I am long-winded, yes. You really won’t understand how I judge policy debates if you don’t skim to/through the “adaptations” heading. After that, you can pick and choose; text search your side (“aff” or “neg”) or jump to the sub-heading for your argument (eg, “topicality” or “politics”) for useful advice.

(copy-pasted from the wikispaces page)

About me

Ben Faber, high school policy debate judge
4 years of national circuit high school policy debate for Lakeland High School in Westchester NY (not Lakeland in FL). I cleared at a few national tournaments, but mostly just had a lot of fun.
I enjoy debaters contacting me to ask questions about the rounds I judged, or hypotheticals:
Email - MetsTrekkie65 @ gmail DOT com (no spaces)
I post(ed) on cross-x.com as meanmedianmode.
I judged ~60 high school rounds each year from 2008 - 2012, mostly in the northeast. Then I got married and had kids.
School Strikes: None, no longer affiliated

My Goal:

I am here to listen to you debate, not to hear myself debate.

• Run the arguments you are good at, not the arguments I want to hear. If you are good at the argument, you will argue over any minor bias against it.

Exception: Code of Behavior (this is common sense)– some things are blatantly objectionable. Acting offensively – denigrating the other team, racist comments etc (in particular, if I hear you using the word 'gay', ‘fag’, ‘queer’… as an adjective meaning 'stupid' or similar), are potentially reasons to stop the round (horrific speaks) and definitely reasons to vote against you. Making arguments that racism is good, sexism is good, heterosexism is good, and similar, are almost certainly reasons to reject you, because your authors and/or your use of them turns my stomach. I’m open to the culture of the room on profanity – if everyone’s cool, I’ll ignore it, but if it bothers the other team, I may vote against you, almost certainly will drop your speaks.

• I want to evaluate the round based on the arguments you make. This means I limit my intervention as I decide the round. When I know the falsity of an argument you make, I only apply that knowledge if the other team points it out.

My Paradigm:

I evaluate arguments. Arguments are a claim and a warrant, and it can be more convincing if there is evidence to show the truth of that warrant. Using old warrants and evidence to make new claims in the rebuttals is cool. It isn’t intervention when I ignore unwarranted claims.

Offense/Defense False

Offense defense is a false dichotomy (for a fuller explanation, a slightly polished version is posted on planet debate). Many analytical defensive arguments are the other team pointing out that you lack a warrant for an implicit claim connecting two arguments (eg, a US econ disad that doesn’t read an internal link between US economy and global economy), or that your evidence doesn’t actually warrant the claim you want it to make. Any such claim can be “absolute” defense, because it means your internal link chain ends before the impact card.

I flow text of cards.

If you speak slow enough, I will write down every word you say. When I have to work to understand what you are saying, it hinders my ability to do this, so I get less written. That impacts how much weight I give to your 2nd rebuttal extensions of the evidence. Yes, that means clarity and grammatical highlighting in the constructive directly influences the strength of your rebuttal. I am tired of calling out “clear” and having no change result, so I’m done with just penalizing speaker points. (Obviously, you can’t clip cards.)

Reading evidence after the round

There are three types of scenarios that result in my calling for evidence: the good, the bad, and the instructive.

Indicts

I am delighted to read cards when teams indict each other’s evidence – everyone should do that more often: for power-tagging, context problems, under-highlighting, lack of qualification, anything you’ve got. If indict claims are true, they represent very good debating. Warranting your understanding of the evidence is best, so that I have guidance in what to look for. My goal in reading evidence is to resolve the in-round dispute over what the text means.

Interventionism

I don't want to read evidence otherwise – especially if the card is “on fire”, because I don’t carry burn creams with me. By reading the evidence, I necessarily have thoughts about the quality of the argument that I would not have had otherwise, and I can’t fully avoid injecting this into the decision (and at any rate, I'm adding to your speech time by reading your evidence at a comprehensible speed). My reading evidence uniquely increases the probability and magnitude of intervention. Sometimes I need to read evidence anyway, but none of these scenarios represents good debating:

• you are discussing critical theory or philosophy that I don’t know, and your explanations aren’t enough to make it clear – this especially happens when K debaters don’t contextualize their buzz-word link claims to the aff.
• round comes down to an argument that you say your so-and-so evidence makes/answers, but don’t explain the warrant for.
• impact (or link, or internal link) calculus is too simplistic and optimistic (assumes you were winning more than you were), and I have to weigh impacts somewhat on my own.

Discussion Purposes

Most of the times I call for evidence, I want to add stuff to the oral critique not directly related to the RFD – strategic or tactical advice, how the round would have looked if you had gone for something else, etc.

Best practices Impact analysis

High-level teams already know this stuff, but younger debaters may not:
Your opponent has generally mitigated your impacts or access to those impacts more than you think they have, and you have generally not mitigated as much of your opponents impacts as you think you have. As such, impact calculus is of course vital. You need to talk about your impact. But what really wins the round is good comparativeimpact analysis. In a close round, the winner tends to be the final rebuttalist who does the better job of 'even if' -ing and/or of interrelating impacts. You talk about your impacts in contrast to your opponent's impacts, and explain why I should prefer yours. And you explain how your impact subsumes/turns their impacts. It helps if you acknowledge that your opponents may win some non-trivial risk of impact.
If someone makes an argument to the contrary, the best argumentation will determine how I evaluate 'timeframe' of impacts. But my default position is that a long timeframe only matters as a limitation on probability, because of the chance for intervening actions. Extinction tomorrow is probably no worse than extinction in 10 years, except in that we may come up with a miracle technology 9 years from now, and will not come up with a miracle technology tonight.

Theory & Frameworks

I think theory is grounded in overarching logical structures. This means I’m itching to reject your political capital link arguments, and it means you need to consider the far-reaching consequences of arguments. For example, a role of the ballot argument changes the kinds of impact arguments that matter in a round.
Many of the warrants people read on theory arguments sound like whining because the other team was strategic (eg, “we lose our spending disad” on topicality, “they steal the aff” on PICs bad). Go for better arguments. On the K, you are in luck - most of the theory args you want to make sound exactly like whining when you phrase them as independent voters, and sound exactly like very strong defense when you phrase them as substantive arguments (eg, “vague alts bad” – no it isn't a VI, but yes they are, they mean the alt that gets implemented will flail weakly and not solve the link). You'll get more mileage out of a cohesive strategy using the latter than out of a kitchen sink strategy using the former.
Cross-x is binding 99.9% of the time. Define your terms at the time you introduce them (eg, dispositionality), or risk getting stuck with my definition of the term. Omissions of this sort, if resulting in competitive advantage, may be construed as deliberate lies when I write out the ballot.

“Dropped” arguments

Dropping an argument means not having an answer; it doesn’t mean failing to say where the answer goes. It is easiest for me if teams do line-by-line debate, because I’m most practiced and comfortable with that (and my flow template is preset to that). But line-by-line is only one methodology for making sure we answer each other’s arguments, and if a team is able to answer arguments without line by line or explicit clash, I respect that. In the case of teams that don’t do line by line, I’m prepared to literally put all of the text from the final rebuttals on a new spreadsheet and line up claims that relate to each other; in any case, I’m prepared to cross-apply thesis-level claims, even if not directly instructed to do so. It’s possible that I won’t understand the interaction between two arguments (I make mistakes sometimes, and you may understand the arguments better than I do since you spent time cutting them), so explicitly pointing it out is best. However, I will never write an RFD of the form "You made the right argument, but you didn't tell me that it answered their argument, so they won"; if the oral critique devolves to that, then you were careless for not pointing out the argument interaction, but also I am sorry for having missed that argument interaction.

Recommended Adaptations

To help you deal with some of the less-than-mainstream ideas I've laid out here, there are a few tips that can maximize your adaptation to my idiosyncrasies with minimal effort:

• When you first make evidence or logic indicts, it helps me if you include “indict”, “missing warrant” (or the like) in the tag of the objection. (In general, this will probably make the argument seem more important to other judges as well.)
• To avoid minced grammar in your highlighting, I am ok with teams using brackets [] to realign grammatical morphemes only (agreement for suffixes, punctuation, verb conjugation, pronouns, etc). Ideally, you would have an original of the evidence available to prove you haven’t made meaning-altering changes.
• (Particularly for kritiks) Even if both a) your link evidence includes a definition of The Buzz Word, and b) the aff is a clear example of that definition, you need to make original analysis as to how the aff engages in The Buzz Word. If not a or b, your original analysis needs to be that much better.

Biases

I think about debate a lot, so I have a lot of opinions, which means a lot of biases. They generally are trivial when I judge, in that they disappear when someone says something about the subject – I list those just so you know I have thought about the matter.
Others are minor biases – I see little enough merit in the refutations of a common argument that I think it may affect the decision in a close round.
A few biases are strong, which may mean I’ve never heard anyone make a contradictory argument that actually makes sense (and so I don’t expect you to overcome it, but please surprise me), or it may mean the argument is so common sensically true that even good debating probably won’t get you free of it.

Fiat

Fiat is a logical construct centered on a statement approximately of the form 'We should assume that any plan can be enacted in the procedural sense, and debate should focus on whether that would be a good or bad occurence, rather than on the details of procedural passage."

• Fiating SCotUS test cases is unpredictable and abusive. SCotUS plans must restrict themselves to fiating the outcome of particular cases that are already in the system. Minor
• The logic of political capital links conflicts with fiat. Strong

Kritiks and Fiat

Fiat is not an event. As such, there is no 'pre-fiat' and no 'post-fiat'. There are just the ethical (or whatever) consequences of affirming something and the tangible consequences of affirming something.

Politics and Fiat

Fiat is not a tiny arbitrary rule. As such, arguments don’t have to directly challenge the enactment of the plan to contravene fiat. The logic of political capital contravenes fiat.
By which I mean, in brief, when you claim “the President must invest political capital to get plan passed”, you necessarily endorse the statement “plan would fail to be enacted if the President had absolutely 0 political capital this weekend.” Fiat contradicts the latter, therefore fiat contradicts the former. (There are a number of threads on cross-x that explore this - I have read them all, and nothing defending political capital has been at all persuasive.)
For the neg: This does not mean you cannot run a politics disad; it does mean you should have links that don't make assumptions about the process by which plan gets passed - this also takes out the focus link almost definitely, and decent odds it guts your horse-trading link, but you can have and spin part/bipart, winner's win, credit/blame cards, for example. It doesn't mean I will ignore your pol cap args because I feel like it; it does mean i will ignore your pol cap args if the other team explains this.
For the aff: this is basically a get-out-of-jail-free card for pol cap links. You may as well use it.

Court Fiat

There is a process by which cases get to be heard in particular courts. For courts that have original jurisdiction over the question at hand, primarily district courts in the USA, new cases get docketed all the time, whenever someone wants to file a lawsuit - just like bills in Congress, so fiating a test case to them is reasonable. However, for higher courts including the Supreme Court of the US, the case is almost always already in the system before the court hears it. I'm not exactly sure where the cutoff is - if the case must be already on the SCotUS docket, or must have already applied for certiorari, but it's quite a stretch to say a SCotUS case could magically pop out of thin air. Unless you can defend the SCotUS having original jurisdiction, the case should at least have been heard and ruled already by the immediately lower court, ie federal appeals or state supreme, as appropriate.

Topicality

I have voted on ASPEC, and I have voted on OSPEC. I'd rather not do so again – no resolutional burden.
I've been thinking about "reasonability" recently. Everyone always complains that 'there is no way to determine what is reasonable', but I think affs could easily correct that by explaining in the 2ac what makes an interpretation reasonable or not. Instead of reading your trite "race to the bottom" paragraph about how competing interpretations is flawed, advance a coherent system for evaluating reasonability. Also, instead of reading your voter defense in the 2ac as 6-word blips, actually make analysis for how these args take out the voting issue claims the negative is advancing. They shouldn't be able to win without demonstrating at least a strong potential for abuse, but affs don't push on voting issues hard enough.

• Reasonability and abuse over competing interpretations: the aff is topical if they meet their own reasonable interpretation, even if they don't meet the neg interpretation, and even if the neg interpretation is more limiting. Trivial
• The proper chain of internal links is: grammar → predictability → limits/ground/other. Occasionally: predictable/contextual definition → predictability → limits/ground. Minor
• Ground is a meaningless standard unless a) you access it from a predictability argument, or b) you are arguing about the uniqueness of all links and/or CPs, or c) it demonstrates bidirectionality of an interpretation. Eg, saying "we lose links to spending disads" is not compelling - it makes the aff strategic, not abusive. Trivial
• A fairness impact outweighs an education impact. Trivial
• Hypothesis testing/whole rez is a bad argument, because counter-warrants mean the neg always wins. Minor

Conditional advocacies

• Presumption shifts aff when the neg goes for an advocacy other than the status quo in the 2nr. Trivial
• One CP or alt, whether conditional, dispositional, or unconditional, is legitimate. Minor
• Multiple conditional advocacies are probably abusive, especially if they're not ideologically consistent. Trivial
• Contradictory conditional advocacies (statism K and heg good D/A; anything where basic, generic affirmative offense against one position can be turned into negative offense on another position) are abusive. Strong.
• The terminal impact of any permutation theory argument is that I ignore the permutation – a permutation is just a no-link argument. Minor.
• Unless otherwise specified AT THE TIME you tell us the status, 'dispositional' means that you can kick the CP/alt unless the aff is making a permutation or a theory arg. A solvency deficit (or flat out 'no solvency') argument is an offensive argument. Kicking the straight-turned CP/alt to go for one or more theory violations is ok. Kicking the straight-turned CP/alt to go for a kritik that you somehow construe as a gateway issue is not ok. Strong.

Counterplans

My threshold for voting on (under-explained) dropped theory args may be somewhat lower than others', I'm not entirely sure. Doesn't mean it's a good idea to be the test case.

• The neg can fiat, as long as it isn't object or utopian fiat. Strong
• It is ok for the negative to run a topical counterplan, including a PIC. Trivial.
• It is ok for the negative to run a Condition/Consult CP. Trivial.
• The structure of Condition/Consult CPs justifies germane intrinsic permutations. Minor.
• It is ok for the negative to run an Agent CP, including multi-actor, international, etc. Trivial.

Alternatives/negative kritiks generally

For both sides:
Questioning the assumptions and perspectives behind decisions is important. It's a very good idea. But debate doesn't always do it well. At heart I am still a 2a. The double-bind perm (“plan plus all non-exclusive parts of the alt: either the alt can solve the marginal link caused by affirming rather than rejecting, or the alt can't solve anyway”) is probably true against any generic K unless it wins framework, and the alt probably amounts to my friends and I hanging out in my basement envisioning peace.
For the neg:
If your K can function with a policy text for the alt, reading that in the 1nc will increase your odds of beating the permutation. Specific links are the name of the game. That means applying the cards you already read to the cards, specific language and representations of the aff, not just reading more cards of your own. The cards you read that criticize nebulous concepts like 'the affirmative's hegemonic discourse' or 'the affirmative's embrace of capitalist ideologies' are not links, they are internal links from buzz words to implications. Before those matter, you have to win that the aff engages in your buzzword actions, and at least some portion of that has to be proven by analytic arguments.
If your K isn't one of the ubiquitous generic ones, it's a craps shoot for whether I know it or not. If not, you'll need to make sure I understand your argument, because I can't vote on it otherwise. This is logical – I won't vote on something if I can't explain what my vote means. Unfortunately, this is an area where there might be a high degree of intervention. Feel free to treat me like a kindergarten student and simplify the argument.
For the aff:
Most of the theory args you want to make against the K sound exactly like whining when you phrase them as independent voters, and sound exactly like very strong defense when you phrase them as normal args. You'll get more mileage out of a cohesive strategy using the latter than out of a kitchen sink strategy using the former.

• The neg has a right to challenge the aff's assumptions. Minor.
• The neg has a right to advocate a non-policy to help show that the aff's assumptions are flawed. Trivial.
• A 2nc/1nr Floating PIC is fair, because it is not an advocacy; it is analogous to a permutation. Trivial.
• It is abusive for the neg to offer a 2nc/1nr Floating PIC as an advocacy. Minor.
• A word PIC with a kritik of the missing word as a net benefit is a legitimate negative strategy. Trivial.
• Alternative vagueness is not a reason to reject the alternative. Minor.
• Alternative vagueness decreases the effectiveness of the alternative. Minor.

Topic specific

(hs 11-12: increase exploration and/or development of space)

• "Exploration/Development requires human presence" is a stupid argument. Minor

This is not a sensible argument, "We meet - we use humans on earth to monitor the activity" combined with "intent to define" indict of the negative card and, yes, a "framer's intent" arg are all that's needed to win this: if the rez meant to limit to human exploration/development, it would say "human exploration and/or development". Say "Observation =/= exploration" and "use =/= development" and so on.

Cross-x:

- Open c/x is fine.
- I am attentive to c/x, and I'm working on flowing it. But I haven't done that before, so it doesn't always get written down in a useful spot. Make the argument in a speech to be sure of it.
- C/x is binding, unless you have a very compelling argument otherwise. Even if you have that compelling argument otherwise, if you didn't let me and your opponents know in advance that c/x wasn't binding, you'll get lower speaks.
- Mike Antonucci has advanced the paradigm of intervening in cross-x to stop unfair practices. I'm confident I meet his idiot criterion, so I'm considering this. It is really annoying when you folks filibuster.

Speaker points:

To the best of my ability, I'll use the framework given by the tournament director if any. Otherwise, speaks are awarded based on argumentation, +/- .5 for delivery. If you make me laugh a lot, you may get +1 for delivery.
27 is average, not particularly impressed in either direction.
30 corresponds to roughly "this round was you at the very top of your game, and you are normally a 99th percentile debater"
29-30 are roughly "performance at or above 90th percentile"
I'll reward you for clever/novel arguments (or use of routine arguments in clever/novel ways), nuanced argumentation, and good analysis. In particular, I enjoy hearing you contest the quality or relevance of evidence. Of course, that means I'm going to read the evidence after the round, so don't make frivolous challenges.

One of my favorite parts of Congressional debate is that it combines debate and public speaking aspects with the performance side of speech. Given the time limits we operate under, clear and concise speeches are important-cite your evidence, refute your opponents respectfully, and be sure to point out your impacts. Do not waste the chamber’s time with games that will run the clock down (yours or your opponent’s during questioning). It’s disrespectful and does not move the debate forward.

I am evaluating the full time in session, not just the 3-minute snippet of speeches: how are you working with (or against) your colleagues? How are you working together as a chamber to get legislation passed? Questions-both asked and answered-do count into my scoring.

The Presiding Officer is more than just a timekeeper. They set the pace, organization, and mood of a chamber. To be a new PO-or to be a PO at a high-level competition-can be a risk. Their effort is considered when I score. Point of order: There is no mathematical pattern as “random” selection for questioning.

Joe Rankin

Bettendorf High School

jrankin@bettendorf.k12.ia.us

UPDATED: October 4th, 2022

I'm not sure what happened to my previous Paradigm that was posted, but it appears to have been erased/lost. My apologies as I just learned of this at the Simpson Storm tournament (Sat, Oct 1, 2022) this past weekend.

My name is Joe Rankin and I am the head coach at Bettendorf High School in Bettendorf, IA. I have been the head coach at Bettendorf since the 2005-2006 school year. I primarily coach Lincoln-Douglas Debate, Public Forum Debate, Congressional Debate, and Extemporaneous Speaking...however, I am familiar and have coached all NSDA sanctioned speech/debate events over my time at Bettendorf.

In terms of my coaching paradigm, I'd generally consider these the 'highlights:'

1. I prefer topical debate. The resolution was voted on by coaches and students through the NSDA voting process. That's what I want to hear about.
2. I can generally handle 'speed,' but that doesn't mean I enjoy it. I'd rather help you develop skills that you will actually utilize interacting with other human beings outside of this one particular subset of existence - so I'd much prefer a rate that is more akin to real-world applications.
3. You can make whatever arguments you want to make...but I generally haven't voted on many things associating with theory, kritiks (or however you want to misspell the word critique), or other generally non-topical arguments you make in the round. It takes more work for me to believe those types of arguments are true and not a whole lot of work to make me believe those types of arguments are generally false. So, I wouldn't encourage this type of argumentation in front of me.

I figure that is sufficient for now. If you have any questions, I tend to give you that window before the round begins while setting up to judge. If not, please feel free to ask before the round. The end goal of the round for me is a competitive academic environment that is focused on education. I don't mind answering questions that will help all of us improve moving forward.

Important Stuff is Bolded

My name is Andrew Shea (he/him). You can call me Judge Shea, Andrew, Fire Lord O’Shea, whatever floats your boat.

I am pursuing a major in history and a minor in international relations at the University of Iowa. I am working towards a phd in transnational labor history and relations.

I have a cat named Haywood after Harry Haywood. He is amazing and cool. Ask and I am happy to show pictures.

My email for contact is: ajhamilton112601@gmail.com

I competed at John F Kennedy High School in CR IA. I was coached by Jesse Meyer who remains a large influence on me today.

I judge mainly LD and PF. I was mostly a K debater and did okay throughout my career. I generally understand most arguments. My paradigm breaks down into prefs/speech paradigm, in-round debate behavior, and in-depth LD/PF prefs. Please ask questions if you have any. I am always looking to improve.

LD Cheat Sheet

1 K

2 Phil

3 Trad* or Policy/LARP

4 Theory/Strike**

5 Tricks/Strike (don’t know enough to competently judge)

*I think trad is a good debate format and can be competitive/clash with circuit debate. I put it higher up to tell trad debaters they can pref me without concern.

**I won’t vote you down because you run theory. I just have a lower threshold for response to theory. For example I don’t think you need to run a counter interp or RVIs to respond but if you do, you should do it well.

Two things of note:

1. I am ok with spreading but ask your opponent beforehand preferably in front of me. If you did not ask (or ignore attempts to find accommodation) and your opponent runs theory/disability arg on why spreading is bad I am more liable (not guaranteed) to drop you. However I'll note I have no "bad" WPM. I think if you have an issue saying "clear" or "speed" is the responsibility of the debater. If you have a problem with their overall speed mention something to your opponent after the speech. TLDR If you both agree to spread great, if you have an issue with spreading: advocate for yourself and work with each other under the best of intentions. All that said I am also less liable to vote for a 2ar spreading theory shell if no objections were raised prior.
2. I am pro Flex Prep but you have to ask before round. I prefer this to avoid someone being denied the opportunity to use it in round. In elims I go with the majority judge view on flex prep.

PF Cheat Sheet

1 Trad PF

2 Critical Args

3Theory/Strike

I am basically fine with anything in PF but theory annoys me. I really prefer normal PF but I won’t mentally check out if you don’t.

See above LD prefs for spreading/flex prep

Speech Judging

I am by no means an experienced speech judge but I have coached the very basics and I did exempt and spontaneous in high school. I like to see confidence, good use of the space in a room, rehearsed body movements (don’t just keep your hands in one position unless that is your character's thing for something such as a HI), and just do your best.

Unless explicitly prohibited by tournament rules let me know if you want to give hand signals for time. I would be happy to do them.

Debater Behavior

Ask and Advocate: Debate should be a friendly and welcoming space. To that end, ask and advocate for yourself. If you have an issue or a question please ask. If you feel harmed in some way or see something that bothers you, advocate for yourself. I am happy to facilitate in any way I can to make debate a better space for all. In no way should gender, disability, or class make you feel unsafe in this space.

Assertive and Polite: It is ok to be determined and assertive in a debate round but never belittle your opponent or be snarky to them. Everyone here is a person first and foremost along with being a student. Debate is a pedagogical game and I find it vastly more useful to educate rather than to belittle someone for not understanding or for making a "bad argument" that said, you should absolutely seek to control a round and narrative. Raised and passionate voices are ok but avoid yelling or taking a dismissive, arrogant tone. Be very cognizant of that difference when debating women/non men debaters, sexism is all too prevalent and unacceptable in the debate space and such dynamics do influence my judging particularly in the way I give speaks.

On Spreading: I am not anti-spreading. While I don't think it is a good norm for debate I do understand that it is the default and if everyone is ok with it I will be too. I prefer that people ask before round because I have met several debaters who have had disabilities that prevented them from spreading. I would like debate to realize spreading should be moved away from but because I don't run a camp or have money I at least want to make the space more accessible to different debaters in lieu of some larger change.

Judge Behavior

As a judge I will: provide you with in-depth feedback and always explain to you why I interpreted something the way I did. I will not always be right and make mistakes but I will do my best to explain my reasoning.

Do everything I can to answer questions or redirect you towards resources who can do it better

Provide a safe environment for debaters as someone in the community who cares and who will listen.

LD Prefs in-depth

Since I mainly judge LD here is more in depth thoughts for those who care to read them:

K debate: I love K debate. My political beliefs lead me to love hearing Parenti, Gramsci, Lenin, Mao, Marx, Losurdo, Fanon, and many others along the communist and decolonial based lines. As such I will be happy when I hear cap bad, china isn’t the devil, palestine will be free, etc. That said I familiar with many other authors and I am generally friendly towards hearing any new arguments and I am happy to learn about anything new.

Phil: I know some but not alot. I would love to learn more and therefore feel free to run anything just explain it well.

Trad: I think it can and should endeavor to be more competitive with circuit debate.

Policy/Larp: I don’t necessarily have a problem with it, sometimes I just find it boring. Honestly I have grown to like it more because I actually do enjoy hearing about the resolution.

Theory: I won’t vote someone down because they run theory but I firmly believe that theory is often used in a way that makes debate poor and ruins the quality of argumentation. I think it harms accessibility and as a result my threshold for response is lower. While I feel like I have a decent grasp on theory debate there is a greater risk of me not fully comprehending your argument as I haven't attempted to immerse myself in the mechanics due to my dislike.

What I look for in a good LD round

Overview: Like a real overview which represents the interactions that happened in the round with a narrative. Challenge yourself to have it be more than a summary of what your case is.

Weighing: Like actual weighing. Extending your impact is great but you need to explain why your impact should be valued more compared to your opponents

1nr Card Drop: I see people spread as fast as possible through their speech and then just extend whatever their opponent did not respond too and think they won the round. I need some weight and explanation of the warrant from arguments to vote on them. When there isn't, my threshold for responding or weighing them is lower than the arguments you developed. Developing arguments is good and makes me value them more than your 17th apriori which has “big” implications in the round because your opponent conceded it.

Truth vs Tech: I'm more tech. Basically that's it.

Tabula Rasa: I'm not. I will not tolerate racist, sexist, ableist, classist behavior. I also have strongly held beliefs of what debate should be to get better. That said if I think such behavior has occured I am more likely to stop the round and refer the issue to tab. What I won't do is vote someone down because your K says they are literally the devil for not being topical. I am more receptive to the argument that the argument is some "-ism" not the person. We are learners here and should educate and build people up.

Judge Intervention: This is a very tricky topic for me. So because in the debate space we generally agree that a judgeshould intervene if some racism, sexism, issue occurs yet however we don't think this when it comes to things like reproducing imperialist talking points. We don't typically weigh the reproduction of these dominant idealogical norms as bad whereas only over racism and sexism is despite the fact that systems like imperialism harm far more people than an indvidual sexist or racist comment. So I think when people say "no judge intervention" that doesn't make alot of sense because we have decided as a community that we won't tolerate some things. So therefore I think a good take to approach this (not the best) is that judge intervention should be approached when the debaters says it is necessary as a top shelf/layer argument and then for the oppenent to argue why it shouldn't be perhaps by arguing their idea of what they want the judge to do is not good. This for example should take place in the debate over the role of the ballot. In terms of judge intervention regarding "why did you weigh x argument y way" generally if I think its close it may simply come down to persuviness, the narrative, or may best guess.

Teach me something: Honestly this goes for debaters, coaches, and other judges. I want to learn and improve and be a positive force in the debate space. I love learning about new theories and concepts. As such it may be helpful to take the time to explain the mechanics of an argument without the internal jargon to maximize education.

PF in-depth prefs

Trad pf vs Circuit pf: It's weird that there is now a difference between trad and circuit/prog PF debate and I am not exactly a fan that its come to this. That said I prefer normal PF rounds over critical arguments as I don't think the format lends itself to progressive.

Theory: See LD prefs for opinions on theory.

Evidence: My evidence standards are a bit higher in PF due to frequent bad paraphrasing. I will likely review cards which are deemed critical in round during prep time. If I find that the card itself is misconstrued I will be annoyed and have a lower threshold for response to the arguments that rely on the card. That said I think there is a difference in making an argument which misconstrues the card rather than the card itself being misconstrued. That's just debate.

That's all folks.