i will only vote on it if it is conceded and i will never vote on it if reasonability is won.
explicit cheating or Bigotry is a L 20 for the offender and a W 30 for the other. if ur clipping or doing some other form of cheating in round and your opp wants to challenge, i need ev in the form of recordings or whatever fits best. if i notice it, i wont need ev and ill stop the round. ill mark on my copy of the doc where you clipped. if you have ev that counters my decision, ill apologize and we will resume round with no harm done. there is no argument if i come to the decision that a debater is displaying bigotry or overstepping boundaries in any way, unless you IMMEDIATELY APOLOGIZE and CORRECT YOURSELF. stuff like misgendering can be accidental, but its really easy to tell when something is malicious vs an honest mistake that you feel bad about/will correct. immediate L 20, reported to tab, round is stopped
if u want to be funny during ur speech, be funny. your speaks will rise. just dont try too hard and know how to be funny in the first place
Favorite 2nrs are disad + case or cp + disad/nb + case.
your 1nc can be interesting without reading random skep triggers or fringe kritiks. try 1 off disad, or massive impact turns. your speaks will rise.
some other things that will increase speaks: bring me a protein shake (hard +1), make an outkast or a tribe called quest reference in ur speech/doc (+0.5 to +1), manage to 'style' on ur opp while still keeping it respectful.
I am not opposed to giving a 30 to excellent debating and adaptation. Similarly, if you fail to adapt and rebuttal speeches are messy, you will get below a 28. I will do my best to average speaks around a 28.5.
do not feel hesitant to ask me any questions at any point. i will answer it if it is appropriate.
most importantly, keep it respectful. ur opp is not your enemy. you are both trying to compete and learn. excessive disrespect will not be tolerated -- i will intervene.
What's up. I'm Lukas/Luka (either is fine, they/them). Yes, I do want to be on the email chain. Lukrau2002@gmail.com, but I prefer using the fileshare option on NSDA campus, or speechdrop. If you would like, I am happy to send you my flow after the round.
Important Warning: the longer the tournament goes the worse I become at judging. If I've judged like 10+ debates be prepared for short rfds and be clear so I don't misflow you and make things obvious so I dont do illogical things.
I will listen to any argument, (yes, including tricks, nebel T, intrinsic perms, extra T, K affs of any type, listing these as they are supposedly the most "controversial") in any event, against any opponent, with the exception of the obviously morally objectionable arguments (use common sense or ask), arguments attempting to change the number of winners/losers, and arguments attempting to take speaker points out of my hands. With those exceptions, my only dogma is that dogma is bad. If you are confident in your ability to beat your opponents on the flow, pref me high. If you have certain arguments you dogmatically hate and are terrible at debating against, it is probably in your best interests to pref me low, because I will almost certainly be willing to evaluate those arguments no matter how silly you find them.
I believe that paradigms should exclusively be used to list experience with arguments, and that judges should not have "preferences" in the sense of arguments they dont want to evaluate. We're very likely being paid to be here to adjudicate the debates the debaters want to have, so the fact that some judges see fit to refuse to evaluate the fruit of some debaters' labor because they personally didn't like the args when they debated is extremely frustrating and frankly disrespectful to the time and effort of the debaters in my opinion. So below is my experience and a quick pref guide, based not on preference, but on my background knowledge of the arguments.
Experience: HSLD debate, Archbishop Mitty, 2018-2021; TOC qual 2020, 3 career bids. VBI camp instructor - Summer of 2021, Summer of 2022, Summer of 2023. Private coaching - Fall 2021-2022 (no longer actively coaching). Happy to talk about math stuff, especially topology! My current favorite theorem is Brouwer's fixed point theorem.
Pref guide - based on experience as a debater and judge, not personal arg preference
1 - Weird/cheaty counterplans
1 - Policy Args
1 - Phil
2 - Ks (queer theory, cap)
2 - Tricks
2 - Theory
2 - Ks (other Ks, not high theory)
3 - Ks (high theory)
Again, I cannot stress enough that this is solely based on my knowledge of the lit bases, not my love for the arguments. I read and enjoyed judging many a deleuze aff as a debater and more recently judge. The amount of reading I did to read those affs was very minimal and I mostly just stole cards, so would I say I actually know the args very well? Probably not. Would I enjoy evaluating them? Absolutely.
Below are purely procedural things
Ev ethics note: I will evaluate ev ethics claims the way the accusing debater wants me to out of 2 options: 1] stake the round on the egregiousness of the ev ethics claim, if the violation meets my arbitrary brightline for egregiousness I will drop the debater with bad ev ethics, if not the accusing debater will lose 2] if you read it as a theory shell I will evaluate it as a theory shell. If you're unsure about my arbitrary brightline for staking the round, note that such ev ethics violation need to be reasonably egregious (to auto end the round, I would prefer to see malicious intent or effect, where the meaning of the evidence is changed) - whereas my brightline for voting on it as a theory shell is much lower, and given the truth of the shell you will likely win on the shell, regardless of effect or intent. This means if you have an edge case its better to debate out the theory because you'll probably win simply bc those theory shells are pretty true but I'm pretty adverse to auto dropping ppl so you might not if you stake. If it is obvious and egregious though feel free to stake the round I will definitely vote against egregious miscuttings.
CX is Binding. This means with respect to statuses, etc, your arguments must abide by the status you say in either the speech you read the argument, or the status you say the argument is in cross X. If you say an arg is uncondo in CX, but attempt to kick it in a later speech, & I remember you saying it was uncondo in CX, I will not kick the arg.
But I take this notion farther than just argument statuses. If your opponent asks you "what were your answers to X", you may choose to list as many arguments as you like. You may say "you should've flowed" and not answer, that's your prerogative. But if you DO choose to answer, you should either list every argument you read, or list some and explicitly say that there were other arguments. If your opponent asks something like "was that all," and you choose to say yes, even if I have other args on my flow I won't evaluate them because you explicitly told your opponent those were your only responses. DO NOT LIE/GASLIGHT IN CX, even by accident. Correct yourself before your opponent's prep ends if you've said something wrong. I will not drop you for lying but I WILL hold you to what you say in CX.
My personal beliefs can best be described via Trivialism: https://rest.neptune-prod.its.unimelb.edu.au/server/api/core/bitstreams/3e74aad4-3f61-5a49-b4e3-b20593c93983/content
Little Rock Central '20
Please add me to the email chain: email@example.com
TLDR: I am fine with anything! I went for kritikal args most of high school but I have a general understanding of policy args and am a very tech-oriented judge. If you do impact calc, explain your args, contextualize, and answer arguments then you will be okay.
Add me to the chain. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org
Assistant Coach at Homestead 2020-2021
Head Coach at Homestead 2021-2022
Assistant Coach at Lake Highland 2023-Present
College Policy at West Georgia 2022-2023, NDT Doubles, CEDA Quarters
College Policy at Kansas starting Spring 2024
If you're interested in college debate, please reach out, I'd love to chat about it.
I've judged too many debates to care what you read. I've coached and judged every style, and feel comfortable evaluating anything read in your average LD debate, with the most experience in phil, k, and policy, and the least experience in tricks and theory. DON'T OVERADAPT, do what you do best, make complete, smart arguments, and we'll be fine. All things equal, the debates I most enjoy are phil, k, and topicality debates. I'm studying philosophy and economics at Kansas.
An argument has a claim, a warrant, and an implication. Less than that and you have not made an argument and I will not evaluate it. Don't test my limits - I don't care if words you've said were not answered by your opponent, they have not "dropped an argument" until you have MADE one. I will not vote on an argument I cannot explain via claim, warrant, and implication back to your opponent in the RFD. If you can't explain something like a paradox or condo logic coherently, don't go for it.
Evidence quality matters a lot, I'll probably read evidence in close debates, and I won't fill in the blanks for your incomplete highlighting. I would prefer well-warranted analytics to bad, under-highlighted cards.
I enjoy in-depth clash and don't enjoy under-warranted blipstorms, so I will likely enjoy your debates more and consequently give you better speaker points if your strategies include specific, complex, and vertical debating as opposed to shallow horizontal debating. I've historically been the best for debaters who understand their arguments very well and are prepared to defend them, whether they be afropessimism, heg good, kant, or process counterplans, and historically been the worst for debaters who rely on cheap shots to dodge clash. Do with that what you will.
Debate is supposed to be fun and educational, but it also means a lot to a lot of us, so it's okay if debates get heated and passionate, don't pretend like this doesn't mean something to you if it does.
Random Argument Thoughts:
Topicality should include case lists, preferably both an offensive and defensive one.
I default to counterplan theory as a reason to reject the argument, not the team.
Neutral in framework debates, equally good for impact turn as counterinterp strategies, skew slightly towards clash but totally fine with fairness.
Arguments I don't like but will vote on: epistemic modesty (this just does not make sense to me as a philosophy student), RVIs, frivolous theory, Mollow
Arguments I don't like and won't vote on: racist/sexist/transphobic/homophobic/ableist positions, evaluate the debate after x speech, theory based on debaters' appearance or dress
Happy to answer other questions pre round or by email.
Director of Forensics, Cal State Northridge
Email speech documents to email@example.com
Any other inquires should go to firstname.lastname@example.org
A. Judging/Coaching History
- Over 19 years of experience judging/coaching competitive debate events; less experience with speech and individual events (5 years)
- Worked with students of all ages: elementary (MSPDP), middle school (MSPDP), high school (policy, LD, public forum), and college (NDT/CEDA, NFA-LD, NPDA, IPDA, CPFL)
B. General Philosophy
1. Do you thing! This activity should center the stylistic proclivities of students, not judges. Full stop. My academic background has taught me reasonable arguments come in a variety of forms, styles, and mediums. I've coached and judged a wide range of styles from very traditional (e.g. topicality, disads, cps, and case), critical (e.g. post-structural/modern/colonial theory), to very non-traditional (e.g. performative/identity/method debate). There are things I like and dislike about every style I've encountered. Do what you do and I'll do my best to keep up.
2. "Inside Baseball" Sucks. These days I mostly judge college policy and high school LD. That means I am unlikely to know most of the acronyms, anecdotes, inside references about other levels of debate and you should probably explain them in MUCH more detail than you would for the average judge.
C. Pedagogical/Competitive Points of Emphasis
1. Importance of Formal Evidence (i.e. "cards"). I once heard a judge tell another competitor, “a card no matter how bad will always beat an analytic no matter how good.” For the sake of civility I will refrain from using this person’s name, but I could not disagree more with this statement. Arguments are claims backed by reasons with support. The nature of appropriate support will depend on the nature of the reason and on the nature of the claim. To the extent that cards are valuable as forms of support in debate it’s because they lend the authority and credibility of an expert to an argument. But there are some arguments where technical expertise is irrelevant. One example might be the field of morality and ethics. If a debater makes a claim about the morality of assisted suicide backed by sound reasoning there is no a priori reason to prefer a card from an ethicist who argues the contrary. People reason in many different ways and arguments that might seem formally or technically valid might be perfectly reasonable in other settings. I generally prefer debates with a good amount of cards because they tend to correlate with research and that is something I think is valuable in and of itself. But all too often teams uses cards as a crutch to supplement the lack of sound reasoning. The takeaway is … If you need to choose between fully explaining yourself and reading a card always choose the former.
2. Burden of Persuasion vs. Burden of Rejoinder One of things that makes policy and LD debate (and perhaps public forum) a fairly unique activity from a policy/legal perspective is our emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. If one competitor says something then the opponent needs to answer it, otherwise the judge treats the argument as gospel. Debaters might think their judges aren't as attentive to the flow as they would like, but ask any litigator if trial judges care in the least whether the other attorney answered their arguments effectively. Emphasizing the burden of rejoinder is a way of respecting the voice and arguments of the students who spend their valuable time competing in this activity. But like everything else in debate there are affordances as well as constraints in emphasizing the burden of rejoinder. Personally, I think our activity has placed so much emphasis on the burden of rejoinder that we have lost almost all emphasis on the burden of persuasion. I can’t count the number of rounds I have participated in (as a debater and as a judge) where the vast majority of the claims made in the debate were absolutely implausible. The average politics disad is so contrived that it's laughable. Teams string together dozens of improbable internal link chains and treat them as if they were a cohesive whole. Truth be told, the probability of the average “big stick” advantage/disad is less than 1% and that’s just real talk. This practice is so ubiquitous because we place such a heavy emphasis on the burden of rejoinder. Fast teams read a disad that was never very probable to begin with and because the 2AC is not fast enough to poke holes in every layer of the disad the judge treats those internal links as conceded (and thus 100% probable). Somehow, through no work of their own the neg’s disad went from being a steaming pile of non-sense to a more or less perfectly reasonable description of reality. I don't think this norm serves our students very well. But it is so ingrained in the training of most debates and coaches (more so the coaches than the debaters actually) that it’s sustained by inertia. The takeaway is… that when i judge, I try (imperfectly to be sure) to balance my expectations that students meet both the burden of rejoinder and the burden of persuasion. Does this require judge intervention? Perhaps, to some degree, but isn't that what it means to “allow ones self to be persuaded?” To be clear, I do not think it is my job to be the sole arbiter of whether a claim was true or false, probable or unlikely, significant or insignificant. I do think about these things constantly though and i think it is both impossible and undesirable for me to ignore those thoughts in the moment of decision. It would behoove anyone I judge to take this into account and actively argue in favor of a particular balance between the burdens or rejoinder and persuasion in a particular round.
3. The Role of the Ballot/Purpose of the Activity/Non-Traditional Debate. The first thing I want to say isn’t actually a part of my philosophy on judging debates as much as it is an observation about debates I have watched and judged. I can’t count the number of rounds I have watched where a debater says something akin to, “Debate is fundamentally X,” or “the role of the ballot is X.” This is not a criticism. These debaters are astute and clearly understand that defining the nature and purpose of the activity is an extremely useful (often essential)tool for winning debates. That said, in truth, debate is both everything and nothing and the role of the ballot is multiple. Asserting the "purpose of debate" or "the role of the ballot" is essentially a meaningless utterance in my opinion. Arguing in favor "a particular purpose of debate” or “a particular role of the ballot” in a given round requires reasons and support. Policy debate could be conceived as a training ground for concerned citizens to learn how to feel and think about particular policies that could be enacted by their government. Policy debate could also be conceived as a space students to voice their dissatisfaction with the actions or inactions of the governments that claim to represent them through various forms of performance. Excellent debaters understand policy debate is a cultural resource filled with potential and possibility. Rather than stubbornly clinging to dogmatic axioms, these debaters take a measured approach that recognizes the affordances and constraints contained within competing visions of "the purpose of debate" or the "role of the ballot” and debate the issue like they would any other. The problem is assessing the affordances and constraints of different visions requires a sober assessment of what it is we do here. Most debaters are content to assert, “the most educational model of debate is X,” or the “most competitive model of debate is Y.” Both of these approaches miss the boat because they willfully ignore other aspects of the activity. Debates should probably be educational. What we learn and why is (like everything else) up for debate, but it’s hard to argue we shouldn’t be learning something from the activity. Fairness in a vacuum is a coin-flip and that’s hardly worth our time. On the other hand, probably isn’t a purely educational enterprise. Debate isn’t school. If it were students wouldn’t be so excited about doing debate work that they ignore their school work. The competitive aspects of the activity are important and can’t be ignored or disregarded lightly. How fair things have to be and which arguments teams are entitled to make are up for debate, but I think we need to respect some constraints lest we confuse all discourse for argument. The phrase “debate is a game/the content is irrelevant” probably won’t get you very far, but that’s because games are silly and unimportant by definition. But there are lots of contests that are very important were fairness is paramount (e.g. elections, academic publishing, trials). Rather than assert the same banal lines from recycled framework blocks, excellent debaters will try to draw analogies between policy debate and other activities that matter and where fairness is non-negotiable. So the takeaway is … I generally think the topic exists for a reason and the aff has to tie their advocacy to the topic, although I am open to arguments to the contrary. I tend to think of things in terms of options and alternatives. So even if topicality is a necessarily flawed system that privileges some voices over others, I tend to ask myself what the alternative to reading topicality would be. Comparison of impacts, alternatives, options, is always preferable to blanket statements like “T = genocidal” or “non-traditional aff’s are impossible to research.”
4. Theory Debates (i.e. Debates about Debate Itself) I have a relatively high threshold for theory arguments, but I am not one of those judges that thinks the neg teams gets to do whatever they want. You can win theory debates with me in the back, but it probably isn’t your best shot. As a general rule (though not universal) I think that if you didn’t have to do research for an argument, you don’t learn anything by running it. I have VERY high threshold for negative theory arguments that are not called topicality. It doesn’t mean I wont vote on these arguments if the aff teams makes huge errors, but a person going for one of these argument would look so silly that it would be hard to give them anything about a 28.
I will get to you! I may take a little time to write critiques - I should be done within an hour or two for both debaters. Remember to check at the end of the tourney, any last thoughts will be left there.
Last Updated: 11/10/23
Performance = K = Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory
I am hybrid, trad/prog.
I can't flow top circuit speed. I only flow what I hear, not what's on the doc as that's for checking warrants. If you are reading that fast please slow down.
I am most familiar with performance/K and traditional, mostly queer theory for Ks. Anything else is fine as long as it is well explained. Prioritize framing issues and good coverage. Slow down AT LEAST 25% for theory and quick prewritten analytics. Warranted/explained args > blippy dumps.
Surprise me! Novel strats are great if explained and weighed well.
Good evidence ethics and courtesy please.
***NOTES ON CIRCUIT DEBATE***
I am able to and enjoy judging circuit debate.
However, I may not be the most up to date on circuit practice or norms as I frequently judge for local lay tournaments.
For safety slow down about 20-30%.
I am still learning right alongside y'all. Do not be afraid to ask questions!
Stay limber! Always remember to stretch - yoga's really good. Drink some water, take some deep breaths, and remember that while this is a competitive activity that is very stressful, it is something we do because we enjoy doing it.
And maybe it's not enjoyable for you, that's okay! I hope you can learn to love this activity.
Pronouns: they/them/no pronouns
Brookfield East '19 | UMBC '23 Computer Science - Cybersecurity
email@example.com [zeros not o's]
Conflicts: Brookfield East
I debated for Brookfield East (Brookfield, Wisconsin) in LD for 4 years, competing in traditional locals and at a couple of midwest national circuit tourneys annually (Blake, Glenbrooks). I went to VBI Swarthmore in 2016, and I did well at NCFLs and State my junior year.
In WI I usually ran traditional phil heavy cases, and on the circuit I read a lot of Queer Rage and Pess. I went for EcoPess a lot my junior year.
Respect first, we should be inclusive in this activity. Violations affect speaks
a. No racism, sexism, ableism, queerphobia, etc.
b. Don't be rude, obnoxious, and/or ad hominem.
c. Use everyone's preferred pronouns. It's not hard.
d. If reading something potentially triggering, please communicate that before the round to me and your opponent.Don't read if your opponent expresses they cannot hear it, I will auto drop and tank you.
- Tell me what to believe, don't assume I know anything. If I am defaulting that's bad
- Don't power tag, I listen and look for actual warrants in cards, especially for high magnitude claims
- Citations are a minimum, author quals are good. Bad/nonexistent warrants granted less offense and lower threshold against defense
I enjoy post rounding and giving advice if you remain respectful. Feel free to ask or email with any questions/concerns
- Speaks are inflated. You start at 27.5 and change from there. Points are given based on strategic choices, including coverage, prioritization, and clarity. Novelty in argumentation might bump you. For most of my career I was at about a 27.7-28.5.
30s are rare. Try for 28.5 or more.
<27 Offensive/bad evidence ethics
27-27.5 Okay. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need significant change and work. Possibly wrong strat chosen, subpar prep, or unfamiliarity with own strat/prep.
27.5-28 Average. Strat/prep and execution/decisions need improvement. Possibly should change direction in strat or decisions.
28-28.5 Good. Good strat/prep, execution/decisions are average and need better prioritization or efficiency.
28.5-29 Great. Great strat/prep, execution/decisions are good but could use some specific work.
29-29.5 Excellent. Top quality strat/prep, just have to fine tune execution/decisions.
29.5-30 Perfect. Tiny adjustments needed, if at all. Differences in strat/decision may be simply differences in preference or opinion.
Performance = K > Phil = Trad > LARP > Theory > Tricks = Friv Theory
- Run what you are comfortable with. These are only personal preferences - the round alone influences my decision.
* General Strat
- Debate and contest framework, and always weigh/contextualize offense with framing
- Extend explicitly, I don't assume anything about your advocacy. I prefer "Extend Li [explanation]"
- Structure well
- High-quality warrants are more convincing than anecdotes/blippy analytics
- Overviews great for establishing framing and sequencing issues
- Spreading is fine
- Spreading as a cheap shot isn't. Be inclusive otherwise speaks will suffer
- Clarity > Speed, I still listen to you. I do not write what I cannot understand.
- Slow down at least 20%, especially for analytics and tags
- Slow down for theory, includes shells, standards, underview. I have trouble flowing extremely fast theory analytics.
- Be assertive, not overbearing
- Not prep time, don't use it as prep. If you want to use it as prep just ask questions while you write
- Flex prep fine
- Flash everything not extemp
- Flash shells. Minimum Interp, preferably whole shell
- If your opponent asks you to flash something and you do not, I feel no qualms disregarding the warrant entirely. There is no reason why you should not be able to produce evidence you are asked for
- Disclosure seems good for clash/edu
- Don't run a bad disclosure shell, I already do not like the arg that much
- Small schools args are convincing, I used to be in one
* Tech > Truth
- No go for anything racist, queerphobic, ableist, etc.
1. Threshold extremely low for voting against args with bad implications
2. Despise friv theory, don't read
- On points 1. and 2., I still expect sufficient offense/defense in response, threshold low for granting defense
* General Tech
- Justify uplayering, not automatic. Includes any type of preclusion or prior question args, willing to drop you a layer b/c of bad explanations
- 3+ condo seems illegit and shifty, threshold probably low for condo shells
- Explicit extensions, I don't assume anything about your advocacy
- I don't assume status of offs, uncondo still needs to be extended
- Would prefer explicit kicks
- Judgekick is new to me, justify why I should
- Won't vote on "Eval/Vote after x speech." Why have the rest of the round then?
- Explain perms. The more depth you give the arg the more convincing it is
- Severance perms seem bad
- Familiar with queer theory (Stanley, Edelman, Butler), generic Ks, IdPol Ks, and some critical race theory. Less familiar with Pomo and some high theory
- Be genuine, especially if running performance
- Know what you are running
- Prioritize top-level framing and sequencing: ROB and/or ROJ debate
- Develop your thesis and link story
- Err on the side of overexplaining
- Analysis/K bombs > blippy generalizations
- Independent Voters need to be implicated and contextualized. Explain how and why it is both independent and a voting issue
- UQ clash more interesting than repeating the link story
- K vs. K only interesting through clash/method comparison
* K v. Topicality
- K > T/Theory convincing if justified well
- Clear sequencing and defense will save you
- Text is explicit and specific
- Solvency advocate, otherwise I am skeptical
- Explicitly extend advantages and solvency
- No "ought", it doesn't make sense. Existence of obligation does not mean action will happen
- Full res is not a Plan. Should be a distinct implementation
- Same as first three points on Plans, although requirement for solvency advocate depends on nature of CP
- Prove competitiveness
- Lazy PICs are boring. Just don't read them
- Do not power tag, threshold low to be skeptical/disregard bad warrants
- Functional warrants throughout link chain
- CI, DTA, No RVI
- Dislike friv shells, threshold low for granting more defense
- Will vote for shell if you win it, even if I hate it
- Slow down for analytics
- Reasonability vague and confusing, seems like intervention
- Independent Voters: same as found in K section
- Won't vote on it if not given clear voters
- Zero experience with this stuff
- Won't vote off of hidden text
- Implicate and justify well
Include me on the chain: firstname.lastname@example.org
I competed for Brentwood in LD on the circuit from 2017 to 2021, competing for Emory in policy, 25'. He/Him.
For nats, lay, pf:
Ignore everything below. Debate is a game of persuasion: a] i'm influenced by winning arguments, b] i'm influenced by influential speakers. Lay/pf debate is an exercise in accessibility, strategic choices, efficiency, and judge adaptation. Think of me as a debater roleplaying as a parent judge and you'll have a good time.
Damien update ---
I know nothing about the topic. It might behoove you to not throw never-ending acronyms at me. As I judge less and less LD and debate more and more policy, I am no longer in love with 6 minute explanations of 5 second theory args. I think affs should be in the direction of the topic at a minimal and cases and advocacies should be supported by the literature. That being said, having debated both, I don't think conditionality in policy works the same as it does in LD and am perceptive to warranted arguments against it.
For circuit LD/policy:
tl;dr / prefs: Debate is a very really highly educational game evaluated through whether or not I'm persuaded to vote for you. Debate how you want to debate, I think good argumentation is extremely persuasive. I think my primary obligation as a judge is to evaluate the round, but value the educational aspect of debate which has a strong likelihood of persuading my ballot.
I am likely bad for pomo and tricks and will vote for it only if there is a very compelling explanation in the rebuttals that tell me what it is I'm voting for exactly and why that means you win. I don't feel particularly comfortable voting for positions that I couldn't explain back to you.
At my core, I think debate is good. I think clash is the focal point of what makes the activity good. I'm not particularly compelled by arguments that say "debate is irreparably bad" because I don't know where to go from there. I would love to be told where to go from there.
are logical, good, and neg gets them. I think they should have solvency advocates and LD (arbitrarily and open to changing) at most gets two.
are yay -- if consequences matter and the consequence would be on balance negative then I would probably negate.
are intriguing. My favorite debates have been critical -- I think throwing buzz words at me without warrants doesn't make for a compelling position and warrants are good. Please don't not read them, but if you do read them I think that there's a moderate-to-high threshold on me being able to explain it back to the debaters for you to win on them.
I love a good 1ac -- I think if you are referencing your 1ac in your 1ar frequently then your 1ac was probably well thought out.
I don't think saying "extend the advantage" is enough -- an explanation of the story is the floor and the way the advantage implicates the round is the gold standard.
I like impact scenarios
I dislike blips and would probably only vote on it if it's the only option
I think in round violence against people in the room can be a compelling ballot - I think there's a sliding scale of when I'm obligated to intervene and I will gladly end it shamelessly and seemingly arbitrarily, especially for children.
Clipping and other evidence violations ends the round with an L + lowest speaks
I like pastries and coffee cough cough
Please don't read win 30 in front of me
Email/chain contact: email@example.com
Experience: I am a past policy debater from Alliance Marc and Eva Stern Math and Science School HS. I have been coaching the novice policy division for my old high school for two years and counting; and I have been judging for LAMDL since the beginning of 2018. I have been judging invitationals since the 2019 (Policy: 2019-present, LD: 2019-present).
Format: I am an easy going judge, I judge based on how the argument is given and which side gives me more of a reason to vote for them and how many arguments are not being dropped, also I judge based on the realism/logical side. I'm good with spreading just as long as you give me a roadmap, signpost, and still understandable. I do keep the official time in the debate, but y'all are allowed to keep your own time. Always face me, y'all are trying to convince me, not your opponents. Assume I don't know much about your topics, that's how y'all should be debating. I flow based on the main points I hear during the round, now, it's the debater's job to tell the main points in their arguments, be clear.
Notes: Other than what I mentioned above, the speeches are yours, just as long as it's not offensive to anybody. I do want y'all to have a fun time debating so include whatever makes you happy in your speech, whether it's jokes, etc. just as long as y'all don't stray from the actual debate. Always be respectful, no matter what.
I look forward to watching y'all debate!
I'm a flay LD judge and a lay LD judge. My background is in Parliamentary, but this doesn't mean I need you to talk pretty, though please talk at a reasonable pace because I want to understand you just as much as you want me to.
My email address is firstname.lastname@example.org (for any question or when emailing your case)
- I do appreciate a conversational, relatable tone.
- Also love it when you pair pathos with logos (maybe even some ethos) haha
Safety is my #1 priority in the round:
1. Avoid oppressive discourses including but not limited to sexism, racism, homophobia, etc. It’s not just an argument.
2. If you need any accommodations before the round, please email me
3. Give trigger warnings with an anonymous opt-out before reading any potentially sensitive argument.
- I like clear signposting, great weighing, and being considerate. These things are key!
Specific Debate Categories:
LD: I don't know what wpm I max out at, so I would appreciate a speech doc, but if you are unable to provide one, that's totally fine, just remember to outline your contentions once again after your Constructive :)
- I need a hint at a floating pik during the 1NC, make sure your root cause argument is contextualized to the Aff.
Theory: I am probably not the best for this debate, and I won't evaluate frivolous theory. If there is actual abuse, then it’s fine.
LARP: I am fine evaluating a decently in-depth phil debate. If there are no standards presented, I default to util.
- I don’t lean either way on conditionality. But, reading six-off is sort of ridiculous
Tricks: Don’t. Haha
Excited to judge for all of you, and I wish y'all good luck!
If my camera is off, don't start your speech. If you want to email me questions about your round, please do so with haste because I have an awful memory.
Kapaun Mt. Carmel/Mount Carmel Independent '19. I did policy debate for four years.
University of Southern California '23. I did not compete but was still involved with the policy debate team.
Please be kind. I promise I'm not angry or upset, my face is just like that.
Again, I haven't competed since high school and I'm not as involved as I once was: this means I've forgotten lots of jargon and you will need to slow down a bit. The technical nuances of debate aren't as intuitive to me anymore so please explain the implications of your arguments more.
I don't really have any firm and strong opinions on debate other than:
(1) be kind to your partner and opponents, and
(2) debate is a valuable activity and all argumentative styles that allow chances for contestation/clash are essential for that. If you take time out of your own prep to delete analytics from constructives, you're only hurting yourself.
Feel free to email me with any further questions.
Do whatever as long as it's not repugnant. If you're unsure if your argument falls under this category, then probably don't read it.
For what it's worth, I read mainly policy arguments in high school and am not super familiar with critical arguments. If you read the latter, you're going to have to explain your arguments more. Such debates are easier for me to follow if your strategy engages the impact level. Non-USFG affs should have a debate and ballot key warrant. I always went for framework, a topic disad if it linked, or an impact turn against such affs.
I think fairness is the best impact.
I think affs should get to weigh their plan and it will be an uphill battle to persuade me otherwise.
I know very little about the topic. Please keep this in mind if going for T.
I like impact turns. That does not mean death good. That does not mean wipeout. Please.
*LD note: I dislike RVIs.
Good luck! Have fun! Learn lots! Fight on!
Prob not an ideal judge for you if you will go for
a. high theory
b. theory debates
Currently a graduate student at USC
I will be able to adjudicate any type of round, as I've run all from an Ocean Energy aff/politics to a Lacan aff/anti-blackness; I know you've done the work to refine whatever argument you want to read, so I will respect that - just tell me what to do with my pen. Admittedly, I’m no longer debating. I’m still confident in my ability to make a coherent decision, but probably won’t know the topic literature. Ask me anything here before the round or if I can do anything to make the round/tournament better for you :) email@example.com.
TLDR: Debate whatever arg you want, don't be mean, put me on the email chain
LD Update: Everything below applies - a few comments specific to the format
1. Do I vote for RVIS? Yes and no? Yes, as in I'm open to voting for any argument. No, as in I've never voted for the argument because
a. teams don't give me reasons why I should vote for it.
b. The only justification is that "they dropped it!"; just because they don't specifically answer the RVI doesn't mean that the rest of the speech is probably a response already
c. given the nature of the argument, its probably difficult to win. Though I'd be conducive to hear a "drop the debater because they're ableist; here's why" - though that's probably theory
d. (UPDATE) Voted a team down because the other team clearly pointed out ways the other team made fun of black female scholarship and told me why that mattered.
2. Since AC's are short in time teams often have terrible internal link chains. Negs should point this out
3. I don't think I'll vote on a completely new AR argument (unless maybe hinted before or actually super abusive?).
General comments about me:
- Put me on the email chain
- I often close my eyes, put my head down, etc. Many people think that this is because I'm sleeping; nah, that's just my preference to avoid having my facial expressions influence the round. If that's something you're not comfortable with, just let me know
- I dislike the phrase "is anyone not ready". In the wise words of Richie Garner, "it is a linguistic abomination (see: bit.ly/yea-nay)."
- Please don’t read at a million wpm at the top of your rebuttals/theory args - its not very fun to flow in this situation.
- I guess I like the K? But please - read whatever argument you want to. I do my best to not let my biases affect my decision in relation to being more or less receptive to certain arguments. Rather, the only extent to which I let my kritikal background affect my process of adjudication is that I can provide more comments/feedback post-decision with kritikal arguments because of my background, rather than with arguments involving specific legal/political intricacies. In summation, the burden is on you - k or policy - to lead me through the ballot, but I'm more productive in discussions of k's after the round. Trust me, I probably won't be able to answer your super-specific resolutional question.
- I read mainly psycho, anti-blackness, Marx, and ableism in college debate.
Everything else is alphabetical:
CP: The following statement is probably my default lens for judging any argument: if the counterplan is your go-to I’m all for it. I expect the CP to solve the case or at least a portion of it, and is competitive to the plan. I’ve read a lot of abusive counterplans in the past like Consultation/Agent CP’s/PICs and don’t mind them. Obviously if the aff can effectively debate theories against these CP’s that’d be great.
DA: Contextualize the link. If the link’s warrants are in the context of the travel ban and the aff is entirely different and the aff points this out, I’ll probably err aff (unless the negative can effectively articulate that the aff is similar to what the link story says). I don’t find politics arguments too interesting, but if that’s your go-to let’s do it.
K-affs: I’ve run these affirmatives before. I’ll vote on your advocacy if you can explain to me why your model is valuable. I'll flow your performance or anything you do in your speech (make sure to extend them). Although I like critical arguments, be careful about tangential relationships to the topic because it makes me more sympathetic of TVA's, as I think that k-affs should still probably be topical. It doesn't need to include a hypothetical implementation of a policy, but you should still somehow reduce restrictions on immigration/affirm the resolution. Be creative with the definitions and explain why I should value your definition of immigration vs a legal one. Just criticizing and discussing the resolution will probably make you lose vs T a lot. If you don't affirm the resolution I'm still down for that, but be ready to impact turn everything and defend your model of debate.
- PS: If you know you’re hitting a school with historically less resources and you’re running some high theory Baudrillard aff, come on. Obviously I won’t vote you down based on your argument choice, but endorse an accessible reputation for debate. You can try to flash your blocks/analytics/full 1AC, don’t sidestep in CX, or maybe run a more intellectually accessible aff. If not, I can’t stop you but it’d be a really nice gesture - might help your speaks.
Kritiks: I’ve mainly been a kritik debater throughout my four years of debating. With that being said, don’t assume I’ll be hip with your postmodern theory and/or be more sympathetic of your psychoanalysis/antiblackness k. Just follow the same advice above and explain your k, tell me what to focus on, etc. Explain how the aff entrenches x and how that leads to a bad implication, how the link turns the aff or outweighs it, the productiveness of my ballot if I vote negative, how the alternative resolves something that outweighs the aff, and how the alt overcomes the UX of the link (although if worded correctly, I’ll vote for an alternative that is a leap of faith.) A good k debate to me will help your speaks! Also if there's a long OV or FW block let me know to put it on another flow.
T - USFG/FW: You shouldn't exclude their 1AC based on the premise that its "non-traditional"; you aren't reduced to just being able to say racism is good. Likewise, you shouldn’t read the same definition requiring the same USFG action. I say this not because I hate T (which is the contrary), but because your performance/substance probably won't be great with that strat. Be creative! My favorite FW debater is radical and explains why there is intrinsic value in having discussions rooted in the legal realm/reducing restrictions on immigration within the context of the aff’s impacts. If you can contextualize your education/fairness impacts against the 2AC and/or explain how you turn the aff, I’ll be loving your debate. I will be less sympathetic to generic FW blocks that just articulate fairness and education without reference to the aff.
Theory/Topicality: This is the area where I'm the least literate on, so please keep that in mind if your strategy involves a legitimate interest in theory. Just do meaningful comparison and tell me why I should be erring towards your model of debate over theirs. Obviously if theory is dropped by the opponents and that becomes what you go for, I’ll (probably?) vote for it. However, if the theory is otherwise read for just time skew and the other team sufficiently answers the argument I’ll generally disregard it. If you can articulate a substantive impact then it probably has a purpose and I’ll be more sympathetic – I’ll be less sympathetic to 20 second blippy blocks meant to outspread the 2AC. To be transparent, I haven’t judged many non-T theory debates. I’d be extremely interested if you can perform a well-articulated theory debate.
Otherwise, please have fun! This round is for you.
Do what you do best. I will listen to any arguments and vote on any argument as long as I understand them and why they matter. Don't be problematic (i.e. racist, sexist, ableist, etc.) My background is in policy but have experience in LD, PF, congress, and extemp (some more than others). Did mostly K/performance debate in college. My email is firstname.lastname@example.org if you have any questions. Don't spread in front of me, if I can't understand an argument it doesn't matter, and I can't understand spreading. Please don't call me judge, Hannah works great.
I've decided to crowdfund my paradigm, if you have other questions to be answered let me know and I will add them here.
Add me to the email chain: email@example.com
Hey! I'm Chaitra Pirisingula and I use she/her pronouns. I debated for 4 years at Millard North on the local and national circuit. I mostly ran phil and some Ks. I also enjoyed theory and T.
Tech > Truth
Read anything you want as long as you explain it well.
Speed is fine.
theory/T/phil - 1
K - 2
LARP - 3/4
tricks - 4
Theory/T: I really enjoy these debates even if they are frivolous. I think there should be a lot of weighing with standards and voters. You should read voters but if the debate gets really messy my defaults are fairness>education, no RVI, competing interps, and drop the debater.
Phil: I am most familiar with this type of debate. I've read a lot of frameworks but I am most familiar with Kant, Butler, Levinas, and Macintyre. I think you should always try to line by line a framework as well as make general responses. Make unique arguments and answer your opponents line by line.
Ks: I mostly read cap and set col but I am somewhat familiar with other authors popular in debate. A lot of my teammates were K debaters so most of my knowledge is based on their rounds. As long as you explain your theory well and don't just rely on long prewritten overviews, these can be great debates. I default to T>K but it would be pretty easy to convince me otherwise.
Non-T/Performance: As long as you explain your method well and make the round accessible these rounds are great, but I do think affs should generally have some topic link.
LARP: I probably won't know much about the topic (especially if it's one of the first tournaments on a new topic) so that might make these rounds harder to adjudicate. Evidence comparison is important but also make sure you spend a lot of time answering the warrants of the evidence itself. You should read a framework but I default to util is no other framework is provided.
Tricks: I will listen to them but I don't like voting off blips so my threshold for responses is very low.
Overall, I am open to anything as long as rounds have a lot of clash and you understand your arguments. Be nice, be creative, and have fun!
Hello! My name is Jonas, I'm currently a coach for Walt Whitman High School. I have 4 years of HS debate experience (mostly Parli with a bit of PF), 4ish years of collegiate debate experience (British Parli and APDA), and 3ish years of coaching and judging experience (Parli, Congress, and PF).
I'll flow all your arguments, just make sure that you explain to me what your argument is, how it's relevant to the debate, and why it's important. If you want me to vote for you, have clear link work and explicit weighing of your impacts. If you tell me that "x" is the most important issue in the round, I will vote on "x." If your opponents tell me that "y" is the most important issue in the round, then you need to tell me why I should vote on "x" instead of "y," or how you can win on both "x" and "y." If you tell me something is the most important issue, I will spend more time trying to find a ballot for you on that clash. If no teams tell me where I should be voting, I will be very sad.
I won't automatically vote on drops. You still have to prove why that arg is round winning and can outweigh wherever your opponents are closest to winning.
I don't have a preference for any specific types of arguments, but please make sure your arguments relate to the round! I'm probably not going to vote for something super high magnitude but also incredibly low probability (as long as there's some pushback on that arg). So if you impact out to nuke war when the topic is about international adoptions, and your opponents say "that's highly unlikely," I probably won't vote there. If you can convince me that there's some degree of probability, then I will vote for it.
Weighing is really important. If your weighing is clear and specific, I'm more likely to vote for you. Your weighing should also be comparative. Tell me how I should weigh your arguments, and be specific about what impact you want me to vote for. Please weigh across your clashes too (if you are winning on one clash, and your opponents are winning on another, explain why you winning your clash is more important than them winning their clash).
I'm fine with speed, but I might drop some args if you are fully spreading.
Unless your k is really good and really applicable, don't run it. Not a huge fan of theory debates.
Always be respectful of your opponents. Debate should be an educational space and I will dock your speaks if you are too mean.
Two quick notes for the Feb PF topic:
- I don't want the round to devolve into just a back and forth about the importance of one or two statistics. Barring a glaring issue (i.e. date of the study, funding for authors, skewed methodology), I would much rather you spend your time focused on the logical warrants you can make regarding the original argument, or better yet weighing your impacts. If you hit me with a "EVEN IF you don't doubt the significance x card my opponents have, here's why we still outweigh," I will be quite happy.
- Similarly, I don't want the round devolving into whether or not a certain stat should apply because of confounding variables. I have noticed a lot of teams saying that their opponents' stats shouldn't apply because of x confounding variable, but then don't hold their own stats to the same accountability. Once again, I care more about the logical warranting you can use these cards for, and the weighing you can build off of the impacts.
Use speechdrop.net for sharing speech documents. No more email or flashdrive problems. The affirmative should have this ready to go before the round starts.
(Copy and paste Erick Berdugos paradigm ) but to summarize my general beliefs .....
1) The affirmative probably should be topical. I prefer an affirmative that provides a problem and then a solution/alternative to the problem. Negatives must be able to engage. Being independently right isn't enough.
2) Personal Narratives - not a fan of these arguments. The main reason, is that there is no way real way to test the validity of the personal narrative as evidence. Thus, if you introduce a personal narrative, I think it completely legit that the personal narrative validity be questioned like any other piece of evidence. If you would be offended or bothered about questions about its truth, don't run them.
3) K -Aff : Great ,love them but be able to win why either talking about the topic is bad, your approach to talking about the topic is better,why your method or approach is good etc, and most importantly what happens when I vote aff on the ballot.
4) Performance : Ehh- I’m not the judge to run a good perf bu but I am willing to listen to the arguments if you can’t rightfully warrant them .
Perf cons ARE an issue and can cost you the ballot . Be consistent!
5) EXTEND ! EXTEND! EXTEND! “Extensions of the aff are overviews to the 1 ar” .... no they are not . I want to flow them separately not in some clump . It gets messy.
1) Kritiks : I am not familiar with a large range of lit but I know plenty how to judge a good kritik and I enjoy it. Do not feel you need to run a K to win any sort of leverage in the debate ... you’re better off reading something you are comfortable defending than a crappy K you have no knowledge of . You need to be able to articulate and explain your position well don’t just assume I am familiar with your authors work. Alts need to tell me cause and impact aka what will the after look like ?? K MUST have a specific link. K arguments MUST link directly to what is happening in THIS round with THIS resolution. I am NOT a fan of a generic Kritik that questions if we exist or not and has nothing to do with the resolution or debate at hand. Kritiks must give an alternative other than "think about it." Have good blocks to perms !!! Especially if you have no links to the advocacy .
2) DA : Go for it ! I lean towards topical / substantive larpy rounds so I will definitely vote on a good DA . Make sure your impact calculus is outweighing and tell me how ! Internal links should be clear . If the impacts are linear that needs to be articulated as well . Pretty simple but feel free to ask me for clarifications !
3) CP/ PIC : Strategic if done correctly ! For the CP there needs to be net benefits and they should be extended throughout the round . Please don’t read generic cards you stole off a case file ( I can tell and it makes for a redundant debate ) I won’t vote against you for it but .. don’t plz . Theory against abusive CPs is completely legitimate. For the PIC - keep it clean ! *paradigm under construction *
Be persuasive – First, that means making arguments that you feel most comfortable with. Second, be clear. Both in form and content. Use jargon only if it contributes to clarity. Third, make your arguments longer and more nuanced rather than running more off case positions.
My ability to flow spreading will probably be pretty bad, especially online. I’ll also be reading through your evidence while you’re speaking. Go at a brisk pace for the tags and you can spread through the rest of the card. Please, do something to audibly separate cards from each other. Breath, pause, say ‘next’, or change speed.
CP = DA >= K (Capitalism/Security) = T >= Phil > K (anything else) = Theory
Use the cards that you read
Long internal link chains only work if you have good evidence and you properly extend them
Defense is enough to neutralize a disad or advantage
Please, please, please do evidence comparison and impact calculus
Hi, I’m Anish. I debated for Peninsula for four years and qualified to the TOC twice.
My email is firstname.lastname@example.org.
I was pretty bad at flowing, so please slow down and pause between your arguments.
I primarily read policy arguments, but I’d be more than happy to vote on philosophical and critical arguments as long as you explain them well and do comparative impact calc. I dislike most tricks and theory arguments because they’re underdeveloped and often lack warrants.
It’s the debater’s responsibility to flow — asking what was read must be done in prep or cross-x
Smart analytics can beat carded evidence
A lot of counterplan theory arguments are best settled as competition issues, not voting issues.
You can insert rehighlighting
Conflicts: Carnegie Vanguard, McNeil
Hello! I competed in LD for 4 years at McNeil. I got 2 toc bids and qualified my senior year. I think every judge has biases/experiences that will push them one way or another so I will try to explain them as succinctly as I can.
I am always down for these debates, this is mostly what I read. Weighing and strategic vision is the name of the game. Try to craft a story, spin goes a long way here too. Evidence comparison is also vital when there are two competing claims, it makes evaluating the round much easier and reduces the chance that I have to figure out things for myself.
Read kritiks a fair amount as well. I am most familiar with structural kritiks such as setcol, afropez, and cap, impact kritiks such as security as well as being somewhat familiar with the literature of biopower and psychoanalysis. I am least familiar with high theory kritiks such as Baudrillard and Deleuzian literature broadly. Explaining how your advocacy solves your offense, what offense their advocacy can’t solve, and why that outweighs is needed from both the aff and neg.
Caught on to phil to the later end of my time debating. I am familiar with util, kant, rawls, hobbes, butler and less familiar with anything else. I find meta weighing arguments i.e resolvability or bindingness first and winning offense under them especially helpful in evaluating these debates. I also feel somewhat hesitant to vote for independent voters that say that “x framework justifies y bad thing” because oftentimes this is just a substantive argument to reject the framework rather than a reason to drop the debater, but obviously I am open to having my mind changed.
I think in non-t vs FW debates, affs tend to struggle on establishing what the alternative stasis point outside the res is and largely what their model of debate looks like. I think negs tend to struggle on explaining why their offense precludes the aff, answering impact turns, and making a good TVA. Doing these things well is a big plus. Also definitions will help me greatly in understanding what your model of debate looks like in whatever type of T debate you find yourself in.
In regards to theory generally, I don’t have draconian preferences on paradigm issues or what you can read. I find standard weighing and impact framing greatly helpful in evaluating these debates. Weighing is especially something that often times is not used which makes it hard to evaluate between standards, whether it be probability, magnitude, reversibility, strength/size of link, will help you greatly.
The term tricks is kinda vague but I mainly mean paradoxes, logcon, condo logic, stuff like that. I don’t mind these debates and I think they can be very interesting, if planning to read these arguments please have a claim, warrant, and impact.
Speaks will be given based off my opinion of your strategic vision and argument quality. That being said, please slow down on tags and analytics (especially in theory shells or underviews), also I personally find it hard to follow monotone spreading. Also please avoid being rude/ad hominem!
Evidence ethics is important. In the case of an evidence ethics challenge the debater making the challenge must clarify to me they are making a challenge and what that challenge is. In that case, I will adjudicate to the best of my ability or go to tab (whatever the rules of the tournament dictate).
H.H. Dow High School 2019 - I competed in policy for three years
I prefer to be on email chains - email@example.com
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.
Am a lay judge. Please make sure to speak clearly and give an off-time road map
--->brophy '18 (policy), cal '22, double 2'ed so no aff/neg sympathy, toc qual/coaches poll/tournament wins and all that stuff. i coach LD now so this is customized for that.
--- firstname.lastname@example.org - put me on the email chain
--- good debating outweighs any of my following argumentative preferences, my leanings are only relevant in borderline decisions where poor debating has left too many arguments unresolved and there's no other way to arbitrate other than defaulting to what i'm more convinced by.
--- always tech>truth as long as there are arguments
--- an argument has a claim and a warrant, a good one has an impact (some ev doesn't even meet this standard) - calling out 'non-arguments' is a sufficient answer until it becomes an argument (pls do this more? it's strategic and helpful for norm-setting - a lot of ev i'm reading is abysmal)
--- don't just tell me to read ev - do the actual debating and use good ev comparison in conjunction with that
--- slow down on theory. spreading your blocks ≠ debating. and if your opponent is incoherent spreading theory, don't ask them to say it slowly during cross ex - i only evaluate/flow what i can actually hear so you're only doing yourself a disadvantage
--- 'which cards did u skip' / 'can you send with analytics' / etc auto-caps speaks at 28.6 nonnegotiable
---> neg: k affs are cheating. fairness is an impact, but not always the most strategic one. debate is a game, answering args ≠ racist, the [insert fake word here] disad is probably stupid, TVA + SSD are super compelling to me, etc. I'm increasingly willing to vote on presumption vs affs that do/solve nothing and you will be heavily rewarded with speaks if you go for it. k v k can be fun or painful, just have actual answers to the perm.
---> aff: clever/creative t interps with strong defense, strong answers to SSD/TVA, and coherent offense is the best route in front of me. or, just impact turn everything with your thesis and win on the flow. please have real topic-specific AND lit-specific answers to SSD + TVA - i weigh those much higher than most judges, but am also down to discount them on stupid but poorly answered args like "micropolitics is a pre-requisite". vs the k, go for the perm it probably solves.
--->aff vs k: most convincing args = particularity, falsifiability, impact turns, alt solvency attacks, and fw. pet peeve is people just saying 'weigh the case' when other interps have more strategic value. also i'm very down for fw no alts with good reasoning. a lot of k teams (not just psycho) make nonfalsifiable broad-sweeping claims so call that out (please do this more i am so ridiculously persuaded by it).
--->neg going for k: can be the worst debates, can be the best - up to you to decide. i'll have a hard time thinking a generic baudrillard debate is good, but neolib/security i'm very open to. surprisingly literate in a wide range of literature, but i'm not granting you the thesis of an entire book without you explaining it sufficiently (which, in ld, is almost impossible because of time constraints). utilize framework cleverly PLEASE
cp/da: my personal favorite strat. vs soft left affs sufficiency framing makes sense (especially if you bait 'step in the right direction'). smart adv cp's make me happy and will reward you with speaks. think about competition theory more - pdcp is very sloppily debated out. i'm very anti pics that are textually uncompetitive.
t: good for nit picky violations with good impact stories, undecided on reasonability (but more down to vote on it than the avg judge if well explained - esp if the only response is a 2 second 'causes intervention' arg - but tbf it's never well explained)
tricks/phil/friv: hate this but also if you can't answer this nonsense you probably deserve to lose
theory: in theory inf condo good, but i could be persuaded that the structure of LD makes this untrue. no 1ar theory makes a weird amount of sense to me. slow down and actually debate theory pls. pics are fun but theoretically more justifiable with solvency advocates.
decision making: i first resolve quick arguments (technical drops or one side being clearly ahead) then I compare how much work I have to do for each side to grant the key argument pathways for their victory and vote for the team that requires the least work. there's almost always some work required - if there's not, then a) you're getting good speaks b) comes down to persuasive argument framing / judge instruction (i.e. which way to err on key args, how losing one key arg might implicate some other arg's probability, etc - basically closing doors).
tech>truth: the implication to this being true is limited by the debating done/argument presented, and everything is a sliding scale. dropping a solvency deficit doesn't mean the aff doesn't solve, it probably just means the aff only solves some percent of its advantages depending on the ev (unless it's articulated to implicate 100% of solvency or the argument lends itself towards a large solvency take out via evidence or warrants).
ev evaluation: good research sets you up to win debates. that being said, a clever 2ac analytic is the same in my mind to a card from a random blog with no author quals. just because you have evidence, does not make it a better argument. good ev + explanation > bad ev + good explanation > good ev + no explanation > bad ev + no explanation. resist debate's recent tendency towards awful evidence, but don't be scared to rely heavily on smart analytics.
misc: default to judge kick and sufficiency framing, long overviews are never helpful. the brightline on 2ar leeway is whether enough of the argument was in the 1ar to reasonably expect the 2nr to have predicted it. if i'm not flowing, you're not making arguments.
speaks: being a clear, loud, and snarky/clever presenter with judge instruction in final speeches is the most important for me. closing doors makes my decision easier (god please do this more i dont think ld'ers know how to close doors) and will be generously rewarded. research quality/innovative strategies would be the next most important. speaks inflation is probably inevitable and hurting certain debaters doesn't solve, so i'll default to the rough average at that tournament to form my scale.
Yes, I would like to be on the email chain: matthewsaintgermain at gmail. Affirmatives should have the email chain up and ready to roll immediately upon getting settled in the round. Please do not wait for everyone to arrive to start this. No "oops, I forgot" 1 minute before the round starts please! Unpack your stuff and get on this immediately, preferably sending a blank test email ASAP to make sure we're not having connection issues right before you stand up for 1AC. Also please only use an email chain and not the file drop and please do not send me a live doc as I flow on my computer (a Mac, so please send pdfs) and working from a file that people are updating live causes issues on my end so create a copy of your doc and send so I can view it without issue. I have multiple screens up optimized to flow the round and fill out the ballot via web browser split screen with a spreadsheet program and having to search for your evidence or view it outside of a browser before your speech messes my whole deal up. Despite all this being clear in my paradigm for some time now people keep ignoring it so it seems as if I have to give you justification for why this is important and it is because doing it any other way causes all my screens to get totally out of order as well can cause system resources to go wild. Having to minimize a screen to open up a word editor to then maximize and place back in my dual screen takes time and then rearranges the order of all my windows meaning in the time I'm trying to accomplish this while muted, debaters often go "I'll start if i don't hear from anyone in 3... 2..." and I'm now scrambling to try and find the window that Mac has decided to randomly change position in my window swipe order meaning where I think it is it isn't, and by the time I find it to unmute myself y'all are already speaking despite me not being ready and struggling to tell you this because of your choices to send me stuff that does not comport with my set up. Please keep things easy for me by running an email chain where you send pdfs, not doing this tells me you haven't read the very top level of my paradigm.
Former Edina High School (MN) policy debater (1991-1995) and captain (1994-1995). Former Wayzata High School (MN) policy coach (2019-2022).
I have judged just about every year since then for various high schools in the Twin Cities metro, including Edina, Wayzata, Minnetonka, and South St. Paul, from 1995 to present, with only two years off, just about 27 years. Please note, however, that this has not meant coaching on those topics up until 2019 through the end of the 2021-2022 season.
I'm versed in plenty of debate theory but I'm still catching up on nuance of newer nomenclature so get wild on the meta jargon at your own peril. Especially on critical theory arguments, you would do well to SLOW WAY DOWN and explain yourself thoroughly as while these things may be crystal clear to you, I'm not reading theory or complex philosophy In my free time so stuff like telling me to look beyond the face and totalizing otherness isn't going to immediately jog my "oh, yeah, that stuff" part of my dusty closet of a brain as you're going a million miles an hour with almost zero audible indication of where tags or analysis begin or end with relation to the evidence you're blazing through. I am 45 years old, I played in bands and have worked in rock clubs for years which has impacted my hearing, and especially over the Internet, speed reading complex philosophy through whatever variable quality mic you have often results in a kind of unintelligible din that is not helping you. You may in fact say it is actively hurting you. SLOW DOWN. This is an issue of accessibility and ability. If you're doing this and not sending the analysis that you're straight up reading from a file but expect me to somehow jot down multi-syllabic, college-level philosophical words while you triple-auctioneer speed over the internet, I mean, you're gonna get what you're gonna get, and no amount of post-rounding questions about things that were so clear to you is going to demystify what I humanly was able to get down. I need to stress this. If you're going philosophical and going even moderately fast, you're probably going to lose. Acting shocked after the round isn't going to change what you could have easily adapted to before the round started.
Unless you're theorizing it on the fly, send me everything you read, not just evidence. There is no material audible difference for the listener between you reading evidence and you reading analysis as fast as humanly possible. Both are just a kind of variable din regardless of the content.
My primary focus has been and continues to be Policy debate on the high school level, and that's where probably about 85% of my judging work has come. But I have ample experience judging circuit-level LD and PF through breaks alongside college debate and am more than comfortable adjudicating these different forms of debate.
This paradigm is a constant work in progress.
Dear debaters: I want to up front set your mind at ease by saying that debate, as I see it, is a club that by the start of your very first round, you are all a valued member of. The fact that you gathered up all your anxiety and worries and excitement and talent and got up and gave your very first speech, it's totally awesome. To me, you are part of a distinct kind of people, different from all the non-debate people, and as such, I want you to both embrace failure as a growth methodology as well as let go of any worries or judgments or preconceived notions about whether or not you belong here. You absolutely do. Please, not only feel okay making mistakes here but look for opportunities to make them! Take chances, especially in your first two to three years of debate. This debate stuff can honestly be mentally rigorous at times, but it's all about a kind of shedding of your prior self and any of the BS put on you in your lives outside of debate. Here you're on the team so any and all advice given to you is purely about building you up even if it feels like criticism. Only internalize what you need to fix, not that it means anything about you. I've learned over nearly 30 years of judging and coaching that while there are kids whom take to this immediately, that there are also kids who seem like they can't handle this at all and drop terrible rounds in their first year or even two, whom end up becoming TOC and Natty quals debaters that blow you away. I've seen it over and over. Debate (and especially policy debate) is a gauntlet that takes years to develop your skills, and so long as you stick with it, you'll succeed. The fact that you are here means that you're already one leg up on winning arguments in regular meatspace as is, but stick with it and it'll change your life over a myriad of domains.
If you think I'm not paying attention to you, you're wrong. I have probably one of the most detailed flows you're ever going to see, which you won't, but you get my drift. I just try very hard to look almost disinterested so you don't really know what I'm thinking and so it won't mess with you, though there are points where something does trigger a response and you should notice that, but anything else is just me trying to give you nothing visual to go off of. Just never confuse it with anger or indifference or whatever. Like, if you do something egregious, you'll know because I'll tell you. Otherwise, there's no subtext or hidden meaning behind anything I'm relaying to you as I'm extremely direct. I promise you I don't hate you.
Time yourselves, across all levels of debate, including novices. Y'all can handle this and take responsibility for each other by keeping tabs on both your and your opponents time.
Straight up don't go whole hog on disclosure. There was no disclosure when I debated. There wasn't even really "let me see your evidence" my novice year. You went in raw dog and dealt with it. That's not to say that I don't understand the whys here, it's just that I really don't find them compelling versus the debate we still could have with you ripping through open ev quick-like. If your opponent is being intentional here, didn't disclose or did something different than what their wiki said or what they told you, I think you have a path to argue presumption tilting your way but I still really need you to debate the actual debate rather than dumping a ton of time into an argument I would honestly feel dirty voting for. If you want to run disclosure, honestly do not spend more than 30 seconds in a constructive or rebuttal on it. Make your violation, set your standard, show how they violate, move on to actual substantive issues. You're just never going to win a "5 min on disclosure in 2NR" strat with me. Do other stuff.
If your Neg strat involves multiple off and post Aff-response you kick out of a ton of stuff that the Aff responded to and just go for something that was severely undercovered, yes, I'll still maybe vote for this because technically you are winning, but this won't engender good speaks, and the other team really has to mismanage it. I don't believe this is all that educational of a debate (hint: there's an in-round arg here) and I think smart Affirmative teams should challenge this strat within the confines and rules of the round (meaning I think there's an argument you can construct, esp w/in policy, to check against this strat in your 2AC/1AR). To be clear, I am not anti-speed whatsoever, but a straight dump strat and then feasting on the arg that they had at the bottom of the flow with few responses is just like meh. It's honestly poor form. You're telling me you cannot beat this team heads up on the nuts and bolts argumentation. Affs are responsible for handling this, no doubt, but we're walking a fine line here when it comes to previous exposure and experience, and if it's clear this is not a breaks team and your whole strategy is just making debate less educational for them by spreading them out of the round, I'm not going to dole you out rewards beyond the technical win.
Unless the other team insults your character, microaggression/community critiques are an almost auto-loss for me for the team that runs them. If one team is being a bunch of dongs, I may say something in round, but if I don't it's because it has not risen to the level wherein my intervention is necessary. Otherwise, this is something to solely bring up with your coaches and bring to tab; it's not in-round argumentation PERIOD and turning it into offense is well beyond problematic to me. My degree is in psychology and this greatly informs my position on this across a variety of domains, and one of the central reasons is argumentation like this used as offense almost entirely is not followed up with any kind of tournament debrief between tab and the two teams and their coaches. Because no one wants to nor cares about that in these rounds where the offense is beyond subjective. If these are such severe circumstances that you're claiming rises to the level of an ethics violation, there's a process here that involves a lot of parties and time and I've yet to see this happen at all in rounds where the violation is tenuous at best. As one of the judges in both the '22-'23 MN State Final Round in policy between Eagan and Edina and '20-'21 Nat Quals policy round between Rosemount and Edina, I rejected both of these arguments with prejudice. Character assassinating a kid in round will *NEVER* fly for me and if this kid is such a well known problem, then coaches, tab, and the state high school league must be involved before they even sniff the morning bus to the tournament, let alone in the round itself. This has nothing to do with the Role of the Ballot and is extrinsic to why we're here to debate. Again, I will not have rounds I judge turn into character assassinations of individual debaters just because you don't like their personality. If they drop something offensive, like actual name calling, I'll even bring it to tab, but a little friendly sparring does not make the activity unsafe and not liking how someone speaks or their intonation sets a precedent that makes it even harder for neurodiverse kids (and adults) to participate. Make no mistake, this is not a "kids these days are too soft" boomer doomer arg. It's expressly about protecting everyone and not having DEBATE rounds devolve into some inquisition about a teenager's however unsavory-to-you approach. Racist, sexist, ableist, etc. comments are squarely different from this, though I believe teams who make an honest mistake and apologize should not be rejected and we should continue to move on, with the understanding that I'll likely mention something to your coaches to make sure the mistake is noted beyond the confines of the round.
I view the intent of debate to be about education while simultaneously playing an intellectual game. I think that the word education itself is up for debate, but I would tend to view it as both mastery of epistemology and praxis. I am open to a discussion of that truth but I enter the world of debate with a certain set of beliefs about larger issues that should the round conform to that precondition, I am likely to vote there.
I would outwardly suggest that I am a tabula rasa judge who will vote for anything (that isn't reveling in things that make all debaters unsafe and are conscientious of specific situations that tend to be more unique for particular populations), but if you pinned me down on what I tend to think of when I think "policy debate," I would likely default to being a policymaker who attempts to equally weigh critical debate, meaning if the analysis/evidence is good, I can be persuaded to buy "cede the political," but it's not my default position.
Within the realm of policy, I believe a lot is up for grabs. The rules themselves are up for debate, and I think this can be a wonderful debate if you really want to go there. And just because I say I'm a policymaker doesn't mean that I'm against critical arguments; quite the contrary. I will vote on anything so long as the reasoning for it is sound. My preference is to hear about a subject that the affirmative claims to solve and why I should or should not vote for it. If that means that the policy entrenches some problematic assumption, that's 100% game; if it means something beyond the USFG, that's also fine.
Brass tacks, I'm not going to deny it: you give me a solid policy style round, I'm gonna love it. But I'm right there with you if you want to toss all that aside. As a debater, I chose to run arguments (borders K in 94/95) for an entire season that over half of my judging pool rejected on face as a valid form of argumentation with some making a drammatic display of holding their pen in the air while I was speaking and placing it on the table and then folding their arms to let me know just how horrific my choice of argumentation was. So for critical teams know that outside of Donus Roberts in the back of the room, I was a K debater who intentionall ran Ks in front of judges that thought I was ruining the activity and exacted punishments against me throughout my entire senior year basically destroying my experience. These were grown ass adults. While I might hedge towards policy as policy, I was a K debater myself so I am open to anything. I ran what I wanted to run, and I think the debaters of today in policy should run what they want to run, and our job as judges is to fairly adjust to how the activity adapts while connecting the activity to the constructs that best define it. That said, the further you diverge from the resolution on the aff, the more neg presumption is not just fair, but warranted.
I believe debate is also much more about analysis of argumentation than just reading a bunch of evidence. It's awesome you are able to quickly and clearly read long pieces of evidence, but absent your analysis of this evidence and how it impacts the round/clashes with the other team's argumentation, all you've done is, essentially, read a piece of evidence aloud. I need you to place that evidence within the context of the round and the arguments that have been made within it. I don't need you to do that with ALL the evidence, just the pieces that become the most critical as you and your opponents construct the round. Your evidence tells the story of your arguments, and how far they'll go with me.
If you hit truth, I'm there with you, but I can't make the arguments for you (I lean more truth than tech but I just can't make the arguments for you). When rounds devolve into no one telling me how to adjudicate the critical issues, you invite me to intervene with all my preconceived notions as well as my take on what your evidence says. To keep me out of the decision, I need you to tell me why your argument beats their argument based on what happened in the round (evidence, analysis, clash). I need you to weigh for me what you think the decision calculus should come down to, with reasons that have justification within the sketch of the round.
If you're a critical team reading this, know I've voted for K affs, poetry affs, narratives, and the like before. I'd even venture to guess my voting record on topics venturing far from the resolution is probably near 50/50. But I will buy TVA, switch-side and the like if they're reasonably constructed. The further you are from the resolution, the more I need you to justify why the ballot matters at all.
I believe line-by-line argumentation is one of the most important parts of quality debate. Getting up and reading a block against another team's block is not debate. Without any form of engagement on the analysis level, the round is reduced to constructives that act like a play. I want you to weave the evidence you have in your block into the line-by-line argumentation. This means even the 1NC. Yes, you are shelling a number of arguments, but you do have the ability as a thinking brain to interact with parts of the 1AC you think are mistagged, overstated, etc.
2AC and 2NC cause significant in-round problems when they get up and just group everything or give an "overview" of the specific arguments and then attempt line-by-line after I've flowed your 15 arguments on the top of the flow. Don't do this. Weave case extensions within the structure of replying to the 1NC's arguments.
The strongest Negative critical argument to me is "One Off" in the 1NC and then just horizontally eating that team alive the whole round on this one argument. I don't care how good the Aff is, "ONE OFF" uttered as the roadmap in 1NC sends chills down anyone's spine. Honestly, I HATE "6 off" and then feasting on the one arg the Aff fumbles. As I grow older, I'm less and less and less inclined to dole out the win on this strat. I also probably am not the best judge to run condo good against if the way you operationalize stuff is a pump and dump strat.
The following specific speech comments of this paradigm are more focused for novice and junior varsity debaters. At the varsity level, all four debaters should feel free to engage in cross ex, though, if you are clearly covering for a partner who seemingly cannot answer questions in varsity, that's going to impact their speaks and you highlighting it by constantly answering first for them is kinda crappy, kid.
Specific Speech Thoughts:
I do not like tag team cross ex for the team that is being questioned. Editing this years on, and I think the way this is phrased is misleading. A digression: some of the best cross-exes I've ever seen involved all four debaters. That said, the time was still dominated by those who were tasked with the primary responsibilities. And I think saying "I do not like tag team cross ex" makes it seem like I would be against the thing I just described as being great. This is only meant regarding scenarios in which it is clear one person is taking over for another for whatever reason. Taking over for your partner without allowing them the opportunity to respond first makes it look like they don't know what they're talking about and that you do not trust them to respond. Further, doing this prevents your partner from being able to expertly respond to questioning, a skill that is necessary for your entire team to succeed. I have little to no qualms about tag team questions, meaning if it's not your c/x and you have a question to ask, you can ask it directly rather than whispering it to your partner to ask. Again, however, I would stress you should still not take over your partner's c/x. Also, I'm generally aware when it's a situation where there is a pull up and the team has to make due. Obviously speaks will be attenuated, but also do think this is some kind of "I'm angry at you," deal. I can generally recognize in these scenarios and don't worry if you're trying to help your pull up.
Further, there is no "preparatory" time between a speech and cross ex. C/x time starts as soon as speech time ends.
Global (all speeches):
- I was an extremely fast, clear, and loud debater. I have no issue with real speed. I have an issue with jumblemouth speed or quiet speed. I especially have an issue with speed on a speech with little to no signposting. Even if you are blindingly fast, you should ALWAYS slow down over tags, citations, and plan (aff or neg). Annunciate explicitly the names of authors. Seriously... "Grzsuksclickh 7" is how these names come out sometimes. Help me help you.
- Need to be signposted in some way. This means, on a base level, that you say the word "NEXT" or give some indication that the three page, heavily-underlined card you just read had an ending and you've begun your next tag. Simply running from the end of a piece of evidence into more words that start your next tag line is poor form. It makes my job harder and hurts your overall persuasion. Numbering your arguments, both in the 1AC and throughout the round, goes a long way with me.
- Optimize your card tags to something a human can write/type out in 3-5 seconds. Your paragraph long tag to a piece of evidence hurts your ability for me to listen to your evidence. No one can type out: "The alternative is to put primary consideration into how biopower functions as an instrument of violence through status quo education norms. Anything short of fundamentally questioning the institution of schooling only reifies violence. The alternative solves because this analysis opens space for discovery and scholarship on schooling that better mitigates the harms of status quo biopolitical control" within about 5 seconds, while you are reading some dense philosophical stuff that we ostensibly are supposed to listen to while trying to mentally figure out how to shorthand the absurdly long tag you just read. And yes, that's a real tag and no, it's not even close to the longest one I've heard, it's just the one I have on hand.
- The ultimate goal is to not be the speech that completely muddles/confuses the structure of the round.
- It's supposed to be a persuasive speech. It's the one speech that is fully planned out before the round. You should not be stuttering, mumbling, etc. throughout it. You've had it in your hands for an ample amount of time to practice it out. Read it forwards and backwards (seriously... read your 1AC completely backwards as practice, and not just once but until you get smooth with it). It's your baby. You should sound convincing and without much error. If you are constantly stumbling over your words, you need to cut out evidence and slow down. Tags need to be optimized for brevity and you should SLOW DOWN when reading over the TAG and CITATION. And you should be able to answer any question thrown at you in c/x. 2A should rarely, if ever, be answering for you.
- Operates much like a 1AC, in that you have your shells already fully prepared, and only really need to adjust slightly depending on if the 1AC has changed anything material. If you are just shelling off case, then you are basically giving a 1AC, and you should be clear, concise, and persuasive. As with 1ACs, if you are stumbling over yourself, you need to cut out evidence/arguments. If you are arguing case side, you need to place the arguments appropriately, not just globally across case. Is this an Inherency argument? Solvency? Harms mitigation? Pick out the actual signposted argument on case and apply it there. As with 1A, your 2 should not be answering questions for you in c/x.
- If the 1NC did not argue case, I do not need you to extend each and every card on case. "Extend case," is pretty much all I need. Further, this is a great opportunity to use any of the 1AC evidence against the off-case arguments made. Did you drop a 50 States Bad pre-empt in the 1AC? Cross-apply it ON THE COUNTERPLAN. I don't need you extending it on case side which literally has zero ink from the 1NC on it. KEEP THE FLOW CLEAN.
- You should be following 1NC structure, and line-by-lining all their arguments. Just getting up and reading a block on an argument is likely going to end up badly for you, because this is shallow-level, novice-style debate, that tends to miss critical argumentation. I need you to *INTERACT* with the 1NC argumentation, and block reading is generally not that.
- First and foremost, you need to make sure you are creating a crystal clear separation between you and the 1NR in the negative block. Optimally, this means you take WHOLE arguments, not, "I'm gonna take the alt on the K and my partner will take the rest of the K." Ugh. No. Don't do this. Ever. It's awful and it ruins the structure and organization of the round. If there were three major arguments made in 1NC, let's say T, K, and COUNTERWARRANTS, you should be picking two of those three and leaving the third one completely untouched for the 1NR to handle.
- Use original 1NC structure to guide your responses to 2AC argumentation. Like the above, you should not be reading a block to 2AC answers. You need to specifically address each one, and using the original 1NC structure helps keep order to the negative construction of argumentation.
- Following from the above, you should not be recovering anything the 2NC did, unless something was missed that needs coverage. You should be focused on a separate argument from the 2NC. As above, don't just get up and read a block. Clash! Line-by-line! Make the 1AR's job harder.
- The hardest speech in the game. This is a coverage speech, not a persuasive speech. By all means, if you can be persuasive while covering, great, but your first job is full coverage. You do not need to give long explanations of points. Yes, you do need to respond to 2NC & 1NR responses to 2AC argumentation, but much of the analysis should have already been made. Here's where you want to go back and extend original 1AC and 2AC argumentation, and you only need to say "Extend original 1AC Turbinson 15, which says that despite policies existing on the books in the SQ, they continue to fail, everything the Negs argued on this point is subsumed by Turbinson, because these are all pre-plan policies." The part you don't need to do here is get into the *why* those plans fail. That's your partner's job to tell the big story. Again, if you are good enough to pull this off in 1AR, that's amazing and incredible, but no one is expecting that out of this speech. All judges are looking for from the 1AR is a connection from original constructive argumentation to the 2AR rebuttal. Rounds are generally NEVER won in 1AR, but they are often lost here. Your job, as it were, is essentially to not lose the round. Great 1ARs, however, begin to combine some of the global, story-telling aspects of 2AR on line-by-line analysis. But one thing none of them do is sacrifice coverage for that. Coverage is your a priori obligation and once you master that, then start telling your 1AR stories.
- Put things like Topicality and the Counterplan on the top of the flow.
2NR & 2AR
- Tell me why you win. Weigh the issues and impacts. Tell me what they are wrong about or analysis/argumentation they dropped. Frame the round.
- I tend to believe that any case that is reasonably topical is topical. You have to work hard to prove non-topicality to me, but that does not mean I will not vote for it. 2AC should always have a block which says they meet both the Neg definition and interpretation, as well presents their own definition and interpretation.
- And as a bit of history, when I was a debater, the Kritik was an extremely divisive argument, with more than half of the judges my senior year (1994/95) demonstrably putting their pen down when we'd shell it and would refuse to flow or listen to it. We decided that we were not going to adjust for these judges and ran the K as a pretty much full time Negative argument and we were the first team in the State of Minnesota debate to do this. This made sense at the time as the topic was Immigration and a solid 75% of the cases we hit were increased border partrol, or ID cards, or reducing slots, etc. So, I'm quite familiar with the argumentation and I'm sympathetic to it. But I also feel it is overused in a sense when much more direct argumentation can defeat Affs and I would venture to guess many of the authors used in K construction would not advocate its use against Affs which seek redress for disadvantaged groups. I want you to seriously consider the appropriateness of the link scenario before you run a K.
- Negs need to do a lot of work to win these with me. It can't just be the rehashing of tag lines over and over and over. You need to have read the original articles that construct your argumentation so you can explain to me not only what the articles are saying, but are versed on the rather large, college-level words you are throwing around. Further, I find kritiks to be an advocacy outside of the round. I find it morally problematic to get up in the 1NC and argue "here are all these things that impact us outside of the round because fiat is illusory" and then kick out of this in the 2NR.
- I also want you to seriously consider the merit of running these arguments against cases which seek to redress disadvantaged groups. While I get the zeal of shoving it down some puke capitalist's throat, I question whether running said argumentation against a case which seeks, for example, to just provide relevant sex education for disabled or GLBTQ folx as appropriate. You're telling me after all these years of ignoring educational policy which benefits straight, cis, white guys that *now's the time* to fight capitalism or biopower or whatever when the focus on the case is to help those who are extremely disadvantaged in the SQ. This is an argument that proffers out-of-round impacts and I certainly understand the ground that allows this kind of argumentation to be applied, but a K is a different kind of argument, and I think it runs up against some serious issues when it attempts to lay the blame for something like capitalism at the feet of people who are getting screwed over in the SQ.
- I'm going to copy my friend Rachel Baumann's bit on the identity K stuff: "I will also admit to being intrigued with the culture-based positions which question the space we each hold in the world of debate. I have voted both for and against these arguments, but I struggle with which context would be the appropriate context in which to discuss this matter. The more I hear them, the less impressed I am with identity arguments, mostly because, again, I struggle with the context. Also, there is the issue of ground. Saying "vote against them because they are not... X" (which is an actual statement I heard in an actual round by an actual debater this year) seems just as constraining as the position being debated, and does not provide the opposing team any real debatable ground."
- I will vote on IT ALL. Their barrier is existential? Well, that's an old school argument and I will totally vote on an Aff not meeting their prima facie burden, and I will not find it cute or kitsch or whatever. It is a legitimate argument and I am more than happy to vote there, but you have to justify the framework for me.
- Negatives must keep in mind that unless you have some crystal clear, 100% solvency take out, you are generally just mitigating their comparative advantage. Make sure that you aren't overstating what you are doing on case and that you weigh whatever you are doing off case against this.
- Also into it all and will vote on it. I think Vagueness and Justification and Minor Repairs all are quite relevant today with how shoddily affirmatives are writing their plans. Use any kind of argumentation that is out there, nothing is too archaic or whatever to run. Yes, this means counterwarrants!
Much of the above for Policy crosses over into LD. I often sit in LD rounds where the criterion and value are mentioned at the front end of the debate and then never again. It would seem to me that these help bolster a framework debate and you're asking me to lock into one of these in order to influence how I vote, so then never really mentioning them again, nor using them to shape the direction of the debate always confuses the heck outta lil ol' me. Weigh the issues, write the ballot for me. Not locking argumentation down forces me to go through my flows and insert myself into the debate. Will vote on critical argumentation on either side (check my responses on 'distance from the resolution' up in the policy part, applies here as well) and you can never go too fast for me so don't worry.
The requisite "I'm a policy coach, you can do whatever with me in PF" applies. Just tell me how to vote.
Adapted from a fellow coworker:
- Voters and weighing. I don't want to have to dig back through my flow to figure out what your winning arguments were. If you're sending me back through the flow, you're putting way too much power in my hands.
- Clear sign posting and concise taglines.
- Framework. If you have a weighing mechanism, state it clearly and provide a brief explanation.
- Unique arguments. Debate is an educational activity, so you should be digging deep in your research and finding unique arguments. If you have a unique impact, bring it in. I judge a lot of rounds and I get tired of hearing the same case over and over and over again.
-Just referencing evidence by the card name (author, source, etc.). When I flow, I care more about what the evidence says, not who the specific source was. If you want to reference the evidence later, you gotta tell me what the evidence said, not just who said it.
-SPEED. I'm a policy coach. There is no "too fast" for me in PF. Seriously. There's no way possible and anti-speed args in PF won't move me in the slightest. Beat them heads up.
-Evidence misrepresentation. If there is any question between teams on if evidence has been used incorrectly, I will request to see the original document and the card it was read from to compare the two. If you don't have the original, then I will assume it was cut improperly and judge accordingly.
-Don't monopolize CX time. Answer quickly the question asked with no editorializing.
-"Grandstanding" on CX. CX is for you to ask questions, not give a statement in the form of a question. Ask short, simple questions and give concise answers.
-One person taking over on Grand CX. All four debaters should fully participate. That said, I really don't need any of the PF niceties and meta communication. Just ask away. Seriously. The meta performance of cordiality seems like a waste of time in a format with the least time to speak.
-K cases. I'll vote for em. K arg's same. If you hit a K arg, don't deer-in-headlights it. Think about it rationally. Defend your rhetoric and/or assumptions. Question the K's assumptions. Demand an alternative. Does the team running the K bite the K themselves? What's the role of the ballot under the K? There's plenty of ways to poke a sharp stick at a K. Simply sticking your head in the sand and arguing "we shouldn't be debating this" is not and will never be a compelling argument for me and you basically sign the ballot for me if the other team extends it and goes for the K with only your refusal to engage it as your counter argumentation.
-Evidence Exchanges. If you are asked for evidence, provide it in context. If they ask for the original, provide the original. I won't time prep until you've provided the evidence, and I ask that neither team begins prepping until the evidence has been provided. If it takes too long to get the original text, I will begin docking prep time for the team searching for the evidence and will likely dock speaker points. It is your job to come to the round prepared, and that includes having all your evidence readily accessible.
-If anything in my paradigm is unclear, ask before the round begins. I'd rather you begin the debate knowing what to expect rather than start your brutal post round grilling off with one-arm tied behind your back. ;)
I do bring a policy comparative advantage approach to PF. In the end I believe there are two compelling stories that are butting heads and which one both 1) makes the most sense, and 2) is backed up by argumentation and evidence in round. I am pretty middle of the road on truth vs tech, requiring a lot less when the arg aligns with the truth, but if you are cold dropping stuff there's no amount of reality I can intervene to make up for that. You are each attempting to construct a scenario to weigh against the other and I'm deciding which one makes more sense based on the aforementioned factors. Point out to me how you've answered their main questions and how your evidence subsumes their argumentation. Point out your strongest path to victory and attempt to block their road. Don't just rely on thinking your scenario is better, you must also harm theirs.
No one really gets their full scenario, it's all a bunch of weighing risk and probability and if you can inject doubt into the other teams scenario, it goes a long way towards helping weigh the risk of your scenario against yours. Keep the flow clean and do this work for me and you'll get your ballot.
I've only been judge for one tournament until now. And I have no experience on theory or kritik. So, please make sure you explain clearly and do not spread. If you spread, please make sure it is clear and understandable, and please form an email chain.
My email: email@example.com
Hi everyone! My name is Navya, and I debated LD in Wisconsin for 3 years, have had experience at nat circuit tournaments, so treat me like an ex-debater with good experience. This paradigm is lengthy, so here's a guide:
- If you're in LD, read from the top down, everything is extremely important.
- If you're in PF or Policy, scroll to the very bottom, I have little notes for you all. However, I'm partially sure some of my preferences are applicable to these categories as well, so if you're really interested, read through the entire thing.
Knowing my Preferences:
Debaters, don't neglect Tabroom and checking for paradigms. I have been frustrated when judges don't have paradigms up, so I've made it a point to have mine up for easy access so the debaters I see in a round are well prepared to adhere to my preferences. While I prefer that you're responsible in checking preferences before the round, I will still answer questions before you begin debating, and at times will automatically go over my 'requirements'.
NOTE: Tournaments are working a little differently due to COVID-19 now, so I'll really want you to check those paradigms yourself to save time in the case of connectivity issues to the virtual room.
Online Debate Ethics: The online debate scheme will clearly have some changes to it than in person debate. My only expectation is that everyone follows the rules established by NSDA or the tournament hosts.
- Debaters will email me and their respective opponents for the round their case (email is firstname.lastname@example.org), and any evidence files they choose for rebuttal. This way I can hold you accountable.
Be aggressive, but don't be rude. If I find you to be extremely arrogant and mean in the round, I WILL NOT VOTE FOR YOU! Being passionate and aggressive is one thing, but always make sure you have your emotion and attitude in check. A debate round must be a learning environment, not one where you simply throw around nasty, unprofessional remarks that make no sense and are outright offensive.
I ALWAYS TIME DEBATE ROUNDS. This does not excuse you from not having a timer or failing to use it during the round. If you're new to debate and are still learning the ropes, feel free to ask me the time intervals prior to the start of the round. I expect you to know how much time you have used during constructive and rebuttals, and know how much prep time you have remaining. I will confirm the time you have left during prep time, but don't expect me to give you signals during other speech times. If you go overtime and do not stop within a 10 second grace period, I won't tell you, and I will take that into consideration during round.
If anyone brings up NEW ARGUMENTS in the 2AR or 2NR I will auto vote for the other debater. It's 100% against debate rules to do this, because your opponent cannot respond!! I have been in rounds where my opponent had done this, and hoped that my judge noticed this and knew that it's wrong. I flow well, which guarantees that I will catch everything.
Don't be non-topical (or untopical...I think). I will notice that you are debating something that has ZERO correlation with the resolution, and I'm just going to stop flowing every time you speak.
I look a lot at impacting. Don't lack in this field. You need to know how to impact out and show that your points are more important that your opponents.
DON'T DROP YOUR FRAMEWORK. THIS IS THE MOST IMPORTANT PART OF ANY DEBATE. SHOW ME WHY YOUR FRAMEWORK BEST SUITS THE ENTIRE ROUND AND THE OTHER PERSON'S CASE! It's hard, I totally understand, but guys, DO IT. Very rarely will I vote for someone who lost framework but won contention.
I love traditional debates. There's so much clash(if the Frameworks differ), and it's amazing to watch. I loved debating traditionally.
I LOVE PROGRESSIVE DEBATE JUST AS MUCH.
I love a well written Kritik, especially if you can pull a good one off on the affirmative. Impress me.
BRING SOME CP's TO THE ROUND! Don't mess it up though.
T-shells - I understand them. However, I will not say I was great at them or am great at judging them. If your opponent does something that's offensive in round, I hope that you have a T-shell to run on them. I don't understand Theory debate though, so please don't do it. I'll be really lost, and I don't want that to happen. You may have one of the best Theory cases ever, so I don't want to frustrate you when you run it, clearly win the round, but I vote for the other person because I just don't understand you.
If you are on the neg and you run more than one off on your opponent(i.e. 2 CPs, a DA, and Case) I will auto drop you. This is a clear time skew that you're using so you simply don't have to engage in a useful debate with your opponent and it's abusive. Don't try it.
Speak fast for all I care, just don't slur your words together. Enunciate well while speaking quickly and I'll understand everything. I used to do it too.
I'm fine with spreading, but please don't do it to get an upper hand over an opponent who's new to debate and is clearly not used to or is uncomfortable with speed. If you spread just to be a jerk, I'll auto drop you.
If you're really incomprehensible, I'll say CLEAR for you (at maximum 2x) to get the hint you need to do something different, and if I have to say that word a third time, I'm going to stop flowing.
Use proper language when speaking.
If you're being homophobic, racist, sexist, xenophobic, etc, I'll auto drop you.
I am always processing information and putting together decisions right away. This means it will probably be a two to three minute wait after the 2AR for me to type up the RFD and I will disclose! I want debaters to keep out their laptops or their flows to take notes when I give the RFD: I am not a mean person when I give RFDs - I will give constructive criticism. Once again, debate is a place where you should have fun and learn.
In all honesty, I do not know how PF works. I I'll try to keep up and make an educated decision, but it may not work out the way you wanted it to. Good luck!
I really hope I don't end up judging a Policy round. Please don't have high expectations of me.
Congratulations! You have made it through my insanely long paradigm. Good luck in the round, and may the best debater(s) win!
4 years of PF @ West High School
(new to LD)
I won't waste your time:
- Don't be racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc. or you get voted down
- Be respectful of your opponents, a little sass is fun, but do not be rude, that's not fun.
- Tell me where to vote; otherwise I'm just doing path of least resistance
- I'll flow everything, but make it easy for me. Make sure to extend, if you drop it, I forget it. Also make your links clear, and get out of here with slippery slope args, high mag but low prob makes a bad impact, and I won't buy it
- ~clearly~ weigh your impacts
- You can talk fast, just be clear
- Good analytics can be just as good (or better) than card evidence
- Tell me what I need to believe, and assume I know nothing about the topic (I probably don't)
- I'm pretty relaxed about prep
Treat me as a lay judge - my sister coaches debate, but I have experience evaluating traditional debate rounds. I do not understand spreading so please don't do it.
Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. Currently coaching the LD debaters at Canyon Crest Academy. Shortened my paradigm for efficiency – feel free to email/message me if you have any questions about my opinions on specific arguments. Other events at bottom
1. It’s in your best interest to go at 50-65% speed for analytics and 80-90% speed for cards. Slower on tags, conversational pace for short tags that are 1-3 words/plan texts
2. Record your speech locally to send in case there are network/wifi issues. I will not let debaters regive speeches – if you didn’t record it locally I will vote off of what I have on my flow
1. I will vote on anything as long as it is won, not blatantly offensive, and follows the structure of an argument (claim, warrant, and impact). My decisions are always impacted first and foremost by weighing, no matter what style of debate you choose. I value argument quality and development – I’m unlikely to pull the trigger on cheesy, one-line blips and reward debaters that perform quality research and explain their positions well.
2. You must take prep or use CX if you want to ask your opponent what they did/did not read
3. I will not vote on anything which occurred outside of the round (with the exception of disclosure) or use the ballot as a moral referendum on either debater. Genuine safety concerns will be escalated and not decided with a win or a loss.
4. "Insert rehighlighting" - you should be reading the card if you're making a new argument distinct from the one the evidence made when it was initially introduced. Insertions are okay if you're providing context, but you should briefly summarize the insertion. I'm unsure how to enforce this besides being a little annoyed if you go overboard, but if your opponent makes an argument that your insertion practices are toeing the line I'll be inclined to strike them off my flow
1. I think theory can be an invaluable check on abuse and enjoy creative interpretations that pose interesting questions about what debate should look like. The more bland and frivolous the shell the more receptive I am to reasonability. Reasons to reject the team should be contextual to the shell – otherwise rejecting the argument should be able to rectify the abuse. Counterplan theory is best settled on a competition level
2. Kritiks should be able to explain and resolve the harms of the affirmative - the less specific the link arguments, their impact, and the alternative the more likely I am to vote aff on the permutation and plan outweighing. Impact turns are underutilized. 2NR fpiks = new arguments unless clearly indicated earlier in the debate
3. I have no strong ideological predispositions against planless affirmatives. However, in a perfectly even matchup I would likely vote on framework
I will end the round and evaluate whether or not the evidence is objectively distorted: missing text, cut from the middle of a paragraph, or cut/highlighted intentionally to make the opposite argument the author makes (ie minimizing the word “not”). For super tiny violations like powertagging I’d prefer you just read it as a reason to reject the evidence.
Be nice to your opponent! Will nuke your speaks if you are too rude, especially if your opponent is a novice or is making a good faith effort to get along
PLEASE TIME YOURSELVES.
I'm comparatively less involved in this event and so I'll try not to impose my opinions on its conventions. For varsity, I'd prefer both teams share their evidence prior to their speeches, and I dislike paraphrasing as a practice but won't automatically penalize you for it. Speed is fine but not ideal given the norms of the activity. Generally speaking, I would prefer you not read progressive-style arguments given this format's time limitations. Other than that, just weigh.
Background: PF @ Mountain House High School '19, Economics @ UC Berkeley '22, Berkeley Law '26. This is my 5th year judging.
THREE ABSOLUTE ESSENTIALS BEFORE YOU READ THE REST OF MY PARADIGM:
Due to the fast paced nature of debate nowadays and potential technical difficulties with online tournaments, I would really appreciate if you could send me the doc you're reading off of before each speech to my email email@example.com. If you can use Speech Drop, that's even better.
Preflow before the round. When you walk into the room you should be ready to start ASAP.
I will NOT entertain postrounding from coaches. This is absolutely embarrassing and if it is egregious I will report you to tab. Postrounding from competitors must be respectful and brief.
I am a former PF debater and I still think like one. That means I highly value simple, coherent argumentation that is articulated at at least a somewhat conversational speed.
In my view, debate is an activity that at the end of the day is supposed to help you be able to persuade the average person into agreeing with your viewpoints and ideas. I really dislike how debate nowadays, especially LD, has become completely gamified and is completely detached from real life. Because of this, I am not partial to spread, questionable link chains that we both know won’t happen, theory (unless there is actual abuse) or whatever debate meta is in vogue. I care more about facts and logic than anything else. You are better served thinking me of a good lay judge than a standard circuit judge. NOTE: I also am strongly skeptical of K AFFs and will almost always vote NEG if they run topicality.
That doesn’t mean I do not judge on the merits of arguments or their meaning, but how you present them certainly matters to me because my attention level is at or slightly above the average person (my brain is broken because of chronic internet and social media usage, so keep that in mind).
I will say tech over truth, but truth can make everyone’s life easier. The less truth there is, the more work you have to do to convince me. And when it’s very close, I’m probably going to default to my own biases (subconscious or not), so it’s in your best interest to err on the side of reality. This means that you should make arguments with historical and empirical context in mind, which as a college educated person, I’m pretty familiar with and can sus out things that are not really applicable in real life. But if you run something wild and for whatever reason your opponent does not address those arguments as I have just described, I will grant you the argument.
You should weigh, give me good impact calculus (probability, magnitude, scope, timeframe, etc), and most importantly, TELL ME HOW TO VOTE AND WHY! Do not trust me to understand things between the lines.
More points that I agree with from my friend Vishnu's paradigm:
"I do not view debate as a game, I view it almost like math class or science class as it carries tremendous educational value. There are a lot of inequities in debate and treating it like a game deepens those inequities.
Other than this, have fun, crack jokes, reference anecdotes and be creative.
There is honestly almost 0 real world application to most progressive argumentation, it bars accessibility to this event and enriches already rich schools.
Basically: debate like it's trad LD."
SPEAKER POINT SCALE
Was too lazy to make my own so I stole from the 2020 Yale Tournament. I will use this if the tournament does not provide me with one:
29.5 to 30.0 - WOW; You should win this tournament
29.1 to 29.4 - NICE!; You should be in Late Elims
28.8 to 29.0 - GOOD!; You should be in Elim Rounds
28.3 to 28.7 - OK!; You could or couldn't break
27.8 to 28.2 - MEH; You are struggling a little
27.3 to 27.7 - OUCH; You are struggling a lot
27.0 to 27.2 - UM; You have a lot of learning to do
below 27/lowest speaks possible - OH MY; You did something very bad or very wrong
I am a Varsity Policy Debater for Southwestern College. I am currently a Psychology Major going to SDSU (No I don't compete for them, I like policy more than Parley :/ )
However, please do not change your style of debate to make it more policy debate friendly, DO YOUR THING! I will do my best to keep up!
So, with that said, I can flow pretty well. You are more than welcome to run any single argument you would like in whatever performative method you find best! Trust that I will be able to keep up and give good feedback!
I have judged for many high school tournaments. I have judged speech, impromptu, parley, policy, LD, PF, and Congress.
Below I am going to give my opinion on several argument types, however, while I may like some argument types more than others, I will always remain unbiased during rounds. So as much as I love K debate, you can still lose to framework or T.
T- I find T debates FASCINATING. They reveal the nuances behind the debate give debaters a chance to really show their intellectual capacity in being able to debate abstract concepts and articulate them in their own manner. I do however find T to be a little lazy. especially when against a K aff, because they are more often than not untopical, but a good T debate on a policy aff is always exciting to see, a good impact calculus on fairness can definitely win my ballot. Also,TVA's are one of my favorite arguments (I never run it, I just find them hilarious), so if you can manage to win why being topical is good, what it prevents, and how a TVA solves any of the 1AC's impacts + does not link to T impacts, you get my ballot.
DA- No strong opinions on DA's. I run them very often because turning a DA into a K creates a debate around the alt and whether or not it solves the impact and sidesteps the discussion of the link and the impact, which is pretty boring. Nonetheless, love a good DA with strong links and clear and succinct impact calculus.
CP- I LOVE a good counter-plan debate, its essentially an affirmative vs affirmative debate, except the neg team has more offense on the aff team, but suffers a lack of case solvency and defense. It showcases whether the affirmative can articulate its solvency whilst also creating offense on the spot in the debate, whilst also highlighting the negs ability to not only make good presump arguments, but also the 3rd option for me to prefer which, albeit, makes my job harder is much more enjoyable to watch.
Framework- My feelings to framework are similar to T, I find FW debates against K affs lazy, but sometimes I understand that is what some debaters are comfortable with and genuinely believe and are passionate about. I don't auto-vote framework and do not auto-vote on K's, I won't fill in any blanks for you on framework arguments so make sure you are CLEAR and ARTICULATE about what your interpretation of debate should be, why I should prefer it, why it's best for debate, what the other team did to violate it, and (in my opinion, the most important aspect of FW argument.) WHY I SHOULD CARE. Give me a clear argument as to why I as a judge matter, what my ballot signifies, and what happens if I don't vote for you. Framework is a particularly difficult argument to run, it takes a very skilled and well-rounded debater, but if you fit the above criteria then I will more than likely vote for you.
K- My absolute favorite argument style in the te. K's are incredibly informative about the way society functions in one-dimensional ways and how the assumptions we make about everyday activities should constantly be under strict scrutiny. K's are incredibly difficult (especially for a high schooler), they require a vast knowledge of the literature, well-articulated link arguments, clear impacts, and an alternative that is viable, solves, and does not link to aff offense. I love running K's and going against K's but that does not mean I will give you any leeway. I don't auto-vote K's much like I do not auto-vote FW or T.
Policy Affs- Not much to say here, good policy debaters have won NDT. Trust your case, extend it, show me why I should vote for you, and make sure to answer line by line so that nothing is conceded that may implicate the aff plan.
K affs- I run a K Affirmative as a policy debater, so I already know you are more than capable of answering T and FW, however,you can still lose to them so make sure you answer every aspect of the argument not just why their interpretation is bad. K affs are always very engaging (and if performative, all the more enjoyable to watch and learn). Trust your case, explain to me how you solve itnd why my ballot is important, especially when having FW, T, CP's, and TVA's thrown at you. You need to tell me why my ballot means something and how that translates to your harms being solved and why it's important that we debate about this. Bonus points: K affs are difficult to run at this level, but if you manage to describe to me why your K aff is important, why you as debaters performing the k aff is important, and why the debate that you are having right now with my ballot pushes us int he right direction, you will more than likely get my ballot.
Voter Issue arguments- If a particularly egregious event happens in the debate round, I typically give 90% leeway to the team that suffered the action, so it does not take much, but you still need to explain to me how it was bad for debate and why my vote is going to stop it (saying "the negative team misgendered me and this is bad for debate because _____ and your vote prevents this because _____" will work fine.)
Speaker points are given based on performance whilst giving speeches and during Cross-Examination. Nothing you say before or after rounds will affect your score. Charisma, effort, and conviction are preferred over bravado or aggression.
LASTLY: Do your thang. Be yourself. Do you boo boo. I will be able to keep the flow as organized as I can, signposts and roadmaps are always helpful. Trust yourself as a debater, you are here because of the work you have done, and win or lose your performance and courage in debating is more than enough. GO YOU!
quick prefs - I'm a parent judge
1- traditional, lay debate
2 - 4 - everything in between not really preferable only pref me high if you want to do traditional lay debate
5/strike - circuit debate, spreading, high theory, Phil, ks, t/tricks, literally anything that's not lay
- assume I know nothing about the topic (explain everything to me)
- give voters and clearly articulate why I should vote for you at the end of the round
- be respectful, don't make racist, sexist, homophobic, and ableist arguments, such arguments will result in a L20
- speaker points start at 26 and only goes up from there
- I don't "flow" but I will be paying attention to the round and evaluating based on whoever gives clear voters or have clearing won the round
- for online debate I don't care if you turn your cameras on
- put me on the email chain, Calvin.firstname.lastname@example.org
- my idea of autonomous weapons are weapons that attack by itself, without human intervention, this means that you will need to put in more work to convince me otherwise in the round if you define things such as drones or landmines as autonomous weapons
I did policy for 4 years in high school at Loyola. I've judged bid rounds and final rounds in policy and LD. I did parli at Tulane and was an assistant coach at Isidore Newman in New Orleans for a couple of years. I judged a lot between 2011-2015, both in the Louisiana area and at a good few national tournaments.
Tell me how to vote; paint me a picture in your last rebuttal and it will make me very happy. I like being told where and how to vote.
I was a fairly well rounded debater in high school, so I probably have familiarity with most arguments you're reading. My senior year, we went for States CP+Politics most rounds, would read the Cap K almost every round on the neg, and went for conditionality bad about once a tournament on Aff. I also read a Deleuze and Guattari aff before. However, if you're reading a weird K like Badiou that nobody reads, I'm probably not going to know it intuitively. That said, feel free to go for these arguments! I just won't know the lit for more obscure Ks.
If I don't get world of alt or a clear try or die/turns case on the K I'm probably not going to vote for it. Tell me how and where to evaluate pre-fiat impacts and how they interact with the role of the ballot if relevant.
I love good T debates. I love good theory debates. I will not just vote on theory or T just because it is dropped. Impact it like any other argument. I have a lower threshold than most for rejecting arguments due to theory than most. Either in-round abuse or why potential abuse in this specific instance, if you want me to reject team is almost always going to be needed.
Slow down on T and Theory. I hate if I can't flow it.
I think RVIs on theory are generally dumb but will vote on them if impacted well; I think RVIs on T are probably never true but I've voted on them in the past. I have a very low threshold for answering most RVIs.
Don't be that team that spends 6 minutes on case reading defense. Please read offense or some framework-esque reasons why defense should be enough to win. Disads probably shouldn't get 100% risk of link just on the nature of them being dropped, but if you're not calling them out on it, it's way easier for me as a judge to give them more leeway than I perhaps should.
I'm going to be able to understand spreading at any speed, but if your opponent can't understand spreading, slow down so that there's actually a debate so they can actually understand what's going on. Nobody is impressed that you can outspread a novice from a lay circuit; just win on the flow if you're better than them. If you're stupidly fast and it's an online tournament though, slow down, particularly if it's analytics/not in a doc you're sending.
I won't vote on arguments based on out of round stuff besides disclosure theory. I will likely look to drop you if you make any out of round-related arguments besides disclosure theory, which I won't drop anyone for but I'll hate judging it.
I'm fine with tag team and flex prep if both teams are.
Sending ev is off time. Don't prep during sending ev or I will either dock speaks or take off prep time, depending on circumstances. Include me in any email chains
I default to:
T before Theory before K
It is very easy to convince me to vote under some other paradigm though. If you win that I should be a stock issues judge, then I'll be your stock issues judge.
I dislike (but may still vote for):
Really Generic Politics DAs (I love intrinsic perms on politics because I dislike this argument)
Speed Theory debates unless there's a clear need for it
Tons of AC spikes
Shitty K debates where no one knows what's going on
Severance Perms (I probably won't reject team off of one, though)
People changing their alts or advocacies mid debate without a really good reason (ex: a team dropped reciprocity of conditionality means the aff can read a new plan at any point)
People saying that the opponent dropped an argument when they didn't (I will give you a look and it will affect speaks)
People reading Ks on case and not telling me they're reading a K on case in their overview
Hi Everyone! I'm Elmer, I debated in Policy in High School, coached Debate through College (first 2 in Policy, last 2 in LD) and just recently graduated with a Business degree from UT-Austin. I currently work at a FinTech firm as a Business Analyst and do part-time independent coaching. I coach, judge, and research a decent amount so I can follow-on substantive topic jargon but don't be overly aggressive with acronyms.
email - email@example.com
This paradigm has been changed to reflect the most important aspects of my judging. When I was a younger judge/coach in the community, I used to have pretty heavy predispositions and annoyances. Now, I care most about you performing your best regardless of style. Everyone has spent so much time on this activity and it would be a disservice to not see you at your best due to my dispositions. The only true thing that annoys me when judging is avoidance of clash. If you chose to introduce an argument for me to listen to, I expect that you know it and are prepared to rigorously defend it through an attack from multiple angles. If you introduce an argument that is so obviously put with no thought and meant to just be hidden and dropped (yes this is most but not all of modern day Tricks debate, but also reflective of incomplete DA's, T shells w/o cards or offense, and 3 second Condo Shells), I will be sad and annoyed that you did not care enough to produce your best. Whether you are reading a K-Aff about Clowns, the Arrow's Paradox, or the Politics DA, I just want to see that you care and you've put thought into your craft. Debate is so much easier to judge if you as debaters look and feel like you're enjoying it and I will enjoy judging you.
That said, I do have argument styles I'm more familiar with. I work mostly with K v K, Policy v Policy, Topicality, and K v Policy debates. I occasionally work with light Phil (mostly just Kant and Pragmatism) and almost entirely in Phil v K debates. I very rarely work with or encounter Theory and Tricks debate. I have no predispositions towards arguments, but the less experience I have with them, walk me through your claim, warrant, and ballot or else I will mostly likely evaluate the debate in a way that you would not expect or like like.
Things that increase likelihood of high speaks (and also winning):
1] Clarity - I've judged both fast, clear debaters and slow, clear debaters. I have no issue with speed but I do have issue if you're going faster than I can flow or process.
2] Strategy - showcase that you've come prepared OR make tactical moves on the fly in the middle of the round.
3] Innovation - I've been judging for a while so a lot of debates tend to be reduxes of debates I've judged in the past. Introducing new args or making new spin on args I've heard before often impresses me.
4] Vision - demonstrate that you are able to see the round from a multi-layer and dimension perspective. If you can connect the dots between args on different flows and comparatively weigh them, that will go a long way for speaks and the ballot.
5] Packaging - 90% of the time, the thing that distinguishes a winning arg from a good arg is how you frame and phrase it. Explaining complex args simply is an art and being able to explain why it matters is extremely important in any round.
1] Absent a Perm or Theory, my RFD in a Process CP or CP/DA debate will be "does the risk of a solvency deficit outweigh the risk of a net benefit" - resolve that question.
2] Do Impact COMPARISON not Impact Weighing. I can intuitively understand why your Impact is bad, why is it worse than your opponents. In a debate style with so little time, you need to invest a significant chunk of it on resolving arguments.
3] Topicality arguments need cards to compose of real arguments. I would prefer if they defined the words in the resolution but if you give me a master class on grammar principles, I will be impressed.
4] K debates now are super Framework heavy and there's only been once that I've decided the Neg has won Framework but lost the debate. However, I wish they were heavier on the Link. Ontology is a thing but it usually is not a thing that can be resolved by the Alt or worsened by the Aff. The worse your link, the higher burden it puts on the Alt (and the inverse of that is true). Good link debating is the most important part of any K v Policy or K v K debate.
**UPDATE: I have not judged debate since Cal 2022. If you want to win, please start at 60% of your top speed and during rebuttals and please slow down on arguments you want me to actually evaluate. I swear nobody actually reads this so if you do read this, please tell me you read this before round and i will give u +0.5 speaker points.
the most important thing of all: i am annoyed by how often i get postrounded by debaters who expected me to vote on an argument that was very unclearly articulated / basically not explained at all. if you want to win with argument x, please invest some time in your speech to explain argument x.
in the absence of arguments claiming otherwise, i will default to these:
tech > truth
competing interps, rvis bad, drop the debater
fairness is most definitely a voter, education may or may not be
debate is probably a good activity (i am very neutral towards this and can easily be convinced otherwise)
background: canyon crest 20, duke 24
please dont shake my hand
I debated 4 years of LD at Canyon Crest. I've done it all/tried everything out at one point or another -- policy, theory/tricks, nontopical, identity, high theory, etc. Thus, I care less about what you read and more about how you execute it.
Personally, I hated judge paradigms that said "i dont like x" or "i wont evaluate y" -- i believe this is your debate space, not mine.
i like fast debate -- slow debate is truly insufferable. this, however, is a double edged sword -- if you do fast debate terribly you will be punished for it.
there is a difference between being assertive and being an ass in cx
if you justify racism/genocide/bigotry good, you'll lose with the lowest speaks possible. if you lose to racism/genocide/bigotry good, please go home and reconsider if debate is for you.
things i like:
being a chiller, weighing your arguments, objectively winning the debate/doing anything that makes my job easier
things i dislike:
thanking me for being here, the phrase "off-time roadmap", the phrases " i stand in firm affirmation/negation", the phrase "Time starts in 3, 2, 1, now", a messy debate (this is different from a very close debate), 0 clash, vague/lack of signposting, using unnecessary strategies against novices/those obviously less skilled than you (this is your fastest ticket to the 25-26 speaker pt range)
My email is: firstname.lastname@example.org - please put me on the chain, and feel free to reach out if you have any questions.
**Note for Alta**
I exclusively did policy debate in high school, so my familiarity with LD is low. However, I don't think it will affect my decisions significantly, if at all.
Do what you're most comfortable with; I'll vote for most arguments.
I think tech > truth, and things like evidence comparison in the final rebuttals, explicit judge instruction, and bold strategies will probably get you better speaker points.
I've been a 2A throughout high school and in college.
I have little topic knowledge, so please give me more information about the background of the topic ("core of the topic", core generics, etc.) than you would usually provide. I enjoy these debates a lot more when there's clash and actual engagement rather than it being super messy.
I ran a lot of "cheaty" CPs in high school, so I'm probably fine with most arguments you read. However, I think affs often give too much leeway to these CPs, so I could be persuaded by theory.
I'll judge kick by default.
I lean slightly neg on conditionality, but I have gone for condo on the aff and can be persuaded by it.
For most other theory, I lean neg.
I think they're great, extended them a lot in the 1NR. These are probably the most interesting debates to me.
Impact calculus in the 2NR is really important, especially if you're just going for DA + case. DA turns the case arguments are underutilized and should be exploited more in the 2NR.
Aff-specific links make the DA more persuasive, but generic links are fine, too.
I think politics DAs are great.
I'm pretty familiar with most generic Ks, but please explain your arguments more thoroughly if you run high theory.
I think overviews are pretty useless, and you can make most of the same arguments on the line by line or in a much more structured way.
You should probably extend an alt in the 2NR, and I'm much more persuaded by aff-specific links. I will also weigh the aff unless I am convinced otherwise. I don't think framework is the best way to win as the neg, and I think alt debating is much more interesting.
For the aff, I'm pretty persuaded by extinction outweighs type of arguments.
I think debate is a game and competition drives the activity. I like fairness and clash impacts.
I think impact turns to T can certainly be persuasive against non-procedural impacts. However, it will be hard to argue that debate is not a game in front of me. I find that debate being a game is a central belief I have that is hard to overcome.
I'm probably not the best for K v. K debates, mostly due to a lack of experience with them.
My speaker points are probably going to be inflated.
I think framing contentions matter for soft left affs.
You should read re-highlighted cards instead of just inserting them.
If a 1NC argument is really bad, analytics alone is likely enough in the 2AC.
As a debater: 4 years HS debate in Missouri, 4 years NDT-CEDA debate at the University of Georgia
Since then: coached at the University of Southern California (NDT-CEDA), coached at the University of Wyoming (NDT-CEDA), worked full-time at the Chicago UDL, coached at Solorio HS in the Chicago UDL
Now: Math teacher and debate coach at Von Steuben in the Chicago UDL, lab leader at the Michigan Classic Camp over the summer
College Email Chains: email@example.com
HS Email Chains, please use: firstname.lastname@example.org
1. Clarity > speed: Clarity helps everyone. Please slow down for online debate. You should not speak as fast as you did in person. Much like video is transmitted through frames rather than continuous like in real life, sound is transmitted through tiny segments. These segments are not engineered for spreading.
2. Neg positions: I find myself voting more often on the "top part" of any neg position. Explain how the plan causes the DA, how the CP solves the case (and how it works!), and how the K links to the aff and how the world of the alt functions. Similarly, I prefer CPs with solvency advocates (and without a single card they are probably unpredictable). I love when the K or DA turns the case and solves X impact. If you don't explain the link to the case and how you get to the impact, it doesn't matter if you're winning impact calculus.
3. K affs: Despite my tendency to read plans as a debater, if you win the warrants of why it needs to be part of debate/debate topic, then I'll vote on it. As a coach and judge, I read far more critical literature now than I did as a debater. My extensive voting history is on here. Do with that what you will.
4. Warrants: Don't highlight to a point where your card has no warrants. Extend warrants, not just tags. If you keep referring to a specific piece of evidence or say "read this card," I will hold you to what it says, good or bad. Hopefully it makes the claims you tell me it does.
1. Don't be rude in cross-x. If your opponent is not answering your questions well in cross-x either they are trying to be obnoxious or you are not asking good questions. Too often, it's the latter.
2. Questions about what your opponent read belong in cross-x or prep time. You should be flowing.
3. While we are waiting for speech docs to appear in our inboxes, I will often fill this time with random conversation for 3 reasons:
i. To prevent prep stealing,
ii. To get a baseline of everyone's speaking voice to appropriately assign speaker points and to appropriately yell "clear" (if you have a speech impediment, accent, or other reason for a lack of clarity to my ears, understanding your baseline helps me give fair speaker points),
iii. To make debate rounds less hostile.
High School LD Specific:
Values: I competed in a very traditional form of LD in high school (as well as nearly every speech and debate event that existed back then). I view values and value criterions similarly to framing arguments in policy debate. If you win how I should evaluate the debate and that you do the best job of winning under that interpretation, then I'll happily vote for you.
Ballot Writing: LD speeches are short, but doing a little bit of "ballot writing" (what you want me to say in my reason for decision) would go a long way.
Public Forum Specific:
I strongly believe that Public Forum should be a public forum. This is not the format for spreading or policy debate jargon. My policy background as a judge does not negate the purpose of public forum.
add me to the email chain: email@example.com
I'm currently a graduate student at Illinois State University where I am pursuing a masters in communication studies. I debated public forum in high school and competed in policy debate at California State University, Fullerton. I earned my bachelors degree in political science and human communications with an emphasis in argumentation and persuasion.
I have not judged or competitively debated in a while. Therefore, I would prefer if everyone could speak at a reasonable pace. Clarity and being able to articulate your arguments clearly is important to me.
-Explaining the link chain of your arguments and terminalizing impacts
-Your speech should be building off each other. If you want to bring something up in the final focus, make sure it's in the summary
-I am fine with speed but make sure to speak with clarity. I need to be able to hear the cards and warrants
-I dont flow cx
AFFs: I like traditional and nontraditional AFFs. However, I do prefer traditional style of debate. These are my favorite to judge.
I don't like phil. I'm not the best in evaluating them. However, if you do read them in front of me, I will do my best in evaluating it.
Even though I prefer traditional debate, I still like any type of argument you run! It doesn't matter if it's straight up policy, K, CP, FW, etc. I am familiar with these arguments and have read these before. However, I would rather you err on the side of over-explanation. Make sure there are links between your arguments and you clearly explain them to me. Do not just read cards and expect that to be sufficient, I want you to go further than that. I will vote for whatever you tell me to vote on. I've voted on extinction good before, just give me a good reason to do so.
-Impact calculus is important to me. I want you to weigh the impacts and not just read them. If you do not articulate your impacts to me, then why does your argument even matter? This is what I usually judge off of.
-Spreading is okay as long as you articulate and are clear. However, since it is now online, I would rather you speak a bit slower. I have judged a couple tournaments online and there are times when the speech is unclear due to technological problems. I need to be able to hear the words coming out of your mouth!
-I don't permit clipping cards. That is unfair and you will lose and get a 0 for your speaker points.
-Don't expect me to do the work for you because I won't. Tell me why you deserve the ballot.
Tech > Truth
Please dont be racist, sexist, homophobic!! Dont be mean in the round. If you do any of these things, your speaker points will be really low.
-If you have any questions or comments about my RFD you can email at firstname.lastname@example.org
Please communicate well, speak slowly and clearly, and use clear logic.