UPDATE 10/14/22

TL:DR

I have not updated by paradigm in well over a decade but much of what I wrote then continues to be true. I've been coaching/judging various styles and forms of debate for over 12 years. I am most comfortable judging debates in Policy, Lincoln-Douglass, and Public Forum. I flow and listen to all arguments, so please debate in whichever way you are most comfortable and I will attempt to evaluate it to the best of my ability. That being said, if you have a position that is complicated or difficult to follow, the onus is on the debaters to ensure that their arguments are well explained. I will not vote on arguments that I do not understand or are blatantly offensive/discriminatory. Otherwise, try  to have fun!

My email for chains is: carlito2692@gmail.com

Old Paradigm:

I competed in LD at University High School in Newark New Jersey, I was nationally competitive for three years.. I also compete in policy debate for Rutgers University.

Presumption: I typically presume neg unless the affirmative advances arguments for why presumption should flow aff (i.e the negative team introduces a counterplan/kritik alt/etc.

Speed: I don't generally have an issue with speed, however I do have a problem with monotone speed, unclear speed. I will yell clear if I can't understand you, but it will only be maybe once or twice, if you don't become clear by then, my ability to properly evaluate the arguments may possibly become impaired. Also, your speaks probably won't be awesome if I have to keep yelling clear.

-I would like you to significantly slow down when reading tags/card names so I can have a properly structured flow, but while reading the card you are welcome to go at top CLEAR speed(a few caveats to be explained later)

-When making analytical arguments, please be clear, because it's difficult for me to follow analytics when they are weirdly phrased and also being spread.

-I don't like speed for the sake of being fast, I prefer when speed is used as a catalyst for an awesome case or a multilayered rebuttal with really nuanced responses on case.

Evidence: Despite what happened in the round, I may call for the cites for cards read in round, I'll specify which specific cites I would like to see. I do this for two reasons: to ensure that there was no miscutting of evidence, and because I believe in disclosure and am from the school of thought that everybody in the round should have access to all evidence read in the round. I don't appreciate a denial to share citations, if citations are not readily available, I may choose to disregard all evidence with missing citations(especially evidence which was contested in the debate).

Cross Examination: I don't know how much I can stress it...CROSS EX IS BINDING! I don't care if you present arguments for why it shouldn't be binding or why lying in CX is ok, or any arguments with the implication which allows dishonesty in CX, there is NO theory to be ran to change my mind. Nevertheless, I don't flow CX, so its up to the debaters to refresh my memory of any inconsistencies between speeches and CX answers. On the other hand, CX can be the BEST or the WORST part of a debate, depending on how it plays out. A funny yet not disrespectful CX will score big when I'm deciding on how to assign speaks, while a rude and boring CX will negatively influence how I assign speaks. Clarification questions during prep is fine, but I'm not cool with trying to tear down an argument during prep, if it was that important, it should have been in the formal CX, rather than during prep. Don't be afraid to refuse to answer a non-clarification question during your opponents prep time.

Critical/Weird Arguments: I love well explained critical positions. With the caveat that these critical arguments are logically explained and aren't insanely convoluted. I have no issue voting for the argument. But if I can't understand it, I won't vote on it. Also, I am a fan of interesting debate, so if you have a neat performance to run in front of me, I would love to hear it!

Theory: I don't presume to competing interpretations or reasonability. The justification for either one needs to be made in round. I don't like greedy theory debates, which means that I generally view theory as a reason to reject the argument rather than the debater. YES, this means you must provide reasons in or after the implications section of your shell, for why this specific violation is a reason for me to use my ballot against the other debater. I'm not persuaded by generic 12 point blocks for why fairness isn't a voter, I prefer nuanced argumentation for why fairness may not be a voter. RVIs have to be justified but I'm willing to vote on them if the situation presents itself, but its up to you to prove why you defensively beating theory is enough for me to vote for you.

Prestandard: I don't like having preconceived beliefs before judging a round, but this is just one of those things that I need to reinforce. I WILL NOT vote on multiple apriori blips, and winning a single apriori is an uphill battle, a serious commitment to advocacy is necessary(you devote a serious amount of time to the apriori position.)

Speaks: I average about a 27, I doubt I'll go lower than 25(unless you do something which merits lower than a 25) because I personally know how disappointing the 4-2/5-2 screw can be, nevertheless I am more than willing to go up or down, depending on the performance in that particular round. The reason I average around a 27 is not because I generally don't give nice speaks, its because the majority of tournaments, I'll judge only a few rounds that deserve more than a 28. It's not difficult at all to get good speaks from me. I reserve 30's for debaters who successfully execute the following: speak really well, good word economy, good coverage/time allocation, takes risks when it comes to strategy, weighs really well, provides AWESOME evidence comparison, and adapts well to the things happening in the round. I really enjoy seeing new strategies, or risky strategies, I.E. I am a fan of the straight refutation 1N, attempting something risky like this and pulling it off, gives you a higher chance of getting a 30. Another way to get high speaks is to be a smart debater as well as funny without being mean or making any kind of jokes at the expense of your opponent(this will lose you speaks)

Delivery: I need evidence comparison! It makes me really happy when debaters do great evidence comparison. Also, I would appreciate for you to give status updates as the rebuttals progress, as well as giving me implications for each extension. When extending arguments which rely on cards, in order for it to be a fully structured extension it must contain: The claim/tag of the card, author/card name, warrant from the card, and the implications of that extension (what does it do for you in the round).

Miscellaneous: You are more than welcome to sit or stand, I don't mind people reading from laptops or being paperless as long as it doesn't delay the round. Also, I don't care if you are formally dressed, jeans and a tshirt will get you the same speaks that a shirt and a tie will. :) I also believe its impossible for me to divorce my judging from my beliefs, but I'll do my best to attempt to fairly adjudicate the debate.

P.S. I don't like performative contradictions...(just felt like I should throw that out there)

My pronouns are he/him.

Saint Louis UDL policy debater in high school (2015-2018). Former president of NPDA parli debate at Tulane (graduating Dec '21). I began judging LD and PF in 2018. I now work full time as a housing specialist for a Permanent Supportive Housing program.

Email chain: liv.berry014@gmail.com (also email me here if you have any questions or accessibility needs)

If you feel unsafe at any point in a round or during a tournament, let me know (either in person or via email) and I will do everything I can to get you out of the situation and get the issue handled w tab/equity office/tournament directors etc. Your safety comes first, always

I clap at the end of rounds

Please put cards in docs instead of the body of the email. I don't care if it's just one card - I want a doc.

Spring 2023 Update:

- I no longer think it is particularly useful to list all of my thoughts and preferences on specific arguments and debate styles in my paradigm. It shouldn't matter to you or affect the way you choose to debate. You should debate in a way that feels fun, educational, and authentic to you. I will judge the debate in front of me.

- I am not as involved in debate as I once was. Judging is now a special treat that requires taking off work. This could be good for you or it could be bad for you. Either way, it means I'm genuinely thrilled to be here.

- Be mindful when it comes to speed and jargon. I don't know the all the acronyms or buzzwords and I don't know community consensus or trends when it comes to things like counterplans or topicality.

Some general thoughts:

- TLDR: Read what you like and have fun with it! Whether you're reading a rage aff without a plan text or nine off in the 1NC, if you're into it, I'm into it.

- The best part of debate is the people. Be kind.

- I see my role as a judge as an educator first and foremost

- The best way to win my ballot is to filter arguments through impact framing. Why is your model/disadvantage/advocacy/etc more important? What does it mean to mitigate/solve these impacts in the context of the debate? Why is the ballot important or not important?

- Every speech is a performance. How you choose to perform is up to you, but be prepared to defend every aspect of your performance, including your advocacy, evidence, arguments, positions, and representations

- Tell me why stuff matters! Tell me what I should care about and why!

- If you are a jerk to novices or inexperienced debaters, I will tank your speaks. This is an educational activity. Don't be a jerk

LD SPECIFIC:

- I don't know what "tricks" or "spikes" are. I judged a round that I'm told had both of these things, and it made me cry (and I sat). Beyond that, I've judged lots of traditional, kritikal, and plan rounds and feel comfortable there.

GOOD LUCK, HAVE FUN, LEARN THINGS

Email: shannon.castelo@gmail.com

I am a high school debate coach with a personal background primarily in a speech where I competed in oratory and other traditional speech categories (i.e. extemp, impromptu) I have been coaching debate almost exclusively over the past seven years with my greatest success with LD debaters but I do love PF debate.

Priorities for all types of debate

1. Delivery matters, clarity, and signposting are appreciated (I will judge spreading but will not flow what I can't understand, I will "clear" twice then stop flowing). If you are going fast- be prepared to share your speech doc.
2. I will vote by looking at both flow first then considering technical skills and delivery. I do not typically offer low-point wins but have done so. Road maps are preferred
3. Direct and fast question and answer in the crossfire. Be nice!!!
4. I am a tech judge who loves trad debate at reasonable speed. I will certainly discount ridiculous, unwarranted arguments in the round and really do hate a slippery slope but do not totally discount a sound link chain that gets me to extinction-level impacts. The flow means a lot to me. I am watching cross closely but of course, will not flow the cross or vote off of cross. It only matters if it is mentioned in the next speech.
5. Impacts must be clear as in tell me literally "The impact is.." and I want to see voters in the final speech
6. I want to see clean and ethical sourcing and card cutting. Make sure you are not misconstruing evidence in any way. I am known to call for cards before I vote so be prepared to provide an evidence doc if requested.
7. Clash- I expect clear CLASH. LISTEN to the arguments and attack them directly. INTERACT WITH THE CASE. Don't rely on just cherrypicking block cards. Debate is about truth finding. LISTEN and analyze. If you are not responding, you are not winning the round.
8. Specifically for PF- if you use policy jargon or tactics that is hard to sell to me. I just believe it is all toxifying the PF debate space. If you think you can improve the debate space then tell me how and why that should be the prior question in the round. If the logic is clear and delivered well I will consider it of course.
9. Specifically for LD- Value FW is essential. I look for the connection of each contention level arg back to value. VC is optional for me but I want to see a value argument. I always weigh FW in LD! Give me those philosphical explanations- WHY should I value life? WHY should I value security? Who says so! Show me that you have done the HW
10. I am a sucker for great rhetorical STYLE. Make me laugh or smile in the round to up those speaker points.
11. For Policy- Anything goes, have a blast. I am down for anything. Just keep it respectful, clear, and logical.
12. As I grow as a coach and judge I have grown to respect cases that demonstrate creative, out-of-the-box argumentation. I am bored by stock cases and arguments that are overused and underdeveloped.
13. Disclosure Theory in round- I personally think disclosing helps grow education and makes for interesting debates but I don't want to hear disclosure theory as your argument for why you win. Work with what is presented. I don't think I have ever given a win to somebody running disclosure as a voter but I guess it could happen.
14. Use evidence challenges CAREFULLY and SPARINGLY- at the end of the day, it is usually a waste of time for us all. The judges are savvy enough to know when we are hearing evidence that sounds sketchy. If you don't buy evidence you can ask for cards but let's not do this repeatedly throughout the round. It breaks up the flow of the debate and becomes more frustrating than anything else. Don't hang your win on calling out one bad card but definitely call out untruths if you hear them and can prove them.
15. Decision disclosure- I will disclose if allowed by the tournament.

Side notes: I believe, ultimately that debate is as much about listening as it is about talking. I respect debaters who show respect to their opponents and who really process the opposing arguments in order to address them. I don't like an ugly or "arrogant" debate that resorts to ad hominem attacks, sarcasm, or denigrates the opponent. Be kind, be authentic, have fun, and let's debate! :)

P.S.S. for any of my former debaters who read this: I think you are all incredible humans. I was a speech coach who got drawn into debate coaching and it has created the greatest moments of my teaching career. I will remember you always. I have learned as much from you than I have taught any of you. Thanks for making me a better teacher and person. To Dylan, Kayleigh, "DaniEllie", Hannah, Maddy--- thanks for being my day ones. I am here for you always.

Email Chain: ac5180@columbia.edu

Hi, I'm Annie! I'm a second year out of debate but still occasionally judge for Columbia. I'm majoring in financial economics with a secondary in computer science.

Since I'm not up to date with circuit norms, please slow down and explain topic-specific jargon. I'm a little hard of hearing lately, so I'll call "loud/slow/clear" as necessary without penalizing speaks. However, please note that I'll only evaluate arguments that are a] properly warranted b] I have flowed.

I debated for Harrison high school across three years (2019-22), qualifying to the TOC with four career bids and championing a couple finals bid tournaments. I also taught sessions @ VBI UCLA with Nick Smith and Marshall Thompson. I love reading idpol Ks, including literature on Asian-American, Black feminist, and Indigenous scholarship. Please substantiate your theory of power and explain your literature clearly-- I will not fill in knowledge gaps. I want you to be genuine with what you are reading!

I also genuinely enjoy mentoring and giving back to younger students involved in high school debate or research, so please feel free to reach out. Try your best to have fun! Good luck (:

David Coates

Chicago '05; Minnesota Law '14

For e-mail chains (which you should always use to accelerate evidence sharing): coat0018@umn.edu

2023-24 rounds (as of 4/13): 89

Aff winning percentage: .551

("David" or "Mr. Coates" to you. I'll know you haven't bothered to read my paradigm if you call me "judge," which isn't my name).

I will not vote on disclosure theory. I will consider RVIs on disclosure theory based solely on the fact that you introduced it in the first place.

I will not vote on claims predicated on your opponents' rate of delivery and will probably nuke your speaker points if all you can come up with is "fast debate is bad" in response to faster opponents. Explain why their arguments are wrong, but don't waste my time complaining about how you didn't have enough time to answer bad arguments because...oh, wait, you wasted two minutes of a constructive griping about how you didn't like your opponents' speed.

I will not vote on frivolous "arguments" criticizing your opponent's sartorial choices (think "shoe theory" or "formal clothes theory" or "skirt length," which still comes up sometimes), and I will likely catapult your points into the sun for wasting my time and insulting your opponents with such nonsense.

You will probably receive a lecture if you highlight down your evidence to such an extent that it no longer contains grammatical sentences.

Allegations of ethical violations I determine not to have been proven beyond a reasonable doubt will result in an automatic loss with the minimum allowable speaker points for the team introducing them.

Allegations of rule violations not supported by the plain text of a rule will make me seriously consider awarding you a loss with no speaker points.

I will actively intervene against new arguments in the last speech of the round, no matter what the debate format. New arguments in the 2AR are the work of the devil and I will not reward you for saving your best arguments for a speech after which they can't be answered. I will entertain claims that new arguments in the 2AR are automatic voting issues for the negative or that they justify a verbal 3NR. Turnabout is fair play.

I will not entertain claims that your opponents should not be allowed to answer your arguments because of personal circumstances beyond their control. Personally abusive language about, or directed at, your opponents will have me looking for reasons to vote against you.

Someone I know has reminded me of this: I will not evaluate any argument suggesting that I must "evaluate the debate after X speech" unless "X speech" is the 2AR. Where do you get off thinking that you can deprive your opponent of speaking time?

I'm okay with slow-walking you through how my decision process works or how I think you can improve your strategic decision making or get better speaker points, but I've no interest, at this point in my career, in relitigating a round I've already decided you've lost. "What would be a better way to make this argument?" will get me actively trying to help you. "Why didn't you vote on this (vague claim)?" will just make me annoyed.

OVERVIEW

I have been an active coach, primarily of policy debate (though I'm now doing active work only on the LD side), since the 2000-01 season (the year of the privacy topic). Across divisions and events, I generally judge between 100 and 120 rounds a year.

My overall approach to debate is extremely substance dominant. I don't really care what substantive arguments you make as long as you clash with your opponents and fulfill your burdens vis-à-vis the resolution. I will not import my own understanding of argumentative substance to bail you out when you're confronting bad substance--if the content of your opponents' arguments is fundamentally false, they should be especially easy for you to answer without any help from me. (Contrary to what some debaters have mistakenly believed in the past, this does not mean that I want to listen to you run wipeout or spark--I'd actually rather hear you throw down on inherency or defend "the value is justice and the criterion is justice"--but merely that I think that debaters who can't think their way through incredibly stupid arguments are ineffective advocates who don't deserve to win).

My general default (and the box I've consistently checked on paradigm forms) is that of a fairly conventional policymaker. Absent other guidance from the teams involved, I will weigh the substantive advantages and disadvantages of a topical plan against those of the status quo or a competitive counterplan. I'm amenable to alternative evaluative frameworks but generally require these to be developed with more depth and clarity than most telegraphic "role of the ballot" claims usually provide.

THOUGHTS APPLICABLE TO ALL DEBATE FORMATS

That said, I do have certain predispositions and opinions about debate practice that may affect how you choose to execute your preferred strategy:

1. I am skeptical to the point of fairly overt hostility toward most non-resolutional theory claims emanating from either side. Aff-initiated debates about counterplan and kritik theory are usually vague, devoid of clash, and nearly impossible to flow. Neg-initiated "framework" "arguments" usually rest on claims that are either unwarranted or totally implicit. I understand that the affirmative should defend a topical plan, but what I don't understand after "A. Our interpretation is that the aff must run a topical plan; B. Standards" is why the aff's plan isn't topical. My voting on either sort of "argument" has historically been quite rare. It's always better for the neg to run T than "framework," and it's usually better for the aff to use theory claims to justify their own creatively abusive practices ("conditional negative fiat justifies intrinsicness permutations, so here are ten intrinsicness permutations") than to "argue" that they're independent voting issues.

1a. That said, I can be merciless toward negatives who choose to advance contradictory conditional "advocacies" in the 1NC should the affirmative choose to call them out. The modern-day tendency to advance a kritik with a categorical link claim together with one or more counterplans which link to the kritik is not one which meets with my approval. There was a time when deliberately double-turning yourself in the 1NC amounted to an automatic loss, but the re-advent of what my late friend Ross Smith would have characterized as "unlimited, illogical conditionality" has unfortunately put an end to this and caused negative win percentages to swell--not because negatives are doing anything intelligent, but because affirmatives aren't calling them out on it. I'll put it this way--I have awarded someone a 30 for going for "contradictory conditional 'advocacies' are illegitimate" in the 2AR.

2. Offensive arguments should have offensive links and impacts. "The 1AC didn't talk about something we think is important, therefore it doesn't solve the root cause of every problem in the world" wouldn't be considered a reason to vote negative if it were presented on the solvency flow, where it belongs, and I fail to understand why you should get extra credit for wasting time developing your partial case defense with less clarity and specificity than an arch-traditional stock issue debater would have. Generic "state bad" links on a negative state action topic are just as bad as straightforward "links" of omission in this respect.

3. Kritik arguments should NOT depend on my importing special understandings of common terms from your authors, with whose viewpoints I am invariably unfamiliar or in disagreement. For example, the OED defines "problematic" as "presenting a problem or difficulty," so while you may think you're presenting round-winning impact analysis when you say "the affirmative is problematic," all I hear is a non-unique observation about how the aff, like everything else in life, involves difficulties of some kind. I am not hostile to critical debates--some of the best debates I've heard involved K on K violence, as it were--but I don't think it's my job to backfill terms of art for you, and I don't think it's fair to your opponents for me to base my decision in these rounds on my understanding of arguments which have been inadequately explained.

3a. I guess we're doing this now...most of the critical literature with which I'm most familiar involves pretty radical anti-statism. You might start by reading "No Treason" and then proceeding to authors like Hayek, Hazlitt, Mises, and Rothbard. I know these are arguments a lot of my colleagues really don't like, but they're internally consistent, so they have that advantage.

3a(1). Section six of "No Treason," the one with which you should really start, is available at the following link: https://oll-resources.s3.us-east-2.amazonaws.com/oll3/store/titles/2194/Spooner_1485_Bk.pdf so get off your cans and read it already. It will greatly help you answer arguments based on, inter alia, "the social contract."

3a(2). If you genuinely think that something at the tournament is making you unsafe, you may talk to me about it and I will see if there is a solution. Far be it from me to try to make you unable to compete.

4. The following solely self-referential "defenses" of your deliberate choice to run an aggressively non-topical affirmative are singularly unpersuasive:

a. "Topicality excludes our aff and that's bad because it excludes our aff." This is not an argument. This is just a definition of "topicality." I won't cross-apply your case and then fill in argumentative gaps for you.

b. "There is no topical version of our aff." This is not an answer. This is a performative concession of the violation.

c. "The topic forces us to defend the state and the state is racist/sexist/imperialist/settler colonial/oppressive toward 'bodies in the debate space.'" I'm quite sure that most of your authors would advocate, at least in the interim, reducing fossil fuel consumption, and debates about how that might occur are really interesting to all of us, or at least to me. (You might take a look at this intriguing article about a moratorium on extraction on federal lands: https://www.americanprogress.org/article/the-oil-industrys-grip-on-public-lands-and-waters-may-be-slowing-progress-toward-energy-independence/

d. "Killing debate is good." Leaving aside the incredible "intellectual" arrogance of this statement, what are you doing here if you believe this to be true? You could overtly "kill debate" more effectively were you to withhold your "contributions" and depress participation numbers, which would have the added benefit of sparing us from having to listen to you.

e. "This is just a wrong forum argument." And? There is, in fact, a FORUM expressly designed to allow you to subject your audience to one-sided speeches about any topic under the sun you "feel" important without having to worry about either making an argument or engaging with an opponent. Last I checked, that FORUM was called "oratory." Try it next time.

f. "The topic selection process is unfair/disenfranchises 'bodies in the debate space.'" In what universe is it more fair for you to get to impose a debate topic on your opponents without consulting them in advance than for you to abide by the results of a topic selection process to which all students were invited to contribute and in which all students were invited to vote?

g. "Fairness is bad." Don't tempt me to vote against you for no reason to show you why fairness is, in fact, good.

5. Many of you are genuinely bad at organizing your speeches. Fix that problem by keeping the following in mind:

a. Off-case flows should be clearly labeled the first time they're introduced. It's needlessly difficult to keep track of what you're trying to do when you expect me to invent names for your arguments for you. I know that some hipster kid "at" some "online debate institute" taught you that it was "cool" to introduce arguments in the 1N with nothing more than "next off" to confuse your opponents, but remember that you're also confusing your audience when you do that, and I, unlike your opponents, have the power to deduct speaker points for poor organization if "next off--Biden disadvantage" is too hard for you to spit out. I'm serious about this.

b. Transitions between individual arguments should be audible. It's not that difficult to throw a "next" in there and it keeps you from sounding like this: "...wreck their economies and set the stage for an era of international confrontation that would make the Cold War look like Woodstock extinction Mead 92 what if the global economy stagnates...." The latter, because it fails to distinguish between the preceding card and subsequent tag, is impossible to flow, and it's not my job to look at your speech document to impose organization with which you couldn't be bothered.

c. Your arguments should line up with those of your opponents. "Embedded clash" flows extremely poorly for me. I will not automatically pluck warrants out of your four-minute-long scripted kritik overview and then apply them for you, nor will I try to figure out what, exactly, a fragment like "yes, link" followed by a minute of unintelligible, undifferentiated boilerplate is supposed to answer.

6. I don't mind speed as long as it's clear and purposeful:

a. Many of you don't project your voices enough to compensate for the poor acoustics of the rooms where debates often take place. I'll help you out by yelling "clearer" or "louder" at you no more than twice if I can't make out what you're saying, but after that you're on your own.

b. There are only two legitimate reasons for speed: Presenting more arguments and presenting more argumentative development. Fast delivery should not be used as a crutch for inefficiency. If you're using speed merely to "signpost" by repeating vast swaths of your opponents' speeches or to read repetitive cards tagged "more evidence," I reserve the right to consider persuasive delivery in how I assign points, meaning that you will suffer deductions you otherwise would not have had you merely trimmed the fat and maintained your maximum sustainable rate.

7: I have a notoriously low tolerance for profanity and will not hesitate to severely dock your points for language I couldn't justify to the host school's teachers, parents, or administrators, any of whom might actually overhear you. When in doubt, keep it clean. Don't jeopardize the activity's image any further by failing to control your language when you have ample alternative fora for profane forms of self-expression.

8: For crying out loud, it is not too hard to respect your opponents' preferred pronouns (and "they" is always okay in policy debate because it's presumed that your opponents agree about their arguments), but I will start vocally correcting you if you start engaging in behavior I've determined is meant to be offensive in this context. You don't have to do that to gain some sort of perceived competitive advantage and being that intentionally alienating doesn't gain you any friends.

9. I guess that younger judges engage in more paradigmatic speaker point disclosure than I have in the past, so here are my thoughts: Historically, the arithmetic mean of my speaker points any given season has averaged out to about 27.9. I think that you merit a 27 if you've successfully used all of your speech time without committing round-losing tactical errors, and your points can move up from there by making gutsy strategic decisions, reading creative arguments, and using your best public speaking skills. Of course, your points can decline for, inter alia, wasting time, insulting your opponents, or using offensive language. I've "awarded" a loss-15 for a false allegation of an ethics violation and a loss-18 for a constructive full of seriously inappropriate invective. Don't make me go there...tackle the arguments in front of you head-on and without fear or favor and I can at least guarantee you that I'll evaluate the content you've presented fairly.

NOTES FOR LINCOLN-DOUGLAS!

PREF SHORTCUT: stock ≈ policy > K > framework > Tricks > Theory

I have historically spent much more time judging policy than LD and my specific topic knowledge is generally restricted to arguments I've helped my LD debaters prepare. In the context of most contemporary LD topics, which mostly encourage recycling arguments which have been floating around in policy debate for decades, this shouldn't affect you very much. With more traditionally phrased LD resolutions ("A just society ought to value X over Y"), this might direct your strategy more toward straight impact comparison than traditional V/C debating.

Also, my specific preferences about how _substantive_ argumentation should be conducted are far less set in stone than they would be in a policy debate. I've voted for everything from traditional value/criterion ACs to policy-style ACs with plan texts to fairly outright critical approaches...and, ab initio, I'm fine with more or less any substantive attempt by the negative to engage whatever form the AC takes, subject to the warnings about what constitutes a link outlined above. (Not talking about something is not a link). Engage your opponent's advocacy and engage the topic and you should be okay.

N.B.: All of the above comments apply only to _substantive_ argumentation. See the section on "theory" in in the overview above if you want to understand what I think about those "arguments," and square it. If winning that something your opponent said is "abusive" is a major part of your strategy, you're going to have to make some adjustments if you want to win in front of me. I can't guarantee that I'll fully understand the basis for your theory claims, and I tend to find theory responses with any degree of articulation more persuasive than the claim that your opponent should lose because of some arguably questionable practice, especially if whatever your opponent said was otherwise substantively responsive. I also tend to find "self-help checks abuse" responses issue-dispositive more often than not. That is to say, if there is something you could have done to prevent the impact to the alleged "abuse," and you failed to do it, any resulting "time skew," "strat skew," or adverse impact on your education is your own fault, and I don't think you should be rewarded with a ballot for helping to create the very condition you're complaining about.

I have voted on theory "arguments" unrelated to topicality in Lincoln-Douglas debates precisely zero times. Do you really think you're going to be the first to persuade me to pull the trigger?

Addendum: To quote my colleague Anthony Berryhill, with whom I paneled the final round of the Isidore Newman Round Robin: " "Tricks debate" isn't debate. Deliberate attempts to hide arguments, mislead your opponent, be unethical, lie...etc. to screw your opponent will be received very poorly. If you need tricks and lying to win, either "git' good" (as the gamers say) or prefer a different judge." I say: I would rather hear you go all-in on spark or counterintuitive internal link turns than be subjected to grandstanding about how your opponent "dropped" some "tricky" half-sentence theory or burden spike. If you think top-loading these sorts of "tricks" in lieu of properly developing substance in the first constructive is a good idea, you will be sorely disappointed with your speaker points and you will probably receive a helpful refresher on how I absolutely will not tolerate aggressive post-rounding. Everyone's value to life increases when you fill the room with your intelligence instead of filling it with your trickery.

AND SPECIFIC NOTES FOR PUBLIC FORUM

NB: After the latest timing disaster, in which a public forum round which was supposed to take 40 minutes took over two hours and wasted the valuable time of the panel, I am seriously considering imposing penalties on teams who make "off-time" requests for evidence or needless requests for original articles or who can't locate a piece of evidence requested by their opponents during crossfire. This type of behavior--which completely disregards the timing norms found in every other debate format--is going to kill this activity because no member of the "public" who has other places to be is interested in judging an event where this type of temporal elongation of rounds takes place.

NB: I actually don't know what "we outweigh on scope" is supposed to mean. I've had drilled into my head that there are four elements to impact calculus: timeframe, probability, magnitude, and hierarchy of values. I'd rather hear developed magnitude comparison (is it worse to cause a lot of damage to very few people or very little damage to a lot of people? This comes up most often in debates about agricultural subsidies of all things) than to hear offsetting, poorly warranted claims about "scope."

NB: In addition to my reflections about improper citation practices infra, I think that evidence should have proper tags. It's really difficult to flow you, or even to follow the travel of your constructive, when you have a bunch of two-sentence cards bleeding into each other without any transitions other than "Larry '21," "Jones '21," and "Anderson '21." I really would rather hear tag-cite-text than whatever you're doing. Thus: "Further, economic decline causes nuclear war. Mead '92" rather than "Mead '92 furthers...".

That said:

1. You should remember that, notwithstanding its pretensions to being for the "public," this is a debate event. Allowing it to degenerate into talking past each other with dueling oratories past the first pro and first con makes it more like a speech event than I would like, and practically forces me to inject my own thoughts on the merits of substantive arguments into my evaluative process. I can't guarantee that you'll like the results of that, so:

2. Ideally, the second pro/second con/summary stage of the debate will be devoted to engaging in substantive clash (per the activity guidelines, whether on the line-by-line or through introduction of competing principles, which one can envision as being somewhat similar to value clash in a traditional LD round if one wants an analogy) and the final foci will be devoted to resolving the substantive clash.

3. Please review the sections on "theory" in the policy and LD philosophies above. I'm not interested in listening to rule-lawyering about how fast your opponents are/whether or not it's "fair"/whether or not it's "public" for them to phrase an argument a certain way. I'm doubly unenthused about listening to theory "debates" where the team advancing the theory claim doesn't understand the basis for it.* These "debates" are painful enough to listen to in policy and LD, but they're even worse to suffer through in PF because there's less speech time during which to resolve them. Unless there's a written rule prohibiting them (e.g., actually advocating specific plan/counterplan texts), I presume that all arguments are theoretically legitimate, and you will be fighting an uphill battle you won't like trying to persuade me otherwise. You're better off sticking to substance (or, better yet, using your opposition's supposedly dubious stance to justify meting out some "abuse" of your own) than getting into a theoretical "debate" you simply won't have enough time to win, especially given my strong presumption against this style of "argumentation."

*I've heard this misunderstanding multiple times from PF debaters who should have known better: "The resolution isn't justified because some policy in the status quo will solve the 'pro' harms" is not, in fact, a counterplan. It's an inherency argument. There is no rule saying the "con" can't redeploy policy stock issues in an appropriately "public" fashion and I know with absolute metaphysical certitude that many of the initial framers of the public forum rules are big fans of this general school of argumentation.

4. If it's in the final focus, it should have been in the summary. I will patrol the second focus for new arguments. If it's in the summary and you want me to consider it in my decision, you'd better mention it in the final focus. It is definitely not my job to draw lines back to arguments for you. Your defense on the case flow is not "sticky," as some of my PF colleagues put it, as far as I'm concerned.

5. While I pay attention to crossfire, I don't flow it. It's not intended to be a period for initiating arguments, so if you want me to consider something that happened in crossfire in my decision, you have to mention it in your side's first subsequent speech.

6. You should cite authors by name. "Princeton" as an institution, doesn't conduct studies of issues that aren't solely internal Princeton matters, so you sound awful when you attribute your study about Security Council reform to "Princeton." "According to Professor Kuziemko of Princeton" (yes, she's a professor at Princeton who wrote the definitive study of the political economy of Security Council veto power) doesn't take much longer to say than "according to Princeton," and has the considerable advantage of accuracy. Also, I have no idea why you restrict this type of "citation" to Ivy League scholars. I've never heard an "according to Fordham" citation from any of you even though Professor Dayal of Fordham is a recognized expert on this issue, suggesting that you're only doing research you can use to lend nonexistent institutional credibility to your cases. Seriously, start citing evidence properly.

7. You all need to improve your time management skills and stop proliferating dead time if you'd like rounds to end at a civilized hour.

a. The extent to which PF debaters talk over the buzzer is unfortunate. When the speech time stops, that means that you stop speaking. "Finishing [your] sentence" does not mean going 45 seconds over time, which happens a lot. I will not flow anything you say after my timer goes off.

b. You people really need to streamline your "off-time" evidence exchanges. These are getting ridiculous and seem mostly like excuses for stealing prep time. I recently had to sit through a pre-crossfire set of requests for evidence which lasted for seven minutes. This is simply unacceptable. If you have your laptops with you, why not borrow a round-acceleration tactic from your sister formats and e-mail your speech documents to one another? Even doing this immediately after a speech would be much more efficient than the awkward fumbling around in which you usually engage.

c. This means that you should card evidence properly and not force your opponents to dig around a 25-page document for the section you've just summarized during unnecessary dead time. Your sister debate formats have had the "directly quoting sources" thing nailed dead to rights for decades. Why can't you do the same? Minimally, you should be able to produce the sections of articles you're purporting to summarize immediately when asked.

d. You don't need to negotiate who gets to question first in crossfire. I shouldn't have to waste precious seconds listening to you ask your opponents' permission to ask a question. It's simple to understand that the first-speaking team should always ask, and the second-speaking team always answer, the first question...and after that, you may dialogue.

e. If you're going to insist on giving an "off-time road map," it should take you no more than five seconds and be repeated no more than zero times. This is PF...do you seriously believe we can't keep track of TWO flows?

Was sich überhaupt sagen lässt, lässt sich klar sagen; und wovon man nicht reden kann, darüber muss man schweigen.

Bennett Dombcik

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

My ballot will be determined by my flow. Technical concessions are taken as truth.

Some random things that may be helpful:

---you can insert re-highlightings, re-cuttings of things not present in the original card should be read.

---please locally record speeches/turn on your camera for online debates.

---line by line is helpful for the purposes of my flow but I will attempt to write down as much of your rant as possible.

---I am generally a fan of creative and interesting strategies.

---"I have a lower bar for a warrant than most. I am unlikely to reject an argument solely on the basis of ‘being a cheap shot’ or lacking ‘data.’ Unwarranted arguments are easily answered by new contextualization, cross applications, or equally unwarranted arguments. If your opponent’s argument is missing academic support or sufficient explanation, then you should say that. I’m strict about new arguments and will protect earlier speeches judiciously. However, you have to actually identify and flag a new argument. The only exception to this is the 2AR, since it is impossible for the neg to do so." - Rafael Pierry

Barkley Forum Update (not debate related): I'm a student at Emory right now (chemistry and premed). If you have any questions about Emory in general I'd be happy to answer them for you! Feel free to ask me stuff before or after the round (but please not during lmao).

Other Barkley Forum Update (this one's actually debate related):I haven't judged an LD round in almost a year now (I judged some policy over the summer) and I don't coach anyone so it's been a minute. Please slow down a little bit to probably 80% of your max speed instead of full circuit spreading because I don't want to miss anything y'all are saying. Also I am not as well versed in a lot of the acronyms anymore in circuit debate (particularly tricks) so please take the time to say the full names of things. I will still be able to evaluate the rounds properly just as well as I have been but my vocabulary isn't the same anymore so please explain all the terms you need to (you know what they are).

Here's my full paradigm so plz read

My email is cyprian.dumas@gmail.com. If you ask me for my email I'm gonna assume you didn't read my paradigm.

I did national circuit LD in high school and I primarily ran policy stuff, theory, t, and tricks (I'm prob best for judging these arguments). You can prob put me as a 1 for these on your pref sheets.

I'm down with judging phil and k debate too but I'm not familiar with a lot of the lit (especially pomo k's) so if you're running that please overexplain. You can prob put me as a 2 or 3 for these based on how confusing your lit is but you should probably put me as a 5 if you're running exclusively pomo.

This should go without saying but don't be offensive. You should also try to avoid being a jerk in general because this is supposed to be an enjoyable activity.

Tricks debate is cool but there's some things I'll interfere on there. First, you don't get to change speech times and I evaluate all five speeches. Don't bring in stuff from outside of the round (except disclosure stuff I guess but I'll get to that more in a second). That'll be met with an L and minimum speaks. Everything in this paragraph is non-negotiable.

I'll vote on disclosure theory but I really don't like it at all especially if it's run against someone with substantially less resources than the person running it. Don't expect your speaks to look good if you go for disclosure theory against a stock position.

A claim, warrant, and impact for EVERY argument you want me to evaluate at the end of the round each have to be extended in EVERY speech as well.

Debate should be a safe space for everyone involved. If you're reading something that could be potentially triggering or sensitive for someone please ask everyone involved in the round if they are ok with the material being read.

I'm not a fan of really long paradigms (this one's already pushing it) so I'm not gonna write out every single nitpicky thing for all your RVI warrants and framework weighing and all that other stuff. So PLEASE ask me for specifics in round. I'm looking forward to judging your debate. Good luck and have fun!

email: colter.heirigs@gmail.com

POLICY PARADIGM:

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

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

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

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

Important things to note:

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

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

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

-High-theory will be an uphill battle.

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

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

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

-Swearing is probably word inefficient

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

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

-I think debate is a competition.

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

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

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

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

-Consult CPs

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

-warrant and evidence comparison is made

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

-the aff advocates a topical plan

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

-the negative has a well-researched neg strategy

-I am not expected to sort through high-theory

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

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

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

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

-There is no 3NR

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

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

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

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

Unimportant things to note:

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

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

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

-I enjoy GOOD topicality debates

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

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

Specific Arguments

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

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

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

LD Paradigm

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

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

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

I come into the round presuming:

-the aff should be defending the resolution

-the aff is defending the entirety of the resolution

-my ballot answers the resolutional question

-debate is a game

These presumptions can likely be changed.

Stylistically agnostic, but probably not your best judge for:

-dense phil that you’re spreading through

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

-process CPs that result in the aff

-more than 2 condo

-friv theory - I ❤️ substance

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

-theory interps that require me to ignore other speeches

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

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

Public Forum Paradigm:

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

File Share > e-mail chain.

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

Tech judge. Run whatever you want - I will vote off of the flow. I have topic knowledge. Be clear. Weigh.

Be nice but assertive in cross - I don’t flow cross but concessions are binding.

EXTEND CASE in summary and final focus or I can't vote on it. If I can't vote on case I will find something random to vote on and chances are you won't like it. Also frontline case in 2nd rebuttal.

Most importantly, tell me WHY I am voting for you in this round. Tell me why cancelling student loans is good/bad, why this is true, why you are winning it, why it is important.

Good luck and have fun!

add me to the email chain: adamlevin71@gmail.com and caryjldebate@gmail.com

Email: ethan3768@gmail.com

Hey! I'm Ethan and I debated for West Broward in Florida for 4 years. I received 9 bids and broke at the TOC - won the Valley Mid America Cup, Harvard RR, Florida States, etc.

There are a couple of things that generally contextualize my views on debate and how you should probably debate in front of me.

I am Tech > Truth. Naturally, if your arguments are both technical and true, that makes you a better debater. I will not assume something is true though just because a "claim" is dropped. It actually needs to be an argument with justified implications that follow.

My threshold for what constitutes a warrant is fair, but high for LD's standards - you need to justify the assumptions that your arguments make. The standard for what is considered a "votable" argument in LD has become exceptionally low and you should keep that in mind when you debate in front of me. I see this issue most when people "justify" theory paradigm issues.

General:

I won't evaluate

1] new 2nr arguments and/or implications that directly are used to answer something in the 1ac. Weighing is fine but I will not evaluate arguments that answer something from the 1ac. That means no GSP or skep turns case in the 2nr unless it was in the 1nc. Only exception is if new offense was read in the 1ar.

2] non-sequitur arguments or arguments where conclusions don't necessarily follow from premises.

3] won't evaluate speeches early INSIDE of the speech the argument was read in. Yes eval after 2n in 1nc, No eval after 2n in 2n.

Theory: One of the things I feel most comfortable evaluating. Coming up with a smart combo shell or making cool strategic decisions are awesome and make judging a lot more fun. I'm perfectly fine with theory as a strategic tool so if this is what you like to do, I'm all for it. There's no such thing as frivolous theory.

Defaults - DTA, Reasonability, No RVIs. NSM vs IRA assumption depends on offense to the shell. These are paradigm issues, not voters. These are the defaults because this is what any paragraph argument on any flow would look like as long as an external impact (fairness, bindingness, scope, etc) is justified.

I don’t default voters (Fairness/Ed/Etc) - they’re impacts to arguments. I will assume there’s no impact to the standards if you don't read an external impact.

You NEED to justify drop the debater and fairness is a voter. I do not like having to hold the line on the impacts to the shell but it has become considerably common for debaters to assume warrants that aren't there. Please warrant your paradigm issues; yes, that means you need to explain why dtd "deters abuse". I think the warrant is best when it's comparative to dta because if the baseline for why dtd matters is it just "deters" abuse, that's a low bar for dta to meet.

Don't read new paradigm issues for a 1nc shell in the 2n, it's new.

T: I view it as an endorsement > punishment model. It's a methods debate so winning the shell is prob enough to independently justify voting on it. These are just defaults if no one reads paradigm issues though. Obviously, I'll evaluate the shell under whatever metric you justify.

Policy: I never debated this way but I'll evaluate these debates the way you tell me to. The jargon is not exactly vernacular to me so I'd probably err on the side of explaining the implication of something for like 2 seconds if you think I wouldn't get it. Underrated strategy though against phil debaters and I do like it.

Tricks: Sure. I like warrants though. I'm also tired of analytic dumps where arguments are all over the place.

K: Better off preffing someone else. I'm a sucker for extinction o/w and frankly true arguments that say 1nc evidence has no warrants. If you cut good evidence though, that's solid. Bar for explanation is high and I don't listen to arguments that demean another debater's identity. Theory of power needs to be clear and 2n explanation needs to be found in the 1nc.

Jenn (Jennifer) Miller-Melin, Jenn Miller, Jennifer Miller, Jennifer Melin, or some variation thereof. :)

Email for email chains:

melindocs@gmail.com

If you walk into a round and ask me some vague question like, "Do you have any paradigms?", I will be annoyed. If you have a question about something contained in this document that is unclear to you, please do not hesitate to ask that question.

-Formerly assistant coach for Lincoln-Douglas debate at Hockaday, Marcus, Colleyville, and Grapevine. Currently assisting at Grapevine High School and Colleyville Heritage High School.


I was a four year debater who split time between Grapevine and Colleyville Heritage High Schools. During my career, I was active on the national circuit and qualified for both TOC and NFL Nationals. Since graduating in 2004, I have taught at the Capitol Debate Institute, UNT Mean Green Debate Workshops, TDC, and the University of Texas Debate Institute, the National Symposium for Debate, and Victory Briefs Institute. I have served as Curriculum Director at both UTNIF and VBI.

In terms of debate, I need some sort standard to evaluate the round. I have no preference as to what kind of standard you use (traditional value/criterion, an independent standard, burdens, etc.). The most important thing is that your standard explains why it is the mechanism I use to decide if the resolution is true or false. As a side note on the traditional structure, I don't think that the value is of any great importance and will continue to think this unless you have some well warranted reason as to why I should be particularly concerned with it. My reason is that the value doesn't do the above stated, and thus, generally is of no aid to my decision making process.

That said, debates often happen on multiple levels. It is not uncommon for debaters to introduce a standard and a burden or set of burdens. This is fine with me as long as there is a decision calculus; by which I mean, you should tell me to resolve this issue first (maybe the burden) and that issue next (maybe the standard). Every level of analysis should include a reason as to why I look to it in the order that you ask me to and why this is or is not a sufficient place for me to sign my ballot. Be very specific. There is nothing about calling something a "burden" that suddenly makes it more important than the framework your opponent is proposing. This is especially true in rounds where it is never explained why this is the burden that the resolution or a certain case position prescribes.

Another issue relevant to the standard is the idea of theory and/or off-case/ "pre-standard" arguments. All of the above are fine but the same things still apply. Tell me why these arguments ought to come first in my decision calculus. The theory debate is a place where this is usually done very poorly. Things like "education" or "fairness" are standards and I expect debaters to spend effort developing the framework that transforms into such.

l try to listen to any argument, but making the space unsafe for other bodies is unacceptable. I reserve the right to dock speaks or, if the situation warrants it, refuse to vote on arguments that commit violence against other bodies in the space.

I hold all arguments to the same standard of development regardless of if they are "traditional" or "progressive". An argument has a structure (claim, warrant, and impact) and that should not be forgotten when debaterI ws choose to run something "critical". Warrants should always be well explained. Certain cards, especially philosophical cards, need a context or further information to make sense. You should be very specific in trying to facilitate my understanding. This is true for things you think I have read/should have read (ie. "traditional" LD philosophy like Locke, Nozick, and Rawls) as well as things that I may/may not have read (ie. things like Nietzsche, Foucault, and Zizek). A lot of the arguments that are currently en vogue use extremely specialized rhetoric. Debaters who run these authors should give context to the card which helps to explain what the rhetoric means.

One final note, I can flow speed and have absolutely no problem with it. You should do your best to slow down on author names and tags. Also, making a delineation between when a card is finished and your own analysis begins is appreciated. I will not yell "clear" so you should make sure you know how to speak clearly and quickly before attempting it in round.

I will always disclose unless instructed not to do so by a tournament official. I encourage debaters to ask questions about the round to further their understanding and education. I will not be happy if I feel the debater is being hostile towards me and any debater who does such should expect their speaker points to reflect their behavior.

I am a truth tester at heart but am very open to evaluating the resolution under a different paradigm if it is justified and well explained. That said, I do not understand the offense/defense paradigm and am increasingly annoyed with a standard of "net benefits", "consequentialism", etc. Did we take a step back about 20 years?!? These seem to beg the question of what a standard is supposed to do (clarify what counts as a benefit). About the only part of this paradigm that makes sense to me is weighing based on "risk of offense". It is true that arguments with some risk of offense ought to be preferred over arguments where there is no risk but, lets face it, this is about the worst type of weighing you could be doing. How is that compelling? "I might be winning something". This seems to only be useful in a round that is already giving everyone involved a headache. So, while the offense/defense has effectively opened us up to a different kind of weighing, it should be used with caution given its inherently defensive nature.

Theory seems to be here to stay. I seem to have a reputation as not liking theory, but that is really the sound bite version of my view. I think that theory has a place in debate when it is used to combat abuse. I am annoyed when theory is used as a tactic because a debater feels she is better at theory than her opponent. I really like to talk about the topic more than I like to wax ecstatic about what debate would look like in the world of flowers, rainbows, and neat flows. That said, I will vote on theory even when I am annoyed by it. I tend to look at theory more as an issue of reasonabilty than competing interpretations. As with the paradigm discussion above, I am willing to listen to and adjust my view in round if competing interpretations is justified as how I should look at theory. Over the last few years I have become a lot more willing to pull the trigger on theory than I used to be. That said, with the emergence of theory as a tactic utilized almost every round I have also become more sympathetic to the RVI (especially on the aff). I think the Aff is unlikely to be able to beat back a theory violation, a disad, and a CP and then extend from the AC in 4 minutes. This seems to be even more true in a world where the aff must read a counter-interp and debate on the original interp. All of this makes me MUCH more likely to buy an RVI than I used to be. Also, I will vote on theory violations that justify practices that I generally disagree with if you do not explain why those practices are not good things. It has happened a lot in the last couple of years that a debater has berated me after losing because X theory shell would justify Y practice, and don't I think Y practice would be really bad for debate? I probably do, but if that isn't in the round I don't know how I would be expected to evaluate it.

Finally, I can't stress how much I appreciate a well developed standards debate. Its fine if you choose to disregard that piece of advice, but I hope that you are making up for the loss of a strategic opportunity on the standards debate with some really good decisions elsewhere. You can win without this, but you don't look very impressive if I can't identify the strategy behind not developing and debating the standard.

I cannot stress enough how tired I am of people running away from debates. This is probably the biggest tip I can give you for getting better speaker points in front of me, please engage each other. There is a disturbing trend (especially on Sept/Oct 2015) to forget about the 1AC after it is read. This makes me feel like I wasted 6 minutes of my life, and I happen to value my time. If your strategy is to continuously up-layer the debate in an attempt to avoid engaging your opponent, I am probably not going to enjoy the round. This is not to say that I don't appreciate layering. I just don't appreciate strategies, especially negative ones, that seek to render the 1AC irrelevant to the discussion and/or that do not ever actually respond to the AC.

Debate has major representation issues (gender, race, etc.). I have spent years committed to these issues so you should be aware that I am perhaps hypersensitive to them. We should all be mindful of how we can increase inclusion in the debate space. If you do things that are specifically exclusive to certain voices, that is a voting issue.

Being nice matters. I enjoy humor, but I don't enjoy meanness. At a certain point, the attitude with which you engage in debate is a reason why I should choose to promote you to the next outround, etc.

You should not spread analytics and/or in depth analysis of argument interaction/implications at your top speed. These are probably things that you want me to catch word for word. Help me do that.

Theory is an issue of reasonability. Let's face it, we are in a disgusting place with the theory debate as a community. We have forgotten its proper place as a check on abuse. "Reasonability invites a race to the bottom?" Please, we are already there. I have long felt that theory was an issue of reasonability, but I have said that I would listen to you make arguments for competing interps. I am no longer listening. I am pretty sure that the paradigm of competing interps is largely to blame with for the abysmal state of the theory debate, and the only thing that I have power to do is to take back my power as a judge and stop voting on interps that have only a marginal net advantage. The notion that reasonability invites judge intervention is one of the great debate lies. You've trusted me to make decisions elsewhere, I don't know why I can't be trusted to decide how bad abuse is. Listen, if there is only a marginal impact coming off the DA I am probably going to weigh that against the impact coming off the aff. If there is only a marginal advantage to your interp, I am probably going to weigh that against other things that have happened in the round.

Grammar probably matters to interpretations of topicality. If one reading of the sentence makes sense grammatically, and the other doesn't that is a constraint on "debatability". To say the opposite is to misunderstand language in some pretty fundamental ways.

Truth testing is still true, but it's chill that most of you don't understand what that means anymore. It doesn't mean that I am insane, and won't listen to the kind of debate you were expecting to have. Sorry, that interp is just wrong.

Framework is still totally a thing. Impact justifying it is still silly. That doesn't change just because you call something a "Role of the Ballot" instead of a criterion.

Util allows you to be lazy on the framework level, but it requires that you are very good at weighing. If you are lazy on both levels, you will not make me happy.

Flashing is out of control. You need to decide prior to the round what the expectations for flashing/emailing are. What will/won't be done during prep time, what is expected to be flashed, etc. The amount of time it takes to flash is extending rounds by an unacceptable amount. If you aren't efficient at flashing, that is fine. Paper is still totally a thing. Email also works.

Hi! I'm MacKenna Morris (they/them), and I'm a senior at Durham Academy.

My email is 23morris@da.org

Background

I have spent most of my time as a Lincoln-Douglas debater on the local NC circuit, and I was an NCFL qualifier in 2022.

I am most familiar with progressive traditional argumentation, but I am still willing to hear and vote for other arguments as long as you understand and explain them well (as you should with all of your arguments). When choosing an argument to run, please keep in mind that debate should be educational and accessible for all parties.

TLDR

I flow, but you still need to explain all of your arguments well.

You should weigh and give voters as it will help your ballot and your speaks.

Clarity will never hurt you, so signpost.

I'm happy to answer any questions about the paradigm or anything else before the round. Feel free to email me or ask in the room.

Specifics (LD):

Be respectful to your opponent throughout the entirety of your interaction as debate is supposed to be enjoyable for everyone. In addition, debate should be a safe and inclusive space, so don't discriminate. If you are sexist, racist, ableist, homophobic, transphobic, xenophobic, or otherwise exclusionary, you will be dropped and given low speaks.

I'm a flow judge. However, it is not sufficient to say "Extend contention 3, it was conceded," move on, and expect to win the round on it. I may understand what you mean, but jargon is not an excuse for lack of clear explanation of arguments.

Also, please signpost. Clarity and organization are generally good and will not only help me judge you better but will result in a better round.

Even though I am a flow judge, reading more evidence will not equate to a win. Quality over quantity matters to me. Giving coherent and well explained explanations will help make your points stronger.

Please WEIGH your arguments. You need to show me why your impacts matter most under the framework that is being used in the round. Use weighing to help prove to me why your arguments matter and why I should vote for you. Good weighing wins rounds and bad weighing loses them.

In addition, please include voters in your last speech as they are the easiest way for me to evaluate the round. Use your voters to explain the key aspects of your arguments and tell me exactly why I should be voting for you in this round.

I will not evaluate new arguments in the last speeches as it does not give the other side adequate chance to respond, and if it is a critical argument to your strategy, you should plan to bring it up before your last speech.

Good luck, and have fun!

*The aff should make a speechdrop or email chain every round even if debaters aren't spreading - it allows for everyone to see the evidence being cited and leads to better debates - your speaks will probably suffer if you refuse to disclose*

Hey I'm Ethan. I debated for four years, my freshmen year in policy and then three years in LD. My email is nicollethan03@gmail.com and would like to be added to the email chain/speechdrop. Also feel free to shoot me any questions after the round and I would love to help out. 

General Thoughts on Debate:

I am generally cool with basically anything you run because I've either probably run it or seen it before. I am obviously not cool with anything that is blatantly racist/sexist/homophobic/ableist/etc. I am also not cool with being a douchebag to novices. If your opponent is new or not as experienced do not use this as an opportunity to spread 7 conditional Kritiks with a million different tricks. Besides those caveats I try my best to be an impartial judge with as limited intervention as possible. Since complete lack of bias is impossible I will try my best to give my general thoughts about different styles and arguments below. 

Traditional:

I love a good traditional round. I don't think traditional debaters are lesser in any way since they don't go as fast or run complex arguments stripped from the inner sanctum of the ivory tower. They have a different skill set that emphasizes simplifying complex arguments for lay audiences and trying to be efficient while being understandable. When done well its pretty impressive. 

Policy:

My bread and butter as a debater. I love creative plans/counterplans and well written tight DAs. Good policy debate requires lots of good research and creative problem solving so watching it is a joy. 

Phil:

I ran a bit of phil my junior year so I have a solid understanding of Kant, Social Contract(Hobbes, Locke, etc), and Rawls. Just slow down and explain your framework, metaethic, etc and you should be good.

Tricks:

I'm going to be honest, I really hate tricks. I think they can drive people away from the activity and negates a lot of the wonderful educational benefits this activity provides. Despite that I will vote on them because they are an argument that can be made. Just be warned that the threshold for them to be responded will be really low. 

Theory:

I understand most standard theory arguments but I'm not a big fan of theory baiting. I will vote on it but theory baiting doesn't make me happy but go ahead and do it if its your threat. Just be warned that my threshold for responses will probably be lower. 

Topicality: 

Regarding non FW-T against non-T affs, I understand this and will be able to follow it and actually find a lot of these T debates interesting. 

Kritiks: 

I ran a lot of standard neg Ks like cap and Agamben alongside with some cap affs. Just explain your theory of power well and you should be fine. Also when it comes to Ks, I'm really not a fan of Ks that get up and say "they are a distraction from the real problem so you should vote neg". I'm not saying I wouldn't vote for a K that says that but it will be easier for your opponent to beat it. 

T-FW and Non-T affs:

In these debates I tend to lean towards T-FW but can be pretty easily convinced by Non-T Affs turns on the shells. These debates are probably the most interesting debates that happen because they argue over the power and harm that debate can have. 

I am a traditional judge who is pretty comfortable with a lot of what you could run including a lot of progressive arguments( ie. disads, kritiks, and counterplans) but I am not that comfortable with spreading. If you decide to spread I might miss something and won't consider it. The one progressive argument that I am not that familar with is theory so you can run it but you need to explain it really well. Overall though if you can explain and defend your argument well I can follow it.

Overview

Hi, I am Jacob Palmer (he/they). I do policy at Emory. I debated for and now coach at Durham. If you will be on the Emory debate team in the fall you should put me as a conflict.

Feel free to ask questions about my paradigm before the round. It's better to hop into the competition room early as opposed to email me since I might miss your question.

Add me to the chain: jacob.gestypalmer@gmail.com. Sending docs is good. It lets both me and your opponent verify the quality of the evidence you are reading. Sending docs is not an excuse to be unclear. I won't backflow off the doc, and I will yell clear or slow if needed. Docs should be sent promptly at the round start time. If we reach the round start time and you are just starting to set up the email chain, I will be very sad. Even if I am judging on the local circuit, I would like a card doc since I like to look over evidence and just sending cards out from the beginning is easier than me trying to call for cards while the decision time ticks away. On a somewhat related note, although I do think disclosure is good, I'd rather not watch debates about this. This is especially true if your opponent does disclose in some fashion, even if it's not what you consider the best norm.

Feel free to read the arguments that interest you. I find many of the ways that people classify themselves as debaters, such as being policy or k or traditional or circuit, largely artificial distinctions. I similarly don’t particularly care whether your arguments are properly formatted in line with whatever norms exist in various local, regional, or national circuits, such as if you read a standard or a value and a criterion. I do care that you make warranted arguments and tell me why they matter in the broader context of the debate. Smart arguments will win rounds.

I will evaluate any argument that has a warrant, clear implication, and isn't actively exclusionary. I am tech in that I will keep a rigorous flow and evaluate the debate solely off that flow, but I think the distinction between tech and truth in debate is largely silly. That means there are some limits to my tech-ness as a judge. I will always evaluate every speech in the debate. I will not evaluate arguments made after speech times end. I think arguments must be logically valid and their warranting should be sound. I think lazy warranting is antithetical to technical argumentation. As a logical extension of that, spamming arguments for the sake of spamming arguments is bad. Reading truer arguments will make your job and my job substantially easier. I won't vote on something not explained in round.

Lastly, be a good person. Debate often brings out the worst of our competitive habits, but that is not an excuse for being rude or disrespectful. Respect pronouns. Respect accessibility requests. Provide due content warnings.

TDLR: Don’t cheat. Be a good person. Make real arguments. Do those things, and I will adapt to you.

Since other people do this and I think its nice to respect the people that helped me in my own debate journey, thank you to the all the people that have coached me or shaped who I am as a debater: Jackson DeConcini, Bennett Dombcik, Allison Harper, Brian Klarman, DKP, Ed Lee, Becca Steiner, Gabe Morbeck, Mikaela Malsin, Marshall Thompson, CQ, Nick Smith, and Devane Murphy. Special thanks to Crawford Leavoy for introducing me to this activity and teaching me most everything I know about debate.

Specifics

Policy – Plans, CPs, and DAs are great! Advantages and DAs shouldn’t be more complicated than they need to be. Plan and counterplan texts should also be specific and have a solvency advocate. Spec is fine against vague positions but the sillier the shell the harder it will be to win an actual internal link to fairness or education. I'm generally fine with condo counterplans, but the more condo you read the more receptive I'll be to theory. To win the 2ar on condo the 1ar shell needs to be more than a sentence. Judge kick is fine, but I won't do it unless you tell me to. I lean negative on most competition issues, and I think I am better for process counterplans than most other LD judges. The 2nr is not a 2nc. If your 2nr strategy relies on reading lots of new impact modules or other new arguments, I am not the judge for you. To an extent, carded 2nr blocks are fine, e.g. when answering a perm, but all the evidence you should need to win the 2nr on most positions should just be in the 1nc. If you sandbag reading your CP competition cards until the 2nr, for example, I will be sad.

T – I love a good T debate. Don't be blippy. Weigh between interps and show what Affs, Advantages, DAs, etc. are actually lost or gained. The worst T debates are an abstract competition over ethereal goods like fairness. The best T debates forward a clear vision of what debates on the topic should look like and explains why the debates based on one interpretation of the topic are materially more fair or educational than others. I think affirmatives should generally be predictably limited. I think functional limits can solve a lot of neg offense if correctly explained.

K – K debates are great, just know the literature and be ready to explain it. If I don't understand your argument, I won't be able to vote for it. These debates are also probably where I care the most about quality over quantity. Specificity matters - Not all Ks are the same and not all plans are the same. If your 1nc shell doesn’t vary based on the 1ac, or your 1ar blocks don’t change based on the kritik I will be sad. I generally think I should vote for whoever did the better debating, but y'all are free to hash out what that means. Alternatives should be tangible, and you should have examples.

More often than not, it seems like I am judging K debates nowadays. Whether you are the K debater or the Policy/Phil debater in these rounds, judge instruction is essential. The 2nr and 2ar should start with a clear explanation of what arguments need to be won to warrant an aff or neg ballot and why. The rest of the 2nr or 2ar should then just do whatever line-by-line is necessary to win said arguments. I find that in clash debates more than other debates, debaters often get lost in extending their own arguments without giving much round-specific contextualization of said extensions or reasons why the arguments extended are reasons they should win the debate. Whether you are going for an impact turn to the K or extending the K itself, you need to tell me what to do with the arguments you think you are winning and why those specific arguments are sufficient for my ballot.

Non-T/Planless Affs – I am happy to judge these debates and have no issues with non-t affs. Solvency is important. From the 1ac there should be a very clear picture of how the affirmative resolves whatever harms you have identified. For negatives, T USFG is solid. I’ve read it. I’ve voted on it. Turn strategies (heg good, growth good, humanism good, etc.) are also good. For T, I find topical versions of the aff to be less important than most other judges. Maybe that’s just because I find TVAs to be largely underdeveloped or not actually based in any real set of literature. Regardless, I don’t think the negative needs the TVA to win, but it also won’t hurt to make one and extend it. Cap and other kritiks can also be pretty good if you understand what you’re doing. I no qualms evaluating a K v K or methods debate.

Phil – I love philosophical debates. I think phil debates benefit greatly from more thorough argumentation and significantly less tricks. Explain your syllogism, how to filter offense, and tell me what you're advocating for. If I don't know how impact calc functions under your framework, then I will have a very hard time evaluating the round. If your framework has a bunch of analytics, slow down and number them.

Theory – Theory should be used to check legitimate abuse within the debate. As with blatantly untrue DAs or Advantages, silly theory arguments will be winnable, but my threshold of what constitutes a sufficient response will be significantly lower. Slow down on the analytics and be sure to weigh. I think paragraph theory is fine, but you still need to read warrants. I think fairness and education are both important, and I haven’t really seen good debates on which matters more. Debates where you weigh internal links to fairness and/or education are generally much better. I think most cp theory or theoretical objections to other specific types of arguments are DTA and really don’t warrant an RVI, but you can always convince me otherwise.

Tricks – If this is really your thing, I will listen to your arguments and evaluate them in a way that I feel is fair, granted that may not be the way you feel is most fair. I have found many of the things LDers have historically called tricks to be neither logically valid nor sound. I have no issue with voting on arguments like skep or determinism or paradoxes, but they must have a sufficient level of warranting when they are first introduced. Every argument you make needs to be a complete argument with a warrant that I can flow. All arguments should also be tied to specific framing that tells me how to evaluate them within the larger context of the debate. Also, be upfront about your arguments. Being shady in cx just makes me mad and sacrifices valuable time that you could spend explaining your arguments.

Independent Voters - I think arguments should only generate offense through specific framing mechanisms. Somewhat tied into this I feel incredibly uncomfortable voting on people's character or using my ballot to make moral judgements about debaters. I also don’t want to hear arguments about events outside of the round I am judging. If something your opponent did truly makes you feel unsafe or unable to debate, then you should either contact me, your coach, tab, or the tournament equity office. We can always end the round and figure something out.

The following paradigm is fairly exhaustive because my investment as a judge is equally (if not more) important than what y’all do as competitors. If my feedback is subpar, the work and effort you all put in is a waste. Ultimately, the following novel is not meant to intimidate, but rather to aid in how the debate can be elevated. I look forward to being a part of the art of communication through debate in each round and best of luck!

Tl;dr I have AuDHD so like, use that to your advantage ^.^

General Background:

I am the assistant debate and forensics coach at the University of Richmond, where I also obtained a B.A. in Philosophy. I have over ten years of experience as a competitor and four as a collegiate coach in six styles of debate (PF, LD, Policy, Congress, Parliamentary, and Long Table) and over a dozen speech events. I competed with and against international teams that are a part of the CIDD and German circuits and am a member of the VAFTDC (Virginia Association of Forensics, Theatre, and Debate Coaches). Additionally, I have/had involvement with Future Problem Solvers, Model UN, theatre, and improv. Given the scope of my background, a lot of my preferences concentrate on the art of rhetoric and communication within debate rather than a purely technical focus (truth>tech). That said, I try to also respect the difference between norms and rules given the breadth of the debate realm and appreciate the evolving structure of the debate realm.

Feel free to e-mail me any questions: zachary.e.perry@gmail.com

Main Paradigm:

Kindness is key. The purpose of debate is to expand upon ideas with good faith intentions and find ways to coherently communicate and critique nuanced topics. That said, there are certain truths that are generally held to be accepted as true (things should be logically consistent, all people should be treated humanely, opinions cannot replace facts though can be considered as informing perspective and bias, etc.). Especially given the current political climate, a healthy level of skepticism and grace should always be extended without resorting to ad hom attacks or broad sweeping generalizations. This guiding principle is something that can be utilized throughout our existence, which is what makes debating so valuable as a life skill.

I am sick of wasting time during round calling for cards in varsity rounds. I heavily suggest utilizing disclosure theory which means if your case is not presented in full and a card is asked for, I will run prep if it takes longer than 15 seconds.

Extinction arguments (re: nuclear war) are a losing battle and while it is not a guaranteed loss, know that we live in a world where that it is so statistically unlikely, it does not provide a compelling argument. Death is not a threat if it is inevitable, it's the suffering that we fear. If you're going to run existential cases, you're better off pointing to cyber warfare, anti-capitalism/totalitarianism, economic downfall, or human rights cases since that has more tangible, concrete impacts. Yes, death is a major factor to consider, but I don't lose sleep over dying in an all-out nuclear war considering that we live in a capitalist hellscape that makes existence make death seem like an escape sometimes.

Some things of note:

-Avoid personal phrases. Frame things as an objective pontification instead with “if/then” statements and “the affirmative/negative’s position claims…”

-Be honest about mistakes both in ownership and forgiveness. If a point is dropped, concede and find ways to move forward. Additionally, don’t take critiques personally and recognize the difference between norms and rules. It may impact the debate scoring or decision depending on how egregious the instance is. Debate is a holistically judged sport!

-Clarity is key. Making assumptions leads to a lot of miscommunication and though I may have experience in a lot of different backgrounds, I am human as well. Revel in the fact that you are the go-to expert in the room!

-Organization helps with everyone. Signposting and roadmaps are highly encouraged. Roadmaps are also more than just saying you’ll “touch upon the opponent’s contentions and expanding upon your own”. Being able to identify features of clash, impact calculus, voters, and what kind of debate it is (value, definition, evidence, contention, etc.) will help elevate the overall effect of presentation.

Other:

Case Sharing and Sources/Citations- It is not required to share the entire case with the opponent. However, it is in good faith to at least allow access to specific portions used and it is mandatory to share cards when asked. Though I do not like evidence shoving and card-based debates, it does not look favorable if you cannot provide adequate support of a claim. Sourcing is also important and when giving a piece of evidence, understanding the methodology and ideas of empiricism and epistemology are key in demonstrating an adequate understanding of the citations provided.

Speaker Points (from a 20-30 scale)- I rank on a bell curve structure that is fairly reflective of the indicated suggested ranking (poor, average, good, excellent, and outstanding). This may skew points in overall standing but also indicates that a score of 29 or 30 is truly earned. As long as the argument is clear (organizationally and orally), use up the majority of the time, are able to identify each necessary piece (value, VC, and contentions), the score should range from 23-27 based on other factors such as fillers (“uh” and “um”), dropped arguments, rebuttals, and overall ability to crystalize the argument. Rarely will I award anything lower than 22 unless the speeches are incomplete, there is a conduct issue, or the debate is entirely conceded. Conversely, scores in the upper echelon effectively demonstrate mastery of presentation (little to no fillers, solid stance and projection of voice, able to command the room without seeming too aggressive), expansive understanding of the topic at hand and evidence presented (clean links and warrant), and excelling at the art of rhetoric and argumentation theory via things such as voters, impact calculus, and word economy. Know that if you obtain a score of 28 or above, I am genuinely impressed!

DEBATE

Lincoln-Douglas:

Key judging elements I look for: Value/VC, Definitions, Framework, Theory, Analysis, CX, CBA

Plans, Kritiks (K), Fiats, and Theory- Though I recognize the validity (and growing usage) of “progressive” LD, I tend to follow a more traditional outline. I think plans and Kritiks (Ks) have their place as long as they don’t deviate too far from the topic at hand and provide explicit tie into solvency, inherency, and the overall framework/paradigm at hand. Your plan should also FOLLOW the establishment of contentions and general framework. PRE-Fiats also tend to be used in ways to derail the debate by completing sidelining the resolution at hand. POST-Fiats are totally fair game as long as it is still relevant and topical. The structure should not hinge upon a theory argument considering that the Value/VC is contingent.

IMPORTANT NOTE: If you run a plan that indicates we should ignore philosophical/moral theories in favor of political and pragmatic ones (there is a painful irony within this notion) or appeal to theory as an end-all-be-all (save for very VERY limited exceptions), I will automatically dismiss your case. This is a particular problem because I have seen a butchered interpretation of some major theorists despite having good intentions. That said, it does no good to spread misinformation and accountability of knowledge is of utmost importance. In short, all politics is based off of theory, and using Rawls’ “original position” and “veil of ignorance” does not necessarily absolve you of that burden just because some antiquated dead white dude said it’s possible to be enlightened while conveniently ignoring the fact that We Live In A Society™. I also do not have the patience for Ks that purport a resolution being dismissed on the notion that it's inherently "racist, sexist, queercist, ableist, etc". We exist on a platform that is intrinsically rooted in privilege and if you're going to push an Oppression Olympics argument, no one wins and it defeats the purpose of debate. We all have something to learn through our own personal adversity and it is not productive discounting a person's opinion solely because they may be more or less privileged than you. Extinction arguments are also extremely annoying and offer nothing unique or interesting to the debate since it assumes a fallacious slippery slope scenario that is almost never rooted in reality. That said; use all of these suggestions at your own discretion. Remember, COVID still exists and has long term effects ;)

Framework, Paradigms/Observations, Disadvantages (Disads), and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA)-

FRAMEWORK IS IMPERATIVE. If you do not give definitions, context, paradigms and/or observations, you leave the debate wide open for attacks or gaps to be filled either by the opponent or my own implicit biases. I will do my best to remain objective but if certain norms are expected, I will default to my own inferences of the topic at hand. Paradigms are important for context and should be given if the resolution is vague. For instance, is this topic Americentric or global? What is the status quo? Is there a timeframe? Though not necessary, those that include a sort of paradigm or observation within their framework generally tend to fare better. Remember what happens when people assume things :) Disads are also helpful when identified adequately for the rebuttal and rejoinder speeches. For me, CBA should be a general default when debating a topic. Debate is about exploring the nuances of the argument since most things are not black and white. Do not assume (again, there’s that word), my background in Philosophy means I favor a political or social case over an economic one though econ arguments do provide a good sense of impacts and concrete metrics. If one side demonstrates favorable merit and a cleaner link to the resolution at hand, it does not matter what flavor of argument is presented. I will vote and have voted for arguments that go against my own personal beliefs if/when they are conveyed well.

Flex Prep/CX Flow- I allow Flex Prep (shifting prep time for CX time) but only if both parties agree to its usage before the round starts through explicit consent. Additionally, I DO flow CX since I think it has a purpose in the debate and demonstrates a person’s ability to elevate the contentions. A good CX can make or break a round and help give additional points based on oratory skills.

Roadmaps/Signposting- Please use them and refer to the main paradigm section above.

Public Forum:

Key judging elements I look for: Definitions, Framework, Analysis, crossfire, CBA, well-composed rebuttal, summary, and final focus speeches

The use of spreading, plans, and Kritiks (Ks) are antithetical to PF debate given the fact that it is understood as the most accessible form of argumentation to a layperson. That said, there should be heavy emphasis on analysis and warrant and not just evidence shoving. Given the rapid back and forth of this style of debate, the expectation is to be a kind of “mini-expert” of a topic with an intimate understanding of certain terms and elements related to the resolution and disseminated quickly. CBA is expected though not always necessary depending on the resolution. Use theory sparingly.

Definitions- these are imperative for framework. If you do not define the scope and context of this debate, it is impossible to create a basis for why the contentions uphold the resolution.

I DO FLOW AND HEAVILY WEIGH CROSSFIRES. The main appeal and, imo, fun part of PF is the “real world” aspect of having a rapid back and forth conversation. A person’s ability to adequately talk about a controversial topic with a level head means just as much as being “right” about a situation or topic.

Given how most constructive cases are prepared, the main weighing mechanism for me is how well people can utilize impact calculus (magnitude, feasibility, timeframe, and probability) and voters (evidence weighing, contention clash, definition debate) by the end of the debate. The best debates are those who are able to find the common thread and main clash of the debate (usually by establishing a CBA).

Rhetoric Scoring: I often award low point wins to team with creative or more personable approaches rather than stock cases because I think it's important to reward people who think creatively and critically rather than pushing a case that was probably cultivated through online forums/briefs or coaches themselves (let's be real here...). I don't care if you sound smart. I care if you soundaccessible.This is PF. If you want to sound like a pretentious nutwit (rightfully!) go do Policy.

Policy:

Key judging elements I look for: Plan building, heavy evidence usage, links/warrants/analysis

Policy, to me, is what the highest and most refined debate should be. Pulling from all other disciplines (the oratory, bill building, and procedural skills of Congress, the theory and analysis skills of LD, the evidence and case building of PF, and the impromptu style of Parli and Long Table). Any and all aspects of the above topics are fair game as long as it’s in good faith. Though policy is, admittedly, my least favorite and least familiar debate style, I appreciate the craft and some of my favorite rounds have been in policy though it is a beast to understand and an even bigger feat to master so hats off to those who compete in one of the most profound forms of debate!

Spreading- Please do not spread. The art of debate is about communication and a person’s ability to have an impressive wpm does not promote adequate expansion of complex ideas and is antithetical to the spirit of argumentation. I will doc points if I cannot flow properly due to speaking too quickly. If I cannot physically fully follow the argument, I cannot award adequate points.

Congress:

The quote, "Politics is perception" is especially true for this form of debate. The showmanship and ability to present a topic in only three minutes is a powerful tool that is heavily based on the speaking style and engagement with the entire chamber. The focus on evidence is not as important but I typically look for at least one source per contention. I only recommend one since I think that the quality of analysis is more important than the quantity of sources. Being able to address the bill or resolution specifically will also elevate the overall impression and score. Back and forth debate is obviously the ideal though as long as it's not too lopsided, I don't mind doubling of one side occasionally. As long as people are respectful and communicative without stepping on too many toes, I'm a fairly lax judge.

From a Parliamentarian's standpoint, being able to take up space confidently without suffocating the room is a delicate balancing act. Being eager to participate without stifling others is also key in the communal aspect of Congress. Efficient chambers are nice, but if the room becomes too tense, it sucks all the joy out of the event. PO scores tend to be a bit more inflated due to the extra burden of tasks though top scores almost always come from those who give incredible speeches.

Parliamentary:

Given the nature of Parli debate, it is understood that pretty much anything goes. The notion of this debate is meant to be elevated but also accessible so I don't have as many constraints considering the (assumed) maturity of collegiate level debate. That said, I do like to see a person's ability to merge the ability of a solid orator with that of a logical common thread. Though I try to remain unbiased, I will also be tempted to fill in gaps if references are made without adequate sourcing due to the nature of this debate.

QUOTE ROUND: I'm fine with either leaning into the resolution from a literal interp of a quote or a broader context of what certain norms and systems mean through theory and storytelling. Use your own discretion.

Other notes: I have a humanities degree so advanced econ theory and neuroscience is probably going to go over my head (though I will give it the good old college try!). International Politics is also not something I'm particularly well-versed in. I am but one human on a planet of almost 8 billion with over 200 municipalities. Please hold my hand through your thought process.

Speech:

General Note:

Though my first love was debate, I am a speech kid at heart. The variety and depth is vast and I don't claim to be an expert in any of these individual events. While I think characterization and textual analysis are key to making a piece "come to life", I also appreciate the vast amount of perspectives and lived experiences in how we understand narratives. That said, I am entitled to use my own discretion and I as an audience member have a role in your performance. If I am not engaged or not "included" in the process of creating this art, it will reflect in the score with reasons that should at least be acknowledged. My aim is not to crush anyone's creative spirit though sometimes certain artistic choices can have consequences that need to be considered (swearing, content choice, general presentation, decorum, etc). We're all human though accountability is of utmost importance.

Self-published pieces are... risky especially since the purpose of an "interp" is to interpret ANOTHER'S work. Though that isn't to say it doesn't come without potential reward. Be wise.

After Dinner Speaking (ADS): plz make me laugh ????

Communication Analysis (CA): I tend to find this event a middle ground of persuasive and informative that is pinpointing a specific event or speech at hand. I should be able to follow along with the topic if I don't have any prior knowledge while still being able to be on your side by the end of the speech in some way, shape, or form. This tends to be a really dry event so feel free to spice it up with a few jokes. I like to think of John Oliver, Contrapoints, and Lindsey Ellis as good reference points for CAs on topic areas.

Declamation: I don't mind if you try to embody the original intent or put your own spin on it but it should reflect the words spoken in some meaningful way. This event is the most text heavy so be EXTREMELY purposeful in delivery. I couldn't care less about physicality, just make sure to project.

Duo: My favorite event! This is probably the most theatrical so whether you make me laugh, cry, or just think a little bit more about life, give me a show! Physicality is key. Don't just create a character, BECOME them! Creative use of limited space is key and really try and create dynamic movement not only through your movements, but through the text itself.

DI: Duo... but solo

Extemporaneous: I recommend at least two sources per point to have a good qualifying score. That said, evidence pushing will only get you so far and I'm far more impressed by a solid analysis of the information presented. The expectation is that you're the mini-expert for 7 minutes and should be able to adequately inform me of a topic in the allotted time (within reason). That said, don't assume I know the context of the topic or that either of us are the smartest person in the room. The event is meant to humble us and designed to force us to appreciate complex topics that need to be handled with care. Hot takes are entertaining but may not always be effective. Use discretion.

Impromptu: I recommend no more than 2 minutes for prep for top speaks. I'm not entirely impressed by minimal note usage since it's a tool given to you for a reason. Careful about fillers and make sure to have some sort of methodical and cohesive narrative or thesis statement. If I suspect you're using stock stories and inserting the topic as a buzzword, I WILL immediately dock points and recommend disqualification if confirmed. This is not a prepped round and it antithetical to the purpose of the event and I consider it a form of cheating. I hate cheating.

Improvistation: Yes and... make sure it's funny :)

Informative: Make me think! I want to be able to take away at least one new fact from the speech. Though logos is the main focus here, there should be a heavy emphasis on sourcing and ethos as well. That said, evidence pushing only goes so far so analysis and warrant should carry your argument forward throughout the presentation. If I lose sight of the thesis, then the overall presentation falls with it. Make sure to establish a common thread and not make it too dry. There should be little to NO opinions in this event save for polls or other pertinent information regarding the event. My role is to learn about the topic, not be persuaded.

Original Oratory: No matter what emotion you make me feel, I should sense it to be genuine AND relatable. OO is one of the hardest because not every story is able to fulfill both requirements and is extremely subjective. I don't have any other feedback other than making sure the narrative is cohesive and follows some sort of the hero's journey. You are the hero, make me want to root for you!

Persuasive: Though this event is rooted in a lot of elements similar to informative, you should at least convince me to see the validity in your argument even if I don't think it's entirely sound from my own personal opinion. Pathos will also take you far here so definitely appeal to personal anecdotes or other emotional appeals that pair well with the logos and ethos elements in this event. This is meant to be a blended event and showcase your oration skills outside of just presenting an idea. Think TedTalk.

Poetry: Same as prose but, like, poetry, maaaan. I do permit passages from different languages! Just note that the work needed to convey emotion is harder, though not impossible! Please don't just sing a song ????

Prose: I'm literate. I love books. Words make me feel things. Bear in mind this event is less about acting and more about textual painting. I should be able to feel your characterization by your tonal inflection and wordplay and appreciate the unpacking of what the author intended blended with your own interpretation. I have a nuanced opinion about Death of the Author so don't assume I'm going to discount the context of the piece just because you have a new spin on it. Honor the work you're presenting, even if it means being subversive with the text.

Radio Broadcasting: All about the diction, inflection, and personality. This event is incredible because looks truly don't matter. I find the funnier, the better since most RB voices tend to be drab and have a grating sense of braggadocio that is off-putting. Larger than life doesn't have to mean phony so make it BIG but believable.

Storytelling: Pretending you're ACTUALLY giving this presentation in front of kids. Lean into the absurdity and silliness of humor. I want my inner child to be awoken!

Overall, I'm excited to be a part of the artistic process and look forward to hearing all of your pieces and speeches!!

I am a former LD debater from North Carolina. I now attend Duke University, majoring in Public Policy and Psychology on the Premed track. My email is casey.powell@duke.edu.

My general preference is for well-warranted arguments that are extended throughout the round. I’m willing to evaluate everything except tricks, but please make sure to clearly explain all facets of the argument. I can keep up with spreading, but please be courteous to your opponent and make deliberate choices about how to manage your time during speeches.

I’m generally tech > truth and enjoy unique arguments as long as they’re logically explained (with credible warrants/authors).

Bonus +1 speaks for incorporating an extended metaphor about Survivor (the tv show) and/or Scooby Doo into one of your speeches.

Bonus +0.5 speaks for 5+ rhymes.

Feel free to ask any questions before the round; I’m happy to answer!

Hi! My name is Sierra, my pronouns are she/her/hers, and my email is sierraromero002@gmail.com for the email chain.

Bio: I've done 3 types of debate (ld, cx, pf), but most of my judging has been in LD. In high school, I competed at Albuquerque Academy and I got an at-large to the TOC in LD senior year. I also coached at Academy 2020-21 season and ISD summer 21. I'm a sophmore at Columbia prob studying math and african-american studies (idk), and I've done parli once.

Basics:

1. truth > tech. I have no tolerance for racist/sexist/homophobic/transphobic/ableist etc. and I will comfortably vote you down if these arguments are made. I also think that you should be mindful of the impacts you are talking about if you do not belong to that group of people. Debate has material impacts for the people in it, and winning tech arguments will not change that.

2. Layering sets up my ballot. The top of the 2NR/2AR should start with layering. Framing/ROTB is one of the best ways to do this. impact calc is also very important with layering

3. Speed- Please don't spread through analytics if you aren't flashing them (flash your interps too). Go with the speed your most comfortable with.

General: (these are somewhat in the order of what I prefer to evaluate)

Ks

I am most persuaded by links to the specific action that the aff takes. If the neg proves that the action the aff takes links to the K, then it makes it much harder for me to grant the aff a permutation. For the alt, I need a clear explanation for how it solves for the impacts of the K. Winning your theory of power/having a clear explanation of your lit is really important.

For K/performance affs, tell me why your interpretation/rejection/framing of the topic comes first. I also need to know what the world/methodology of the 1AC is for me to vote for it which entails a clear explanation of your lit. For T/FW vs K affs, it's most strategic to go for education as your impact in front of me. I don't recommend going for procedural fairness bc I will be very hesitant to vote on it.

For affs hitting Ks, win the perm debate and explain the world of the permutation. For me to vote on a perm you need to 1) win the link debate, 2) win impact calc on the perm. I am hesitant to grant perms on performances/methodology. The other route to go would be disproving the K's theory of power. If you are going this route, I would expect that you are very familiar with the lit in order to understand its specific problems.

Policy/LARP

I feel pretty comfortable with anything except theory debates (I am not the best judge to go for theory in front of). If you are going to read more than 4 off, don't do it for the time suck. I enjoy policy debates that are built with good strategy, where any off case position could be in the 2NR. Good DAs/CPs are some of my favorite arguments to hear. DAs should have a clear link to the aff and internal link story in the 1NC and good impact calc/weighing throughout the round.

T/FW

I am most persuaded by arguments that tell me why your model of debate is better for education. I love, love, love, impact turns on T, and I think that that is one of the most strategic answers to T. BUT you have to be winning the fairness debate for me to evaluate the impact turn or tell me a reason why your impact turn layers before fairness does on my ballet.

For T vs LARP affs, I need a very clear explanation for why your interp produces better clash and why that's better for education. In T/FW vs K affs, I want to hear why your model of debate is better and doesn't exclude the aff's education. If you want to go for T in front of me, make sure to warrant all of your arguments really well/sequence how I should evaluate the round (i.e. tell me why T comes first or smt).

Phil

I am not too familiar with phil authors, but a clear explanation of your author and weighing will make the round much easier for me to evaluate. This means that you have to be winning your framing, but also contextualize it to the rest of the impacts in the round. Tell me how to weigh specific impacts through your framing or why specific impacts come first.

Theory

I definitely have the least experience with theory/tricks. If you go for either of these in front of me, you need to tell me why procedural arguments come first (i.e. why does it come before fiat, pre-fiat, etc.). Please explain what the impact of your shell is and weigh it against the model of debate that your interpretation excludes (impacts are very important for me if you want me to vote on the shell). Lastly, if you're going for theory make sure to extend the entirety of your shell, meaning that you should extend your interpretation and violation, otherwise I won't feel comfortable voting on it.

Haven't judged debate in a minute, but do whatever you are comfortable with, and I'll do m best to evaluate.

They/Them

Programming & Operations Coordinator for Denver Urban Debate League / Editor-in-Chief Champions Brief LD

For online rounds please put me on the chain. Email: DSSQ62@gmail.com

Been around debate for 20 years (4 years as a competitor the rest coaching). I'm fine with speed as long as you're clear. I can understand spreading at high speed unfortunately time is catching up to me and I can’t write/type as fast as I once could so I'll say clearer or slower a few times as needed in order to make sure I can actually flow what’s necessary.

*Slow down a bit for online debates. I flow off what i hear. Sound issues inevitably pop up and while I may have the doc just in case; this isn't an essay contest.

Lincoln Douglas

I'll evaluate the round based on how I flow it so run what you want for specifics see below. Please ask me questions if you want to know more.

Framework

I judge a lot of util debates which is fine but I'm up for any kind of framework debate. I like a good complicated Phil heavy round. Skep debates are sorely lacking nowadays so I'm all for them. Haven't heard a good skep round in awhile. Don't be afraid to run nihilistic frameworks in front of me. If you can warrant it and defend it I'll listen to it (so long as it's not racist, ableist, sexist, homophobic, or transphobic).

K's:

Run them please. Admittedly I'm more familiar with classical K literature like cap, bio power and some psychoanalysis. I enjoy a good postmodern Phil round but that doesn't mean I won't listen to other K's. Identity K's and stuff like that are totally fine but make sure you're really clear on the link and alt level. K aff's are fine as long as they can win reasonability on T.

Topicality:

I default to reasonability it's hard for me to say there is an objective limit on the topic when language has multiple meanings. Have good interps. Warranted interps that have an internal justification for why they're true will probably be better than a random dictionary. Random violations that you know your opponents meet but you run them anyway as a time suck are bad. I likely won't buy a contested RVI but a good I meet is probably enough for aff's to avoid any offense on T for me. T violations function as a gateway issue. If the aff isn't topical they likely will lose especially if there is a topical version of the aff. If the aff can give me a good warranted reason why they don't need to be topical I'll vote on it. The standards debate is important if you're gonna go for T you need to go all in and spend time here really explaining why your interpretation creates the best model/the aff isn't debatable.

Theory:

Not my favorite but necessary at times. It's structured the same as topicality and starts with a "T" but theory isn't T. I default to drop the argument in less you tell me otherwise. Theory comes immediately before the layer in which it is criticizing unless you tell me otherwise. Frivolous theory is real, it's when you could easily answer arguments but decide to read theory. This shouldn't be your go to in front of me but I will vote on it if you win it. I'll listen to RVIs on theory but it takes an awful lot of work or the other debater just dropping it for me to vote on them. Better route is just answer the theory quickly and get to substance.

CPs & DAs

Yes please. Make sure you have an explicit CP text with a solvency advocate. Debaters jump from links to impacts really quick nowadays. Don't forget about internal links. They help tell stories in the 2AR/NR. Conditionality is probably fine in front of me but I think anything beyond testing the aff once methodologically and once pedagogically (one CP and one K) is getting abusive.

*Tech over truth only goes so far. If your technically true argument is morally repugnant don't expect me to vote for it. Don't be racist, sexist, ableist, homophobic, or transphobic that's likely gonna be an auto loss.

Email: katherineastenner@gmail.com

**Please include me in the email chain, and feel free to contact me if you have any questions regarding my comments**

Hey y’all!

My name is Katy, and I go by any pronouns. I debated Lincoln- Douglas all four years of highschool and am currently the assistant coach for Clover Hill High School. My senior year, I was first in the state of Virginia for VCFL and third in the state for VHSL. I also went to out-rounds at CFL Grand Nationals and NSDA Nationals. As far as judging goes, I’m really only familiar with Lincoln-Douglas, so I will put my preferences for that. If you are PF or Policy, there may be something you can use in there, but feel free to ask any questions before the round starts.

I was a traditional debater and am a traditional judge. I don’t mind counterplans, but I dislike a lot of “progressive tricks” because I feel like they undermine the educational value of debate. For that reason, you’re better off sticking to a more traditional style with me. I won’t automatically vote you down if you run progressive arguments, but you won’t exactly endear yourself to me by doing so. Also, if you do decide to run theory, please explain your arguments. Don’t just throw out terms and expect me to know them. Above all, DO NOT SPREAD! I’m fine with speed, but spreading is a major pet peeve of mine, so just... don’t.

Disclosure Theory: I personally am not a fan of disclosure theory, but I will not automatically drop it or you unless you are running it unethically. For example, if your opponent is not spreading, running a traditional case, and is not even from a school that is on the wiki, do not run disclosure theory. If you want disclosure because it makes debate more fair, then weaponizing it against traditional schools with less resources negates that. If you want disclosure to make the discussion more educational, then spending half your speech debating disclosure does not achieve that. Run it at your own risk, but you have an uphill battle getting me to vote for it.

Regardless of whether you are traditional or progressive, I love to see good weighing and impact calculus in round. Explicitly state why your arguments matter and how they flow into framework; don’t just assume I know what you’re going for. The easier you make the weighing for me in the round, the better off you are when it comes time for me to cast my ballot.

BIGGEST PET PEEVE: My biggest pet peeve for debate is when people link climate change, nuclear war, or terrorism to topics that really have nothing to do with them. If the impact is topical, by all means run it, but do not jump through 15 links in order to get an extinction level impact just for the sake of winning on magnitude. The burden of proof is high for me with these three impacts because I'm tired of seeing them run for every topic regardless of whether it makes sense.

I am a big proponent of diversity in debate, which means being conscious of what arguments you run and how you interact with other debaters. If you run any type of discriminatory argument , like “racism/ sexism/ ableism good”, I will drop you. If you intentionally mis-gender your opponent or use a slur against a community you are not a part of, I will drop you and tank your speaks. Please use trigger warnings at the start of the round if you are running a sensitive argument and leave unnecessary inflammatory/ graphic cards out of your speeches.

Finally, be conscious of what arguments you are running and how they impact the communities affected by them. If you are not black, I don’t think you should be running radical black authors, like Afropessimism/ Black Nationalism. Same goes for male debaters running radical feminist kritiks. It will be very obvious whether you are running these arguments because you care about them versus if you are running them because you think they will be hard for your opponent to refute. What you say matters in and outside of round, so please be considerate and kind!

TL;DR: I’m a traditional LD judge who dislikes spreading and disclosure theory. Please impact your arguments and be considerate of your opponents. Also, do not run an extinction level impact with a sketchy link just to win on magnitude.

note for toc 23: if you are in the recruiting process for or committed to attending wake forest university or have any affiliation with the current wake debate program, please conflict me.

american heritage palm beach ('21), wake forest university ('24)

put me on the email chain: nikkidebate@gmail.com

tldr: i was very flex & will be fine with whatever you do. debate how you debate best and take this with a grain of salt. i don't think true 'tab' judges exist so i won't say that i am one; debate well and you'll win. if your opponent debates better, they'll win. speaker points are awarded solely for good debating.

important things:

[1] i don't flow off the doc (mostly, sometimes it's early and i am sleepy)

[2] i simply do not care about postrounding - do it if you want but but know i couldn't care less and nothing will change!

[3] taken from sai karavadi: "i will not vote on anything that polices what clothing other debaters are wearing — this is not negotiable and yes, that means i will not vote on shoes theory or formal clothing theory — you can @ me if you want"

[4] don’t be morally repugnant. don't misgender people. no -isms.

[5] "evaluate [part of the debate] after the 1ac" is not a real argument

[6] taken from nigel ward:"have the email chain setup. there is no reason you should be fumbling with an email chain 10 minutes past start time. it makes me seem late and leads to tab (understandably) sending runners to annoy me...and that annoys me. put differently: even if i’m late, have the email chain set up and ready to send upon my arrival."

[7] please say the number along w the speech name (ex: it's 1ac not ac, or 1nc not nc). i switch between ld & policy, so it just helps.

the kritik

if this is your cup of tea, go for it. if it isn’t, please do not subject me to 45 minutes of warren when you don’t know what humanism is.

i'm pretty good with adjudicating these debates and am pretty well read- just read what you want and explain it well. not a big fan of setcol debates where debaters aren't indigenous.

tldr: extend offense, use overviews to your advantage (i flow them) and answer perms well. "k tricks", whatever your interpretation of the term may be, are cool. please clash. have a theory of power and know it well.

win your theory of power, whatever that may be. every kritik is an orientation to the world through a certain lens, and absent winning that orientation, it becomes extremely difficult for me to adjudicate these debates. you should have a clear explanation of this theory of power, not just buzzwords. examples are your friend. the most effective 2nrs on going for the k should collapse.

the link should be specifically implicated to the affirmative and should not rely on loose generics. this does not mean you need to cut a link card to every part of the aff, but rather be clear in your contextualization of the link, and in explaining why that link matters in context of your theory of power. the impacts debate is where i start to filter out offense and would like to see early comparative weighing.

alternative: tell me a) what the alt does, b) how it resolves the links, c) how it solves, d) what the world of the alt looks like. the alt needs to be explicitly extended and explained.

permutations: permutations must be appropriately handled- do not misgroup perms that shouldn't be grouped. dropped perms are easy aff ballots. carded perms (esp from 1nc authors) = i'll bump speaks. explain what the world of the perm looks like - perms should have net benefits- saying "perm do the aff" isn't enough work to win.

performance/non-t affs

you do you. win why the ballot matters, why debate is good/bad, what the aff does, etc. a lot of judges are anti overviews, i do not care so please use overviews. i love these debates, but you will need to do the work to persuade me on why i should vote aff/neg and why your model is good. k affs tell stories, and absent hearing what the story of the aff is, it's going to be really hard for me to actually vote on it.

fwk v non-t affs

it can be smart and strategic- operative word here is "can”. be efficient, answer the aff, compare methods (fwk v k is a methods v methods debate), do work on standards and the counterinterp. good 2nrs on framework make me very happy. i have no bias to either side of these debates; i've been on both sides.

k v k

taken from dylan burke: "these debates often get very messy because they are incredibly shallow. the only thing i have to say in this section is that you should be articulating your theory of power in a very comprehensive way as to a) why it better explains structures that the other team b) why the alternative solves those structures c) why the links make the action that the other team is advocating for bad."

the impact debate to me is just an extension of the methods debate that is inevitable (or at least should be) in any clash of civ round - in these debate, that work should be done early (not just in the 2nr/2ar).

tricks

read them if you want idc, i just have a lower standard for answering things like silly aprioris than you may want me to have. i don’t consider truth testing + an nc like monism to be tricks, i mean blippy, unwarranted, 1 line arguments. "what's an apriori" was cool in 2018, it isn't anymore.

truth testing + nc combo: underrated and i miss it. bring it back.

t/theory

i’m fine with it- do what you would normally do. i have personal opinions on good v bad theory but if it's warranted and extended i’ll evaluate it (except theory arguments that implicate a debater's physical appearance). sending interp/counterinterp texts is probably good and limits the chance i get it down wrong. i default to no rvis, competing interps, drop the arg, and text over spirit. if none of these are arguments, however, i will probably be very unamused.

phil

i was not a phil debater in high school; i am a philosophy major at wake. i’m probably not the world's best judge for evaluating these debates, but as long as you extend offense, impacts, and explain niche terms, i’ll be fine. syllogisms are like stories, so i will hold you to the same level of explanation as any good kritikal aff.

larp/policy

i do policy debate. obviously you can read these arguments i just will be bored lol so do it but do it well. please do not pref me for dense larp v larp rounds if you are incapable of collapsing – most of the times, i will not be able to adjudicate these debates as well as you want me to. weighing is your friend; collapsing is your significant other. i love good recuttings.

taken from ben waldman: "i'm pro-spin but anti-lying, know the difference."

cx (the event)

i go to wake forest and believe in the big tent method. what that means is that i have no ideological preferences as to how you should debate, i just want you to debate in a way that you are comfortable with. i’m a 2a so i love seeing interesting affirmative strategy. basically, do whatever. all the ld kritik and larp stuff above applies but i should be chilling in the back for you to debate how you debate best!

cross-ex

some people can be rude in cx. if that's your thing, i don't care. the exception being if you are a circuit debater debating a novice/someone with vastly less experience than you. in that instance, be nice - it'll hurt your speaks otherwise.

speaks

i currently average a 28.7534 (29 rounds)

28.5 is average; they go up and down from there. "material" speaks boosters are capitalistic and exclusionary in nature, hence my discomfort in offering them.

i'll disclose numerical speaks if asked, but if it's the first question after a decision i will probably roll my eyes.

About:

Hi, I’m Asher (he/him). I competed in LD from 2017-2020 and qualified to the TOC twice. 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

Email: ashertowner@gmail[dot]com

Online Debate:

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

Judging philosophy:

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

Preferences:

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

Evidence ethics:

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.

Misc:

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

PF stuff:

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.