Assistant Speech & Debate Coach at NSU University School

Last Update: November 2023---Thoughts on "Disclosure" and "Evidence Ethics" in PF added.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1---Big Picture

Please put me on the e-mail chain.

Policy--- uschoolpolicy@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

Public Forum--- uschoolpf@gmail.com AND jacob.daniel.bosley@gmail.com

I actively coach and research policy and public forum debate. I enjoy technical, organized debates. I don’t think I have particularly controversial views, but have tried to be thorough where it matters for prefs/pre-round prep.

Policy vs. K---An argument is an argument, assuming it’s complete, warranted, and applicable.

Tech vs. Truth---Tech obviously informs truth, but if I have to decide between intuitive and well-explained arguments vs. terrible evidence, I’ll choose the former. There are few things I won’t vote on, but “death good” is among them.

Offense vs. Defense---This is a helpful paradigm for assessing relative risk, but risk can be reduced to zero.

2---General Practices

Speed---Go for it, but at the higher end you should scale back slightly. I flow on a computer without much shorthand.

Evidence---I read it during debates. When referenced in CX, I’ll likely go to it. Quality is in the back of my mind, consciously or not.

Re-Highlighting---If small, I don’t think you need to re-read in speech. Don’t expect me to read a giant card to figure out if you’re right.

Digital Debate---Make sure everyone is present with confirmation before starting. Be reasonable about tech issues, as I will track tech time. If there are major issues, I’ll default to tournament procedures.

Decorum---Sass, snark, or shade are fine within reason. I’m not a good judge for hostile approaches, e.g. interrupting speeches.

“New” Arguments---The more late-breaking, the more open I am to responses. “Late-breaking” is relative to me catching the initial argument. Happy to strike 1AR/2NR arguments rightly flagged as “too new.”

Alternative Practices---I’m here to flow and judge a debate, awarding a single win. If you’re trying to do something different, I’m not the judge for you.

3---T vs. Plans

“Competing Interpretations”---This makes more intuitive sense to me than “reasonability,” but that's often because the latter isn't explained as a frame. Affs are still better off prioritizing offense.

"Fiscal Redistribution" Specifics---I was not at camp this summer, and at this point in the season still do not have strong views on most of the debated T issues like “FR = tax and transfer” or “FJ = no subsets.” From grad school studying health policy, "Social Security can be turned into single-payer health insurance" seems a bit absurd, but I’ll let evidence dictate decisions.

4---T vs. K Affs

Frustrations---These debates are often two ships passing in the night due to reliance on pre-written blocks. Please make judges lives easier by:

A---Have a robust defense of your model of debate, including roles for teams/judge, examples of how debates play out, net-benefits, etc.

B---Pick and choose your offense and compare it with what the other team has actually said.

"Affirmation"---At a bare minimum, affirmatives should have some relationship to the topic and “affirm” a clear advocacy. I am not sympathetic to purely negative arguments/diagnoses of power relations.

"Debate is a Game" vs. "Subject Formation"----Debate is a complicated space that's competitive, academic, and personal space. Arguments that assume it’s only one seem a bit shallow. Offense can be made assuming all three.

Terminal Impacts---“Fairness” or “clash” can be terminal impacts, though often teams don’t seem to explain why.

"Truth Testing"---I am less persuaded by these arguments because all argumentation seems to rely on some outside/unstated assumptions. I can certainly be persuaded that the structure of debate warps content and that could be a reason for skepticism.

"TVAs"---The 2NR needs to explain what offense they think the TVA resolves instead of expecting me to figure it out.

"T = [X Violent Practice]"---Feel free to impact turn the resulting curriculum, models, debates, etc. of an interpretation of debate, but its difficult to convince me reading an argument about the topic of discussion is analogical to policing/"stop and frisk"/"drone strikes"/other material violence.

5---Kritiks

Framework---I don't get middle grounds by default. I will resolve this debate one way or the other based on what is said, and then determine what remaining arguments count as offense.

Uniqueness---The alt needs to resolve each link, or have some larger reason that’s not relevant, e.g. framework. Affs are often in a better spot pressing poorly explained alternatives/links.

Competition---I presume affs can test mutual exclusivity of alts, whether against a “plan” or “advocacy.” Feel free to argue different standards of competition. The less the aff outlines a clear method, the more I’m persuaded by “no plan, no perm.”

Perm Texts---They are great. This can be difficult when alts are amorphous, but 1AR/2AR explanation needs to rise above “do both.”

6---Counterplans

Judge Kicking---If you want me to explicitly consider multiple worlds post-2NR, e.g. both CP vs. aff and/or status quo vs. aff, make an explicit argument. Saying the words “the status quo is always an option” in CX is not enough for me.

Theory vs. Literature---Topic literature helps dictate what you can persuade me is reasonable. If your only basis for competition is a definition of “resolved”/“should” and a random law review, good luck. If you have evidence contextual to a topic area and a clear explanation of functional differences in implementation, I’m far easier to persuade.

Solvency Advocates---CPs should have solvency advocates of “comparable quality” to the 1AC. If your Advantage CP plank cites 1AC evidence, go for it. If you’re making something up, provide a card. If you’re trying to make card-less “Con Con” a thing, I’m a hard sell.

Intrinsicness---Both the aff/neg need to get better at debating intrinsic/“other issues” perms. I'm an easier sell than others that these obviate many of the sillier CPs.

7---Disadvantages

Framing---It's everything: impact calculus, link driving uniqueness or vice-versa, the works. Smart arguments and coherent narratives trump a slew of evidence.

Internal Links > Impacts---I find most "DA Turns the Case" / "Case Turns the DA" debates don't spend enough time on causation or timing.

Politics Theory---Most 2AC theory blips against Politics DAs aren’t complete arguments, e.g. “fiat solves the link” or "a logical policymaker could do both." Still, intrinsicness arguments against DAs are underutilized.

8---Theory

Conditionality---It’s difficult to convince me some conditionality isn’t necessary for the neg to be viable. Things can certainly change based on substantive contradictions or quantity. Negs should be clear under what conditions, if any, they can kick individual CP planks.

Other Theory Issues---It’s difficult to persuade me that most theoretical objections to CPs or perms are reasons to reject the team.

“Tricks”/“Spikes”---Please no.

9---Public Forum Specifics

I am not a "lay"/"flay" judge.

A few views of mine may be idiosyncrasies:

Paraphrasing---I’m convinced this is a harmful practice that hides evidence from scrutiny. Evidence should be presented in full context with compete citations in real time. That means:

A---Author, Date, Title, URL

B---Complete paragraphs for excerpts

C---Underlining and/or highlighting indicating what is referenced.

D---Sending evidence you intend to read to opponents before the speech is delivered.

Purely paraphrased evidence compared to a team reading cut cards will be treated as baseless opinions.

Line-by-Line

A---You need to answer arguments in a coherent order based on when/where they were introduced.

B---You need to extend complete arguments, with warrants, in later speeches. If not in summary, it’s too late to bring back from the dead in final focus.

If neither side seems to be doing the needed work, expect me to intervene.

Disclosure---I generally think disclosure is beneficial for the activity, which is why our program open sources. However, I am not as dogmatic about disclosure when judging. It is difficult to convince me "disclosure in its entirety is bad," but the recent trend seems to be shifting interpretations that are increasingly difficult to meet.

Absent egregious lack of disclosure/mis-disclosure, I am not the best judge for increasingly demanding interpretations if opponents have made a good faith effort to disclose. For example, if a team forgot to disclose cites/round report for a single round, but is otherwise actively disclosing, it is difficult to convince me that a single mistake is a punishable offense.

While I don't want to prescribe what I think standard disclosure should be and would rather folks debate the specifics, I am an easier sell than others on some things:

A---The quality of debates is better when students know what arguments have been read in the past. This seems more important than claims that lack of disclosure encourages "thinking on your feet."

B---Debaters should provide tags/citations of previously read contentions. A doc with a giant wall of text and no coherent tags or labels is not meaningful disclosure.

C---Round reports don't seem nearly as important as other forms of disclosure.

Evidence Ethics---Evidence issues are getting egregious in PF. However, I also do not like some of the trends for how these debates are handled.

A---NSDA Rules---If an evidence challenge is invoked, I will stop the debate, inform the team issuing the challenge that the entire debate will hinge on the result of evaluating that challenge, and then consult both the NSDA rules and any tournament specific procedures to adjudicate the challenge. Questions of evidence ethics cannot be just "theory" or "off-case" arguments.

B---"Spirit" of Rules vs. Cheap Shots---I admittedly have idiosyncracies on specific issues, but if they come up will do my best to enforce the exact wording of NSDA rules.

i---"Straw" arguments where the cut section clearly does not represent the rest of the article, ellipses out of major sections, bracketing that changes the meaning of an article (including adding context/references the author didn't intend), and fabrication are easy to convince me are round-enders.

ii----A single broken URL, a card that was copy and pasted from a backfile incorrectly so the last sentence accidentally cut off a couple words, and other minor infractions do not seem worth ending a round over, but it's up for debate.

iii---Not being able to produce the original full text of a card quickly seems like a reason to reject a piece of evidence given NSDA wordings, though I worry this discourages the cutting of books which are harder to provide access to quickly during debates.

MPLS South '21

Dartmouth '25 (If you are considering Dartmouth, please talk to me in person or send an email. I would love to talk to you. Go Trees!!)

- If there is an email chain, please add gabemkc@gmail.com and southdebatecoaches@gmail.com (policy only)

Stanford 23 Update: Assume no familiarity with the LD topic. I will judge this like 1 person policy except with LD resolutions I don't think a lot of arguments from policy make sense i.e if the resolution doesn't require a plan I don't get why there should be one.

Answer arguments in the order presented. This is not a suggestion nor a recommendation. It is a rule and if you refuse to follow it, I will be looking for reasons to vote against you.

I have many preferences about debate, but I will try very hard for them not to influence my adjudication of the round. There are a few that I find true:

1. Students spend incredible amounts of time preparing for debate tournaments and I have an obligation to put just as much effort into the round - this means I will try to fairly evaluate each argument as presented and seek to limit my biases.

2. Debate is a research based communicative activity - this means that both how you prepared to speak and what you say matter. I care about evidence quality and correct evidence practices. This means I find arguments that are divorced from external scholarship (academia, pundits, public intellectuals) less convincing. I will be impressed by innovative research, which will make me more likely to err for the well-evidenced team on close questions.

3. My favorite debates are small, evidence heavy and specific to the resolutional controversy - they are intellectually exciting and bring me great joy. The policy or K binary does not determine this - rather, teams that are able to choose points of disagreement early in the debate, go deep on those and outframe their opponent will be more successful in front of me than teams that win by brute force of speed. This is not based on any conviction about the value of arguments - rather, I am not good at adjudicating large debates and am likely to think about what Edmund Zagorin taught me are the "meta questions" in close debates.

4. Debate is good because we get to try new things and change our minds - dogmatic 1ACs/1NCs that don't change from topic to topic are terminally unpersuasive. Arguments based on past ethical failure will not be considered. Behavior that causes immediate harm to other debaters will culminate in an L and a 26.

5. Speaker points should be given based on the judges' discretion - I will intervene against people who ask me to give 30s. I will give you speaker points based on my regular discretion minus 2. I find the modern 29-30 speaker point scale hard to use and expect to give around a 28.7 if you have debated as if you are a member of the top 32 teams in a given pool.

Specific Arguments:

Most arguments are very similar and will be filtered through the above biases. Some are hard to understand from above so I will explain below.

I find well articulated theory arguments about the detrimental effects of specific practices more persuasive than most - articulating the importance of unconditional counterplans, solvency advocates and affirmative specification may be more persuasive to me than most.

Topicality arguments about the most desirable construction of the resolution for debating rather than a single side are most persuasive to me - articulating your impacts in the language of iteration, the game structure of debate and testing rather than AFF/NEG ground has always made the most sense to me.

The K v Policy divide is detrimental to debate - read the arguments you think are best supported and respond to your opponents position. I have no major preference if that results in a Afropessimist critique of democratic theory or a defense of the liberal international order, but I would prefer a planless affirmative that discusses water politics to a plan based affirmative that has more terminal impacts than topic specific cards.

I have been heavily influenced by Oskar Tauring-Traxler, Izak Gallini-Matyas, John Turner, Brett Bricker, Raam Tambe, Holland Bald.

Some judges who I aspire to judge similar to: Anirudh Prabhu, Shunta Jordan, Sean Kennedy, Shree Awsare, Chris Callahan, Brianna Aaron, Ansh Khullar, Kevin McCaffery, Yao Yao Chen and Kevin Hirn.

Ethics

- I will follow docs for evidence of clipping. If I see it, the round will end and the offending team will get L 25. Evidence of clipping or cross reading, along with an accusation, will be evaluated. If correct, L 25 for offender. If incorrect, L for the accusing team.

- agree with Truf -- Being racist, sexist, violent, etc. in a way that is immediately and obviously hazardous to someone in the debate = L and 0. My role as educator > my role as any form of disciplinarian, so I will err on the side of letting stuff play out - i.e. if someone used gendered language and that gets brought up I will probably let the round happen and correct any ignorance after the fact. This ends when it begins to threaten the safety of round participants. Where that line is is entirely up to me.

I competed in Lincoln Douglas debate for four years in high school. In college I competed in policy debate for four years at the University of Richmond where I was a three-time participant at the NDT. Since graduating from law school I have been practicing as an attorney in the New York state court system. Any argument preference or style is fine with me: good debate is good debate. To me, well-warranted arguments extended and explained in rebuttals combined with strategic control of the flow wins debates. Technical proficiency in terms of argument interaction is also appreciated. Well executed link and impact turns are also impressive. It won't change how I evaluate the debate, but in case you are curious, I was primarily a 2A/1N and ran everything from hard right, to soft left, to ironic affs as well as a full range on the neg. My email is jchicvak at gmail dot com.

Cypress Bay '20 | Georgetown '24

Put me on the email chain: Gavsie.joshua@gmail.com

Top Level Stuff:

I did policy debate in HS and I'm currently competing at Georgetown.

Do whatever you want. I'm as happy to judge a K v K debate as I am a nuanced CP/DA debate. This round is for you all, not me. Most of my opinions about the activity can be overcome by good debating so just be smart and you can probably win my ballot.

That being said, there are obviously the standard non-negotiables. For example, "racism good" or anything else of the sort gets you an L with 0 speaker points. I feel like shouldn't have to say much more here just please don't be a bad person.

Good speaks for good debating, great speaks for being funny.

A significant amount of the following stuff is taken from Tessa Harper. I think they articulated their thoughts on this stuff really well and it mirrors how I feel about these issues.

How I Evaluate Debates:

I'll evaluate arguments as per the execution on the line-by-line unless told otherwise. Dropped arguments are true but that doesn't mean it's the best argument or the winning one. Explain why concessions matter and why they should frame my ballot.

I'll have the speech doc open but I'll be following YOU so please be clear (especially in online debate)!! I'll be looking at cards if I really need to or if specific pieces of evidence are flagged.

Clash Debates:

- I'll vote for framework but it's not an excuse to not engage with the affirmative. Negative teams that fail to do this usually sound like block-reading robots and will not fare super well in these debates unless they grapple with specific parts of aff offense.

- That being said, there is a difference between T and framework. If you want to take the aff up on some other part of the topicality debate outside of focus on the USFG, I'm definitely down for that.

- Critical affs should probably have a model of debate. This means that impact turns to T should be coupled with a good counter-intepretation and that the aff should counter-define words in the 2AC. A 2AR that is impact turns alone without a vision for what we are doing in this activity or in a debate will be much harder for me to vote for than a warranted vision for debate that provides at least some defense/link turns to their standards.

- Examples/history matter a lot and will influence how I evaluate competing theories of power -- whether it is techy IR debate or a high theory discussion of psychoanalytic black feminism, I think that theories draw their explanatory power from material realities of the world and I tend to be be more easily convinced by debaters and scholars who tie their theory to that world. This doesn't mean I need you to be empiricists or defend a materialist conception of history, just that having a knowledge of how your theory is related to the world around you will make the arg far more persuasive to me than floating buzzwords.

- TVAs are usually not super important to me. At best, they're fine defensive arguments but not what you really need to be winning in these debates to get my ballot.

- Critical affs should ideally have a relationship to the topic that is inherent and significant. I will be more persuaded by T against affs that don't do or say anything about water than I will be against teams that read an affirmative which answers a core question of the topic.

- K's v policy affs -- the good ol' framework tricks like fiat bad are nice and works far too often (ehem affs) but I also enjoy in-depth link and alt work. The affirmative tends to lose these debates when it doesn't leverage the case beyond "we have a big impact" -- timeframe args, comparative arguments about alt solvency, etc. are all very helpful when adjudicating these debates and the negative should prepare for them beyond simply the frame out, even if it is a useful trick. These are the kind of debates I'm the most well versed in if that's something that's important to y'all.

K v K debates:

- These debates can be a lot of fun to watch - if both sides demonstrate a good understanding and application of the literature they're reading I'll be very satisfied.

- I like critical affs that defend material praxis. Advocating for grounded praxis will always get me interested in a debate. Don't let this mean you abandon theory -- theory is extremely important for controlling the direction of politics, subject formation, praxis, etc. but when I have a soft spot for critical affs that are able to combine theory with praxis. (See above about using history.)

CPs:

- Advantage counterplans with impact turns as the net benefit are underutilized in the debates I judge.

- I get annoyed when teams let counterplans absolve them of the need for good case debate. Solvency deficits to the aff matter as much as the aff's solvency deficits to the counterplan.

- PICs -- I like these. The more substantive the PIC's relationship to the aff, the less I will be persuaded by theory.

DAs:

- Specific DAs are always good but politics can be good too and get the job done when debated well

- The relative magnitude of the uniquness/links determine what the direction of things are. Be comparative.

- 2ACs/1ARs that impact turn disads strategically are cool

Topicality:

- Not super familiar with the T norms on the water topic - do with that what you will

- I do really enjoy T debates - creating distinctions between the kinds of ground/affs that are allowed or denied is the sort of comparative work that makes decisions easier.

- Precise and predictable limits are good!

- Functional limits exist and are persuasive to me but you should be clear about why and how.

- Evidence is either extremely important or largely irrelevant depending on how it is framed - you should control this framing.

- I default to competing interps but reasonability arguments paired with a strong push on arbitrariness/precision can be persuasive.

Pet Peeves in no particular order:

- Not flowing speeches. There shouldn't be a minute and a half of figuring out what cards were skipped before cross-ex. (Especially in varsity debates lol like cmon pay attention)

- Bastardizing revolutionary history and/or reading ev written by reactionaries will lower your ethos and speaker points - there are so many better ways to debate the cap K than reading imperialist propaganda about communism. Please do better.

- Don't call me "judge." Josh is fine.

- Profoundly untopical policy affs written only to beat critical teams but never to be read against policy teams (ehem, "sabotage")

- Being mean for no reason in cross ex.

- Reading the cap K as a root cause/state good double whammy, rather than, ya know, a real argument.

LD Things

Everything above still applies but it’s worth noting that I think tricks/friv theory is an absurd form of argumentation. If this happens to be your thing, strike me and move on. If you primarily read anything else, I’m probably a fine judge for whatever you want to do lol.

I’m not super familiar with the heavy philosophical aspects of LD but am not unwilling to vote for it, I just may require a higher threshold for explanation in these debates.

PF Things

My background is in policy debate but I'm familiar with the structure and style of PF rounds. That being said, I'm really not trying to watch kids in PF attempt to spread through their case and adapt to me in a way that is clearly not their preferred style of debating. What this does mean is that I have a higher standard for evidence comparison, line by line, and actually answering arguments. If you do these things, you're in a good spot. If you don't, you will likely lose. Feel free to ask any questions before the round.

ALSO, the evidentiary standards in this activity are wild. If someone calls for a card and it takes you five minutes to send out a link to a 60-page PDF, I will not be terribly happy. Please actually cut cards and have them readily accessible in the debate.

University of Chicago '24 (MPP with concentrations in International Development and Urban Policy)

Indiana University '21 (BS in Business Economics & Analytics)

Dec 2023 update: I don't have much background on this topic, besides some high level interactions in my coursework. Please be sure to overexplain and define all acronyms. If I don't understand your argument, then I can't vote for you.

Please add me to the email chain: mehuldebate@gmail.com. Feel free to email me with any questions, comments, or concerns before/after the debate. Please send me a doc at the end of the debate with the relevant cards referenced in the 2NR/2AR, though do not count on me reading them all. Decision times are tight and I find myself having little to no time to read cards.

I try my best not to let outside knowledge affect my decision of the debate. Overall, you do you and I will work hard to make the best decision I can. All of the below are simply predispositions but I will evaluate the round as is. If I look confused during CX/your speech, I probably am and you may want to clarify your point. If you have me for a format other than policy, go to the end.

Spreading: Dial back to 70% of your top speed. I am not actively involved with debate and my ears are slow to adjust. Please be clear on the tags, long blocks/overview, important analytics, or a theory debate so that I can flow it. I don't read along with speech docs since this is a communication activity. I flow on paper so a quick pause in between flows is appreciated.

I will not evaluate re-highlighting that's inserted into the debate. You have to read it in your speech.

Online debate: Please slow down and make sure to adjust your microphones. If the audio is distorted, my ears ring which will cause me to miss arguments and I can't flow. I will try to say "clear" but obviously this can be tough over Zoom.

Counterplans

I'm open to most types of counter plans. I love intuitive CPs that are logically based on 1AC internal links/1AC CX. You should probably have a solvency advocate (or otherwise a defense of why you don't need one).

PICs are cool if they are functionally competitive. Not a big fan of word pics.

I won't automatically judge kick in the 2NR. Please make it explicit if that should be an option, although winning this is an uphill battle.

Theory

I'm pretty middle leaning for theory. Condo is probably fair game for the aff after 3ish conditional advocacies. Just slow down on these debates. Otherwise, I default to "reject the argument not the team".

If the neg lies about theory (i.e. says they can't kick planks but still does it), I would encourage affs to capitalize. I will vote against that.

K affs/Framework

I think affs should be related to the topic. I have a hard time voting for critical affs that don't engage with any topic literature. If you're reading a critical aff, you are better off impact turning framework in front of me instead of going for "we meet". It's strange when teams go for "we meet" and then no link topic DAs.

Not a good judge for you if your strategy relies on debate bad/is a rejection of the activity or your arguments orient around "survival strategy".

Negs should focus on what voting negative means and what my ballot can resolve. Fairness can be an impact or an internal link. TVAs are good (not necessary though) but they need to be specific. I think oftentimes 2Ns say a plan text but never explain how that engages with the aff's literature or why that model of debates is better. TVAs from re-highlighted 1AC evidence are very compelling to me.

Kritiks

Make sure you slow down in the overview, talk about the specifics of the aff, and have offense (this includes having a specific impact). Please explain buzzwords or high-theory concepts. I do not actively read K literature, so it's likely I have little to no background on your argument.

If your overview is more than 30-40 seconds, I'm not the right judge for you. Not a fan of "cloud clash" where the 2N just cross applies the overview to the line by line. I'm fairly sympathetic to the aff in debates (1AR especially) where the neg relies on that strategy.

Something that always annoys me is when teams can't explain their alternatives in CX. You should be able to explain what the world of the alternative looks like and why it's better than the status quo.

I don't think a team needs specific link cards to every argument in the block as long they do specific analyses using historical and contemporary examples of their theory and how it interacts with the aff.

Topicality

I love a good T debate. Just make sure to have clear impacts, of which fairness can be one. Please slow down and make sure to not go for the "buffet" in the 2NR - pick your best argument and sit on it. And please don't forget the case list, something I think it's underutilized by negs.

DAs

Impact calc is important here. Spend some time in the 2NR/2AR on how I should evaluate the impact, turns case, magnitude, etc. The more you write the ballot for me, the easier it is for me to vote for you.

Read uniqueness. If the 2AC says "they didn't read uniqueness so we get new 1AR answers", I'm pretty sympathetic to that.

Politics DAs are cool, especially if there are real topic links. Not a fan of rider DAs or anything of that sort.

__________________________________

Public Form

I don't have a ton of experience coaching/judging in this format outside of some work at camp. That being said, I'm definitely not a "lay" judge. In terms of judging, please start the beginning of your final speeches with impact calculus and how I should write my ballot. Oftentimes these debates get very messy and it's tough to resolve them. Every argument does not need to be there. Pick your best and sit on it.

LD

Most of my stuff from policy applies here. Like with PF, don't have a lot of experience with it outside of camp. My biggest advice is to focus on narrowing the debate down by the final rebuttals. The cleaner the rebuttals, the easier it is for me to write a ballot.

Congress

I competed in the activity for 4 years so please don't treat me like a lay judge. A lot of these thoughts are borrowed from my former coach, Ryan Andersen. For the most part, you do you but a few thoughts/pet peeves I have:

- Evidence should preferably come from peer-reviewed journals, books, & articles. When that's not possible, it should be considered credible and you should be able to defend your source in CX. There seems to be a trend of people quoting random blogs or students who don't have qualifications relative to the debate.

- Don't paraphrase evidence. Please read directly from the article but also make sure to choose the best line or two to save time.

- Focus on the analysis more than the evidence. I think too often people let the evidence do the talking for them and spend much less time on the impacts of a given argument. Explain the short-term and long-term implications of different warrants present in your evidence.

- I find roleplaying introductions/antics to be silly. You all are high schoolers, not actually in congress.

- CX should be spent asking targeted questions about the specific arguments made in the speech. I tend to see a lot of time wasted here by trying to set up a question that's not actually important. I think this is an area where average and excellent debaters can distinguish themselves.

- Every speech after the first affirmative speech should have refutations. These should be as specific as possible. This means not only refuting others by name, but contextualized "line-by-line" style debating where you engage with the substance of why the argument is incorrect. Debaters who are able to do evidence comparison, embedded refutations, etc. are ones that I will rank higher. This is a debate event, not speech, so I would like to see lots of clash.

- If no one is standing up to speak on a bill, move to previous question. This activity can get frustrating (more so in Zoom) when there are a bunch of parliamentary antics (including excessively long recesses) instead of fostering debate

It's been quite awhile since I judged debate consistently, and my beliefs on the pedagogical nature of the activity have shifted somewhat since working in two graduate programs for communication studies. As such, I'll speak a little to this shift, and end with a few thoughts on debate strategy.

First and foremost, I am a Christian person: God is real, good, and cares about you deeply - as illustrated and continually affirmed through the personhood of Jesus Christ and the historical and mystical tradition of the holy ancient Orthodox Church. I attend, volunteer through, and worship at an Antiochian Eastern Orthodox Christian mission parish. Joy is not the same as happiness; quiet is not the same as silence; instruction/criticism is not the same as cynicism; Wisdom is not the same as knowledge. The existential dimension of approaching life recognizes that inter-subjective prescriptions of meaning are, ultimately, meaningless - but affirming creation in its relationship with/to God is the only true way of knowing love, beauty, value, purpose, ethics, truth, and meaning. How one communicates reveals an act of becoming: your words and actions form you as much as they attempt to inform others; they can make you more Christ-like, or they cannot. Meeting Wisdom, in all Her glory, is the only true value of debate. Don't debate about things that can't make you more wise, loving, or good.

I'm an indigneous/latino person (Incan) from Long Island that has spent over a decade trying to get back to serving my people. We've all lost people along the way. The colonizer's entire system of power in the West has such a vicegrip on the hearts and minds of the masses that if your soul is not anchored in the ancient ways of adhering to the Holy Spirit - it's easy to slip and lose it. This fantasy of a utilitarian individualism sears itself into the flesh of the West and can only end in destruction. As an indigenous Orthodox Christian, I am interested in the true liberation of all people as expressed through spiritual/material action from the chains that have been cast over our hands, minds, and spirit. Truly integrated approaches to trauma incorporate one's physical, mental/emotional, and spiritual condition - they can never be separated and always affect one another.

I study psychodynamic approaches to communication in Christianity. The psychoanalytic approach to language (along with its underlying, and fairly undeniable, religious current) reveals how and why we've formed attachments in relation to different points of trauma. Any liberatory approach can be trauma-informed or trauma-inducing, relative to their ability to truly love their neighbor as their self. Can there be such a thing as a self when the continual love and service of your neighbors (and hopefully, 'they you') has you constantly place the 'other' as a spiritual site of affirmation? The refusal to cease suffering is an important conclusion of both psychoanalytic and Christian existentialist logic - the ego is a site of comfortability, earthly pleasure, and nihilistic self-destruction. What do you do for your neighbor?

Lastly, a prayer:
"Oh, Lord Jesus Christ, may a blessing rain down over the people seeking truth, justice, and ways to love. May you keep them safe in travel, mind, and spirit. May they seek good things through their work. May they have clarity of the mind, joy within their bones, and feel safe within this space. May your everlasting love comfort us. May we all have courage to pursue what is right, even when it is not easy. May it all be to your glory. In the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit; amen."

Strategy, in no particular order:

Everything you say in a speech must contain a claim/warrant/impact. If you are finishing a thought and can ask yourself “Why is this true,” and/or “Why is this important, given what everyone else is talking about in this round,” then you should keep talking. Stumbling across a complete line of thinking is better then racing through your many, incomplete, opinions.

There was once a debater that began what would become a >4minute final rebuttal on a Sunday morning with the line: "I'm going to end this early so that you can get to church on time!" The floor for that debater's speech was a 29, and they would later win the debate as well. I believe our Sunday morning's are better served worshipping in a Church setting, so anything done to shorten the debate time (even noting this as an argument) is immensely persuasive with an eternally more significant impact. Additionally, debaters willing to roll the dice on an argument that they believe wins them the debate (conceded double-turn; logical truism; moral obligation; etc.) and ending their speech early are also significantly improving their chances.

I will have nothing of the witchcraft that is the ritual encantation of tabula rasa that judges have engaged in in order to appear value-neutral. It is a lie - finding ways to establish relationships with people whom are simply and truly different from one another is a truer means of persuasion. Pretending like judges aren't people is not a good way of cultivating persuasion, education, or really good practice in general.

Debate is a rhetorical practice of character formation: we repeat and instill the virtues that we want to see in the world over and against other visions. I will vote for whomever makes me feel and/or presents a more logically coherent vision of the good life. Yes, you still need a link.

The exception: I will not tolerate trauma-inducing behavior, language, willfull ignorance, etc. I just don't have the energy in my old age to pretend to care like all actions and reactions are morally equivalent. Channel your rage into beating your opponents - considering the lengths that debaters will go to worship the idol of winning in this activity, they are more likely to suffer more greatly from an L.

Most outlandish claims get checked at some level, but spiritual matters are often presumed to be true by the louder voice in the room. I've heard some fairly wild accusations about ancient Christianity in general, and not tailored criticisms to specific Christian groups/people. It's irresponsible, and I have no problem ending a debate over it. Full criticisms on any topic are interesting and good; moralizing cliffnote half-researched soundbyte citations are not good.

This is not to say that you might, as some say, "know more than you know." I once heard a debater start an argument with "is there a reason that when you say 'x' it makes me feel 'y' or remember 'z'?" and then proceed to turn that feeling into a critical question of the presentation of the argument. What you say and how you say it are equally important.

If your neighbor or content require a warning based on the graphic nature of your speech, give it. Be willing to adjust or defend why you chose to speak a gratuitous thing into existence. Many things need to be discussed, but not everything needs to be discussed in a trauma-inducing way.

This is something that generally insecure individuals like to attempt a refutation at, but while we're here: "The standard for pizza is cooked in New York; everything else is a simulacrum."

If I can't understand you, then you didn't make an argument. I will not yell clear.

Regarding speaker points; I am impressionable. I have been known to give high speaker points, but I'm blissfully unaware of speaker point trends over the past 5 years and cannot (and likely will not) account for inflation. A perfectly average team is likely within the range of 28.5-28.6. If you are unenthusiastic, antagonistic, and lack in tonal variation, you may find your speaking points to be as undesirable as the speech's execution. I like speed, but you can be fast and have tonal variation: it's a public speaking event, after all.

Slow down on Plan Texts/Advocacies/CP Texts/Alternative Texts/Permutation Texts. If I can’t flow it, and the other team points it out, that’s on you.

The stock issues are a bit underrated. They are an opportunity to discuss what services/disservices debate. Inherency and Solvency (along with inherent and solvent versions of the AFF) are something with quite a bit of traction to it.

On topicality, proper: fairness is an internal link to people quitting, or, "the death of debate" - but a better and qualitatively similar internal link are ground claims. A persuasive argument I routinely heard was a short pairing of ground w/the TVA: basically that the AFF presented a K the NEG was going to use to test the resolution (defense), which lowers/eliminates their ability to practice advocating said critical rhetoric + hurts in-round education. Debating about debate is a unique K-AFF advantage (communal subject formation impact). Education is a terminal impact - death of debate is probably the other. Lastly, you need to impact why your education is good though: doesn't help much if you win teaching people is good if what you teach them is not good.

Captain America was right in Civil War.

I assume that people are engaging k-aff's more and more due to the fact that books, yano, exist - but if my belief in the literacy of this community over-stated, here's a simple problem for the appeal to abstract notions of ground loss vs. particular ones: the ceda finals round has (since the early 00's popularization of the K) historically featured a KvK debate with a signifcant quantity of NEG wins. PIK's of various metaphors due to their tropological connection to various other signifiers and impacts are creatively interesting to me. Black Framework debates have been interesting. There's a thin line between criticism and whining, and there's way too many intellectual traditions with relations to the topic to presume there's "no debate" to be had.

Everything you say, you defend, unless if you win a specific reason why you don't have to. Don't be afraid to defend good things.

Debaters would be magnifably more successful if they read communication theory as part of their solvency. Media Studies, Performance Studies, Rhetoric Studies, Affect Studies, etc. - it's all there and gives a reason why the ballot matters. A common explanation for why engaging in the plan's role-playing simulation is that repeated education helps us make similar decisions in the future, maybe - sounds like it, yano, non-uniques the advantages and/or a reason to vote.

Bad history makes history. If someone says something about something that's categorically false, and if you read a card in the other direction and then a card about how historical erasure/denial legitimizes all sorts of heinous atrocities - that's an easy DA flow that would either A) be a good debate, or B) be an easy debate.

I once found quite a bit of joy in being a part of a competitive dance crew. I bring this up because I want debaters that make the argument "debate bad" to know they have options. I have just never heard it communicated persuasively within the context of a competitive activity. Opacity for similar reasons. Also, with few exceptions, a critique of wanting the ballot is non-unique. Don't waste everyone's time.

Judges whom have influenced my thoughts on debate, at some point or another: Calum, Hagwood, Shree. Any non-contradictory aspects of their paradigms can be cross-applied here.

Impact Calculus is under-rated. Don't bring (more) links to an impact fight.

Strong Defense can win Debates.

Uniqueness wins most, if not all, debates.

I have been thinking about the Louisville Project of the mid-early 00's and their thoughts on debate (in general, clearly), and flowing (in particular). I'm undecided on this and have talked to different experts about it, but I am unconvinced that one has to flow the majority of the debate to both understand and properly give a good decision. Focus on what's important and extend your arguements properly and all shall be fine. If I do choose to flow, know that I flow straight down, always.

Creativity, comedy, and an intentional desire to engage form the best debates.

Prep ends when the email is sent/flash-drive leaves the computer/cards are otherwise compiled. I will enforce this: if you are using scholarly citations/cards then that evidence needs to be made available to your opponent before your speech begins. Preparing for your speech includes organizing the information you're about to read; if it's organized then it should be readily accessible for your opponents - traditionally by holding a stack of physical "evidence" as you give an order, but in a more contemporary context the virtual transmission of said evidence to the other team. If you've withheld evidence and the opposing team asks for it post-speech, your prep will begin and end when the e-mail is sent. You are not expected to send analytics/blocks - only cards/scholarly evidence. Team rules that you "can't share cases" are either not about evidence or are arbitrary in a world where you can share them minutes after reading but not during. Everyone be fair, share and, when in doubt, feel free to see "Shree Awsare" and/or his paradigm.

I'll ask if I want to be on the e-mail chain, but generally I do not.

Keep your own time.

Theory is a question of good/bad debate practices, is fine, and requires an interpretation, a violation or link, and an impact or reason to reject that practice.

Also, I've been teased about voting repetitively on either "the floating pik" or "the internal link turn." But I'm right: answer the argument or get in the robot, Shinji.

I am most interested in debates about/that involve Christianity, religion/spirituality, psychoanalysis, existential thoughts on language and/or reality, high theory, subject formation in the context of communication theory, and nuanced approaches to the topic.

I'll change my mind eventually, or the world will light on fire due to man's selfish desire to set everything good on fire. One of the two.

God bless~

Lane Tech - 2012 - 2013

Iowa City High - 2013 - 2016

University of Northern Iowa - 2016 - 2017

Emporia State 2018 - 2021

Berkeley Prep - 2021 -

-----

2022 Update

TLDR:

-email chain -

BerkeleyPrepDocs@gmail.com

natodocs@googlegroups.com

-Recently retired k-leaning flex debater/resident performative stunt queen for Berkeley Prep Debate

-would much rather judge a really good policy v policy round than a poorly executed k round - BUT - would ultimately prefer to judge a k v k round where both sides have competing and creative strategies that they are both a) deeply invested in and b) have interesting interpretations of. Those are the rounds I always had the most fun in, but to be clear, I have also realized over the years that a policy v policy round has the potential for just as much, if not more and have no problem judging these debates.

-the team executing whatever argument they are most comfortable with at the highest level they can, will always in my eyes have an easier time getting my ballot/receiving higher speaks which means that the the speeches I want to see are those that you are enthused about giving and ultimately, I want you to be excited to be able to do whatever it is that you are best at.

-went for everything from big stick warming affs to f*** debate performance 1AC's, to Black/Native Studies like Warren, Wilderson, Moten, King, Gumbs and Hartman to Queer theory like Butler, Edelman and Trans-Rage to High theory like Nietzsche, Baudy and OOO as well as Procedurals like T/FW/A- and I-Spec, Disads/Case turns like to deterrence, politics and SPARK and of course, multiple different flavors of counterplans. so regardless of what it is you go for I'm down - just don't take this as an excuse to not use judge instruction/concise explanations that makes sense - even if I was a Nietzsche one - trick in high school that doesn't mean I'm going to do the nihilism work for you. All this is to say is that whoever you may be, you should feel comfortable that I have in some way or another had a certain level of experience with your literature base.

Important Note:

Due to recent events its been suggested to me that I add a layer to my philosophy I wasn't sure was necessary, but in an effort to help protect future debaters/debate rounds, as well as myself/fellow judges, here is what I will say -

While I do empathize with the competitive nature of this activity, it should go without saying that if there is violence of any kind, whether that be intentional or not, my role as an educator in this community is to intervene if that situation deems my involvement to be necessary and I want to make it very clear that I have no qualms in doing so. Its important to recognize when we have to put the game aside and understand as a community that we have a responsibility to learn from situations like those and to be better as we move forward. SO just for the sake of clarity, I do not have a desire to stop rounds, in fact - quite the opposite. However, my role as a judge (one that I would hope others embody when judging my own students) is one that adjudicates the round in the most equitable means possible AS WELL AS one that ensures the safety of, to the best of my capacity, each debate round and all of its participants/observers.

Also - Sometimes, and not always, but in the same fashion as countless other judges, I can, at times, be a very reactive/nonverbal judge. Understanding that those kinds of things are a) an inevitable part of this activity b) not always caused by something you did and c) can be incredibly critical in your in round-decision making is crucial and is a fundamental skill that I believe to be vastly important in succeeding within this activity. HOWEVER, that means that whether or not you choose to modify what you are doing based off how I am reacting is, at the end of the day, your decision and your decision alone - recognizing when to do so/when not to is a core facet of competing.

Strike me if you don't like it.

specific feels about certain things:

- have aff specific link explanations regardless of offcase position - that doesnt mean that every card has to be specific to the aff but your explanation of the link should be as specific to the 1AC as you can make possible - extra speaker points to those who can successfully pull lines

- hot take: after all this time in online debate, I will in fact "verbally interject if unable to hear" regardless of whether you make that clear to me before you begin your speech - so as a personal preference don't feel obligated to say that anymore. Id rather you just give me an order and start after getting some signal (verbal or visual) that we're all ready. as an incentive to help try and stop this practice, expect a lil boost in points.

- that being said, "as specific to the 1AC" means you could have a really good link to aff's mechanism. or you could have a great state link. or a link to their impacts. etc. it doesnt matter to me what the link is as long as it is well developed and made specific to what the 1AC is. I dont want to hear the same generic state link as much as the next person but if you make it creative and you use the aff than I dont see a problem.

- affirmatives could be about the topic, or they could not be, its up to you as long as whatever you choose to do you can defend and explain. If you're not about the topic and its a framework debate, I need to know what your model of debate is or why you shouldnt need to defend one etc. if youre reading a performance aff, the performance is just as important if not more than the evidence you are reading - so dont forget to extend the performance throughout the debate and use it to answer the other teams arguments.

- whether its one off or 8 please be aware of the contradictions you will be making in the 1NC and be prepared to defend them or have some sort of plan if called out.

- on that note theory debates are fine and could be fun. im not that opposed to voting on theory arguments of all varieties as long as you spend a sufficient amount of time in the rebuttals to warrant me voting on them. most of the time thats a substantial amount if not the entirety of one or more of your rebuttals.

- perm debates are weird and i dont feel great voting for "do both" without at least an explanation of how that works. "you dont get a perm in method debates" feels wrong mostly because like these are all made up debate things anyways and permutations are good ways to test the competitiveness of ks/cps/cas. that being said, if you have a good justification for why the aff shouldnt get one and they do an insufficient job of answering it, i will obviously vote on "no perms in method debates"

- dropped arguments are probably true arguments, but there are always ways to recover, however, not every argument made in a debate is an actual argument and being able to identify what is and isn't will boost your speaker points

speaks:

how these are determined is inherently arbitrary across the board and let's not pretend I have some kind of rubric for you that perfectly outlines the difference between a 28.5 and a 28.6, or a 29.3 and a 29.4, or that my 29.3 will be the same as some other judges.

I do however think about speaks in terms of a competitive ladder, with sections that require certain innate skills which ended up being fairly consistent with other judges, if not slightly on the higher side of things. Hopefully, this section will more so help give you an idea of how you can improve your speeches for the next time you have me in the back.

-26s: these are few and far between, but if are to get one of these, we've probably already talked about what happened after the round. The key here is probably don't do whatever is that you did, and is most likely related to the stuff I talked about at the top.

-27s: If you're getting something in this range from me, it means you should be focusing on speaking drills (with an emphasis on clarity, and efficiency), as well as developing a deeper/fuller analysis of your arguments that picks apart the detailed warrants within the evidence you are reading.

-28s: Still need to be doing drills, but this time with more of an emphasis on affective delivery, finding a comfortable speed, and endurance. At this point, what I probably need to see more from you is effective decision making as well as judge instruction - in order to move into the 29 range, you should be writing my ballot for me with your final rebuttals in so far as using those speeches to narrow the debate down and effectively execute whatever route that may be by painting a picture of what has happened leading up to this moment

-29s: at this point, you're probably fairly clear and can effectively distinguish between pitches and tones as you go in order to emphasize relevant points. The only drills you should be doing here should be concerned with efficiency and breathing control, and if you are in the low 29's this is most likely a clarity issue and you should probably slow down a bit in order to avoid stumbling and bump your speaks up to high 29's. Higher 29's are most likely those who are making the correct decisions at most if not all stages of the debate, and successfully execute the final speeches in ways that prioritize judge instruction, and clearly lay the ballot out for me throughout the speech.

-30s: I actually don't have a problem giving these out, because I think my bar for a "perfect" speech can be subjective in so far as 30's for me can definitely make mistakes, but in the end you had a spectacular debate where you gave it everything you could and then some. I try not to give these out often though because of the risk it could possibly mess with your seeding/breaking, so if you do get one of these, thanks - I had a wonderful experience judging you.

-0.0 - 0.9 - this section is similar for every category in that it is dependent on things like argument extension and packaging, handling flows/the line by line, cross ex, link debating, etc. however, a team that is in the 29 range will have a higher bar to meet for those sort of minutia parts of your speech than those in the 28 or 27. That's because as you improve in delivery you should also be improving in execution, which means that in my eyes, a debater who may be in the 27 range the first time I see them, but is now speaking in the 28 range will have a higher bar than they did before in order to get into the high 28s.

sophiewilczynski at gmail dot com for email chains & specific questions.

I debated for UT austin from 2014-17 & have remained tangentially affiliated with the program since. my degree is in rhetoric, and as a debater I read a lot of big structural critiques and weird impact turns.

***

tldr: I have been doing this for a while. I don't really care what you say as long as you engage it well. do what you do best, make meaningful distinctions, & don't be rude while you're at it!

clarity matters, esp in the age of virtual debate. as long as I can understand what you are saying I shouldn’t have trouble getting it down - that being said, debaters have an unfortunate tendency to overestimate their own clarity, so just something to keep in mind. slowing down on procedurals, cp/alt texts, & author names is very much appreciated.

topicality - fun if you're willing to do the work to develop them properly. I think evidence comparison is a super under-utilized resource in T debates, and a lot of good teams lose to crappy interps for this reason. as with anything else, you need to establish & justify the evaluatory framework by which you would like me to assess your impacts. have a debate, don't just blast through ur blocks

disads/CPs - fine & cool. i find that huge generic gnw/extinction scenarios often don't hold up to the scrutiny and rigor of more isolated regional scenarios. will vote on terminal defense if I have a good reason to do so. pics are usually good

K debates - make a decision about the level at which your impacts operate and stick to it. and talk about the aff. this applies to both sides. the neg should be critiquing the affirmative, not merely identifying a structure and breaking down the implications without thorough contextualization. the mechanics of the alternative & the context in which it operates have to be clearly articulated and comparatively contextualized to the mechanics of 1AC solvency. i think a lot of murky & convoluted perm debates could be avoided with greater consideration for this - impact heuristics matter a lot when establishing competition (or levels of competition). likewise, blasting through thousands of variants of "perm do x" with no warrants or comparative explanation does not mean you have made a permutation. will vote on links as case turns, but will be unhappy about it if it's done lazily.

framework - i think it's good when the aff engages the resolution, but i don't have any particularly strong feelings about how that should happen

theory - if you must

misc

case matters, use it effectively rather than reading your blocks in response to nothing

i find myself judging a lot of clash debates, which is usually cool

prep ends when doc is saved

be nice & have fun