Nikola Helixon

Assistant Coach @ BVSW

Chain: helixon.niko@gmail.com

"Using cross-ex as prep" is not a thing that exists. I will not let you do that.

I don't know as much about the economy as you do.

I am very close to just saying everyone needs to debate slow in front of me. Clarity and efficiency matter. I will not clear you. There are some debaters who can be both very fast and clear. You are probably not that debater.

• I won't vote for arguments about a persons worth, or some drama between high school students. I don't think high school students should be coached to attack the quality of another person for the sake of winning a debate round and find it odd that an adult would insert themselves into the lives of high school kids in that way.
• If you only read from your computers, don't look at your flows, have the debate scripted from the first speech, you will get bad speaks. We spend a lot of time getting to tournaments, prepping, sacrificing time doing other things we enjoy. If debate is just a block reading contest, we could save a lot more time not going to tournaments and just submitting speech documents.

Important

Probably fine for everything. Most used to Policy AFF v. K and K AFF v. FW debates.

• I dislike overuse of buzzwords, monologues, jargon. I don't do anything related to debate over the summer. I don't really do research on the topic during the year either.
• Overviews should not exist. Put your arguments on the flow.

I don't like to read evidence when making a decision. I will if I feel I need to. I don't want a card doc.

- Be clear: Slow down and be clear, debate is a communication and persuasion activity.

• Ending rebuttals: should frame my decision. Have a view of the overall round and tell me why you win.

Prep

- I've noticed a sharp increase in the amount of time between when prep ends and when you start speaking. There's very little reasons why this should take more than a minute, especially since you just have to click a button to send the document out.

- "Marked copy" does not mean "remove the cards you didn't read." You do not have to do that, and you should not ask your opponents to do that.

T vs. Planless AFFs

-Affirmatives should probably be related to the topic.

-Fairness is an intrinsic good only if debate is also good. If debate is good, usually nothing matters more than fairness. This is why I think affs that are about debate are the most strategic - otherwise it's hard to win that you get to weigh your impacts in front of me since very few non-debate critical affirmatives operate on the same plane as fairness.

Fairness still makes most sense to me as an impact to T-USFG. Most negative clash explanations end up either 1. trying to solve affirmative offense which, oftentimes, ends up being a very defensive strategy or 2. trying to solve some topic education offense which is often an uphill battle against impact turns. I think the most strategic way to go for clash is explaining it as good in and of itself, but usually that explanation ends up resembling fairness. I'm open to hearing most all impacts though.

• Subject formation is persuasive to me if it's about the activity as a whole. I don't think affs need to win subject formation to solve (I typically just vote aff if the aff is a good idea) but I do think they need to win subject formation to access a good amount of their offense. This makes switch side very persuasive to me.
• Thresholds are weird for me, I find myself being pretty hard on affirmative teams to win these debates but at the same time the amount of 2NRs I've heard that are almost purely defense makes me want to rip my hair out. If you explain your argument the best you'll win.

Ks on the Negative

• Links should be to something the AFF does. I don't think you need an alternative.

• Alternatives based in a pure intellectual nature probably just lose to the perm in a world where the affirmative wins framework. Intellectual/epistemology based alternatives should probably lead to something tangible that the perm can't solve.

Counterplans

• Competition - I'm a bit out of my depth when I hear teams trying to defend counterplans that only need to be textually competitive, so it's probably not a good idea to read these in front of me. If you do want to read them I need a great deal more explanation than you'd think, probably.

Feel free to ask if you have any other questions!

(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-mGleRitgQc)

Andrew Herman

he/him/his

Michigan '25 (go blue)

Debated policy for 3.5 years at Isidore Newman & worked as assistant coach for a year or so

(I was on the umich debate team for like a week if that counts for anything)

Please put me on the email chain: herha@umich.edu

There are LD and PF paradigms at the very bottom -- sorry if ya got me in those!

Tl;dr

Usually, debate is a game and my ballot decides who did the better debating and nothing more, but hey if you're good then prove to me that sometimes it isn't and it can mean something!

Generally, your aff should have some form of advocacy statement at least in the direction of the topic, but obviously you can persuade me otherwise if you think you are really really really good at that. Yes you can read a K aff. Reading a planless poetic deleubaudrillartaille K aff that doesn't mention [the topic] once tho...eh...that's another story. You may still win, but it'll be a lot harder for you.

Theory debates are usually annoying and boring to me--please don't go for theory in front of me unless it is either egregious or condo

Write my ballot for me in the last rebuttals -- what specifically am I voting for?

I believe it is the debaters' responsibility to keep track of time, be it speeches, their prep time, or their opponents' prep time.

For K ppl: big zizek and jameson guy. I find a lot of K debate to be preachy and annoying -- argue in good faith, exemplify level-headedness -- I am not partial to things that try to tug on my heartstrings because guess what it's an extracurricular activity for high schoolers trying to win a trophy. Trauma-dumping is not enjoyable to me, and I don't think it's appropriate for this activity. also you're a minor i don't wanna hear all that. just stick to the arguments, guys.

Top Level

Tech>>truth but I like truth too hahaha.

Clarity>>>>>speed, especially on analytics, tags, and theory shells.

I like LbL a lot more than long overviews; if ur overview is completely pre-made I can tell and it's usually either boring or redundant.

Don't clip.

Don't steal prep.

Time your own speeches and prep and try not to take too much time with the email chain.

Topicality

I probably am not very familiar with whatever topic it is in the given year you are reading this, so cool it with jargon and don't assume I know every acronym.

I default to competing interpretations over reasonability, but aff can certainly sway me.

I like good T debates and hate bad T debates. Engage in good clash -- I really like when people do good impact weighing for the standards debate and treat it like a disad.

FW/T-USFG

Debate's a game and my ballot means nothing, but I can be persuaded otherwise, it's just kinda hard. I definitely like clash of civ debates more than K v. K, so if you're neg and about to hit a k aff, keep that in mind.

Fairness is an i/L unless convinced otherwise.

If you are aff and want to win against FW, articulate reasons as to why your advocacy necessitates a distancing/rejection of the resolution, and why resolutional debate is a bad model. Just saying that the USFG is bad is not enough--you need to articulate how your model is better, rather than just exposing that the current model is bad (a general rule of thumb for Ks in general on the neg too). Again, Impact weighing is key here.

TVAs so true!! Please say this!!

SSD so true!! Please say this!!

Theory

I hate theory debates. Don't run frivolous theory.

"Reject the argument not the team" will usually get any team out of it (except condo obviously).

I will vote on condo, but it has to be abusive (and like...actually demonstrable, like reasonably abusive)

No seriously y'all theory is a bad strat in front of me and if you do go for it you need to slow wayyy down and over-explain everything to me and exactly what I'm voting on in the final rebuttal.

Kritiks

I ran a lot of Ks on the neg. Mainly went for setcol, cap/neolib, psychoanalysis, and security. My favorite Ks are definitely cap/neolib and security -- anything topic specific makes for more fun, interesting, and productive debates. call me basic.

Not big on jargon-ey pomo stuff!!(If it's well explained and you win on the flow I'll still vote on it obviously)

Most (if not all) Baudrillard debaters are far less funny than they think they are.

I hate giant overviews--they are a waste of time. I don't want to have to flow it on a separate page just practice good LbL.

At the end of the round, I need to know what I'm voting for--please explain your alt. I will not vote on something I (or you) don't understand

You need to engage with the aff. Specific links to the 1ac are 1000000000x better than generic topic links or "they use the state"

I think far too many teams get away with linking to the squo, and I think it's an easy way for an aff to get out of a K's links.

Links of omission are bad(!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!). Floating PIKs are bad.

I won't vote for an argument based on something out of round, period.I don't keep up with debate politics anymore and I forgot all of the debate lore so referencing famous debaters/rounds/teams doesn't work on me that well, but also never did either tbh.

Don't confuse your I/Ls with your impacts; e.g., capitalism is not an impact, it's an internal link to climate change, genocide, war, etc. Capitalism is not good or bad it's a political economy, and it's up to you to prove that to me otherwise. You can't just be like "that's capitalist" full stop and not explain why that's bad. This applies to a lot of Ks but cap was easiest to use as example.

Disads

Have good evidence.

Make sure your uniqueness ev is good on those ptx disads!

I like riders DAs and really garbage disads that mess around with how fiat works, but it's also pretty easy for aff to tell me why they're bad

CPs

I love a good garbage advantage CP and internal NB

I don't judge kick by default but it's fine if you tell me to.

Post-rounding (you shouldn't have to read this so if ur prepping for ur round and u got me obviously don't waste time reading this)

As right as you probably are (or at least think you are), I probably don't care enough about the round once my ballot is submitted enough to listen to you. My caring about the round stops the second my RFD is finished being given and your questions are answered. At best, If you really sway me on how stupid I am for making the wrong decision, then I'll go "oh shoot sorry!" and then walk out of the room and maybe be sad for a 20 seconds before getting some food and never thinking about it again. Debate is a persuasive activity--so persuade me better. If I missed/misinterpreted something that was critical to you winning the round then yes, that is on me, but also that probably means you didn't stress it enough in the 2a/nr.

Misc

For online debate: it's so obvious when you cheat and steal prep, and even if you aren't cheating, you should minimize looking like you're cheating.

+speaks for being funny and having fun. I don't like people who put on an a-hole persona in-round. It's just kind of embarrassing for your like once again it's a high school extracurricular dude.

Stealing this from jon sharp's paradigm but other than like clipping or having your coaches help you during the round or making fake evidence, there isn't really such thing as "cheating" in debate, at least in terms of strategy/arguments -- if you think there is actual cheating, you file an ethics violation and the round stops, not whine in the 2ac.

I like meme arguments, just make sure they're funny (seriously) and somewhat strategic and not a complete waste of time.

Please be organized and have good LbL

Please signpost well

I am very expressive -- if you are saying something atrociously bad I will probably react. That probably makes me a bad judge but whatever.

I respect debaters who talk like normal people and aren't too reliant on the "lingo" of debate. Obviously this isn't avoidable in a lot of circumstances but some times it's a little ridiculous. Remove yourself from the context of the activity for a second and think about how you sound.

if blasting NBA Youngboy on your JBL Pill at 600% volume at 7:45am on a saturday is optimal pre-round prep for you, consider that it may not be for your opponents or your judge. Trust me, it's not as intimidating as you think it is.

Make fun of David Sposito

LD PARADIGM

I'm a bad LD judge - strike me. No like actually strike me I will make the wrong decision 60% of the time I don't understand LD norms.

If you do get me, treat it like 1v1 policy and read policy stuff - I like big stick impacts when it comes to LD

PF PARADIGM

PF ppl just strike me lmao I don't even really understand the activity

I'm tech over truth (if that even is a term in PF) and don't be too formal in front of me because it makes me uncomfortable

Don't say anything racist

I guess try to make it as close to a 45 minute policy round as possible

Jasmyne Le-Heritage Hall-Class of 2021

Email: JLe21@heritagehall.com

Unique for this year: debating this year is a bit hectic so I will be more lenient on tech issues in terms of emails, prep etc. That being said, I still will not stand stealing prep for it.

Summary (if you're too lazy to read all this): Everything in terms of arguments is pretty good, as long as you can explain and extend them. I like more soft left AFFs than big stick AFFs but will listen to both. I'm more policy leaning than K leaning, but Ks are fine, I can understand most identity Ks but high theory Ks (Deleuze, Baudrillard etc) I honestly won't probably understand. Speak clearly and don't steal prep or clip cards. Be nice, if you're intentionally racist homophobic, sexist, or overall being rude then you're going to probably lose and get an automatic 25. Otherwise, just relax and debate.

General (Applies to Both Teams)

Email/Flashing

Honestly, I prefer email chains because they're a lot more efficient and better in every way possible. If you decide to do an email chain, please include me (email is above). I will be more lenient with online debating, but please be mindful. If you are taking more than 5 minutes to email something, I will start taking prep. Just be mindful of everyone's time.

Also, please if you're aff disclose your aff before the round unless you're breaking a new AFF it makes it a lot smoother & easier.

Cross-Examination

Open Cross-examination is completely fine, but if it goes out of hand (Ie: people are screaming and fighting and no actual arguments are happening at all) then I'm going to shut it down. Just keep it, nice, people.

Speaking/Speeches

There's not much to say here, just general stuff that you shouldn't do not just around me but for every debate round in general. First, give a road map, regardless if you're aff or neg. The only speech this isn't necessary is the 1AC. For 1NC you should give me a general idea how many off case you're reading, though don't need to tell the specific ones. Every other speech you should tell the order. Also, it makes it a lot easier and will win you more speaker points if you organise your aff arguments to specific flows. What I mean by this is to not jump around while aff because it makes it harder to flow and easier for me to miss an argument or put it in the wrong place because I don't know specifically where to answer it.

As for also answering arguments, make sure you tell what argument you're answering (they say) and then say what you're saying. If you're extending an argument, do a quick summary and analysis.

Spreading is fine BUT YOU MUST BE CLEAR. I can spread pretty quickly so I can understand a lot, but especially be clear in online debating. I will say clear 3 times in a speech and after that I will stop flowing and lose speaker points. Also, please tell me when you're moving onto a different paper and slow down on the tag lines. As for clipping, just don't do it. If you clip your cards you're taking an L.

Finally, I will be timing your prep so you don't need to and be writing it down, though I recommend you should just for habit. If you have any personal questions for me in round you can also ask them.

AFF

K/Planless AFFs

I'm not a huge fan but I think they actually have good usage on this topic and I think they're useful. If you do run, here's what I'm looking for:

1) why we shouldn't use the USFG (needs to be clear)

2) why your impacts outweigh (education, advocacy etc)

3) if they have a TVA answer it

Plan Text AFFs

I love soft left AFFs (AFFs about racism, structural violence etc) and think they should be used more, particularly with this topic. Honestly soft left AFFs are the best for this topic. What I'm looking for mostly is an explanation of your impact, and why it outweighs (particularly if you're going against util DA arguments and why I should prefer your ethics over extinction) and how your AFF solves this.

That being said, I will vote on big stick AFFs (AFFs about extinction on a large scale). I don't think they're great on the topic honestly, but they're fine. I am more open to solvency deficits or being sceptical of the internal link chain, and if the team points it out, you will have to address how your internal link chain will trigger this. Also be sure to explain why your impact outweighs or matters (timeframe, magnitude probability etc) and how your AFF solves this.

In terms of T I'm not too picky because y'all are novices and you're on the packet. For this year I think most things are T unless A--they literally have nothing to do with CJR like even educationally or B they increase criminality, just don't read that in front of me because if they read a T bidirectional and go for it I will probably agree with it.

NEG

DAs

I don't think DAs are super strong so I will be more lenient on them. DAs are good, just make sure to explain your impacts and why they outweigh if you end up going for it in your 2NR and how they link to that specific AFF. The more specific the better. Politics DAs are good as long as you know your evidence and how it interacts with the AFF.

Also, for this topic, be very careful with your wording and how you explain AFFs to not to sound racist. This applies especially to this topic since it can be sensitive for people. There are some bad DAs that can be really misconstrued to sound really bad, and I'm not blaming you if you read it, but if you do say like African Americans are more likely to be arrested by police, or that racism is solved, just don't.

CPs

CPs are again good, I think in particular State CPs and other agency CPs are really good on this topic and solve super well. I'm mainly looking for this:

1) how it solves specific to the AFF, not necessarily better, but enough to solve the AFF's impacts and avoid the DA/cause the Net Benefit.

2) why it outweighs and is better than the AFF

Also if they read theory, do answer it as an FYI.

T

I already talked about it in my AFF thing above that I'm pretty lenient on it, but I am still open to it, especially if done well.

In general, here are my opinions about some generic Ts

-Court AFFs are questionably topical but more likely topical than not.

-Substantial is pretty much moot, unless the AFF is literally tiny (like affects under 100 ppl) and they can't explain why that matters for that tiny subset, then I'll give it to the team to be sufficient

-I think AFFs need to be under one of the 3 subsets (policing, sentencing & forensics) I'm not super into overarching CJR policies that aren't specific to one

-bidirectional (AFF that increase crime) ARE NOT T

In terms of what I look for in T here's what I look for:

1) how the AFF violates the definition

2) why your definition is better (not only better than the AFF's definition, but also why it's good for debate)

3) why I should vote on this (fairness education, ground etc)

K

I'm pretty open to Ks, but mostly common Ks and identity Ks. I'm not super into author-specific or high-theory Ks as I'm not familiar with the lit but am open to them if explained well. Here are the things I'll be looking for regardless of what the K is.

1) Framework--what the ballot does and the role of me, in this debate

2) how it links to the AFF, the more specific the better

3) what the impact is, and why it matters over the impacts of the AFF

4) how the alternative resolves the impacts of the K and the impacts of the AFF. This means no vague alts arguments or just vote neg, where I don't have any clue how it's supposed to resolve. Also not a huge fan of nihilistic/pessimistic alternatives where we just accept it.

5) KNOW YOUR LITERATURE IF YOU DON'T KNOW IT I CAN TELL-YOU SHOULD KNOW MORE THAN ME

Theory

Honestly, I don't think there will be or should be much theory in novice rounds, so this is just more or less in case you do read it.

Conditionality: my limit is around 3-4. I think 3 is kind of borderline (depending on the argument), 5 is really pushing it and you're going to have me pretty legitimate reasons why you're reading that many.

State CP theory: I'm more neutral. Like yes, I think that it is utopian and there is no way 50 states would ever do it, but I also think AFFs should be expected and it is a legitimate argument against AFFs this year.

Vague Alt Theory: is legitimate but needs to impact out. Don’t be afraid to go for it. I've already said this before in the Ks part but if you're aff you should make that argument. If you don't understand it, chances are they're probably not explaining it well and I also would be willing to be open to this argument as it can lead the NEG to be shifty and abusive.

Speaker Points

Speaker points and pretty arbitrary and honestly kind of terrible but if you care about this I'll explain my general grading system

25: you did something wrong like majorly wrong (offensive, broke a rule etc)

26-27: You didn't do anything technically wrong in terms of rules, but you still did something bad (like not being clear at all, being rude in cross x, not extending any arguments, just not prepared at all), or just seem that you don't want to be here and make this painful for me to watch like watching a train wreck. Don't do this.

27-28.5: Most people in the beginning of the year will fall into this category. You're beginning in debate, but still learning a lot, which is okay. If I judge you again you will probably be higher afterwards by 2nd semester.

28.5-29.5: You're really good, just a couple minor things that need to work on.

29.5-30: I rarely give this, all your speeches have to be perfect. I will probably only give it once a year.

+1=good cross X, both answering and receiving, also this is good ethos in general

+1=rebuttals especially 2AR & 2NR will have a lot of weight on my speaker points since they're the last speeches, this where the majority of your speaks will be based on how this speech is. Same for 1NR & 1ARs.

End Notes

At the end of the day, debate can suck and is exhausting but also can be a lot of fun. Don't take it too seriously, nothing will happen if you lose a debate round in your novice year. Literally no one cares, you don't have TOC or anything so you shouldn't be too serious. In the end, it's mainly about getting better and learning from each round. Have fun, stay calm, and just relax-it'll be fine!

You do you, and I will do everything to evaluate the round equitably.

HS Policy Debate for 4 years at Marist School

College Policy Debate for 4 years at the University of Michigan

Currently a 2L at Columbia Law School

Good for anything and everything as long as it's explained clearly. NGL I think all that Baudrillard and other high theory stuff is pretty w0nky slush but if you can establish a unique link, win FW, or win other parts of the critique, you taking a big W. Just make sure to explain it properly.

Make sure to impact things out -- tell me why those things matter, why they mean you win/the other team loses. I keep argument bias out of the room when I'm judging so if you want to full-send no neg fiat and make it a reason to reject the team and the other team doesn't have an answer, you taking a W.

9/25 update: Besides condo, I often don't know what's going on with theory.

2/1/23 update: If there's a nuclear war impact, I'll give extra speaks to the first time to clearly quote their favorite two lines from Megadeth's Rust in Peace... Polaris.